0
open phacts keynotejohn wilbanks18 september 2011volendam, NL<br />
1. we want to “publish” “data”<br />
container-based publishing.<br />
the scholarly content industry reaction.<br />
(we are subsidizing the dig, sadly)<br />
everyone‘s favorite shovel.<br />
no: copying, distribution, display, etc.<br />(in the absence of an unambiguous license)<br />
not: <br />
built for this…<br />(so what’s this?)<br />
(or this?)<br />
“ownership” may be the wrong frame for this stuff.<br />
2. we need rights (legal or normative) to do certain things with data.<br />
research<br />
credit<br />
assembly<br />
annotation<br />
not always connectable to the law.<br />
publication is step 1.<br />
3. first principles.<br />
when we try to solve all the problems at once, we overdo it.<br />
“Taking the "forklift upgrade" approach to networking, it specified eliminating all existing protocols and replacing them ...
let the critics fix the problems.<br />
avoid unintended consequences of control.<br />
4. what can we actually do, now?<br />
(please don’t write your own.)<br />
thanks,@workingontology and XKCD<br />
EdsgerWybeDijkstra<br />
We know that a program must be correct and we can study it from that viewpoint only; we also know that it should be effici...
treat content, data, software, and privacy in separate bins, but with an eye towards forming a stack.<br />
attribution (does not) = citation<br />
“open core” / variety of apps <br />
sage bionetworks “public genomic records”<br />requires “informed consent” to share.<br />“static” genomic<br />data<br />...
the openphacts “stack” – a bespoke combination built of standard tools…<br />
incentives and sustainability<br />
data grocery > data soukset prices and terms in advance, with pre-negotiated terms.<br />
taxpayers waking up…<br />
nothing beats a funder mandate.<br />
rationale for LGPL, CC-BY, etc: allow for profit to be taken on private libraries and services, which may scale better tha...
in a world of abundance, quality is economically valuable.<br />
simple. weak. standardized. open.<br />
thank you.jtw@del-fi.orghttp://del-fi.org@wilbanks<br />
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Openphacts wilbanks

1,213

Published on

Keynote on legal and incentive aspects of sharing genomic and pharmaceutical data. Given 19 September 2011, Volendam Netherlands.

Published in: Technology
1 Comment
2 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Slide 52: Infochimps a model for a data grocery?
    Slide 57: LGPL and CC-BY differ on the SA part?

    If SA is a poor license term for data, why is the presentation CC-BY-SA?
    [SA conditions confuse me]
       Reply 
    Are you sure you want to  Yes  No
    Your message goes here
No Downloads
Views
Total Views
1,213
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
6
Comments
1
Likes
2
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Transcript of "Openphacts wilbanks"

  1. 1. open phacts keynotejohn wilbanks18 september 2011volendam, NL<br />
  2. 2. 1. we want to “publish” “data”<br />
  3. 3. container-based publishing.<br />
  4. 4.
  5. 5. the scholarly content industry reaction.<br />
  6. 6. (we are subsidizing the dig, sadly)<br />
  7. 7. everyone‘s favorite shovel.<br />
  8. 8.
  9. 9. no: copying, distribution, display, etc.<br />(in the absence of an unambiguous license)<br />
  10. 10. not: <br />
  11. 11. built for this…<br />(so what’s this?)<br />
  12. 12. (or this?)<br />
  13. 13.
  14. 14.
  15. 15.
  16. 16. “ownership” may be the wrong frame for this stuff.<br />
  17. 17. 2. we need rights (legal or normative) to do certain things with data.<br />
  18. 18. research<br />
  19. 19. credit<br />
  20. 20. assembly<br />
  21. 21. annotation<br />
  22. 22.
  23. 23. not always connectable to the law.<br />
  24. 24. publication is step 1.<br />
  25. 25. 3. first principles.<br />
  26. 26. when we try to solve all the problems at once, we overdo it.<br />
  27. 27. “Taking the "forklift upgrade" approach to networking, it specified eliminating all existing protocols and replacing them with new ones at all layers of the stack. This made implementation difficult, and was resisted by many vendors and users with significant investments in other network technologies. In addition, the protocols included so many optional features that many vendor's implementations were not interoperable.”<br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Systems_Interconnection<br />
  28. 28. let the critics fix the problems.<br />
  29. 29.
  30. 30. avoid unintended consequences of control.<br />
  31. 31.
  32. 32. 4. what can we actually do, now?<br />
  33. 33. (please don’t write your own.)<br />
  34. 34. thanks,@workingontology and XKCD<br />
  35. 35. EdsgerWybeDijkstra<br />
  36. 36. We know that a program must be correct and we can study it from that viewpoint only; we also know that it should be efficient and we can study its efficiency on another day, so to speak. In another mood we may ask ourselves whether, and if so: why, the program is desirable. But nothing is gained --on the contrary!-- by tackling these various aspects simultaneously. It is what I sometimes have called "the separation of concerns", which, even if not perfectly possible, is yet the only available technique for effective ordering of one's thoughts, that I know of. This is what I mean by "focusing one's attention upon some aspect": it does not mean ignoring the other aspects, it is just doing justice to the fact that from this aspect's point of view, the other is irrelevant. It is being one- and multiple-track minded simultaneously.<br />
  37. 37. treat content, data, software, and privacy in separate bins, but with an eye towards forming a stack.<br />
  38. 38.
  39. 39.
  40. 40.
  41. 41.
  42. 42.
  43. 43. attribution (does not) = citation<br />
  44. 44.
  45. 45. “open core” / variety of apps <br />
  46. 46. sage bionetworks “public genomic records”<br />requires “informed consent” to share.<br />“static” genomic<br />data<br />“dynamic” genomic<br />data<br />“observational”<br />data<br />
  47. 47.
  48. 48.
  49. 49.
  50. 50. the openphacts “stack” – a bespoke combination built of standard tools…<br />
  51. 51. incentives and sustainability<br />
  52. 52. data grocery > data soukset prices and terms in advance, with pre-negotiated terms.<br />
  53. 53. taxpayers waking up…<br />
  54. 54.
  55. 55. nothing beats a funder mandate.<br />
  56. 56.
  57. 57. rationale for LGPL, CC-BY, etc: allow for profit to be taken on private libraries and services, which may scale better than treating data as property.<br />
  58. 58. in a world of abundance, quality is economically valuable.<br />
  59. 59. simple. weak. standardized. open.<br />
  60. 60. thank you.jtw@del-fi.orghttp://del-fi.org@wilbanks<br />
  1. A particular slide catching your eye?

    Clipping is a handy way to collect important slides you want to go back to later.

×