Hi Elizabeth! Thank you very much for your answer! I've replied inline.
E.W. <[email protected]> wrote on Wed [2016-May-25 11:43:04 -0500]: > I've done some analysis on the licenses that are used by datasets within > DataCite records. As of December 2015 when I scraped the data in, 59% of > the records had a rights statement and 95% of those were in the Creative > commons family. Yanking more out of my slides, when looking at the CC > uses: 62% CC-BY-NC; 36% CC-BY; 1% CC0; <1% other. These numbers are > heavily biased towards specific repositories using stock licenses for all > their records and having a high volume of records, so these should not be > interpreted as data representing the self-deposit data world. > CC has a nice wizard to select a license from, but CC0 or CCBY are usually > the ones we (the data repository team I work in) try to recommend to > people for open data. I can provided unapologetically biased opinions > about which to use, but I shall refrain unless prodded. I would be interested in hearing your opinions, especially since I lean towards copyleft licenses, but maybe we should take that off the list? > There may be a domain repository that specializes in this kind of data and > they likely have some recommendations. As far as adding it goes, most > repositories just have a declaration on the splash page for the dataset, > within the metadata, and sometimes a copy of the license as part of the > file set. > But to focus more on the third item, please do consider formally > depositing this into a data repository of some sort (versus just having a > public github repo). Zenodo has hooks to github and issues out DataCite > metadata when it generates the DOI. Figshare does this as well, but > Zenodo has better editing capabilities for the metadata. I'm happy to > brain dump about this more offline for the curious of if you're confused > as to how to use the elements (this is an open offer to anyone on there > wrangling with datacite metadata). > > As far as other considerations about the question of making things public, > it depends on the source and content of the data. > 1) Is work on the content creation and edit of these data files done? You > don't want to potentially be changing content under people's feet if they > are working with the data. There are ways to version the data and I can > expand on this if it is an issue. The reason for the move to Git repositories is to facilitate development and collaboration. As a bonus, it should also make it simpler to handle versioning. For published models, I think there is already a structure in place for submitting them to data repositories. > 2) Are there any data sensitivities? For example: Is this human subject > data? Could this potentially have a harmful impact on any subjects? > Looks like these are just models, so likely not, but always consider this. (Most of) the models have already been published in papers previously and as I've understood things they contain no sensitive data. > 3) Are there any contractual or licensing sensitivities for making this > open? For example, are these data files derived from a source with > restrictions on such derivatives? Any other contracts or IP issues with > tools used or the University in regards to licensing? University IP > concerns are highly variable by local laws and policies, but something to > consider if they would want to have a stake in this. Good point! I am not aware of any issues, but I'll ask around. Thanks again for taking your time to answer! Best regards, Matthias _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.software-carpentry.org/listinfo/discuss
