W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xg-lld@w3.org > September 2010

[Fwd: Re: on expressing access constraints in a data repository of mixed openness]

From: Monica Duke <m.duke@ukoln.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2010 11:35:15 +0100
Message-ID: <4C99DBE3.6090103@ukoln.ac.uk>
To: public-xg-lld <public-xg-lld@w3.org>
The following query has come up on another mailing list (for discussion 
of data management issues in research) and although the question refers 
to repositories it made me wonder if this might not also apply to some 
of the library linked data?  Or is there an assumption that all (linked) 
data is going to be made available on an open basis?

I've had a (quick) look at VOID [1] but I could not spot anything that 
fits the request.  The closest is the recommendation for announcing the 
license of a dataset.  For automatic analysis it is recommended to use 
"canonical identifiers for well-known licenses" examples given include 
creative commons licenses and GNU.  Perhaps something similar is needed 
for sharing availability?

Is such a need likely to arise for library data, and if so are there 
existing methods to communicate the availability or is that a gap that 
the XG could highlight?


[1] http://vocab.deri.ie/void/guide
-----Original Message-----
From: Research Data Management discussion list
[mailto:RESEARCH-DATAMAN@JISCMAIL.AC.UK] On Behalf Of Chris Rusbridge
Sent: Monday, September 20, 2010 5:17 AM
Subject: On expressing access constraints in a data repository of mixed

[Apologies for cross-posting.]

I'm looking for some more help. I'm hoping that at the very least the
discipline of writing down my concern will help me understand it better,
and at best you guys might have a solution.

Let's imagine an institutional data repository (which I guess could be a
set of different repositories). By definition, the IDR will have data
that have different degrees of openness. I can distinguish at least
these conditions:

a) fully open
b) closed until some condition is met (then to be open)
c) closed unless some condition is met
d) closed indefinitely.

I'm not really sure an IDR would actually want to accept data with
condition (d), but there may be good reasons that escape me at the
moment. But however much one would like all data to be open, there are
substantial swags of data that must be temporarily or partially closed.

Independently of conditions (b) to (d), it is possible that some or all
of the metadata might be open, that is to say the data might be
discoverable even if not open (presumably if you found and wanted to use
the data, then some sort of negotiation would have to take place).

My question is: how could constraints like these sensibly be expressed,
in either a human-readable or (better) machine-readable way?

Chris Rusbridge
Mobile: +44 791 7423828
Email: c.rusbridge@gmail.com <mailto:c.rusbridge@gmail.com>
Received on Wednesday, 22 September 2010 10:36:15 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:35:55 UTC