Title: A Data Divide? Data “Haves” and “Have Nots” and Open (Government) Data
Author: Michael Gurstein
Source: Gurstein's Community Informatics
Date (published): 11/07/2011
Date (accessed): 12/07/2011
Type of information: blog post
Language: English
On-line access: yes (HTML)
Abstract:
"Researchers have extensively explored the range of social, economic, geographical and other barriers which underlie and to a considerable degree “explain” (cause) the Digital Divide. My own contribution has been to argue that “access is not enough”, it is whether opportunities and pre-conditions are in place for the “effective use” of the technology particularly for those at the grassroots.
The idea of a possible parallel “Data Divide” between those who have access and the opportunity to make effective use of data and particularly “open data” and those who do not, began to occur to me. I was attending several planning/recruitment events for the Open Data “movement” here in Vancouver and the socio-demographics and some of the underlying political assumptions seemed to be somewhat at odds with the expressed advocacy position of “data for all”.
Thus the “open data” which was being argued for would not likely be accessible and usable to the groups and individuals with which Community Informatics has largely been concerned – the grassroots, the poor and marginalized, indigenous people, rural people and slum dwellers in Less Developed countries. It was/is hard to see, given the explanations, provided to date how these folks could use this data in any effective way to help them in responding to the opportunities for advance and social betterment which open data advocates have been indicating as the outcome of their efforts."

Title: The IDRC and “Open Development”: ICT4D by and for the New Middle Class
Author:Michael Gurstein
Source:Gurstein's Community Informatics blog
Publisher:
Date (published):01/12/2010
Date (accessed):02/12/2010
Type of information:blog post
Language: English
On-line access: yes (HTML)
Abstract:
„I’m interested to note that the International Development Research Centre (IDRC) (or at least the Information and Communications Technology for Development—ICT4D—folks at the IDRC) have decided to hitch their wagon, and not incidentally their not inconsiderable resources to the “Open” movement and launch a campaign for an Open ICT4D meme.
The major document in this initiative defines “Openness” and “Open ICT4D” as follows:
…as a way of organizing social activities for development benefits that favour: a) universal over restricted access to communication tools and information; b) universal over restricted participation in informal and formal groups/institutions; and c) collaborative over centralized production of cultural, economic, or other content.
Certainly it is very hard to fault (or even disagree) with any of the above except that this definition and the following paper seem to not understand that lack of access in most developmental contexts isn’t simply a failure of reasonable people to understand that they should proceed in an “open” rather than a “closed/restrictive” fashion. The lack of access in many if not most cases serves the interests of some quite well including many who gain considerable advantage from lack of transparency, restrictions on use of government data, the use of security designations in inappropriate contexts. In these instances a lack of access is most frequently a function of a lack of power in a particular social and economic context and that articulating the good feelings attendant on an “openness” strategy are as unlikely to change those restrictions as were the thinking of good thoughts sufficient to stop the flow of oil from the BP Gulf catastrophe.
...
One of the significant difficulties of a “peer to peer” approach when linked organically to the “openness” standard is that those going into the peer relations have quite significant differences in power and prestige and access to resources. It is very difficult to conceive of a true “peer-to-peer” relationship as enabling or supporting “openness” when there are marked and systematic economic and social differences between the “peers” as for example, is pervasive within developing countries and particularly acute between developed countries and developing countries.”

Title: The Manchester Manifesto
Publisher: Institute for Science, Ethics and Innovation, University of Manchester
Date (published): 25/11/2009
Date (accessed): 26/11/2009
Type of information: manifesto
Language: English
On-line access: yes (pdf)
Abstract:
...it is increasingly important to consider the question of “Who Owns Science?”. The answer to this question will have broad-ranging implications: for scientific progress, for equity of access to scientific knowledge and its fruits and for the fair distribution of the benefits and the burdens of science and innovation – in short, for global justice and human progress...It is clear that the dominant existing model of innovation, while serving some necessary purposes for the current operation of innovation, also impedes achievement of core scientific goals in a number of ways. In many cases it restricts access to scientific knowledge and products, thereby limiting the public benefits of science; it can restrict the flow of information, thereby inhibiting the progress of science; and it may hinder innovation through the costly and complicated nature of the system. Limited improvements may be achieved through modification of the current IP system, but consideration of alternative models isurgently required.

See also:
How science is shackled by intellectual property
John Sulston, Guardian, 26 November 2009
Who Owns Science? The Manchester Manifesto
open..., 26/11/2009

Title: The legal status of raw data: a guide for research practice
Authors: Madeleine de Cock Buning, Allard Ringnalda, Tina van der Linden
Pages: 52 pp.
Publisher: SURFfoundation
Date (published): 13/11/2009
Date (accessed): 22/11/2009
Type of information: research paper
Language: English
On-line access: yes (pdf)
Abstract:
"Guide to clarify the legal protection applying to research data, intended for researchers who need to know what they can do with other people’s data.

The opportunities opened up by ICT and the Internet are making access to research results and data broader and more open. It is increasingly possible to add to the text of a publication by enriching it with other materials, including the relevant research data. By making that data accessible, it becomes easier to verify research results and to reproduce and reuse them.

But when reusing raw research data, it is important to know the legal status of the material. Sometimes, the consent of the “author” (i.e. the “maker”) of the data is required; however, some actions involving data can be carried out without consent. SURFdirect wishes to clarify the legal protection applying to research data for researchers who need to know what they can do with other people’s data. That information will also allow researchers to determine whether they also need to protect their own research data.

As part of the SURFshare programme, SURFdirect requested the Centre for Intellectual Property Law (CIER) to explain the rules under which research data may be protected. The report provides an overview of the current situation on the basis of the most important legislation and case law. It consists of three sections, dealing successively with intellectual property (copyright, database right, and protection of non-original writings), privacy, and liability."

"The guide and the brief user's guide are in English and address the context of Dutch law."
See also:
"A brief guide is also provided to enable researchers to determine whether consent is required in order to reuse someone else’s research data." download pdf
(via Open Access News)

Title: OA Network: An Integrative Open Access Infrastructure for Germany
Author: Uwe Müller, Thomas Severiens, Robin Malitz, and Peter Schirmbacher1
ISSN 1082-9873
doi:10.1045/september2009-mueller
Source: D-Lib Magazine September/October 2009, Volume 15 Number 9/10
Publisher: Corporation for National Research Initiatives (CNRI)
Date (published):
Date (accessed):
Type of information:
Language: English
On-line access: yes (HTML)
Abstract:
This article describes concepts, development, and implementation of an overall Open Access infrastructure for Germany. Currently, the joint project Open Access Network is facilitating comprehensive and value-added services built on top of distributed Institutional Repositories. Using the OAI-PMH as the harvesting mechanism, Open Access (OA) Network furnishes an open and extensible architecture to form the technological base for manifold enhanced services. It not only provides a personalized end user platform but also serves as an aggregator node for passing data to other service providers (e.g., DRIVER). Moreover, OA Network provides a testbed for the development of software to implement value-added services. OA Network is funded by the German Research Foundation (DFG).

Title: Draft Open Access and Licensing Framework released
Author: Keitha Booth
Source: In Development
Publisher: State Services Commission
Date (published): 27/08/2009
Date (accessed): 28/08/2009
Type of information: blog post
Language: English
On-line access: yes (HTML)
Abstract:
"Today the State Services Commission is releasing the draft New Zealand Government Open Access and Licensing framework (NZGOAL)... This document provides guidance for State Services agencies on:

* open access to non-copyright information; and
* open licensing of copyright works,

in both cases with a view to allowing their re-use by others. (It does not apply to information or works containing personal or other sensitive information).

The draft NZGOAL sets out a series of policy principles which embrace, among other things, the notions of open access, open licensing, creativity, authenticity, non-discrimination and open formats. It describes the drivers behind this work, the departmental consultation process that has taken place, the Creative Commons New Zealand law licences and sets out a review and release process which agencies can use to determine the basis on which information and copyright works may be released."

See also:
NZ Government Open Access and Licensing (NZGOAL) framework