Launch of the Principles on Open Bibliographic Data

The following post is from Adrian Pohl, coordinator of the OKFN Working Group on Open Bibliographic Data.

Yesterday, the Principles of Open Bibliographic Data were launched at the Peter Murray-Rust symposium “Visions of a (Semantic) Molecular Future”:

http://openbiblio.net/principles/

The principles’ main recommendations read as follows:

  1. When publishing bibliographic data make an explicit and robust license statement.

  2. Use a recognized waiver or license that is appropriate for data.

  3. If you want your data to be effectively used and added to by others it should be open as defined by the Open Definition – in particular non-commercial and other restrictive clauses should not be used.

  4. Where possible, we recommend explicitly placing bibliographic data in the Public Domain via the Public Domain Dedication and License (PDDL) or CC0.

The initial idea for something like the Principles on Open Bibliographic Data dates back to May 2010 and originated in the German OKFN chapter. Originally, they were directed at the library world. It was not before July 2010 that the OKFN Working Group on Open Bibliographic Data started work on the principles – taking ideas (and text) from the Panton Principles for Open Data in Science.

Over time, and through Peter Murray-Rust’s and Jim Pitman’s initiative, the principles also adressed the broader spectrum of producers of bibliographic data like scholars and publishers. In addition, a definition of bibliographic data was added in the first part of the document to clarify the principles’ scope.

We are delighted that we have been able to create in a relatively short and brief period this short and clear document that will help to do much to promote the cause of open bibliographic data specifically and open knowledge more generally.

2 thoughts on “Launch of the Principles on Open Bibliographic Data”

  1. Great stuff. For your future consideration, where Clause 3 reads,

    “in particular non-commercial and other restrictive clauses should not be used.”

    …I’d suggest that might be confused by some as implying that, in particular, non-commercial clauses should not be used i.e. that non-commercial uses should be prohibited.

    Perhaps, it could read, “in particular, exclusively non-commercial and other restrictive clauses should not be used.”

    Good work.

    David Pidsley

Comments are closed.