[Paul Uhlir]

Hi all:
I’m opposed to an Alice in Wonderland approach to defining “research data”.
There are other existing definitions that we can point to and that other
groups have thought about at length. We should use an existing definition,
such as the CASRAI one, which is greatly preferable to another one we
invent.
I also believe that we need to expressly exclude physical objects
(samples), even though they are basic research inputs. Digital data have
public good characteristics, while physical samples do not. Since physical
objects can be depleted, among other key differences, our Principles and
indeed the whole concept of “interoperability”, legal or otherwise, is
basically moot as far as they are concerned. Physical samples are properly
the topic of another set of Principles and Guidelines, except to the extent
the characteristics of physical samples have been digitized as data and
depicted virtually. But then they are not different from any other digital
data.
Cheers,
Paul

Discussion