Review of BP on data re-use

Hi everyone,

I've just received the email with the editors asking for this:


> 2. To review the Best Practice: Reuse vocabularies [3] , which will be voted next Wednesday.


This is excellent timing, I've just read it while catching up with the minutes of yesterday's session ;-)

My feedback will be quick though (not much time to write a clean text!):

1. a lot of the aspects of this BP are non-technical, so I'm not 100% sure it's in scope. But there are some technical aspects involved, and see point #2.

2. I do like the BP a lot. This makes a lot of sense

3. my strong recommendation about licensing would be that re-users should make sure that any license or terms of use 'travels' with the data. If reusers do something with the data, they make sure it's compatible with the license and terms of use. This includes (re-)publishing of data, or of derived data when applicable. Especially re-users of derived or re-published data must be aware of the original license and terms of use

4. my organization (Europeana) has made terms of use that could be used as example. Our data is CC0, so there's no license whatsoever. But because attribution and provenance matter in our sector (culture) we wanted to encourage people to be 'respectful'.
It's at http://www.europeana.eu/portal/rights/metadata.html
I think it exemplifies quite a lot the aspects of Annette's BP proposal.

5. the Europeana TOU include one technical aspect that could be strenghtened in the BP, imhp. Re-users should make sure they keep their data (or application) synchronization with the most up-to-date status of the original source. If someone builds and keeps something on the basis of old data, and let their own re-users think the original data source is responsible for problems of outdated data, this is not fair for the original data publisher.

Cheers,

Antoine

[3] http://agreiner.github.io/dwbp/bp.html#Re-use

Received on Wednesday, 16 March 2016 12:20:27 UTC