RE: Open Data liability issues

Good points, Leigh.

I agree that there is always a need for re-users to assess the risk of using the data.

However, I think it would be good practice for publishers to give the re-user more information than a blanket disclaimer that says "we don't guarantee the quality of the data" and "we may stop providing the data at any time" which for example the UK OGL does.

In my view, there a two different issues:

1. Data may not be complete, correct or timely

Ideally, a publisher could give some more information on which parts of the data may be affected and how. Legislation.gov.uk provides such information in its FAQ (e.g. 'How up to date is the revised content on this website?' http://www.legislation.gov.uk/help#aboutRevDate). Maybe the Quality and Granularity vocabulary could look at ways to make such statements a bit more machine-readable.

In some of those cases, re-users, e.g. in-car navigation systems, will just pass on the disclaimer -- and they do: a screen pops up every once in a while to warn you that you yourself are responsible if you drive off the cliff. Also, the Scout navigation based on OpenStreetMap that you refer to has such a blanket disclaimer in its product information.

2. Data may be moved or disappear without warning

Re-users may be confronted with situations like when a publisher decides that they can no longer afford to maintain the data, or when a publisher decides to move the data to another URI/URL. Our best practice should say something about this. It's partly related to the URI persistence but it should also cover the persistence and maintenance over time of the data itself. It would be useful if publishers provided information on the types of circumstances that might lead to temporary or permanent disruptions in availability of data (including termination of maintenance or removal), and how re-users could find out about such disruptions. 

We could include your suggestion in one of the BP documents that a publisher might consider to provide data on two levels: zero-charge data without guarantees and fee-based data with something like a Service-Level Agreement.

Makx.



> -----Original Message-----
> From: leigh.dodds@gmail.com [mailto:leigh.dodds@gmail.com] On Behalf
> Of Leigh Dodds
> Sent: Tuesday, May 20, 2014 5:22 PM
> To: Lee, Deirdre
> Cc: DWBP WG
> Subject: Re: Open Data liability issues
> 
> As a data point, it's worth noting that these kind of limitations of
> liability and limited warranty are pretty standard for open source
> licences and also the broader set of creative commons licences.
> They're not just limited to open data licences. Many businesses are
> happily using open source software despite limitations of
> liability/warranty. I suspect the same will be true for open data:
> businesses will need to make a risk assessment around the assets they
> reuse, of whatever form.
> 
> There are ways to address concerns around quality and sustainability
> of open data, with the goal of minimising risk, other than requiring a
> warranty.
> 
> For example, opting to pay for enhanced services, e.g. improve data
> feeds, etc. AIUI, the BBC pay for MusicBrainz data feeds, even though
> the core data is open.
> 
> There's an interesting example here of Telenav directly investing in
> improving Open Street Map to make it fitter for their purposes, but
> still reaping benefits from the project:
> 
> http://stevecoast.com/2014/05/19/why-openstreetmap-is-now-navigation-
> ready-for-people-like-you/
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> L.
> 
> 
> On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 5:02 PM, Lee, Deirdre <Deirdre.Lee@deri.org>
> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> >
> >
> > As a follow-up on this thread, I was at Joel Gurin’s talk in the ODI
> last
> > Friday on ‘The value of open data to business’ [1] I asked him his
> views on
> > whether the ‘as is’ clause of Open Licenses, i.e. not accepting
> liability is
> > an obstacle for businesses reusing Open Data. He seemed a little
> surprised
> > by the question, but acknowledged it was an interesting issue. Joel
> gave the
> > example of Medicare recently releasing data about how much doctors
> are paid,
> > which could lead to potential liability issues, however this isn’t
> an
> > example of third-party reuse. He said he’d be interested in our
> findings.
> >
> >
> >
> > As Joel works with a lot of Open Data companies with the Open Data
> 500
> > project, and liability doesn’t seem to have registered as an issue
> for him
> > signalled to me:
> >
> > a)      We’re ahead of the game thinking about such issues J, or
> >
> > b)      Liability isn’t an issue for actual business re-users of
> Open Data!
> >
> >
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Deirdre
> >
> >
> >
> > [1]
> > https://soundcloud.com/theodi/friday-lunchtime-lecture-the-value-of-
> open-data-to-business-the-open-data-500-study
> >
> >
> >
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> ---
> >
> > Deirdre Lee
> >
> > Research Associate
> >
> > eGovernment Domain (DEG)
> >
> > Insight-NUIG
> >
> > IDA BusinessPark, Lower Dangan,
> >
> > Galway, Ireland
> >
> >
> >
> > deirdre.lee@deri.org
> > skype: deirdrelee
> >
> > twitter: @deirdrelee
> >
> > linkedin: ie.linkedin.com/in/leedeirdre/
> >
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> ---
> >
> >
> >
> > From: Makx Dekkers [mailto:mail@makxdekkers.com]
> > Sent: 15 May 2014 09:11
> > To: 'DWBP WG'
> > Subject: RE: Two blog posts that may be of interest
> >
> >
> >
> > To me, Steve’s observation about Governments not accepting
> responsibility is
> > an important one. Even the UK Open Government Licence, which I think
> > qualifies as an Open Licence, contains this statement:
> >
> >
> >
> > Non warranty
> >
> >
> >
> > The Information is licensed ‘as is’ and the Information Provider
> excludes
> > all representations, warranties, obligations and liabilities in
> relation to
> > the Information to the maximum extent permitted by law.
> >
> >
> >
> > The Information Provider is not liable for any errors or omissions
> in the
> > Information and shall not be liable for any loss, injury or damage
> of any
> > kind caused by its use. The Information Provider does not guarantee
> the
> > continued supply of the Information.
> >
> >
> >
> > So: Provider excludes all representations, warranties, obligations
> and
> > liabilities, Provider is not liable for any errors or omissions,
> Provider
> > does not guarantee the continued supply …
> >
> >
> >
> > I understand Steve’s conclusion that without some form of guarantee
> of
> > quality and availability, businesses may think twice before building
> their
> > products on such data.
> >
> >
> >
> > There is a bit of a tension between the push of a part of the open
> data
> > community to “publish early, even if data may be ‘dirty’” and a
> business
> > community that needs quality guarantees.
> >
> >
> >
> > Maybe something to include in BP guidelines? Something like: “If you
> publish
> > data quickly without guarantees, you’re helping developers to
> experiment
> > with the data and investigate innovative usage of the data; if on
> the other
> > hand, you want to enable high-quality and sustainable products and
> services,
> > you need to provide guarantees of quality and availability”.
> >
> >
> >
> > Makx.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > From: Steven Adler [mailto:adler1@us.ibm.com]
> > Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2014 9:28 PM
> > To: DWBP WG
> > Subject: Two blog posts that may be of interest
> >
> >
> >
> > Hi Folks,
> >
> > Here are two perspectives on the business use of Open Data.  I think
> we can
> > take up the first topic as a recommendation in our Best Practices
> work.
> >
> > The question is, should Open Data license terms be machine readable?
> And if
> > so, should we (and can we) define a standard vocabulary to make it
> so?
> >
> > https://www.linkedin.com/today/post/article/20140512164919-384693-
> open-data-is-not-open-for-business?trk=mp-reader-card
> >
> > https://www.linkedin.com/today/post/article/20140514120932-384693-
> business-needs-open-data?trk=mp-reader-card
> >
> > Looking forward to your comments.
> >
> > Best Regards,
> >
> > Steve
> >
> > Motto: "Do First, Think, Do it Again"
> 
> 
> 
> --
> Leigh Dodds
> Freelance Technologist
> Open Data, Linked Data Geek
> t: @ldodds
> w: ldodds.com
> e: leigh@ldodds.com

Received on Wednesday, 21 May 2014 17:36:52 UTC