HCLSIG/LODD/Meetings/2009-10-28 Conference Call
Conference Details
- Date of Call: Wednesday October 28, 2009
- Time of Call: 11:00am Eastern Daylight Time (EDT), 16:00 British Summer Time (BST), 17:00 Central European Time (CET)
- Dial-In #: +1.617.761.6200 (Cambridge, MA)
- Dial-In #: +33.4.89.06.34.99 (Nice, France)
- Dial-In #: +44.117.370.6152 (Bristol, UK)
- Participant Access Code: 4257 ("HCLS").
- IRC Channel: irc.w3.org port 6665 channel #HCLS (see W3C IRC page for details, or see Web IRC)
- Duration: ~1h
- Convener: Susie
Agenda
- Open data - Thinh (Creative Commons)
- Paper/conference opportunities (BMC TCM, ISMB) - all
- Data update - Anja, Jun, Matthias
- F2F - Susie
- AOB
Minutes
Attendees: Thinh, Julia, Bosse, Joanne, Matthias, Kei, Michel, Elgar, Kerstin, Jun, Egon, Susie
<Susie> Thinh talks about open data
<jluciano> joining about open data and different licensing issues and things to be aware of
<jluciano> creative commons - based in SF
<jluciano> science commons, based at MIT / Cambridge manage - subsidiaruy
<jluciano> write and publish open access licenses (e.g. PLoS, Wikipedia)
<jluciano> grant different sets of rights to different users. over 50 international projects
<jluciano> 3 yrs ago, Paris meeting re: data licensing then current status. Question - apply to databases?
<jluciano> initially thought licensing was way to go, regarding data, but now think differently
<jluciano> there are three buckets - licensing strategies (e.g. software and related to copyrightable materials - sw, music, etc)
<jluciano> second - contracts -- terms of use / conditions (not licensing, but legal)
<jluciano> third - public domain, witout any formal restrictions, no legal text (except maybe short copyright) SHARED WITHOUT RESTRICTIONS
<jluciano> the conclusion - recommend whenever possible, consider public domain, only pursue others if no other way to get people to share data.
<jluciano> licensing not best way for public projects to share data
<jluciano> data that is factual assertions about the world is inherrelty different than creative works - which are protected by copyright - internationally. so there are standards for how you protect things that are creative
<jluciano> different countries treat different factual data differently
<jluciano> can't copyright or own a fact and once published, you lose ownership
<jluciano> it becomes part of public - from ploicy perspective doesn't make sense to have to get permision to use
<jluciano> Tinh discusses some differences in different countries regarding databases
<jluciano> different countries treat differetly because no international treaty. not clear what rules apply accross boundaries
<Susie> recommends on data use and sharing
<Susie> for factual sharing (e.g. scientific data) that isn't protected by copyright in US
<Susie> projects participants should share as part of public domain
<Susie> developed tool called CC0
<Susie> CCO = 0 rights reserved
<Susie> Contributor shares as part of the public domain
<Susie> 3. approach - terms of use
<Susie> intermediate approach
<Susie> can put anything into terms of use
<Susie> want to use for disclaim liabilities, warranties
<Susie> people take all of the risk of using the data
<Susie> it's a way to protect yourself if sharing data
<Susie> don't have recommendations against using this
<Susie> can be problems if make usage terms too restrictive
<Susie> recommendation is to look at the practices of the people who might want to use the data
<Susie> how is the data going to be used?
<Susie> e.g. in journals, new data sources, linked together in federated searches
<Susie> the more licensing the more complicating data re-use is
<Susie> can be incompatibility between different terms of use
<Susie> don't want to cause these problems
<Susie> this is our biggest concern
<Susie> if people believe licenses can be enforced this puts a big barrier up against wide spread data sharing, aggregation and re-use
<Susie> this is where we are right now
<Susie> these recommendations are about scientific data
<Susie> not about cultural work, such as on flickr
<Susie> copyright licenses are OK where they are relevant
<Susie> susie: how do we know when it's OK to re-use data?
<Susie> hear this question many times
<Susie> that's way push people towards public domain
<Susie> it's very hard to figure out
<Susie> have sorted through some of these things
<Susie> can't always understand these web sites even though i'm a lawyer
<Susie> no magic solution
<Susie> lawyers at creative commons help us
<Susie> when terms are clear the best bet can be to contact the owner/author
<Susie> ask for clarification
<Susie> ask for t&c to be waiveree
<Susie> make good faith issues to understand first
<Susie> people are often flexible if you contact them then
<Susie> it's not ideal
<Susie> not ideal way to share data
<Susie> matthias: latest version on neurocommons kb will include text from medline, this is similar to my work, so wondering what the legal status is
<Susie> can't give legal advice
<Susie> can describe how we've dealt with it
<Susie> source of data is from NLM
<Susie> we have license from NLM
<Susie> anyone can use this license
<Susie> government doesn't assert copyright over it, but publishers may
<Susie> government makes no warranty about status of abstracts
<Susie> obtained data from a lawful source
<Susie> publisher should assert rights
<Susie> there are risk
<Susie> think we should be protected by fair use
<Susie> making non-commercial use
<Susie> it's educational usage
<Susie> but this is specific to users
<Susie> not all users are non-profit
<Susie> not all are pursuing educational purposes
<Susie> we have to make our judgement
<Susie> other users also have to use their judgement
<Susie> some major publisher have made statements that they don't enforce copyright on abstracts
<Susie> but not all publishers..
<Susie> not aware of any cases
<Susie> industry expects abstracts to be distributed publicly
<Susie> we have done our due diligence
<Susie> you have to consider likely harm
<Susie> can you remove it
<Susie> can you work with them to take out
<Susie> it's unlikely this will happen with abstracts
<Susie> Kei: does it also apply to pubmed central?
<Susie> new nih mandate (2 years) ago - think called public access directive
<Susie> any grantee from NIH must deposit copy of pre-print manuscript or article within 1 year
<Susie> law doesn't say pubmed can re-license the work
<Susie> really unclear
<Susie> talking about at conference with legal scholars
<Susie> expect clarity in future
<Susie> unclear if can re-distribute
<Susie> would assume can't re-distribute article at the moment
<Susie> different when full article versus abstract
<Susie> anyone can download from pubmed
<Susie> not clear what you can do after
<Susie> Joanne: should we approach the people's whose data we are re-using
<Susie> step 1. someone familiar with these contracts do an initial read
<Susie> Look to see if it's license, t&c, or public
<Susie> If license then would recommend contacting them
<Susie> having good relations with data providers is good
<Susie> Joanne: how do you suggest approaching them
<Susie> Joanne: some data sources are facts and curated, e.g. annotate pathway information
<Susie> best way to approach is if you know someone there
<Susie> if not available, then just contact the web site
<Susie> find person who runs the project
<Susie> usually not hard
<Susie> we introduce ourselves
<Susie> we introduce project
<Susie> say want to include data
<Susie> say we've read t&c and want to clariy
<Susie> or say we need t&c to be modified
<Susie> with curated data it's facts and human intervention
<Susie> canada, europe, us have different laws
<Susie> this is borderline
<Susie> is it just factual, or more than that
<Susie> CC0 says that to the extent that there might be copyright, we'll waiver it
<Susie> very hard without CC0
<Susie> if just extracting facts to use in another setting then not copyrightable
<Susie> if you're copying the whole data set then more likely there are problems
<matthias_samwald> susie: we already converted some data sources, we looked at the licensing prior to that, but we are now taking a closer look again. i guess we need to check with the original data providers.
<Susie> Susie: what about the data we've already converted?
<Susie> ever organization should consider what's best in their case
<Susie> work has already been done
<Susie> it's pretty complicated
<Susie> to be safe you can go back to the source
<Susie> could say that this is what we've done, and wanted to check it's OK
<Susie> if you're confident that you've just extracted facts (e.g. gene expression, or binding) then should be OK
<Susie> either approach is OK
<Susie> good to get a lawyer to look at it
<Susie> can't provide better guidance than that
<Susie> Joanne: what's fair use?
<Susie> exception to copyright
<Susie> some countries don't have fair use
<Susie> if use work in a certain way then can't be a problem
<Susie> are you taking majority or minority of work
<Susie> are you using it for commentary, eduction, or for profit
<Susie> will copy reduce value of bigger work
<Susie> all need to be looked at togehter
<Susie> no rules to follow
<Susie> education asserts fair use all of the time
<Susie> don't need to assert fair use, or just do it, and apply as defense if needed
<Susie> Susie: does science commons have lawyers who can help us?
<Susie> i am the pool of lawyers
- egonw is enjoying this great summary so far already and apologizes for not being on the phone too
<Susie> can't provide leagal guidance
<Susie> can clarify creative commons licenses
<Zakim> - +1.617.395.aacc
<Susie> Susie: could you help us with general questions?
<Susie> yes
<Susie> Susie: Papers/conference
<Susie> Susie: matthias interested in chinese medicine paper
<Susie> matthias: focus on finding leads for depression
<Susie> matthias: using existing herbal databases and publications that we have
<Susie> matthias: would document our experiences
<Susie> matthias: selected depressions because it's an interest of mine
<Susie> matthias: want to ask neuroscience questions
<Susie> matthias: rather than just focuing on the technology
<Susie> matthias: depression hasn't been much of a focus in sem web community yet
<Susie> matthias: sent out mail to see if others would be interested
<Susie> matthias: want to see if this interests others
<Susie> Joanne: depression was topic of my research, so am very interested in working with you on this
<Susie> Susie: would the journal be interested comparison of western to chinese medicines
<Susie> Kei: i am biased as editor, don't want to steer group to heavily
<Susie> Kei: would be nice if paper in special issue covers general area of linking herbs and drug compounds in certain disease contexts
<Susie> Joanne: is there chinese medicine data on efficacy, how the herbs are assessed, outcomes?
<Susie> Kei: not too familiar with all current clinical trials
<Susie> Kei: some trials that involve chinese herbs for diseases including AD
<Susie> Kei: have looked at gingko for memory related problems
<Susie> Kei: trials have mixed results
<Susie> Joanne: interested in development data
<Susie> Kei: gene-disease-chinese herbs data source available from Taiwan
<Susie> Jun: been experimenting with federated query db and LODD data
<Susie> Sounds like enough interest to pursue the idea further
<Susie> Jun and Matthias get together to discuss
<Susie> talk about about paper opportunities, including ISMB, during next telcon