Need for Controlled Vocabularies on Intellectual Property Right statements ?
| dc.contributor.author | Mergen, P. | |
| dc.contributor.author | Smirnova, L. | |
| dc.contributor.author | Frank, J. | |
| dc.date | 2014 | |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2016-03-15T10:07:05Z | |
| dc.date.available | 2016-03-15T10:07:05Z | |
| dc.identifier.uri | https://orfeo.belnet.be/handle/internal/2201 | |
| dc.description | In recent years, major international data portals or aggregators have conducted large-scale studies on the expectations of their data providers and uses in terms of Intellectual Property Rights. One can cite here EUROPEANA, GBIF, but also the European Commission itself with its public surveys on OpenAccess and OpenScience. In order to enable large scale reuse and automated applications, many networks promote complete free access and re-use of data and information without any restrictions or ad hoc requirements. Indeed, terms of use or specific requirements that have to be checked and respected (often at the individual record level) are considered to be major barriers for rapid and large scale re-use of content. It is a challenge for modeling tools and complicates the development of applications and software. On the other hand, data owners and producers have genuine and legitimate arguments for requiring specific terms for access or re-use of the content, such as requests to be cited, excluding commercial use, or having to restrict access to respect national legislations or the rules on protection of private data. While quite a large number of data providers could be convinced to adhere to Public Domain or Creative Commons licenses, recent surveys have shown that a substantial amount of data is not mobilized to the extent it could be because data custodians are wary of the long term implications and re-use of their knowledge without citing their contribution. While TDWG has of course always promoted free and open source software and encouraged free sharing of data, it is in the context of this new group, not the intention to decide which IPR statements to use, nor to enter the lengthy debate on the matter. However strong from the results of the many surveys on IPR conducted by several partners and in the framework of several associated projects, TDWG has a good understanding of the issues and expectations of its community. Currently TDWG standards, like ABCD or Darwin Core have, both at metadata and data level, concepts relating to IPR statements. The goal of such a TDWG group would thus be to revisit the concepts on IPR statements in the standards and reflect on controlled vocabularies, so that mobilization, re-use of data and development of applications can be eased, without asking data providers to renounce to some of their rights, access or re-use requirements. | |
| dc.language | eng | |
| dc.publisher | TDWG | |
| dc.title | Need for Controlled Vocabularies on Intellectual Property Right statements ? | |
| dc.type | Conference | |
| dc.subject.frascati | Biological sciences | |
| dc.subject.frascati | Computer and information sciences | |
| dc.subject.frascati | Earth and related Environmental sciences | |
| dc.audience | Scientific | |
| dc.subject.free | Biological collection and data management | |
| dc.subject.free | Invertebrates | |
| dc.source.title | TDWG 2014 ANNUAL CONFERENCE: "Applications and Data Standards for Sustaining Biodiversity" | |
| Orfeo.peerreviewed | No | |
| dc.identifier.rmca | 4314 |
Files in this item
| Files | Size | Format | View |
|---|---|---|---|
|
There are no files associated with this item. |
|||