ARIADNE: Report on data sharing policies

D3.3: Report on data sharing policies
Author:
Kate Fernie, MDR
Ariadne is funded by the European Commission’s
7th Framework Programme.

ARIADNE
D3.3
(Public)
2
Partner
in
charge
of
the
deliverable:
Author:
MDR
Partners
(Consulting)
Ltd
Kate
Fernie,
MDR
Contributors:
Guntram
Geser,
SRFG
Elizabeth
Fentress,
AIAC
Costis
Dallas,
Athena-‐RC
Franco
Niccolucci,
PIN
Cesar
Gonzalez-‐Perez,
CSIC
Roberto
Scopigno,
Paolo
Cignioni,
ISTI-‐CNR
Ulf
Jakobsson,
SND
Emmanuelle
Bryas,
Amala
Marx,
Kai
Salas-‐Rossenbach,
Bernard
Pinglier,
INRAP
Hella
Hollander,
KNAW-‐DANS
ADS,
Discovery,
ZRC
SAZU,
CYI-‐STARC,
ARHEO,
MNM-‐
NOK,
OEAW,
ARUP-‐CAS,
NIAM
BAS,
MiBAC,
DAI
Version
1.0
(final)
27th
January
2014
ARIADNE is a project funded by the European Commission under the Community’s
Seventh Framework Programme, contract no. FP7-INFRASTRUCTURES-2012-1-313193.
The views and opinions expressed in this presentation are the sole responsibility of the
authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the European Commission.
Quality
review:
Julian
Richards
and
Holly
Wright,
UoY
-‐
ADS

ARIADNE
D3.3
(Public)
3
Table
of
Contents
1
Executive
summary
...........................................................................................................
5
2
Introduction
......................................................................................................................
7
3
Methodology
....................................................................................................................
8
4
Sharing
knowledge:
Open
Data
.......................................................................................
10
4.1
Open
Access
Publications
.............................................................................................................
10
4.2
Open
licences
...............................................................................................................................
11
4.3
Linked
Open
Data
.........................................................................................................................
14
4.4
Attribution
of
research
data
.........................................................................................................
16
5
Situational
analysis
.........................................................................................................
17
5.1
How
do
we
define
research
data
in
archaeology?
.......................................................................
17
5.2
How
and
when
does
openness
need
to
be
limited?
....................................................................
18
5.2.1
Active
research
projects
........................................................................................................................
18
5.2.2
Past
research
projects
...........................................................................................................................
19
5.2.3
Database
rights
......................................................................................................................................
20
5.2.4
Archaeological
site
location
data
...........................................................................................................
20
5.2.5
Commercial
value
..................................................................................................................................
20
5.2.6
Privacy
and
data
protection
...................................................................................................................
21
5.2.1
National
legislation
................................................................................................................................
21
5.3
How
should
the
issue
of
data
re-‐use
be
addressed?
....................................................................
23
5.3.1
Licensing
................................................................................................................................................
23
5.3.2
Data
citation
..........................................................................................................................................
24
5.3.3
Should
ARIADNE
adopt
Creative
Commons
licences
for
resource
discovery
metadata?
......................
25
5.4
How
should
we
enhance
data
awareness
and
the
culture
of
sharing?
........................................
26
6
Survey
of
ARIADNE
datasets
...........................................................................................
28
6.1
Rights
holders
...............................................................................................................................
28
6.2
Content
copyright
.........................................................................................................................
29
6.3
Content
Access
.............................................................................................................................
29
6.4
Metadata
rights
............................................................................................................................
31
6.5
Specific
conditions
affecting
Access
.............................................................................................
32
7
Discussion
.......................................................................................................................
33
7.1
Deposit
agreements
with
content
providers
................................................................................
33

ARIADNE
D3.3
(Public)
7.2
Agreements
with
ARIADNE
..........................................................................................................
33
7.3
Data
sharing
and
access
...............................................................................................................
34
7.4
Licence
framework
.......................................................................................................................
35
7.4.1
Resource
description/Collection
description
metadata
........................................................................
35
7.4.2
Content
licensing
...................................................................................................................................
35
8
Recommendations
..........................................................................................................
37
9
References
......................................................................................................................
38
Glossary
................................................................................................................................
41
Appendix
1:
Ariadne
questionnaire
on
datasets,
metadata
and
data
sharing
policies
...........
42
Rights
holder(s)
-‐
The
owner(s)
of
the
rights
of
the
content
being
provided
........................................
42
Content
copyright
..................................................................................................................................
44
Content
Access
rights
............................................................................................................................
47
Use
of
standard
licences
........................................................................................................................
50
Metadata
rights
.....................................................................................................................................
52
Appendix
2:
DANS
Licence
Agreement
and
help
text
.............................................................
54
Appendix
3:
The
Terms
of
Use
and
Access
to
ADS
Resources
.......................................
58
4
Appendix
4:
Accessibility
levels
at
SND
...........................................................................
62
Appendix
5:
Data.Gouv.FR
–
Open
Licence
......................................................................
64

ARIADNE
D3.3
(Public)
1 Executive
summary
The
ARIADNE
network
developed
out
of
the
need
to
develop
infrastructures
for
the
management
and
integration
of
archaeological
data
at
a
European
level.
The
network
brings
together
existing
archaeological
research
datasets
with
the
aim
of
making
them
more
accessible
to
researchers,
and
to
build
a
better
understanding
of
how
this
data
might
be
brought
together
to
create
new
insight
and
understanding
within
archaeology.
To
achieve
this
ARIADNE
needs
to
consider
the
data
access
and
sharing
policies
relevant
to
archaeological
research
datasets.
This
report
provides
an
introduction
to
ARIADNE,
and
the
methodology
used
to
collect
information
and
inform
its
findings.
Following
on
from
the
introduction
in
Section
2,
and
description
of
the
methodology
used
in
Section
3,
the
context
of
the
move
towards
open
access
for
research
publications
and
datasets
is
considered
in
Section
4,
within
which
the
2003
Berlin
Declaration
on
Open
Access
to
Knowledge
in
the
Sciences
and
Humanities
was
an
important
milestone.
Open
Access
publications
have
changed
the
subscription
model
providing
researchers,
students,
teachers
and
members
of
the
public
with
free
access
to
the
latest
research.
The
development
of
licences,
such
as
those
prepared
by
Creative
Commons
and
the
Open
Data
Commons,
is
helping
data
creators
share
their
results
in
a
way
that
makes
conditions
for
use
and
re-‐use
clear
to
the
public.
Technical
developments
are
both
facilitating
data
sharing
and
enabling
data
citation,
which
is
important
in
allowing
academic
recognition
for
these
new
forms
of
publication.
Section
5
is
a
situational
analysis
based
on
a
consultation
of
ARIADNE
partners
to
understand
thinking
amongst
the
archaeological
research
community
on
data
sharing.
Research
data
in
archaeology
is
defined,
and
the
circumstances
in
which
access
to
archaeological
data
needs
to
be
limited
are
explored.
These
include,
amongst
others,
the
sensitivity
of
some
sites
to
treasure
hunters,
national
legislation,
commercial
value,
active
research
projects
and
complications
over
the
management
of
rights
in
legacy
datasets.
The
licensing
of
data
for
re-‐use,
open
licensing
of
resource
discovery
metadata
and
ways
of
enhancing
data
awareness
and
the
culture
of
data
sharing
are
discussed.
Section
6
considers
the
results
of
a
survey
of
the
sharing
policies
in
place
for
the
datasets
ARIADNE
partners
plan
to
provide
for
integration
within
the
research
infrastructure.
The
survey
revealed
that
almost
90%
of
the
datasets
are
accessible
online,
with
50%
openly
available
to
public
users
without
registration.
Over
half
the
datasets
are
made
available
under
Creative
Commons,
or
other
forms
of
open
licences.
5

ARIADNE
D3.3
(Public)
Section
7
discusses
the
issues
identified
in
the
report.
Consultation
with
partners
revealed
that
access
and
sharing
policies
are
still
evolving.
The
aim
of
this
report
is
to
help
establish
best
practices
in
the
management
of
rights
and
data
access
amongst
partners
and
the
wider
community.
This
means
considering
the
whole
data
sharing
chain,
from
the
archaeological
researcher
depositing
their
data
with
an
archive,
to
its
integration
in
the
ARIADNE
infrastructure,
and
its
subsequent
availability
to
the
research
community.
The
licence
framework
discussion
covers
both
data
deposits
and
access
policies,
and
both
content
and
resource
description
(discovery)
metadata.
Our
survey
confirmed
that
Creative
Commons
licences
are
being
widely
adopted,
although
there
are
differences
in
the
conditions
specified.
The
potential
impact
of
the
main
licence
conditions
(Attribution,
Share
Alike,
No
Derivatives
and
Non-‐Commercial)
on
data
sharing
in
ARIADNE
are
considered.
Finally,
Section
8
recommends
that
ARIADNE
include
in
its
data
sharing
policy
framework:
• A
common
method
of
data
citation
for
adoption
by
partners,
as
the
means
of
ensuring
6
academic
recognition
is
important
in
motivating
researchers
to
share
their
datasets;
• Allocation
of
DOIs
(or
the
equivalent)
for
datasets
ingested
to
the
ARIADNE
infrastructure;
persistent
identification
underpins
data
sharing
and
data
citation;
• The
use
of
the
Creative
Commons
licence
suite
(version
4.0
is
preferred)
for
content
provided
to
ARIADNE;
CC
BY
is
recommended
for
open
access;
• A
collection
description
be
provided
with
each
collection
provided
to
ARIADNE
and
licensed
under
a
CC
BY
licence;
• Item
level
metadata
records
be
published
under
a
CC0
(public
domain)
licence
to
enable
integration
of
multiple
datasets,
to
support
resource
discovery
and
enable
linked
open
data.

ARIADNE
D3.3
(Public)
2 Introduction
The
amount
of
data
being
produced
by
archaeological
research
projects
has
increased
exponentially
over
the
last
ten
years.
Archaeologists
are
pushing
the
boundaries
of
available
computing
resources
in
the
course
of
their
work,
generating
significant
amounts
of
primary
research
data.
The
ARIADNE
network
developed
out
of
a
need
to
develop
infrastructures
for
the
management
and
integration
of
archaeological
data
at
a
European
level.
With
funding
from
the
European
Commission’s
Seventh
Framework
Infrastructures
programme,
ARIADNE
brings
together
existing
archaeological
research
datasets
and
infrastructures
with
the
aim
of
making
them
more
accessible
to
researchers,
and
to
build
a
better
understanding
of
how
this
data
might
be
brought
together
to
create
new
insight
and
understanding
within
archaeology.
There
is
now
a
large
availability
of
archaeological
digital
datasets
that,
together,
span
different
periods,
domains
and
regions,
and
more
are
continuously
created
as
a
result
of
the
increasing
use
of
IT.
These
are
the
accumulated
outcome
of
the
research
of
individuals,
teams
and
institutions.
Traditional
approaches
to
research
protect
the
intellectual
property
rights
of
individual
researchers.
Sometimes
this
protection
extends
beyond
a
reasonable
term,
for
example
in
the
case
of
excavations
unpublished
for
decades,
and
primary
data
still
under
study
by
the
archaeologist.
By
contrast,
sharing
data
was
perceived
as
interesting
and
useful
by
the
majority
of
respondents
to
a
survey
completed
by
the
ADS
in
2007
[1]:
which
included
comments
like
‘having
such
data
available
will
assist
any
longer-‐term
monitoring
projects
or
even
cast
new
light
on
a
previously
recorded
subject’.
ARIADNE
aims
to
bring
together
and
integrate
the
existing
archaeological
research
data
infrastructures,
so
that
researchers
can
use
the
various
distributed
datasets.
It
is
developing
tools
and
services
to
provide
access
and
common
interfaces
to
data
repositories,
and
will
support
the
integration
of
datasets
to
enable
access
by
the
community
of
archaeological
researchers.
To
achieve
this,
ARIADNE
needs
to
consider
the
data
access
and
sharing
policies
relevant
to
archaeological
research
datasets.
This
report
begins
by
considering
the
broad
context
of
the
move
towards
open
access
for
research
publications
and
data,
next
the
situation
in
relation
to
providing
access
to
archaeological
datasets
is
explored,
and
last,
but
by
no
means
least,
the
sharing
policies
in
place
for
the
datasets
that
ARIADNE
partners
plan
to
provide
for
integration
to
the
research
infrastructure
are
examined.
7

ARIADNE
D3.3
(Public)
The
principle
purpose
of
this
report
is
to
define
policies
for
data
access
via
the
ARIADNE
infrastructure
that
take
into
account
the
requirements
defined
by
the
owners
of
IPR
on
the
content
and
reflect
EU
strategic
policies
of
Open
Access
to
Research
Data
[2]
[3].
“The
best
research
infrastructures
support
researcher
collaboration
in
virtual
research
communities
where
knowledge
sharing
between
the
best
brains
is
combined
with
open
access
to
research
results
and
state-‐of-‐the-‐art
computing
systems
to
support
the
efficiency
and
creativity
of
research
in
Europe.”
Neelie
Kroes,
Vice
President
of
the
European
Commission
talking
about
research
infrastructures
and
the
potential
of
e-‐Science
in
today’s
society
in
an
interview1.
Kroes
went
on
to
say
“Open
research
data
could
help
combine
and
share
the
works
of
different
research
groups,
thereby
creating
new
collaborations
and
tackling
new
issues
for
solving
common
8
challenges.”
3 Methodology
A
key
element
to
the
approach
in
gathering
data
for
this
report
has
been
to
understand
the
requirements
of
the
ARIADNE
partners.
A
questionnaire
was
sent
to
all
ARIADNE
content
providing
partners
to
collect
information
about
the
datasets
they
plan
to
provide
for
integration
with
the
research
infrastructure.
The
results
of
the
survey
were
used
to
inform
both
this
deliverable
on
data
sharing
policies,
and
also
Deliverable
3.2,
which
describes
the
metadata
standards
and
thesauri
in
use
by
the
consortium
[4].
The
survey
revealed
the
heterogeneous
nature
of
the
datasets
being
made
available
for
integration,
as
several
partners
hold
data
collections
that
include
deposits
by
many
different
archaeologists
working
within
their
countries,
and
beyond.
It
also
provided
useful
information
about
the
strategies
in
place
for
managing
copyright
and
licensing
access
to
both
content
and
metadata
amongst
these
collections.
Following
the
initial
analysis
of
the
results
of
the
survey
of
datasets,
a
second
survey
was
carried
out
to
gather
partners’
opinions
on
questions
relating
to
providing
open
access
to
research
datasets.
This
survey
was
open
to
all
partners,
including
those
who
do
not
currently
plan
to
provide
datasets
to
the
infrastructure.
It
invited
partners
to
define
what
they
mean
by
research
data
and
to
discuss
when
openness
needs
to
be
limited
and
why,
how
the
issue
of
data
re-‐use
should
be
addressed
and
how
to
enhance
the
culture
of
data
sharing.
The
results
provide
valuable
information
about
the
context
of
archaeological
research.
1
E-‐Data
&
Research,
Newsletter
on
data
and
research
in
the
Social
Sciences
and
Humanities,
Special
Issue
2014

ARIADNE
D3.3
(Public)
The
third
strand
to
the
methodology
involved
desk
research
to
gather
information
about
the
context
of
data
sharing,
and
developments
in
policy
and
practice.
9

ARIADNE
D3.3
(Public)
4
Sharing
knowledge:
Open
Data
Technology
is
changing
the
way
research
is
carried
out,
and
the
way
that
its
results
are
published.
It
is
creating
new
possibilities
for
sharing
research
data,
and
this
brings
with
it
a
requirement
for
new
thinking
on
data
access
policies.
In
this
section
we
consider
what
open
data
means
within
the
context
of
ARIADNE.
The
2003
Berlin
Declaration
on
Open
Access
to
Knowledge
in
the
Sciences
and
Humanities
is
one
of
the
milestones
of
the
open
access
movement,
and
sets
out
steps
to
support
the
transition
to
open
access
publication
on
the
Internet
for
the
producers
of
scientific
knowledge.
OpenAIRE
(the
Open
Access
Infrastructure
for
Research
in
Europe)
defines
Open
Access
as
“the
immediate,
online,
10
free
availability
of
research
outputs
without
restrictions
on
use
commonly
imposed
by
publisher
copyright
agreements.
Open
Access
includes
the
outputs
that
scholars
normally
give
away
for
free
for
publication;
it
includes
peer-‐reviewed
journal
articles,
conference
papers
and
datasets
of
various
kinds”
[6].
OpenAIRE
suggests
that
the
benefits
include:
• improvements
in
access
as
the
basis
for
teaching,
research
and
valorization
for
civil
society;
• increased
visibility
and
higher
citation
rates
for
researchers;
• free
access
to
content
worldwide.
The
Open
Definition
[7)
sums
up
the
meaning
of
open
data
as
“a
piece
of
data
or
content
is
open
if
anyone
is
free
to
use,
reuse,
and
redistribute
it
—
subject
only,
at
most,
to
the
requirement
to
attribute
and/or
share-‐alike".
Openness
in
this,
and
other
definitions,
means
data
is
made
available
under
licence
conditions
that
permit
re-‐use
for
free
(or
at
no
more
than
reasonable
reproduction
costs)
and
preferably
via
the
Internet.
4.1 Open
Access
Publications
Open
Access
Publications
break
the
traditional
subscription
model
of
academic
publishing.
In
the
print
publication
world,
the
publisher
owned
the
rights
to
articles
in
their
journals
and
charged
readers
for
access.
In
the
Open
Access
world
of
digital
publication,
by
shifting
publishing
costs
to
the
author/funding
bodies
and
by
using
open
licences,
readers
are
able
to
obtain
content
at
no
cost.
The
benefits
of
this
approach
include:
• Researchers
can
read
the
findings
of
others
without
restriction
• Opening
up
public
access
to
the
results
of
publicly
funded
research

ARIADNE
D3.3
(Public)
11
• Students
and
teachers
have
access
to
the
latest
research
findings
from
across
the
world
It
is
worth
noting
that
the
Open
Access
publishing
model
covers
a
range
of
components
including
reader
rights,
re-‐use
rights,
copyright,
author
posting
rights,
automatic
posting
and
machine
readability.
Publishers
and
funding
bodies
have
differing
policies
on
these
components
that
affect
the
degree
of
openness
of
individual
articles
or
whole
journals
[8].
4.2 Open
licences
Open
licences
are
those
which
permit
re-‐use
of
data
for
free,
and
in
principle
this
definition
could
include
any
royalty-‐free
copyright
licence.
However
such
licences
might
not
conform
to
all
of
the
principles
set
out
in
the
Open
Definition,
which
identifies
a
series
of
conformant
licences2
set
out
in
the
table
below.
Licence Domain BY SA Comments
Creative
Commons
CCZero
(CC0)
Content,
Data
N N
Public
Domain
Dedication
-‐
all
rights
are
waived
including
attribution.
Fully
open,
anybody
can
do
anything
with
the
data.
Open
Data
Commons
Public
Domain
Dedication
and
Licence
(ODC
PDDL)
Data N N
Places
the
data
in
the
Public
Domain
–
all
rights
are
waived
Creative
Commons
Attribution
(CC-‐BY
1.0,
2.0,
2.5,
3.0,
4.0)
Content Y N
All
versions
of
CC-‐BY
allow
redistribution
and
reuse
of
a
work
on
condition
that
the
creator
is
appropriately
credited
(attribution).
CC-‐BY
credits
the
original
data
producer,
which
is
an
important
motivation
for
sharing
the
data.
Open
Data
Commons
Attribution
License
Data Y N
The
data(base)
is
made
available
on
condition
that
the
creator
is
credited
(attribution
for
data(bases)).
2
http://opendefinition.org/licenses/

ARIADNE
D3.3
(Public)
12
(ODC-‐BY)
Creative
Commons
Attribution
Share-‐
Alike
(CC-‐BY-‐SA
1.0,
2.0,
2.5,
3.0,
4.0)
Content Y Y
All
versions
of
CC-‐BY-‐SA
allow
re-‐distribution
and
re-‐use
of
a
licensed
work
on
condition
that
the
creator
is
appropriately
credited,
and
that
any
derivative
work
is
made
available
under
“the
same,
similar
or
a
compatible
license”.
Version
1.0
is
little
used
and
not
recommended
by
the
Open
Definition
because
it
is
incompatible
with
future
versions
Open
Data
Commons
Open
Database
License
(ODbL)
Data Y Y
The
data(base)
is
made
available
on
condition
that
the
creator
is
credited,
and
any
derivatives
are
made
available
under
“the
same,
similar
or
a
compatible
license”
(attribution
and
ShareAlike
for
data(bases)).
The
condition
“share-‐alike”
limits
re-‐
use
and
thus
the
content
is
less
open
and
should
be
avoided
for
Linked
Data.
Free
Art
License
(FAL)
Content Y Y
The
Free
Art
License
grants
the
right
to
freely
copy,
distribute,
and
transform
creative
works
without
infringing
on
the
author's
rights.
Follows
the
principles
of
copyleft:
freedom
to
use,
copy,
distribute,
transform,
and
prohibition
of
exclusive
appropriation.
UK
Open
Government
Licence
2.0
(OGL-‐UK-‐2.0)
Content,
Data
Y N
For
use
by
UK
government
licensors
this
licence
grants
a
worldwide,
royalty
free
licence
to
re-‐use
and
redistribute
a
work
on
condition
the
source
is
appropriately
credited.
Re-‐uses
of
OGL-‐UK-‐2.0
material
may
be
released
under
CC-‐BY
or
ODC-‐BY.
Version
1.0
is
not
conformant
with
the
Open
Definition.
Table
1:
Open
licences
which
conform
to
the
Open
Definition

ARIADNE
D3.3
(Public)
13
The
following
licences
conform
to
the
Open
Definition
but
are
little
used
or
deprecated
[4]:
Licence Domain By SA Comments
GNU
Free
Documentation
License
(GNU
FDL)
Content Y Y
A
copyleft
licence
–
derivative
works
must
be
made
available
under
the
same
or
a
similar
licence.
It
is
principally
intended
“for
works
whose
purpose
is
instruction
or
reference”
and
its
most
prominent
user
is
Wikipedia.
GNU
FDL
is
only
conformant
subject
to
the
Open
Definition
with
certain
provisos.
MirOS
Licence
Code,
Content
Y N Little
used
Talis
Community
Licence
Data Y
This
licence
is
only
available
in
draft
form
and
has
been
deprecated
in
favour
of
the
Open
Data
Commons
licences:
PDDL,
ODC-‐BY
and
ODC-‐ODbL
Against
DRM Content Y Y Against
DRM
2.0
is
a
free
copyleft
licence
for
artworks
–
but
is
little
used.
Design
Science
License
Data Y Y
Little
used.
Includes
an
interesting
definition
of
source
data3.
Table
2:
Open
licences
that
are
less
used
3
Design
Science
License
definition:
“Source
Data”
shall
mean
the
origin
of
the
Object
Form,
being
the
entire,
machine-‐readable,
preferred
form
of
the
Work
for
copying
and
for
human
modification
(usually
the
language,
encoding
or
format
in
which
composed
or
recorded
by
the
Author);
plus
any
accompanying
files,
scripts
or
other
data
necessary
for
installation,
configuration
or
compilation
of
the
Work.
(Examples
of
Source
Data‚
include,
but
are
not
limited
to,
the
following:
if
the
Work
is
an
image
file
composed
and
edited
in
PNG
format,
then
the
original
PNG
source
file
is
the
Source
Data;
if
the
Work
is
an
MPEG
1.0
layer
3
digital
audio
recording
made
from
a
WAV
format
audio
file
recording
of
an
analog
source,
then
the
original
WAV
file
is
the
Source
Data;
if
the
Work
was
composed
as
an
unformatted
plaintext
file,
then
that
file
is
the
Source
Data;
if
the
Work
was
composed
in
LaTeX,
the
LaTeX
file(s)
and
any
image
files
and/or
custom
macros
necessary
for
compilation
constitute
the
Source
Data.)
-‐
See
more
at:
http://opendefinition.org/licenses/dsl/#sthash.QDQg7ZBo.dpuf

ARIADNE
D3.3
(Public)
4.3 Linked
Open
Data
Tim
Berners-‐Lee
defines
Linked
Open
Data
as
Linked
Data
that
is
released
under
an
open
licence
[9].
Berners-‐Lee
defined
four
expectations
of
Linked
Data
(to
use
URIs
as
names
for
things,
to
use
HTTP
URIs
so
that
people
can
look
up
those
names,
provide
useful
information
when
someone
looks
up
a
URI,
and
include
links
to
other
URIs
so
that
people
can
discover
more
things)
and
then
proposed
a
star
scheme
to
rate
the
openness
of
Linked
Open
Data.
5StarData.info
provides
examples
for
each
step
on
the
star
scheme
and
discusses
the
costs
and
benefits
14
[10].
Star
Principle
Comments
★
Make
your
stuff
available
on
the
Web
(whatever
format)
under
an
open
licence.
The
content
is
accessible
on
the
Web
under
an
open
licence
published
in
a
document
such
as
a
PDF.
Other
than
by
writing
a
custom
scraper,
it's
hard
to
get
the
data
out
of
the
document.
★★
Make
it
available
as
structured
data
(e.g.,
Excel
instead
of
image
scan
of
a
table)
The
data
is
accessible
on
the
Web
in
a
structured
way
published
in
a
document
such
as
an
Excel
spreadsheet.
To
get
the
data
out
of
the
document
you
depend
on
proprietary
software.
★★★
As
above
plus
use
non-‐
proprietary
formats
(e.g.,
CSV
instead
of
Excel)
The
data
is
accessible
on
the
Web
in
a
structured
way
and
is
published
in
formats
that
mean
everyone
can
use
the
data
easily.
On
the
other
hand,
it's
still
data
on
the
Web
and
not
data
in
the
Web4.
★★★★
All
the
above,
use
open
standards
from
W3C
(RDF
and
SPARQL)
and
URIs
to
denote
things,
so
that
people
can
point
at
your
stuff
Now
data
is
in
the
Web.
The
data
items
have
a
URI
that
means
they
can
be
shared
on
the
Web.
A
native
way
to
represent
the
data
is
using
RDF,
however
other
formats
such
as
Atom
can
be
converted/mapped,
if
required.
★★★
★★
All
the
above
plus
link
your
data
to
other
data
to
provide
context
Now
the
data
is
published
in
the
Web
and
is
linked
to
other
data,
which
means
that
both
the
consumer
and
the
publisher
can
benefit
from
the
network
effect.
Table
3:
5
Star
classification
scheme
for
Linked
Open
Data
4
http://webofdata.wordpress.com/2010/03/01/data-‐and-‐the-‐web-‐choices/

ARIADNE
D3.3
(Public)
At
the
International
Linked
Open
Data
in
Libraries
Archives
and
Museums
summit,
the
various
open
licences
were
considered
in
the
context
of
publishing
content
metadata
as
Linked
Open
Data.
The
summit
came
up
with
a
four-‐star
classification
scheme
that
arranges
the
open
licences
in
order
of
their
openness
and
usefulness
in
this
context
[11].
15
Star
Licences
Comment
★
Attribution
Share-‐Alike
Licence
(CC-‐BY-‐SA/ODC-‐ODbL)
The
data
is
open
but
the
Share-‐Alike
licence
limits
the
potential
to
combine
datasets
–
as
each
must
conform
to
the
exactly
the
same
Share-‐Alike
licence.
In
Europe-‐wide
research
networks
the
Share-‐Alike
licence
reduces
the
re-‐use
potential
of
a
dataset
(as
there
are
several
versions
of
the
CC
and
ODC
share-‐alike
licences).
★★
Attribution
Licence
(CC-‐BY
/
ODC-‐BY)
with
a
form
of
attribution
not
including
linkbacks
The
metadata
is
open
and
can
be
used
provided
the
source
is
attributed.
The
data
provider
specifies
the
means
of
attribution,
e.g.
by
specifying
use
of
a
‘creator/source’
element
in
the
metadata
or
a
citation
method
(e.g.
a
scholarly
citation).
The
disadvantage
of
this
method
for
LOD
is
that
users
must
discover
the
required
mechanism
for
attribution
and
how
to
comply
with
it.
Where
different
methods
are
applied
for
different
datasets
large-‐scale
open
data
integration
(e.g.
mash-‐ups)
become
very
difficult.
★★★
Attribution
Licence
(CC-‐BY
/
ODC-‐BY)
when
the
licensor
includes
linkbacks
to
meet
the
attribution
requirement.
The
metadata
is
open
and
can
be
used
provided
the
source
is
attributed.
The
user
of
the
data
fulfills
the
condition
for
attribution
by
including
a
web-‐link
back
to
the
source
(see
for
example
the
method
proposed
for
5*
Linked
Open
Data
in
table
3
above).
★★★★
Public
Domain
(CC0
/
ODC
PDDL
/
Public
Domain
Mark)
Metadata
is
fully
open.
It
requires
the
least
action
by
users
to
re-‐use
the
data,
to
link
it
or
integrate
the
data
with
other
data.
It
supports
the
creation
of
new
services
and
encourages
innovation.
It
maximizes
public
investment.

ARIADNE
D3.3
(Public)
4.4 Attribution
of
research
data
Satisfying
the
requirement
of
a
CC-‐BY
or
ODC-‐BY
licence
for
attribution
of
research
datasets
requires
a
system
for
data
citation.
This
can
help:
16
• the
reuse
and
verification
of
data
• the
impact
of
data
to
be
tracked
• to
recognise
and
reward
data
producers
The
Archaeology
Data
Service
(ADS),
in
line
with
recommendations
from
the
Digital
Curation
Centre,
has
proposed
that
such
a
system
must
be
able
to
uniquely
identify
the
dataset,
provide
the
reader
with
information
needed
to
access
the
dataset,
a
means
of
access
online,
and
be
usable
by
both
humans
and
software
tools
[12]
[13].
The
elements
recommended
by
DCC
and
ADS
for
a
data
citation
include:
• Author,
Publication
Year,
Title,
Edition,
Version,
Feature
name
and
URI,
Resource
Type,
Publisher,
Unique
numeric
footprint
(UNF),
Identifier
and
location
DataCite
is
a
not-‐for-‐profit
organisation
formed
with
the
aim
of
promoting
the
citation
of
research
data
to
increase
its
acceptance
as
a
legitimate
contribution
to
the
scholarly
record
and
supporting
data
archiving
[14].
DataCite
has
proposed
a
similar
(but
simplified)
set
of
elements
for
a
data
citation:
• Creator,
Publication
Year,
Title,
Version,
Resource
Type,
Publisher,
Identifier
There
are
various
systems
for
establishing
persistent
identifiers
(e.g
Handles,
Archival
Resource
Keys
(ARKs)
and
Persistent
URLs
(PURLs))
that
can
all
be
resolved
to
an
Internet
location.
The
Digital
Object
Identifier
(DOI)
scheme
is
recommended
by
both
ADS
and
DataCite
for
use
with
research
datasets
[15].

ARIADNE
D3.3
(Public)
5 Situational
analysis
The
European
Commission
held
a
public
consultation
on
open
research
data
in
July
2013.
Five
questions
were
posed
to
stakeholders
to
structure
the
debate,
and
the
results
of
the
consultation
were
subsequently
published
online
[3].
Five
similar
questions
were
posed
to
partners
in
the
ARIADNE
consortium
to
gather
their
opinions
and
to
understand
the
thinking
of
the
archaeological
research
community
on
data
sharing.
5.1 How
do
we
define
research
data
in
archaeology?
Research
data
can
be
defined
as
any
data
captured
by
research
activities
or
used
for
research.
Data
of
interest
for
archaeological
research5
includes
data
sets
produced
by
archaeological
researchers,
research
institutions,
heritage
agencies
and
as
a
result
of
contract
archaeology.
A
survey
of
partners
noted
that
archaeological
researchers
also
use
data
captured
for
other
purposes
including
airborne
and
satellite
remote
sensing
data
(captured
for
commercial
mapmaking
and
other
reasons),
and
digital
3D
models
produced
for
museum
exhibitions
or
tourism.
There
are
various
aspects
to
take
into
account
in
the
definition
of
research
data,
including
the
conditions
of
data
acquisition,
how
the
data
are
used,
and
the
questions
posed
the
data
has
to
answer.
In
the
context
of
archaeology,
data
may
relate
to
remains
of
human
activity
that
have
been
destroyed
since
the
data
were
captured.
Research
data
must
be
identified
and
described
to
capture
these
aspects.
As
a
research
infrastructure,
ARIADNE’s
focus
is
on
the
datasets
deposited
in
repositories.
This
17
5
“Research
data
in
archaeology
are
the
outcome
of
particular
procedures
of
definition,
data
constitution,
observation,
capture
and
representation,
as
well
as
perceptual
and
cognitive
processes
of
recognition,
identification
and
categorization.
They
include
all
information
objects
that
capture
aspects
of
the
domain
of
archaeology
(the
material
traces
of
human
activity)
and
that
are,
or
may
be,
used
to
construct
archaeological
knowledge.
They
include
analogue
representations
of
archaeological
sites,
artefacts,
ecofacts
and
traces
of
past
human
activity
(such
as
photographs,
drawings,
descriptions
and
documentation)
as
well
as
data
records.
There
are
‘objective’
data
such
as
measurements,
geo-‐location
and
identification
of
material,
and
more
‘subjective’
data
such
as
identifications
of
type,
cultural
provenance,
dating
and
attribution.
Archaeological
data
such
as
the
above
are
produced
as
part
of
active
research
projects,
i.e.
there
are
active
research
groups
that
are
working
towards
studying
and
publishing
the
results
of
their
research,
in
which
description
of
data
is
an
important
activity.
However
there
are
cases
where
data
are
the
outcome
of
archaeological
projects
that
happened
many
decades
ago
and
still
remain
unpublished”.

ARIADNE
D3.3
(Public)
18
may
include:
• Data
produced
by
research
activity
in
interim
and
final
formats,
which
are
being
made
available
for
reuse;
this
includes:
o
data
produced
as
the
result
of
particular
procedures
(e.g.
measurement
data,
etc.)
o data
produced
as
a
result
of
perceptual
and
cognitive
processes
(e.g.
identification
of
types
or
categorization,
etc.)
o information
objects
that
capture
traces
of
human
activity
(e.g.
photographs,
drawings,
etc.)
o raw
and
processed
data
• Metadata
provided
by
researchers
to
describe
their
datasets.
In
practice,
this
metadata
tends
to
include
“content”
(information
about
the
cultural
object
represented
by
a
digital
resource
e.g.
the
date,
the
style/period,
the
historical
geography,
find
spot)
and
“context”
(information
about
the
research
questions
and
general
conditions
of
data
acquisition).
Metadata
may
be
incorporated
into
data
files
(e.g.
a
ground
penetrating
radar
scan
data
includes
data
capture
parameters).
For
these
reasons
most
partners
include
metadata
in
their
definition
of
research
data;
• metadata
provided
to
describe
collections
and
their
content;
• preliminary
datasets
produced
as
a
result
of
research
activity
(e.g.
drafts)
deposited
for
archiving
sometimes
under
restrictive
conditions
that
prohibit
re-‐use;
• working
archives
of
individual
archaeologists
(e.g.
field
diaries
or
personal
notes)
deposited
for
archiving,
sometimes
under
restrictive
conditions
that
prohibit
re-‐use.
• project
management
data
(e.g.
email
archives,
management
documents)
deposited
for
archiving,
sometimes
under
restrictive
conditions
that
prohibit
re-‐use.
ARIADNE
is
a
Europe-‐wide
initiative,
and
it
is
important
to
bear
in
mind
that
the
definition
of
archaeological
data,
and
what
constitutes
research
activity,
differs
between
countries.
5.2 How
and
when
does
openness
need
to
be
limited?
5.2.1 Active
research
projects
During
current
research
projects,
whilst
teams
of
researchers
are
actively
engaged
in
collecting,
recording
and
analysing
information,
openness
needs
to
be
limited
to
allow
time
for
publication
before
the
data
is
made
available
to
everyone
else.

ARIADNE
D3.3
(Public)
In
general,
the
right
and
obligation
of
publication
of
archaeological
excavations
lies
with
the
excavator.
Some
countries
(such
as
Greece)
have
acted
to
address
delays
in
publication
by
setting
a
maximum
number
of
years
by
which
the
work
should
be
published
by
the
excavator
-‐
after
this
time
the
works
can
go
to
the
public
domain
for
study
and
publication.
In
many
countries
across
Europe,
museums
and
custodial
institutions
have
19
sui
generis
rights
of
reproduction
and
publication
over
cultural
heritage
objects
in
their
collections.
In
some
cases
this
right
is
limited
to
a
period
of
years
after
the
object
comes
to
light
for
the
first
time.
Although
full
access
to
‘active
research’
data
is
generally
restricted,
a
level
of
information
access
may
be
provided
to
allow
other
researchers
to
know
who
is
working
on
a
particular
site,
excavation,
assemblage
or
archaeological
research
problem.
Collection
level
descriptions
may
be
available
to
provide
information
about
the
kind
of
content
included
in
a
data
archive,
while
access
to
the
full
content
is
restricted.
When
depositing
data
in
a
Data
Archive
(such
as
the
Swedish
National
Data
Service,
KNAW-‐
DANS
in
the
Netherlands
or
the
Archaeology
Data
Service
in
the
UK)
researchers
decide
on
what
access
level
the
data
shall
have.
This
can
include
restrictions
on
access,
whilst
projects
are
still
active.
Researchers
may
limit
access
for
a
period
of
time
and
then
make
the
data
available
for
use
by
students
and
researchers
from
academic
institutions,
etc.
In
some
cases,
researchers
may
restrict
access
to
certain
data
such
as
personal
information,
or
request
it
be
removed
or
merged,
and
in
that
way
remove
any
restrictions
over
the
rest
of
their
dataset
(see
4.2.7
below).
A
contract
between
the
depositor
(researcher/research
team)
and
the
archive/repository
regulates
the
openness
for
data
deposits.
In
most
cases,
data
is
deposited
with
its
provenance
(i.e.
the
field
project,
excavator
or
research
team
are
identified)
and
licensed
for
use
with
the
proviso
that
the
researchers
who
produced
the
dataset
are
attributed.
5.2.2 Past
research
projects
In
principle
it
should
be
possible
to
make
data
created
by
older
archaeological
research
projects
available
for
research,
education
and
enjoyment.
In
practice,
access
may
be
limited
owing
to
the
fact
that
in
the
past
many
creators
reserved
their
rights
by
using
“all
rights
reserved”
as
the
default
copyright
statement.
In
more
recent
times,
creators/providers
of
content
have
begun
to
take
steps
to
express
which
uses
of
the
content
are
permitted
by
using
copyright
licences,
such
as
the
ones
developed
by
Creative
Commons
and
the
Open
Knowledge
Foundation
[16]
[17]
(see
also
Appendix
1).
However,
the
use
of
“all
rights
reserved”
as
the
expression
of
copyright
means
the
creators
of
many
datasets
from
past
research
projects
need
to
be
contacted
to
obtain
permission
to
use
the
data.
This
limits
access.

ARIADNE
D3.3
(Public)
20
5.2.3 Database
rights
There
is
a
specific
European
Union
law
on
database
rights
(Directive
No.
96/9/EC,
11
March
1996),
which
is
implemented
in
the
national
law
of
Member
States.
This
law
was
introduced
to
recognize
the
substantial
investment
made
in
compiling
databases,
and
to
prevent
unauthorized
copying
or
re-‐use
of
their
content.
Database
rights
are
established
automatically
and
cover
both
substantial
extraction
and
copying
of
the
database,
and
also
piecemeal
copying
of
data
and
subsequent
reassembly.
In
principle,
non-‐substantial
or
“fair
use”
is
possible,
but
any
substantial
copying
of
relevant
data
requires
obtaining
permission
and
agreeing
terms
of
use
with
the
database
owner.
In
addition
to
the
database
rights,
the
arrangement,
selection
and
presentation
of
the
data
may
also
be
protected
by
copyright
[18]
[19]
[20].
5.2.4 Archaeological
site
location
data
Certain
types
of
archaeological
sites
(such
as
shipwrecks
and
places
where
there
have
been
finds
of
gold,
silver
and
other
valuable
objects)
are
vulnerable
to
treasure
hunters.
Cemeteries
and
sites
that
contain
human
remains
are
sensitive
for
various
reasons,
for
example
there
may
be
living
relatives
of
people
buried
in
long
dis-‐used
churchyards
that
are
the
subject
of
a
modern
excavation.
Archaeological
sites
and
finds
on
military
installations
may
also
be
sensitive.
Legislation
varies
between
EU
member
states
with
some
countries
limiting
access
to
information
about
the
locations
of
such
sites
for
protection
reasons.
5.2.5 Commercial
value
Some
research
institutions
aim
to
exploit
research
results
for
commercial
purposes.
In
such
institutions,
employees’
contracts
may
include
clauses
stating
that
research
results
(e.g.
data)
are
the
property
of
the
institution.
Some
publicly
funded
research
institutions
and
individual
projects
may
also
operate
on
the
basis
that
research
results
(e.g.
data)
are
to
be
made
available
not
only
for
further
research
but
also
for
commercial
exploitation.
For
example,
the
European
Commission
Communication:
‘Towards
better
access
to
scientific
information:
Boosting
the
benefits
of
public
investments
in

ARIADNE
D3.3
(Public)
research’6
states
the
importance
of
making
research
results
available
rapidly
to
benefit
European
business
and
industry.
The
Digital
Michelangelo
Project
(1997-‐20047)
was
pioneering
both
in
3D
digitization
of
masterpieces
of
the
Italian
Renaissance,
and
in
the
work
done
by
Stanford
University
and
the
Italian
Ministry
of
Cultural
Heritage
(MIBAC),
to
define
the
IPR
over
the
data
produced,
and
the
rights
for
dissemination
and
commercial
exploitation.
The
3D
models
produced
by
the
project
are
available
for
re-‐use
under
licence
by
researchers
and
scholars
on
application
to
Stanford
University.
Permission
for
commercial
use
of
the
models
can
be
obtained
by
applying
to
the
Italian
government.
21
5.2.6 Privacy
and
data
protection
Privacy
and
the
protection
of
personal
data
is
an
important
issue.
There
are
cases
where
archaeological
research
datasets
include
information
that
directly
or
indirectly
points
towards
a
specific
individual;
access
to
which
needs
to
be
restricted
under
data
protection
legislation.
5.2.1 National
legislation
EU
member
states
have
differing
national
legislation
regarding
cultural
property.
In
some
countries
there
is
legislation
that
makes
all
material
cultural
heritage
of
a
certain
age
the
property
of
the
state.
For
example,
in
Greece
everything
dating
to
before
1830
and
listed
monuments
(or
artefacts)
of
all
dates
are
the
property
of
the
state.
Italian
law
(law
n.42
of
22/01/2004)
states:
Art.
107
“The
Ministry
[of
Culture],
the
regions
and
the
other
public
bodies
may
allow
the
reproduction
of
cultural
heritage
they
have
in
custody...
[at
a
fee]”
Art.
108
“The
reproduction
fee
is
fixed
by
the
authority
that
is
the
custodian
of
the
object
[...]”.
No
fee
is
due
for
reproductions
made
for
personal
use,
study
reasons
or
valorization
(by
a
public
body)
whether
by
private
individuals
or
organizations
(including
commercial
companies).
Under
this
legislation,
taking
photos
of
cultural
heritage
objects
(including
museum
collections)
should
be
allowed
on
request
for
the
specified
uses.
Any
works
that
are
produced
should
be
licenced
under
a
CC-‐BY-‐NC-‐SA
framework,
permitting
future
re-‐use
under
like
conditions
and
limiting
commercial
re-‐use.
French
legislation
distinguishes
the
dissemination
of
public
data,
data
produced
through
a
6http://ec.europa.eu/research/science-‐society/document_library/pdf_06/era-‐communication-‐towards-‐better-‐
access-‐to-‐scientific-‐information_en.pdf
7
https://graphics.stanford.edu/projects/mich/

ARIADNE
D3.3
(Public)
public
service
mission,
from
other
data.
Public
data
are
freely
re-‐usable
in
accordance
with
the
intellectual
property
(law
17/07/1978).
Under
the
policy
of
public
data's
openness
on
line,
the
state
has
created
an
open
and
free
licence,
the
open
licence
Etalab8.
It
is
compatible
with
any
other
open
licence
requiring
the
minimum
to
mention
paternity.
Public
officials
assign
their
rights
of
reproduction
and
representation
to
their
administration,
cannot
object
to
the
disclosure
and
modification
of
their
work
under
their
public
service
missions,
and
maintain
restricted
moral
rights.
This
is
the
case
of
Inrap
archaeologists.
Researchers
and
university’s
teachers
are
an
exception
to
this
rule:
although
public
officials
they
maintain
all
their
rights.
It
is
worth
noting
there
are
circumstances
under
which
legislation
may
require
researchers
to
release
data,
for
example
requests
under
22
Freedom
of
Information
legislation
and
Environmental
Information
Regulations.
The
EU
Directive
on
the
re-‐use
of
public
sector
information
(PSI
directive
20039
10)
has
recently
been
amended
to
bring
public
sector
libraries
(including
university
libraries),
museums
and
archives
within
its
scope.
The
Directive
looks
at
the
re-‐use
of
material
already
public
saying
it
should
be
available
for
both
commercial
and
non-‐commercial
uses.
Charges
may
apply
but
the
Directive
states
these
should
be
limited
to
the
“marginal
costs
of
reproduction,
provision
and
dissemination”
with
exceptions
to
this
rule
and
on
how
the
costs
should
be
calculated.
For
archaeological
documents
held
by
libraries,
museums
and
archives,
these
should
first
be
available
for
re-‐use.
The
directive
allows
for
exclusive
agreements
in
the
case
of
digitization
projects
by
cultural
institutions,
which
can
limit
re-‐use
for
a
period
of
years
after
the
project
has
been
completed
[21].
8
http://www.etalab.gouv.fr/
9Directive
2013/37/EU
of
the
European
Parliament
and
of
the
Council
of
26
June
2013
amending
Directive
2003/98/EC
on
the
re-‐use
of
public
sector
information.
Official
Journal
of
the
European
Union,
L
175/1,
27.6.2013
http://eur-‐lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2013:175:0001:0008:EN:PDF.
10Directive
2003/98/EC
of
the
European
Parliament
and
of
the
Council
of
17
November
2003
on
the
re-‐use
of
public
sector
information.
Official
Journal
of
the
European
Union,
L
345/90,
31.12.2003,
http://eur-‐
lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2003:345:0090:0096:EN:PDF.

ARIADNE
D3.3
(Public)
23
5.3 How
should
the
issue
of
data
re-‐use
be
addressed?
5.3.1 Licensing
While
institutions
and
individuals
are
subject
to
the
legislative
and
ethical
reasons
for
limited
access
to
data
described
above
(section
4.2),
there
is
a
trend
towards
the
planned
release
of
research
data
under
licence
[22].
Some
research
funders
and
journals
now
require
that
data
is
deposited
in
repositories
where
it
can
be
made
available
for
other
researchers
to
build
on.
Releasing
data
is
beginning
to
be
seen
as
being
in
researcher’s
interests:
• Preparing
data
for
release
helps
ensure
that
a
clear
record
of
how
conclusions
were
reached
is
preserved
• A
culture
of
openness
enables
interdisciplinary
research
and
learning
from
mistakes
as
well
as
successes,
and
• Has
the
potential
to
increase
the
impact
of
research
academically,
economically
and
socially.
Releasing
data
under
licence
protects
copyright
whilst
clarifying
the
permitted
uses.
It
is
important
to
note
that
only
the
rights
holder
(or
someone
with
permission
to
act
on
their
behalf)
can
grant
a
licence;
this
means
the
intellectual
property
rights
(IPR)
need
to
be
established
before
any
licensing
can
take
place.
Some
data
centres
have
prepared
licences
that
depositors
are
asked
to
sign
as
a
condition
of
deposit,
for
example
both
the
ADS
and
KNAW-‐DANS
deposit
licences
[23]
[24].
Deposit
licences
set
out
the
conditions
under
which
the
data
centres
provide
access
to
the
data
for
end-‐users.
Content
licences,
which
may
be
either
bespoke
licences
prepared
for
data
centres
or
standard
licences,
are
attached
to
content
items
to
make
the
terms
and
conditions
of
access
and
use
clear
to
end-‐users.
The
Creative
Commons
(CC)
licensing
system
is
widely
used
because
it
offers
a
series
of
easy
to
use,
standardised
and
automated
licences
that
can
be
attached
to
content.
There
are
four
core
stipulations
(Attribution
(By),
Non-‐Commercial
(NC),
No-‐Derivatives
(ND)
and
Share
Alike
(SA))
that
can
be
included
or
excluded
to
produce
seven
basic
licences:
• The
three
open
licences
described
in
section
3
above:
CC0,
CC-‐BY
and
CC-‐BY-‐SA.
• Four
more
restrictive
licences:
o CC-‐BY-‐ND
–
Attribution
No
Derivatives
-‐
allows
for
redistribution,
commercial
and
non-‐commercial,
as
long
as
the
content
is
not
changed
and
the
creator
is
credited.

ARIADNE
D3.3
(Public)
24
o CC-‐BY-‐NC
–
Attribution
Non
Commercial
-‐
allows
others
to
remix,
tweak,
and
build
upon
content,
as
long
as
the
creator
of
the
original
content
is
credited
and
the
new
content
is
not
commercial.
o CC-‐BY-‐NC-‐SA
–
Attribution
Non
Commercial
Share
Alike
-‐
allows
others
to
remix,
tweak,
and
build
upon
content
non-‐commercially,
as
long
as
the
creator
of
the
original
content
is
credited
and
the
new
content
is
licenced
under
the
identical
terms.
o CC-‐BY-‐NC-‐
ND
–
Attribution
Non
Commercial
No
Derivatives
-‐
This
licence
is
the
most
restrictive
of
the
CC
licences.
It
allows
others
to
download
content
and
share
it
with
others
as
long
as
the
content
is
unchanged,
the
creator
of
the
content
is
credited
you
and
there
is
no
commercial
use.
Taking
into
account
the
various
conditions
of
each
licence,
the
licensor
grants
the
user
a
worldwide,
non-‐exclusive,
perpetual
(for
the
duration
of
the
applicable
right)
licence
to
reproduce,
display,
perform,
communicate
and
distribute
copies
of
the
work.
The
rights
apply
to
all
media
and
formats
known
now
or
subsequently
developed
(including
any
modifications
technically
necessary
to
exercise
the
rights
in
other
media
formats)
[18].
In
principle,
all
rights
not
expressly
granted
by
the
licensor
are
reserved.
The
release
of
Version
4.0
of
Creative
Common’s
core
licence
suite
on
25
November
2013
provides
both
a
more
global
licence
framework
(with
official
translations
and
licences
that
are
ready
to
use
without
porting)
and
one
that
addresses
applicable
sui
generis
database
rights
explicitly.
The
new
version
also
includes
a
slight
change
to
reflect
accepted
practices
permitting
licensees
to
satisfy
attribution
requirements,
where
specified,
with
a
link
to
a
page
for
information
[25].
5.3.2 Data
citation
One
of
the
problems
with
promoting
access
and
re-‐use
of
data,
is
that
until
recently
researchers
have
not
been
credited
for
publishing
datasets
in
the
same
way
as
when
they
publish
a
research
paper.
There
has
been
a
move
to
data
citation
with
mechanisms
being
put
in
place
to
allow
authors
to
link
journal
publications
to
the
underlying
datasets
[22].
Dataset
citations
should:
• uniquely
identify
the
object
cited,
• be
able
to
identify
subsets
of
the
data
as
well
as
the
whole
dataset,
• provide
the
reader
with
enough
information
to
access
the
dataset,
• be
readable
by
humans
and
also
by
software
tools,
so
that
services
can
be
put
in
place
to
use
the
citations
in
metrics
to
support
the
academic
reward
system

ARIADNE
D3.3
(Public)
The
elements
of
a
dataset
citation
are
still
under
debate
(see
section
3.4
above)
but
should
include
details
of
the
creator
of
the
dataset
(the
author),
the
date
of
publication,
title,
resource
type,
publisher,
identifier
and
its
location.
5.3.3 Should
ARIADNE
adopt
Creative
Commons
licences
for
resource
discovery
25
metadata?
We
asked
partners
if
ARIADNE
decided
to
adopt
CC
licences
for
resource
discovery
metadata,
would
this
would
pose
any
issues
for
their
organization?
INRAP
–
“We
don’t
use
Creative
commons
License
for
the
moment
but
it
would
not
pose
any
issues
for
us,
provided
there
is
no
commercial
use
(CC-‐NC).
As
a
public
institution
of
research,
this
is
one
of
the
most
important
criteria”.
SND
–
“has
not
adopted
the
use
of
CC,
but
we
are
looking
into
it
and
will
give
researchers
the
possibility
to
put
a
CC
license
on
their
material
(data).
There
are
no
problems
for
SND
if
ARIADNE
adopts
a
CC
license
on
the
metadata
since
most
of
the
metadata
at
SND
is
created
at/by
SND.
However
some
of
the
abstracts
and
similar
“running
text”
are
taken
from
(and
referred
to)
reports
and
similar”.
AIAC
–
“We
have
already
adopted
a
Creative
Commons
Sharealike
((CC
BY-‐SA)
license
for
the
Fasti
Online,
and
a
Non-‐Commercial
Sharealike
licence
(CC
BY-‐NC-‐SA))
for
the
review
FOLD&R.”
Other
respondents
gave
their
personal
opinions,
with
one
individual
replying,
“I
think
that
all
data
produced
with
public
money
should
be
public.
They
were
paid
with
my
taxes
and
I
want
to
own
them.
CC
licensing
is
a
good
way
to
protect
them
for
the
community…That
said,
there
is
still
some
way
to
go
before
laws,
regulations
and
habits
are
changed”…“I
would
also
expect
that
data
opening
becomes
a
condition
for
any
public
research
grant,
for
the
same
principle
stated
above,
and
since
archaeological
research
requires
an
excavation
permit,
this
also
could
be
a
way
to
enforce
an
open,
although
IPR
respectful,
licensing
scheme,
for
example
CC-‐BY-‐NC-‐SA
...”
Another
respondent
said
“For
research
data
for
which
rights
belong
to
the
archaeological
archives/organizations
in
ARIADNE,
it
would
be
great
if
resource
discovery
metadata
became
available
according
to
a
Creative
Commons
License,
under
the
constraints/qualifications
noted
above.
An
attribution-‐derivatives-‐non-‐commercial
license
would
sit
well
with
me,
and
I
imagine
would
resonate
well
with
primary
creators/custodians
of
such
data.”

ARIADNE
D3.3
(Public)
A
third
respondent
commented,
“I
think
that
resource
discovery
metadata
does
not
pose
much
of
a
problem
however
open
the
license
is.
Metadata
however
might
include
rich
descriptive
information
created
with
much
effort
by
researchers,
archivists,
curators
or
librarians.
In
such
cases
Public
Domain
(CC0
/
ODC
PDDL
/
Public
Domain
Mark)
might
not
seem
appropriate
for
some
providers
(CC-‐BY
/
ODC-‐BY
probably)”.
This
comment
prompted
another
to
remark
“are
we
sure
that
we
want
CC-‐BY
instead
of
CC0
for
metadata?
I
mean,
metadata
are
used
for
'processing',
making
queries
etc.
That
means
that
when
you
produce
any
kind
of
result
based
on
such
metadata
you
should
be
legally
obliged
to
cite
all
the
authors
of
the
metadata
involved
in
the
queries...Personally
I
would
prefer
the
CC0
approach
of
Europeana”
(See
[26]
for
more
information
on
the
Europeana
approach).
5.4 How
should
we
enhance
data
awareness
and
the
culture
of
sharing?
“Data
awareness”
can
be
taken
to
mean
awareness
amongst
researchers
that
it
is
important
to
share
data
in
an
open
and
trustworthy
manner.
The
“culture
of
sharing”
has
varied
according
to
the
type
of
research
and
the
data
produced.
There
are
quite
well
established
practices
for
sharing
excavation
results
(and
data
sets),
but
sharing
of
other
types
of
data
is
less
well
established.
The
Swedish
National
Data
Service
reports
that
it
has
noticed
a
change
in
data
awareness
with
an
increase
in
numbers
of
researchers
requesting
access
data.
It
suggests
there
are
several
reasons
for
this:
26
research
funders
like
the
Swedish
Research
Council
are
recommending
the
deposition
and
sharing
of
data
financed
by
them;
impact
from
other
countries
and
from
other
researchers;
and
also
the
increased
awareness
of
organizations
like
SND.
INRAP
suggested
promoting
data
sharing
on
a
large
scale,
crossing
national
boundaries,
in
a
way
that
encourages
synthesis
work
would
help
to
raise
awareness.
Outreach
by
data
centres
such
as
ADS,
SND
and
KNAW-‐DANS
delivering
seminars,
workshops,
training
and
road-‐shows
where
they
talk
about
the
benefits
of
sharing
data
raises
awareness
and
encourages
researchers
to
get
in
contact
about
deposition
of
data.
Incentives
to
encourage
researchers
to
share
their
datasets
include:
• Establishing
and
promoting
the
practice
of
data
citation
(as
a
means
of
giving
academic
credit
to
the
data
creator).
• The
use
of
persistent
identifiers
(PIDs)
as
a
means
of
linking
datasets
from
different
sources
and
making
new
inquiries
into
them
–
and
enabling
new
research.

ARIADNE
D3.3
(Public)
• Offering
tools
to
make
it
easier
to
share,
such
as
simple
metadata
applications
or
to
enable
institutionally
held
data
to
be
uploaded
easily
to
a
central
website
for
archiving.
27
Providing
open
access
to
resource
description/discovery
metadata
as
a
means
for
researchers
to
discover
the
existence
of
datasets
in
repositories
and
portals
is
technical
mechanism
for
raising
awareness
of
the
data
itself.

ARIADNE
D3.3
(Public)
6
Survey
of
ARIADNE
datasets
A
survey
was
carried
out
of
the
datasets,
which
ARIADNE
partners
plan
to
provide
for
ingestion
to
the
ARIADNE
infrastructure.
The
content
and
metadata
being
made
available
were
analysed
and
the
results
reported
in
the
initial
report
on
the
project
registry
[27].
The
survey
also
included
questions
about
the
rights
and
access
policies
in
place
for
the
28
collections
being
offered
for
ingestion,
the
findings
of
which
are
analysed
in
this
section.
Detailed
responses
are
presented
in
Appendix
1
below.
6.1 Rights
holders
The
datasets
survey
revealed
that
of
the
28
collections
proposed
for
ingestion
to
the
ARIADNE
infrastructure,
61%
include
content
from
many
different
research
teams
and
have
multiple
rights
owners.
The
collections
with
multiple
rights
include
the
holdings
of
data
archives
such
as
the
ADS,
DAI,
DANS,
Discovery
Programme,
MiBAC,
MNM-‐NOK
etc.
39%
of
the
collections
had
single
rights
holders
including
AIAC’s
FOLD&R
Journal,
INRAP’s
collections
and
the
collections
of
the
Austrian
Academy
of
Sciences.
28
Figure
1:
Rights
holders
in
ARIADNE
datasets

ARIADNE
D3.3
(Public)
6.2 Content
copyright
It
is
perhaps
not
surprising
that
the
survey
of
ARIADNE
partners’
datasets
revealed
there
is
copyright
in
83%
of
the
collections
identified
for
ingestion.
Only
8%
of
collections
were
described
as
“open”
with
one
further
collection
(3%
of
the
total)
being
made
available
under
copyleft
principles.
One
partner,
KNAW-‐DANS
reported
that
in
principle
it
is
possible
for
researchers
to
deposit
collections
with
additional
restrictions
on
access
or
temporary
embargos
(while
research
is
completed)
and
these
conditions
show
as
affecting
6%
of
collections
in
figure
2
below.
29
Figure
2:
Rights
in
ARIADNE
datasets
Several
partners
whose
collections
include
data
deposited
by
many
different
researchers
reported
that
copyright,
licensing
and
conditions
for
use
are
agreed
with
individual
content
owners
at
the
time
of
deposit.
6.3 Content
Access
The
access
that
is
currently
available
to
the
collections
identified
in
the
survey
varies.
A
majority
of
the
collections
are
available
online,
with
only
3%
being
offline,
and
only
5%
currently
reported
as
being
closed
to
users
(see
Figure
3
below).
50%
of
all
the
collections
are
freely
available
online
with
a
further
39%
available
online
to
registered
users.
One
collection
(3%
of
the
total)
is
available
online
to
users
after
they
click-‐through
to
accept
the
licence
conditions.

ARIADNE
D3.3
(Public)
30
Figure
3:
Access
to
datasets
The
survey
revealed
that
42%
of
the
collections
identified
by
partners
are
made
available
using
standard
Creative
Commons
licences
(Figure
4
below).
At
22%
the
most
widely
used
is
CC
BY
NC
SA
(By
Attribution,
Non-‐Commercial,
Share-‐Alike)
with
CC
BY
NC
ND
(By
Attribution,
Non
Commercial,
No-‐Derivatives)
being
the
next
most
used
licence
at
14%
of
collections.
17%
of
collections
are
covered
by
‘open’
licences
with
3%
being
placed
in
the
Public
Domain
(CC
0),
3%
under
CC
BY
SA,
3%
under
the
French
Open
licence
and
8%
reported
as
being
openly
licensed.
Figure
4:
Content
licences
in
use

ARIADNE
D3.3
(Public)
47%
of
the
collections
identified
in
the
survey
are
made
available
to
users
under
terms
and
conditions
that
are
not
defined
by
standard
licences.
In
general
this
means
that
users
need
to
apply
to
the
content
holder
for
permission
to
use
the
content
for
publication
or
other
purposes.
Two
partners
(ADS
and
KNAW-‐DANS)
have
developed
their
own
licences.
In
the
case
of
KNAW-‐
DANS,
data
depositors
can
choose
between
the
equivalent
of
a
CC
BY
(By
Attribution)
licence
for
open
access
content,
or
to
restrict
access
to
a
certain
group
and/or
certain
time
(with
the
possibility
of
a
temporarily
embargo
for
up
to
two
years)
(see
Appendix
2
below).
In
the
case
of
ADS,
the
licence
permits
the
use
of
data
with
attribution
for
research,
learning,
and
teaching,
and
also
for
commercial
archaeological
projects
with
the
provision
that
the
outputs
end
up
in
the
public
domain.
Thus
the
ADS
licence
is
the
equivalent
of
the
CC
BY
NC
SA
(By
Attribution
Non-‐Commercial)
licence
with
some
specified
commercial
uses
being
permitted
–
see
Appendix
3
below.
SND
enables
depositors
to
specify
differing
levels
of
access
for
their
datasets
with
some
sub-‐sets
of
the
collection
being
available
on
open
access
and
other
sub-‐sets
accessible
under
more
restrictive
conditions
(see
Appendix
4
below).
It
is
also
worth
noting
that
different
versions
of
CC
licences
are
in
use
by
partners.
Version
3.0
is
the
most
commonly
used,
however
version
2.5
is
also
used.
6.4 Metadata
rights
As
part
of
the
survey
ARIADNE
partners
were
asked
whether
metadata
was
separately
available
for
their
content
and
if
so
under
what
licence
conditions.
76%
of
the
collections
that
were
identified
have
metadata
available
for
the
content
items.
The
24%
of
the
collections
that
lack
separate
metadata
are
mostly
databases
where
the
records
could
be
considered
as
metadata,
or
used
to
export
metadata
records
if
required.
All
of
the
partners
were
asked
if
they
were
able
to
make
the
metadata
for
their
content
available
under
a
CC0
(Public
Domain)
licence
(see
figure
5).
Twelve
partners
replied
they
were
able
to
make
their
content
metadata
available
under
the
CC0
licence
representing
60%
of
the
identified
collections.
Two
partners
reported
they
were
currently
thinking
of
the
CC
BY
NC
SA
licence;
the
Discovery
Programme
replying
that
as
no
separate
metadata
was
available
for
its
databases
the
content
licence
was
applicable;
ZRC
SAZU
replying
it
had
CC
BY
NC
SA
in
mind,
but
was
willing
to
consider
CC0
for
its
metadata
if
this
is
important
for
ARIADNE’s
success.
Of
the
three
partners
who
replied
they
were
not
31

ARIADNE
D3.3
(Public)
32
Figure
5:
Metadata
licences
able
to
make
their
metadata
available
under
the
CC0
licence,
INRAP
is
making
a
subset
of
its
metadata
available
under
the
French
Open
Data
platform
and
suggested
this
could
be
linked
to.
Athena
RC
reported
a
complex
rights
situation
in
relation
to
its
clay
database
and
thus
said
that
its
metadata
could
not
currently
be
made
available
under
the
CC0
licence.
NIAM-‐BAS
reported
that
it
needs
to
determine
its
strategy
and
suggested
that
some
elements
of
its
metadata
might
be
made
available
under
a
CC0
licence.
6.5 Specific
conditions
affecting
Access
Some
partners
reported
specific
factors
affecting
access
to
their
collections
in
the
survey.
For
example,
Athena-‐RC
reported
that
its
clay
database
contains
the
results
of
its
analysis
of
sherds
from
various
excavations.
It
explained
that
Athena-‐RC
owns
the
moral
rights
to
the
results
of
its
analysis,
but
access
to
information
about
the
sherds
themselves
requires
permission
from
the
archaeologists
responsible
for
excavating
them.
Clearing
the
rights
to
accessing
this
information
will
involve
contacting
all
the
archaeologists
involved
to
obtain
their
permission.
MNM-‐NOK
reported
it
holds
some
sensitive
datasets,
which
include
information
about
the
locations
of
sites
vulnerable
to
looting,
and
that
it
restricts
access
to
registered
users
only
for
this
reason.
Some
partners
are
planning
to
provide
databases
for
ingestion
to
the
ARIADNE
infrastructure,
which
don’t
currently
have
separate
metadata.
For
example,
Athena-‐RC
said
of
its
clay
database
that
they
have
difficulty
in
distinguishing
“between
metadata
and
content”.
The
Discovery
Programme
similarly
reported
that
the
content
three
of
its
databases
(WODAN,
Mapping
Death
and
the
Irish
Stone
Axe
project)
could
be
considered
as
metadata.

ARIADNE
D3.3
(Public)
7 Discussion
The
principle
purpose
of
developing
data
sharing
policies
is
to
help
establish
best
practices
in
the
management
of
rights
and
data
access
by
partners
in
the
ARIADNE
infrastructure,
and
the
wider
archaeological
research
community.
As
content
partners
are
responsible
for
receiving
datasets
deposited
by
archaeological
researchers,
for
managing
access
to
those
datasets,
and
will
be
providing
datasets
for
ingestion
to
the
ARIADNE
infrastructure,
it
is
important
to
consider
the
whole
supply
chain
(see
Figure
6:
Data
sharing
activity
chain).
After
consulting
with
partners
it
is
clear
that
access
and
sharing
policies
are
evolving.
Management
of
IPR
and
licensing
of
content
is
well
established
and
understood
by
some
partners;
others
are
still
working
through
the
process.
There
are
national
and
institutional
variations,
and
legacy
datasets
deposited
under
past
frameworks
to
be
taken
into
consideration.
However
it
is
clear
there
is
a
common
move
towards
the
explicit
licensing
of
content
and
metadata
so
that
datasets
can
be
made
available
for
research,
education
and
public
use.
The
activity
chain
involves
the
management
of
rights
and
data
sharing
policies
at
different
stages.
Some
of
the
key
points
in
the
chain
are:
7.1 Deposit
agreements
with
content
providers
This
represents
the
point
when
partners
in
the
ARIADNE
infrastructure
receive
deposits
of
data
from
archaeological
researchers,
whether
from
within
their
own
organization
or
from
external
organizations.
This
is
the
moment
in
time
when
information
about
the
provenance
(research
team,
project)
of
the
dataset
and
any
underlying
rights
(objects,
sites,
data
re-‐use)
is
collected
and
agreements
reached
for
access
permissions
etc.
There
is
no
standard
framework,
although
recommendations
can
be
made
on
best
practices
and
the
adoption
of
standard
licences
(the
CC
licence
suite).
7.2 Agreements
with
ARIADNE
The
point
when
organizations
reach
agreements
with
ARIADNE
to
share
their
datasets
with
the
research
infrastructure
is
the
moment
in
time
when
agreements
need
to
be
reached
about
the
licensing
of
resource
description
metadata
and
content
(for
research,
education,
public
and/or
commercial
use),
permissions
for
data
re-‐use
(making
derivatives),
and
data
citation
(accreditation)
etc.
33

ARIADNE
D3.3
(Public)
7.3 Data
sharing
and
access
This
is
the
framework
under
which
users
access
datasets
via
the
ARIADNE
infrastructure,
and
covers
policies
for
data
citation,
provision
of
unique
persistent
identifiers
for
datasets
(and
subsets),
and
licences
for
resource
description
metadata
and
content.
34
Objects
and
sites
provenance,
accreditation,
assets,
IPR
Metadata,
content,
public
use,
derivatives,
commercial
use,
citation
Collection
description,
DOI
and
license
framework
Archaeological
researcher
Deposit
agreement
Content
partner
Access
agreement
ARIADNE
infrastructure
Portal
and
search
engine
Figure
6:
Data
sharing
activity
chain

ARIADNE
D3.3
(Public)
7.4 Licence
framework
The
most
widely
adopted
legal
framework
being
used
by
partners
to
manage
access
and
sharing
of
data
is
the
Creative
Commons
suite
of
licences,
and
therefore
this
is
likely
to
provide
the
most
suitable
framework
for
ARIADNE.
The
main
issues
are
discussed
below.
35
7.4.1 Resource
description/Collection
description
metadata
Such
metadata
is
used
to
provide
for
the
identification
(discovery)
of
collections,
sub-‐collections
and/or
individual
content
items
within
data
repositories.
Although
the
partner
survey
showed
this
type
of
metadata
is
not
currently
available
for
all
ARIADNE
datasets,
it
could
be
generated
(at
least
at
collection
level).
The
survey
revealed
there
is
general
consensus
amongst
partners
that
open
access
should
be
provided
to
this
type
of
metadata.
The
main
area
of
difference
was
whether
to
follow
the
Europeana
model
and
adopt
the
CC0
(public
domain)
licence
or
the
CC
BY
licence
(to
ensure
attribution
of
the
content
provider).
7.4.2 Content
licensing
The
responsibility
for
negotiating
and
agreeing
which
permissions
are
to
be
licensed
by
archaeological
researchers
for
their
content
lies
with
content
partners.
ARIADNE
is
able
to
suggest
best
practices,
such
as
the
use
of
the
Creative
Commons
licence
suite.
The
main
issues
to
be
considered
are:
• The
Attribution
condition
could
be
problematic
if
data
are
to
be
combined
with
data
from
a
large
number
of
other
sets
due
to
the
administrative
burden
of
crediting
each
individual
contributor
in
the
manner
of
their
choosing
[22].
• The
Share
Alike
condition
can
cause
problems,
as
it
requires
the
licensee
to
release
any
derived
dataset
under
the
same
licence
and
thus
prevents
it
from
being
combined
with
data
released
under
a
different
licence.
This
is
true
even
within
Creative
Commons:
a
derived
dataset
cannot
contain
both
CC
BY-‐SA-‐licensed
data
and
CC
BY-‐NC-‐SA-‐licensed
data.
• The
No
Derivatives
condition
may
restrict
data
reuse
–
it
requires
that
data
is
used
‘as-‐
is’,
although
precisely
what
this
means
in
practice
is
a
matter
of
debate
[22].
• The
Non-‐Commercial
condition
would
not
cause
any
problems
for
ARIADNE
with
regard
to
combining
data,
but
it
may
have
wider
implications,
as
what
constitutes
commercial
use
is
ambiguous.
Depending
on
interpretation,
the
NC
condition
may
or

ARIADNE
D3.3
(Public)
may
not
prevent
data
from
being
used
in
works
for
which
an
author
is
paid
(such
as
textbooks),
in
works
that
are
sold
(such
as
journal
articles).
36
Several
partners
confirmed
their
support
for
the
principle
of
open
access
to
research
data
in
the
partner
survey.
However,
the
use
of
the
NC
condition
(or
limitation
of
access
to
education,
research
or
public
uses
only)
means
that
many
of
the
licence
agreements
in
place
do
not
fully
conform
to
the
definition
of
open
data
given
by
OpenAIRE
or
the
Open
Definition
[6]
[7]:
“a
piece
of
data
or
content
is
open
if
anyone
is
free
to
use,
reuse,
and
redistribute
it
—
subject
only,
at
most,
to
the
requirement
to
attribute
and/or
share-‐alike”.
The
reasons
for
using
the
non-‐commercial
licence
clause
are
not
entirely
clear.
It
may
be
that
the
content
has
potential
commercial
value
and
is
being
offered
under
a
multiple
licencing
regime
(this
strategy
was
adopted
for
the
Digital
Michelangelo
project).
Such
a
strategy
allows
data
to
be
distributed
under
both
a
copyleft
licence
and
under
an
alternate
licence
on
payment
of
a
fee
for
commercial
uses
[22].
Finally,
the
partner
datasets
survey
showed
that
various
different
versions
of
CC
licences
are
currently
being
used.
It
would
be
useful
to
find
out
whether
it
is
possible
(and
useful)
to
port
existing
licences
to
the
newly
released
version
4.0,
which
is
said
to
be
more
user-‐friendly.
The
CC
version
4.0
suite
should
be
used
for
licensing
of
databases,
as
this
is
the
only
version
which
explicitly
covers
sui
generis
database
rights
[25].
Research
by
the
OpenAIRE
project
also
endorses
the
use
of
CC
4.0
licences
for
scientific
datasets
for
the
same
reason
[28].

ARIADNE
D3.3
(Public)
8 Recommendations
The
surveys
and
desk-‐top
research
carried
out
have
identified
various
elements,
which
ARIADNE
is
recommended
to
include
in
its
data
sharing
policy
framework:
1.
37
A
common
method
of
data
citation
should
be
established
for
adoption
by
partners
and
promotion
by
ARIADNE
to
the
archaeological
research
community.
Academic
recognition
is
an
important
motivation
for
encouraging
researchers
to
share
access
to
their
datasets.
2.
Allocation
of
DOIs
or
the
equivalent
to
datasets
ingested
to
the
ARIADNE
infrastructure
should
be
investigated.
The
system
used
should
be
capable
of
identifying
sub-‐sets
within
collections.
Persistent
identification
of
datasets
is
important
in
underpinning
data
sharing
and
data
citation.
3.
The
Creative
Commons
licence
suite
(version
4.0
is
preferred)
should
be
used
for
content
(databases,
document
archives,
images,
3D
models,
etc.)
provided
to
ARIADNE
by
content
partners
under
licence
permissions
agreed
with
the
content
owner.
CC
BY
is
recommended
for
open
access.
CC
BY
SA
or
CC
BY
SA
NC
licences
may
also
be
applicable.
4.
It
is
recommended
that
together
with
the
content
itself,
partners
be
requested
to
provide:
• A
collection
description
(of
the
whole
collection
and
sub-‐sets
within
the
collection)
published
under
a
CC
BY
licence
for
each
dataset
ingested
into
the
ARIADNE
infrastructure.
Collection
description
is
a
useful
way
of
capturing
the
provenance
and
contextual
information
about
data
collections,
and
can
be
used
to
underpin
data
citation.
• Item
level
metadata
records
should
be
published
under
a
CC0
licence
–
to
enable
integration
of
multiple
datasets
within
the
metadata
repository,
support
resource
discovery
and
enable
Linked
Open
Data.
As
ARIADNE
will
be
ingesting
multiple
datasets
from
different
content
providers
under
differing
existing
licence
conditions,
it
is
recommended
that
ARIADNE
follows
the
example
of
Europeana,
and
defines
a
metadata
element
set
that
can
be
published
under
an
open
licence
(CC0
is
the
most
open,
CC
BY
if
public
domain
licensing
cannot
be
agreed
upon).

ARIADNE
D3.3
(Public)
38
9 References
[1]
Austin,
T.
&
Mitcham,
J.:
Preservation
and
Management
Strategies
for
Exceptionally
Large
Data
Formats:
‘Big
Data’.
ADS
&
English
Heritage,
2007.
http://archaeologydataservice.ac.uk/attach/bigData/bigdata_final_report_1.3.pdf
[2]
Swan,
A.:
Sharing
Knowledge:
Open
Access
and
Preservation
in
Europe,
Conclusions
of
a
strategic
workshop,
European
Commission,
Brussels,
2010.
http://ec.europa.eu/research/science-‐society/document_library/pdf_06/oa-‐preservation-‐
2011_en.pdf
[3]
European
Commission:
Report
of
the
European
Commission
Public
Consultation
on
Open
Research
Data,
2013,
http://ec.europa.eu/research/science-‐
society/document_library/pdf_06/report_2013-‐07-‐open_research_data-‐consultation.pdf
[4]
ARIADNE,
2013,
D3.2
Report
on
project
standards.
[5]
Open
Access
Max
Planck
Gesellschaft,
2003,
Berlin
Declaration
on
Open
Access
to
Knowledge
in
the
Sciences
and
Humanities,
http://openaccess.mpg.de/286432/Berlin-‐
Declaration
[6]
OpenAIRE:
the
Open
Access
Infrastructure
for
Research
in
Europe,
2013,
Open
Access
Overview,
website:
http://www.openaire.eu/en/open-‐access/open-‐access-‐overview
(accessed
1/1/2014)
[7]
Open
Definition,
2013,
website:
http://opendefinition.org/
(accessed
20/12/2013)
[8]
Open
Access
Spectrum,
2013,
How
Open
Is
It?,
online:
http://www.plos.org/about/open-‐
access/howopenisit/
(accessed
20/12/2013)
[9]
Berners-‐Lee,
Tim,
2006
with
additions
in
2010,
Design
Issues:
Linked
Data,
discussion
document
online:
http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/LinkedData.html
(accessed
20/12/2013)
[10]
5
*
Open
Data,
2012,
website:
http://5stardata.info/
(accessed
20/12/2013)
[11]
LODLAM:
International
Linked
Open
Data
in
Libraries
Archives
and
Museums
summit,
2012,
website
online:
http://lod-‐lam.net/summit/2011/06/06/proposed-‐a-‐4-‐star-‐
classification-‐scheme-‐for-‐linked-‐open-‐cultural-‐metadata/
(Accessed
21/12/2013)
[12]
Hardman,
C.
2013,
The
Archaeology
Data
Service:
Data
Preservation
and
persistent
identifiers
in
UK
archaeology’,
ODIN
codesprint
and
first
year
conference,
October
2013,

ARIADNE
D3.3
(Public)
http://indico.cern.ch/getFile.py/access?contribId=19&sessionId=19&resId=1&materialId=sl
ides&confId=238868
(accessed
21/12/2013)
39
[13]
Ball,
A.
and
Duke,
M.,
2012,
How
to
Cite
Datasets
and
Link
to
Publications,
Digital
Curation
Centre,
http://www.dcc.ac.uk/resources/how-‐guides/cite-‐datasets
(accessed
30/12/2013)
[14]
DataCite,
2013,
website:
http://www.datacite.org/
(Accessed
21/12/2013)
[15]
International
DOI
foundation,
2013,
website:
http://www.doi.org/
(accessed
21/12/2013)
[16]
Creative
Commons,
2013,
website:
http://creativecommons.org/
(accessed
21/12/2013)
[17]
Open
Knowledge
Foundation,
2013,
website:
http://okfn.org/
(accessed
28/12/2013)
[18]
Guibault,
Lucie
(2013)
Licensing
Research
Data
under
Open
Access
Conditions.
Chapter
to
be
published
in:
D.
Beldiman
(ed.),
Information
and
Knowledge:
21st
Century
Challenges
in
Intellectual
Property
and
Knowledge
Governance,
Cheltenham,
Edward
Elgar,
upcoming
2013,
http://www.ivir.nl/publications/guibault/Open_Research_Data.pdf
(accessed
27/12/2013)
[19]
Christian
G.E
(2009)
Building
a
sustainable
framework
for
open
access
to
research
data
through
information
and
communications
technologies.
International
Development
Research
Centre,
Canada,
December
2009,
http://idl-‐
bnc.idrc.ca/dspace/bitstream/10625/41336/1/129183.pdf
(accessed
27/12/2013)
[20]
Hugenholtz,
Bernt
(2005)
Abuse
of
Database
Right.
Sole-‐source
information
banks
under
the
EU
Database
Directive.
In:
F.
Lévêque
&
H.
Shelanski
(eds.)
Antitrust,
patents
and
copyright:
EU
and
US
perspectives,
Cheltenham:
Elgar
2005,
pp.
203-‐219,
http://www.ivir.nl/publications/hugenholtz/abuseofdatabaseright.pdf
(accessed
27/12/2013)
[21]
Zijlstra,
T.
and
Janssen,
K.,
2013,
The
new
PSI
directive
–
as
good
as
it
seems?
Open
Knowledge
Foundation
blog
post,
April
19,
2013:
http://blog.okfn.org/2013/04/19/the-‐
new-‐psi-‐directive-‐as-‐good-‐as-‐it-‐seems/
(accessed
30/12/2013)
[22]
Ball,
A,
2012,
How
to
License
Research
Data,
Digital
Curation
Centre,
http://www.dcc.ac.uk/resources/how-‐guides/license-‐research-‐data
(accessed
30/12/2013)
[23]
ADS,
2013,
ADS
deposit
license,
URL:
www.ahds.ac.uk/documents/ahds-‐archaeology-‐
licence-‐form.doc
(accessed
30/12/2013)

ARIADNE
D3.3
(Public)
40
[24]
DANS,
2013,
DANS
license
on
deposited
data
http://www.dans.knaw.nl/en/content/dans-‐
licence-‐agreement-‐deposited-‐data
(accessed
30/12/2013)
[25]
Creative
Commons,
2013,
What’s
new
in
4.0,
https://creativecommons.org/version4
(accessed
2/1/2014)
[26]
Europeana,
2012,
Data
Exchange
Agreement,
online
explanation:
http://pro.europeana.eu/web/guest/data-‐exchange-‐agreement
(accessed
1/1/2014)
[27]
ARIADNE,
2013,
D3.1
Initial
report
on
project
registry
[28]
Guibault,
Lucie
&
Wiebe,
Andreas
(eds.,
2013):
Safe
to
be
Open:
Study
on
the
protection
of
research
data
and
recommendation
for
access
and
usage.
University
of
Göttingen
Press,
http://webdoc.sub.gwdg.de/univerlag/2013/legalstudy.pdf
(accessed
27/1/2014)

ARIADNE
D3.3
(Public)
41
Glossary
ARK
Archival
Resource
Key
is
a
Uniform
Resource
Locator
(URL)
that
is
a
multi-‐purpose
identifier
for
information
objects
of
any
type.
BY
By
attribution
CC
Creative
Commons
DOI
Digital
Object
Identifier
is
a
character
string
(a
“digital
identifier”)
used
to
uniquely
identify
an
object
such
as
an
electronic
document.
Metadata
about
the
object
is
stored
with
the
DOI
name
and
a
URI
or
URL,
where
the
object
can
be
found.
The
DOI
for
a
document
is
permanent,
whereas
its
location
and
other
metadata
may
change.
The
DOI
system
is
implemented
through
a
federation
of
registration
agencies
coordinated
by
the
International
DOI
Foundation,
which
developed
and
controls
the
system.
Organisations,
such
as
ADS
and
KNAW-‐DANS,
who
meet
the
requirements
of
the
Foundation
can
pay
to
join
the
system
and
allocate
DOIs.
Handle
In
computer
programming,
a
handle
is
an
abstract
reference
to
a
resource.
HTTP
HyperText
Transfer
Protocol
(HTTP)
is
an
application
protocol
for
distributed,
collaborative,
hypermedia
information
systems.
IT
Information
Technology
ODC
Open
Data
Commons
PURL
Persistent
Uniform
Resource
Locator
is
a
uniform
resource
locator
(URL)
(i.e.
location-‐
based
uniform
resource
identifier
or
URI)
that
is
used
to
redirect
to
the
location
of
the
requested
web
resource.
SA
Share
Alike
UNF
Unique
Numeric
Fingerprint
is
a
cryptographic
hash
of
the
data,
which
is
used
in
citations
to
ensure
that
no
change
has
occurred
to
the
data
since
it
was
cited.
URI
Uniform
Resource
Identifier
is
a
string
of
characters
used
to
identify
a
name
of
a
web
resource.

ARIADNE
D3.3
(Public)
Appendix
1:
Ariadne
questionnaire
on
datasets,
metadata
and
data
sharing
policies
RIGHTS
AND
ACCESS
42
Rights
holder(s)
-‐
The
owner(s)
of
the
rights
of
the
content
being
provided
ADS
datasets
(Archsearch,
Grey
literature
reports,
individual
archives,
Linked
Data
endpoint)
-‐
Archaeological
data
are
the
product
of
many
years
of
scholarship
by
numerous
archaeologists,
collectors,
analysts,
antiquarians,
field
workers
and
laboratory
scientists.
It
is
not
possible
to
credit
all
these
scholars
individually,
or
sometimes
even
identify
them,
but
in
making
their
data
available
for
re-‐
use,
the
ADS
acknowledges
their
contribution.
At
all
times,
the
ADS
seeks
to
protect
the
intellectual
property
rights
and
copyright
of
the
originators
of
data
where
that
can
reasonably
be
achieved.
The
catalogue
also
includes
links
to
other
service
providers.
It
is
the
responsibility
of
users
to
acknowledge
and
comply
with
the
copyright
conditions
that
may
be
imposed
by
other
service
providers.
AIAC
–
FASTI
Online
–
AIAC
is
the
copyright
holder
of
data
contained
on
FASTI
with
specific
attribution
and
permissions
for
use
of
multimedia
granted
by
project
summary
authors.
AIAC
–
FASTI
Online
FOLD&R
Journal
–
AIAC
is
the
copyright
holder
for
journal
publications.
ARHEO
–
Survey
data
of
archaeological
sites,
Geophysical
data,
Analysis
of
ceramics
from
excavations
-‐
The
content
in
ARHEO
is
accessible
online
(http://arheovest.com/fildsurvey.html).
The
data
itself
has
conditions
and
license
agreements.
ARUP-‐CAS
–
Archaeological
map
of
the
Czech
Republic
-‐
Institute
of
Archaeology
ASCR,
Prague,
v.v.i.;
Institute
of
Archaeological
Heritage
Care
of
Central
Bohemia;
Museum
of
The
Bohemian
Paradise,
Turnov.
Athena-‐RC
–
CETI
–
Clay
database
-‐
The
owner(s)
of
the
rights
of
the
content
being
provided
+
Athena
R.C.
“the
sherds
we
have
analyzed
are
from
various
excavations.
“Athena”
RC
does
not
own
the
sherds.
However,
since
we
are
making
the
measurements
the
results
are
our
“property”,
so
we
own
the
rights
for
them.”
Cyi_STARC
–
Archaeological
collections
-‐
The
content
in
STARC-‐Repo
is
free
for
use
and
open
access.
The
data
itself
has
conditions
and
license
agreements.
Depositors
own
the
data
even
if
the
dataset
is
open
access.
The
Depositors
are
in
this
case
the
following
Institutions:
Department
of
Antiquities
Cyprus,
University
of
Sydney,
Byzantine
Museum
and
Art
Gallery
of
the
Archbishop
Makarios
III
Foundation,
Mediterranean
Archaeological
Research
Institute-‐Vrije
Universiteit
Brussel,
The
Cyprus
Folk
Art
Museum
and
The
A.G.
Leventis
Foundation.
DAI
–
iDAI.images,
Arachne
–
Several
rights
holders.

ARIADNE
D3.3
(Public)
43
DANS
eDepot
for
Dutch
Archaeology
(EDNA)
-‐
Metadata
(the
content
of
all
fields
under
the
“Description”
tab
in
every
dataset
in
EASY)
is
free
for
use
and
open
access.
However
the
data
itself
has
conditions
for
use
and
license
agreements.
Depositors
own
the
data,
even
if
a
dataset
is
open
access,
the
data
can
only
be
used
for
personal
use.
DANS
Digital
Collaboratory
for
Cultural
Dendrochronology
(DCCD)
-‐
Individual
copyrights
of
data
(some
top
level
metadata
free
open
access).
Discovery
Programme
–
WODAN
-‐
The
content
of
the
database
is
are
provided
by
all
the
palaeo-‐
environemntal
specialists
in
Ireland,
therefore
each
record-‐set
is
their
copyright,
however
the
principles
of
the
resource
is
that
to
be
able
to
store
your
content
using
WODAN
you
must
enable
your
data
to
used
under
CC.
Discovery
Programme
–
Mapping
Death
-‐
The
content
of
the
database
is
provided
by
all
the
Discovery
Programme.
Some
associated
media
which
may
have
been
provided
by
commercial
consultants
and
phD
candidates
e.g.
lab
reports
and
excavation
documents
will
be
there
copyright.
Discovery
Programme
–
Irish
Stone
Axe
Project
(ISAP)
Database
-‐
The
content
of
the
database
is
are
provided
by
all
the
University
College
Dublin
(UCD).
Discovery
Programme
–
SHARE-‐IT
(Spatial
Heritage
Archaeological
Research
Environment)
-‐
Content
providers:
Discovery
Programme,
UCD
(selected),
NUI
Galway
(selected)
and
some
commercial
companies.
INRAP
-‐
Archeozoom
database
-‐
Open
data:
the
owner
of
the
rights
for
the
geolocation
database
is
Inrap;
the
owner
of
the
rights
for
the
content
database
is
Inrap;
the
owners
of
the
rights
for
the
editorial
content
are
Inrap
and
the
authors.
All
editorial
contents
are
subject
to
copyright
from
the
authors.
INRAP
–
Dolia
-‐
The
owner
of
the
rights
for
the
database
is
Inrap.
Each
document
inside
the
database
is
subject
to
copyright
from
to
the
authors,
including
the
PDF
documents
but
also
some
parts
of
the
bibliographical
records
and
esp.
the
abstract
of
the
document.
INRAP
–
Iconothèque
–
Images
d’Archéologie
(IDA)
-‐
The
owner
of
the
rights
for
the
database
is
Inrap.
Each
photo
or
video
document
is
subject
to
copyright
by
the
authors.
All
editorial
contents
are
subject
to
copyright
from
the
authors.
Inrap
is
the
owner
of
the
exploitation
rights
for
the
photographs
and
granted
the
Réunion
des
Musées
Nationaux
Photo
Agency
(public
institution)
the
commercial
exploitation
of
hi-‐def
photographs.
MIBAC-‐ICCU:
SITAR
-‐
Ministero
per
i
Beni
e
le
Attività
Culturali
e
il
Turismo
-‐
Soprintendenza
Speciale
per
i
Beni
Archeologici
di
Roma
for
all
SITAR
GeoDB
dataset/records
and
archive
documents
directly
owned
by
SSBAR.
For
any
external
Archives
documents
possibly
stored
in
SITAR
web
file
system
(e.g.
public
cartographic
bases,
historical
document,
etc.)
the
owner
institution
/
natural
person
copyright
specifications
apply.
MIBAC-‐ICCU:
CulturaItalia
-‐
the
data’s
right
belong
to
the
CulturaItalia
content
provider.

ARIADNE: Report on data sharing policies

ARIADNE: Report on data sharing policies

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to ARIADNE: Report on data sharing policies

Similar to ARIADNE: Report on data sharing policies (20)

More from ariadnenetwork

More from ariadnenetwork (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

ARIADNE: Report on data sharing policies