01. Publish data for unspecified use

Simply make data openly and freely available for unencumbered use by third parties.

Description

Activity - A growing enthusiasm for open access and transparency has empowered some efforts simply to make data openly and freely available for unencumbered (including commercial) use by third parties. Government efforts in the USA, the UK and elsewhere provide clear examples of this trend, as do library-specific initiatives such as the Open Library.
This use case differs from UC2 because it is not about a specific publication format, whereas UC2 is about Linked Data.
Part of use case: | Share your experience
Actors - Libraries, which may require institutional buy-in and may have contractual and licensing implications with respect to suppliers, partners, etc.
Part of use case: | Share your experience
Data involved - Potentially any library data, possibly combined with other metadata (such as course titles). Typically records and fields (tags) for which the institution feels rights and licensing issues are sufficiently well understood. See UC2 for the ‘linked data’ alternative.
Part of use case: | Share your experience
Data flow - Data are placed online, either within the institution or via some third party such as Open Library. Data may be periodically refreshed, and it would typically be the responsibility of any organisation consuming the data to check for any updates.
Part of use case: | Share your experience
Does this require Open Data - There is no requirement for Open Data per se. However, if we presume that the rationale for publication is to ensure the widest possible dissemination then adoption of a generic open data license (such as Open Data Commons or CC0) is the most effective way to make the set of potential uses unambiguous. Restrictive licenses are counter- productive, as is making the data available without some explicit statement regarding potential utilisation. Locally developed licenses and statements regarding use should be avoided where possible as, although perhaps open in spirit, these local variants complicate matters for those wishing to combine data from disparate sources.
Part of use case: | Share your experience
Current Examples - Open Library, CERN, the university and city libraries of Cologne, the university of Ghent
Part of use case: | 2 Comments

Benefits

Institution - (1) In line with institutional goals and mission with reference to disseminating knowledge, playing a role within the community, enabling innovation, enhancing the web of knowledge, etc; (2) attracts publicity and status for first movers.
Part of use case: | Share your experience
Library Service - (1) Creating the opportunity for third parties to develop local and wider services of value, some of which may potentially drive increased attention and traffic back to the library and its holdings; (2) opening up possibilities for integration with teaching and learning services
Part of use case: | Share your experience
Researchers - (1) A building block in opening up access to large and unique collections of data; (2) potential for third party applications to become richer and more responsive to institutional collections, making those collections easier to access whilst also making the applications more useful.
Part of use case: | Share your experience
Students - The possibility of Google Scholar and other external services having greater knowledge of institutional holdings
Part of use case: | Share your experience
Replication - High: Pioneers can document the necessary steps to initially extract data from various systems and to update to the data as necessary.
Part of use case: | Share your experience
Case for not doing it - Uncertainty. Once data are released online under an open license, third parties are explicitly permitted to take and reuse those data as they see fit. Even if the institution initially responsible for releasing the data changes its policy and either withdraws the data or relicenses it with more stringent terms, anyone who downloaded the original release remains able to continue using and redistributing it in perpetuity.
Part of use case: | Share your experience

Motivation

Principles - The rationale is essentially philosophical. The institution or the library believes in the importance of openness, transparency and sharing, and is un-persuaded by arguments to preserve the status quo by keeping data private. For early adopters, publicity and status plus belief in opportunity arising from constructive disruption may play a part in the decision making process.
Part of use case: | Share your experience
Costs - Cost benefit is unlikely to be a significant motivation for this approach. However, doing this may represent a negative opportunity cost in diverting attention from another priority.
Part of use case: | Share your experience
Services - There is the possibility that a useful service may emerge from an external or internal party, including library users.
Part of use case: | Share your experience
Rationale for not doing it - (1) Uncertainty as to the legal status of the data; (2) discomfort with not being able to take the data back once it’s released; (3) concern about how the data might be used, and how that might reflect upon the institution; (4) potential disruption to existing relationships, partnerships, and commercial arrangements; (5) simply insufficient reason to make it a priority.
Part of use case: | Share your experience

Consequences of doing it as Open Data

What will happen? - Quite possibly, nothing at all.
Part of use case: | Share your experience
Potential Risks - (1) Loss of control over institutional data; (2) The originator of elements of the bibliographic records challenges release as open data [see also UC2, UC3, UC4, UC5, UC6, UC7, UC15, UC16, UC17]; (3) Loss of future revenue [see also UC2]; (4) Lack of focus on purpose results in no use of available data, either due to lack of interest or inappropriate data formats or licensing.
Part of use case: | Share your experience
Potential Opportunities - (1) Development of innovative / compelling third party services based on open data; (2) An ecosystem of enthusiastic developers emerges, keen and able to provide alternative means of accessing key institutional services via data dumps and APIs [see also UC2, UC16, UC17]; (3) Third–party tools (LibraryThing, Mendeley) get better and better, as they gain more data and more users – and as those users largely originate inside Universities, the institutions also benefit, although in ways that may be difficult to quantify [see also UC2, UC15]; (4) Large pools of data create opportunities for the creation of regional, national and international services to drive stock management, etc. [see also UC2]
Part of use case: | Share your experience
Consequences of not doing it? - Libraries seen at odds with moves to Open Data in the public sector.
Part of use case: | Share your experience

Rights and Licensing Issues

Rights and licensing issues - In keeping with the principles behind this act, the license should be explicit and as open and unencumbered as possible in order to facilitate genuine reuse. See the general guidance on Licensing Issues for further detail.
Part of use case: | Share your experience

Practicalities

Data exchange formatting - Model 1: A standard MARC export from the LMS, based on specified criteria. Additional exports on a regular basis. Model 2: Records exported from the LMS based on specified criteria transformed into one or more formats to make data as accessible as possible to a wide range of interested parties [see UC16]. Additional exports on a regular basis.
Part of use case: | Share your experience
Lifecycle implications - None are necessary, although the data will be of most value to the largest constituency if there is some regular process for refresh.
Part of use case: | Share your experience
Hosting requirements - Some server space to host the file; alternatively Open Library, Internet Archive, Connected Commons and others may host on your behalf.
Part of use case: | Share your experience
Existing systems impact - None
Part of use case: | Share your experience
Skills demands - Subject to LMS support for export of MARC records based on specified criteria, this should fall within the capabilities of a systems librarian. Model 2 additionally requires ability to transform data between library specific format and more generic formats. This may be achieved via a third party application or through some basic local development. This would require experience beyond simply running LMS reports.
Part of use case: | Share your experience

Costs

Setup - The necessary export capability for Model 1 should already be included within the LMS or equivalent local systems. Configuration to meet specific requirements may require modest effort that will normally be within the abilities of systems staff. Model 2 may incur some additional costs in acquiring additional software, expertise, or external development effort.
Part of use case: | Share your experience
Ongoing - The costs associated with sustaining this capability are low, but will inevitably be affected by the frequency with which data updates must be supplied.
Part of use case: | Share your experience
Cost of doing nothing - No additional costs will be directly accrued through inaction.
Part of use case: | Share your experience