David Kernohan: Open data is about more than a licence | Wonkhe | Comment

“The release of the “Higher Education Student Statistics: UK, 2016/2017” (Statistical First Release 247) by HESA was accompanied around the sector by a series of sudden sharp intakes of breath in institutional data offices. It represents a brave and bold move into new ways of presenting and sharing data, and showed off a new format that will delight some and disappoint others. In this article I look at what has changed, and why.

The dash for designation. In applying for Designated Data Body status in England, HESA has made a move towards offering “open data”, suggesting that “From 2021 all of our publications will be available in open data format, allowing additional access to the information we enrich.” The Open Data Institute defines open data as “data that anyone can access, use or share,” which sounds like a pretty good thing. In many cases, though, open data has simply meant data that is available under an open (usually Creative Commons) licence – good to have legal clarity, but not at all the same as providing easily usable data.. HESA should be lauded for making this move for SFR248, but it is only a starting point….”

Data aggregators: a solution to open data issues – Open Knowledge International Blog

“Open Knowledge International’s report on the state of open data identifies the main problems affecting open government data initiatives. These are: the very low discoverability of open data sources, which were rightfully defined as being “hard or impossible to find”; the lack of interoperability of open data sources, which are often very difficult to be utilised; and the lack of a standardised open license, representing a legal obstacle to data sharing. These problems harm the very essence of the open data movement, which advocates data easy to find, free to access and to be reutilised.  

In this post, we will argue that data aggregators are a potential solution to the problems mentioned above.  Data aggregators are online platforms which store data of various nature at once central location to be utilised for different purposes. We will argue that data aggregators are, to date, one of the most powerful and useful tools to handle open data and resolve the issues affecting it.

We will provide the evidence in favour of this argument by observing how FAIR principles, namely Findability, Accessibility, Interoperability and Reusability, are put into practice by four different data aggregators engineered in Indonesia, Czech Republic, the US and the EU. …”

Data aggregators: a solution to open data issues – Open Knowledge International Blog

“Open Knowledge International’s report on the state of open data identifies the main problems affecting open government data initiatives. These are: the very low discoverability of open data sources, which were rightfully defined as being “hard or impossible to find”; the lack of interoperability of open data sources, which are often very difficult to be utilised; and the lack of a standardised open license, representing a legal obstacle to data sharing. These problems harm the very essence of the open data movement, which advocates data easy to find, free to access and to be reutilised.  

In this post, we will argue that data aggregators are a potential solution to the problems mentioned above.  Data aggregators are online platforms which store data of various nature at once central location to be utilised for different purposes. We will argue that data aggregators are, to date, one of the most powerful and useful tools to handle open data and resolve the issues affecting it.

We will provide the evidence in favour of this argument by observing how FAIR principles, namely Findability, Accessibility, Interoperability and Reusability, are put into practice by four different data aggregators engineered in Indonesia, Czech Republic, the US and the EU. …”

Open and Shut?: Realising the BOAI vision: Peter Suber’s Advice

Peter Suber’s current high-priority recommendations for advancing open access.

Global Persistent Identifiers for grants, awards, and facilities – Crossref

“Most funders already have local, internal grant identifiers. But there are over 15K funders currently listed in the aforementioned Open Funder Registry. The problem is that each funder has its own identifier scheme and (sometimes) API. It is very difficult for third parties to integrate with so many different systems. Open, global, persistent and machine-actionable identifiers are key to scaling these activities.

We already have a sophisticated open, global, interoperable infrastructure of persistent identifier systems for some key elements of scholarly communications. We have persistent identifiers for researchers and contributors (ORCID iDs), for data and software (DataCite DOIs), for journal articles, preprints, conference proceedings, peer reviews, monographs and standards (Crossref DOIs), and for Funders (Open Funder Registry IDs).

And there are similar systems under active development for research organizations, conferences, projects and resources reported in the biomedical literature (e.g. antibodies, model organisms). At a minimum, open, persistent identifiers address the inherent difficulty in disambiguating entities based on textual strings (structured or otherwise). This precision, in turn, allows automated cross-walking of linked identifiers through APIs and metadata which enable advanced applications….”

Global Persistent Identifiers for grants, awards, and facilities – Crossref

“Most funders already have local, internal grant identifiers. But there are over 15K funders currently listed in the aforementioned Open Funder Registry. The problem is that each funder has its own identifier scheme and (sometimes) API. It is very difficult for third parties to integrate with so many different systems. Open, global, persistent and machine-actionable identifiers are key to scaling these activities.

We already have a sophisticated open, global, interoperable infrastructure of persistent identifier systems for some key elements of scholarly communications. We have persistent identifiers for researchers and contributors (ORCID iDs), for data and software (DataCite DOIs), for journal articles, preprints, conference proceedings, peer reviews, monographs and standards (Crossref DOIs), and for Funders (Open Funder Registry IDs).

And there are similar systems under active development for research organizations, conferences, projects and resources reported in the biomedical literature (e.g. antibodies, model organisms). At a minimum, open, persistent identifiers address the inherent difficulty in disambiguating entities based on textual strings (structured or otherwise). This precision, in turn, allows automated cross-walking of linked identifiers through APIs and metadata which enable advanced applications….”

Peter Suber, Half a dozen reasons why I support the Jussieu Call for Open Science and Bibl…

“1. I support its call to move beyond PDFs. This is necessary to bypass publisher locks and facilitate reuse, text mining, access by the visually impaired, and access in bandwidth-poor parts of the world. 

2. I applaud its recognition of no-fee or no-APC open-access journals, their existence, their value, and the fact that a significant number of authors will always depend on them. 

3. I join its call for redirecting funds now spent on subscription journals to support OA alternatives. 

4. I endorse its call to reform methods of research evaluation. If we want to assess quality, we must stop assuming that impact and prestige are good proxies for quality. If we want to assess impact, we must stop using metrics that measure it badly and create perverse incentives to put prestige ahead of both quality and access.

5. I support its call for infrastructures that are proof against privatization. No matter how good proprietary and closed-source platforms may initially be, they are subject to acquisition and harmful mutation beyond the control of the non-profit academic world. Even without acquisition, their commitment to OA is contingent on the market, and they carry a permanent risk of trapping rather than liberating knowledge. The research community cannot afford to entrust its research to platforms carrying that risk. 

6. Finally I support what it terms bibliodiversity. While we must steer clear of closed-source infrastructure, subject to privatization and enclosure, we must also steer clear of platform monocultures, subject to rigidity, stagnation, and breakage. Again, no matter how good a monoculture platform may initially be, in the long run it cannot be better than an ecosystem of free and open-source, interoperable components, compliant with open standards, offering robustness, modularity, flexibility, freedom to create better modules without rewriting the whole system, freedom to pick modules that best meet local needs, and freedom to scale up to meet global needs without first overcoming centralized constraints or unresponsive decision-makers. …”

Research Libraries Powering Sustainable Knowledge in the Digital Age: LIBER Europe Strategy 2018-2022

“The 2018-2022 LIBER Strategy, which will steer LIBER’s development over the next five years, will support LIBER libraries in facing coming changes in the European working environment such as the various initiatives in advancing Open Science. It will also enable research in LIBER organisations to be world class. The leading role of LIBER brings added value to the implementation of the Strategy at a European level. …The term Open Science is not mentioned specifically in the Strategy. Instead, we emphasise innovative scholarly communication and digital skills and services, as well as research infrastructures to enable sustainable knowledge in the digital age…. Our Vision for the research landscape in 2022 is that the role of research libraries will lie in Powering Sustainable Knowledge in the Digital Age:

• Open Access is the predominant form of publishing;

• Research Data is Findable, Accessible, Interoperable and Reusable (FAIR);

• Digital Skills underpin a more open and transparent research life cycle;

• Research Infrastructure is participatory, tailored and scaled to the needs of the diverse disciplines;

• The cultural heritage of tomorrow is built on today’s digital information….

Open Access of Research Publications: this theme will encompass developing innovative services on top of the repository network, developments regarding Open Access business models for journals and the role of libraries therein, and the possibilities for libraries as Open Access publishers and innovative publishing…Semantic Interoperability; Open and Linked Data: research libraries are experts in metadata and ontologies and need to take a leadership role and engage with other stakeholders to ensure interoperability and accessibility of content….”