[Go-essp-tech] BioTorrents

[V. Balaji]

I'd have to agree with Steve. It's getting to the point where it
interferes with work.

The requirements for first-use and embargoed-until-peer-reviewed are
not unique to our field. CMIP5 even requires that a peer-reviewed
publication be in the pipeline before the data can be DOI-ed. If it
isn't, how does the user even know it's any good? If anything biology
should be worse in this regard; there's certainly more money involved,
and incentive to hoard data. If they can do it, we surely should be
able to. I don't believe that's the reason we take on such onerous
requirements.

The main reason IMO is that we don't push back on these requirements
but are passive when confronted with them. It seems to be the mindset
of "operational" as opposed to "academic" institutions. We have lots
of people in our institutions advocating for security and too few
for openness.

PS. The NOAA OCIO periodically asks for suggestions. I always suggest
appointing an openness officer to counterbalance the security officers,
but for some reason they've never acted upon it:-).

philip.kershaw at stfc.ac.uk writes:

> Hi Steve,
>
>
>
> 2 philosophical cents (well, really a rant, I'll admit):
>
> A remarkable number of the best, easiest, and most powerful ideas are pushed off of our table by a perceived requirement that access to data be restricted.  Elements of this are inevitable.  Still  I believe that we should find much better ways as a data technology community (including our own ESG project) to allow the superior technology options that become available through open access to shine.
>
>
>
> [Kershaw, Philip (STFC,RAL,SSTD)] I’m not so sure how superior they are if no thought was given to security when they were conceived :)  Admittedly in some cases the technology wasn’t there at the time some were thought up.
>
>
> At the org-chart level there is a broken system of checks-and-balances.  The requirements for restricted access are imposed down the line in the org chart, without any mechanism for push-back -- for explaining to those who impose the restrictions what unintended price is being paid by doing so.  While the org chart relationships tie our hands, the Web as a visible showcase for good ideas can provide the missing force of balance.  We are seeing just this as we weigh BioTorrents against our own solutions.
>
>
>
> [Kershaw, Philip (STFC,RAL,SSTD)] I’m not directly addressing your point but just to observe, I think it is dependent on people’s perceptions and experiences.  For example, I think nothing of registering at my local library for a library card so I can loan books.  I’m restricted in that I have to register even though it’s a public service made available by the government.  It shouldn’t then be a problem for me to register with a federation so that I can access data.  By registering they can keep me up to date about their data and services e.g. e-mailing to warn me that the data I downloaded is corrupted.
>
>
>
> Clearly access-restricted datasets could not be hosted on the open systems.  But that absence would be precisely the loss that makes the technology cost of restricted access visible.
>
>
>
> [Kershaw, Philip (STFC,RAL,SSTD)] I don’t think it has been that visible in one case here.  We’ve not hosted an OPeNDAP service at the BADC partly because we had no means of restricting access.  The licensing of the data wouldn’t allow us.  The system we’ve developed to secure OPeNDAP for ESG has meant that we can now open up access to datasets here via an OPeNDAP service.   There’s some irony that the ability to add access control has opened up access.
>
>
> I wonder if we shouldn't be promoting the (superior) technologies that become available with open access in parallel with the (costly and permanently slower to evolve) secure federated approaches.
>
>
>
> [Kershaw, Philip (STFC,RAL,SSTD)] I agree they can seem heavyweight.  I think we are still at a stage where these things are maturing and more easily usable systems will evolve.  Some of the newer web 2.0 based technologies such as OpenID have gone some way to lowering the bar with implementing a federation.  Looking at this another way the ability to identify users is an asset.   Social networking sites would be meaningless without the concept of user identity.  Isn’t the creation of  federations something we can exploit to bring our own user communities closer together and promote collaboration and research?
>
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> Phil
>
>
> =========================================
>
> Alex Sim wrote:
>
> If we can resolve authorization aspects on the datasets with torrents,
> we can probably support torrents technology in the future.  all data
> access is open in this torrents and most others too.
>
> -- Alex
>
>
> On 4/20/10 8:40 AM, V. Balaji wrote:
>
>
> 	http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0010071
>
> 	It's a great pity we aren't using torrent technology in our field...
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> GO-ESSP-TECH mailing list
> GO-ESSP-TECH at ucar.edu
> http://mailman.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/go-essp-tech
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

-- 

V. Balaji                               Office:  +1-609-452-6516
Head, Modeling Systems Group, GFDL      Home:    +1-212-253-6662
Princeton University                    Email: v.balaji at noaa.gov