Fwd: [open-science] LODD Hack Session Notes - Is It Open request signatories needed

Hi LODD wg members,

Jenny Molloy sent around the results of the hack session with the
science working group of the Open Knowledge Foundation, looking at the
12 data sets listed in the best practices paper.

Of these two were clearly Open (ChEMBL, TCM-GenEdit), and one clearly
not Open (UMLS). Diseasome seems to come from the OMIM data which is
also not Open.

Five databases have a non-commercial clause involved, making it Open
according to the LODD definitions (correct?), but not Open following
the OFKN's standards. The original plan was to set up an informative
package of information explaining why the NC clause causes problems,
but we did not get around to this. From a LODD perspective, this is a
non-issue, as I understood (I have not been around when "LODD" was
defined).

SIDER and STICH have CCZero components and parts covered by NC, but
the SPARQL end point is unclear in what parts it makes available.

That leaves three datasets where we have not been able to find a clear
licensing/copyright/waiver statement, and for these three letters are
now written, see Jenny's email, to inquire under what conditions those
data sets can be redistributed, which the LODD wg is already doing.
This involves DailyMed, RXNorm, and the WHO-GHO data sets. Input from
those who composed is helpful here. One thing that we want to get
clear is if people can pull the data from the SPARQL end point,
use/modify it, and even redistribute it.

All in all, I think the (2 hour in the end) hack session was
productive, and the licensing information has been updated in CKAN,
where we also identified some wishes for improvements for CKAN, but
that will be brought up on the CKAN mailing list.

Thanx to all who where there and helped iron out licensing unclarities
and helped with the letter.

The final letters are linked to below, and if you helped on Monday
then please do sign!

Egon

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Jenny Molloy <jcmcoppice12@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 1:18 AM
Subject: [open-science] LODD Hack Session Notes - Is It Open request
signatories needed
To: open-science@lists.okfn.org


Dear All

We had a very productive hack session on Monday night regarding linked
open drug data. You can see the full notes here:
http://okfnpad.org/sciencewg-loddhack-201103

In summary, we reviewed the openness of several LODD data sets in CKAN
and identified those whose maintainer's should be sent an Is It Open
Data? request. We drafted letters  to send to the World Health
Organisation Global Health Observatory and the maintainers of two
datasets at the US National Library of Medicine:
http://okfnpad.org/sciencewg-who-letter
http://okfnpad.org/sciencewg-rxnorm-letter
http://okfnpad.org/sciencewg-nlm-letter

Before we send them via http://www.isitopendata.org/, it would be
great to get more signatories from the group, so please add your name
to the end of the generic letter on
http://okfnpad.org/sciencewg-loddhack-201103 if you are happy to be
included. Unfortunately, we didn't remind all of the hack session
participants to do this before they left, so if you helped on Monday
then please do sign!

We will be sending the letters on Monday 14th March during a follow up
session, of which more details are to follow.

If there is a group on CKAN, or a general topic area that you feel
would be a good target for future sessions of this nature, then please
let me know!

Jenny



_______________________________________________
open-science mailing list
open-science@lists.okfn.org
http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-science




-- 
Dr E.L. Willighagen
Postdoctoral Researcher
Institutet för miljömedicin
Karolinska Institutet
Homepage: http://egonw.github.com/
LinkedIn: http://se.linkedin.com/in/egonw
Blog: http://chem-bla-ics.blogspot.com/
PubList: http://www.citeulike.org/user/egonw/tag/papers

Received on Wednesday, 9 March 2011 06:43:02 UTC