Geographic data for academic research: Assessing access policies

Cartography and Geographic Information Science

Volumn 31, Issue 1, 2004, Pages 3-17

  van Loenen, Bastiaan ^a   Onsrud, Harlan J ^b  

^a DELFT UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY   (Netherlands)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MAINE   (United States)

Author keywords

Chi square test; Cost recovery; Data access principles; Geographic data; GIS; Measures of success; Meta data; Open access; Productivity; T test

Indexed keywords

COSTS; DATA ACQUISITION; ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL EFFECTS; KNOWLEDGE ACQUISITION; MAPPING;

ACCESS-TO-DATA ENVIRONMENT;

GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEMS;

ACADEMIC RESEARCH; DATA ACQUISITION; DATA INTERPRETATION; GEOGRAPHICAL RESEARCH; GIS; PUBLIC ACCESS;

EID: 1842628616     PISSN: 15230406     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1559/152304004773112730     Document Type: Article

References (41)

1. Barlow, John Perry. 1994. The economy of ideas: A framework for patents and copyrights in the digital age (Everything you know about intellectual property is wrong). WIRED 2(3): 84-90, 126-129.
2. Copyright Act. 17 U.S.C. (http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/).
3. FGDC (Federal Geographic Data Committee). 1997. Metadata standards development: Content Standard for Digital Geospatial Metadata, Version 1.0. (http://www.fgdc.gov/publications/documents/metadata/ metav1-0/html#1.2).
4. FGDC (Federal Geographic Data Committee). 2000. Ten most common metadata errors. FGDC Metadata Education Program. (http://www.fgdc.gov/metadata/top10metadataerrors.pdf).
5. FOIA (Freedom of Information Act). 5 U.S.C. [section] 552. (http://www.nara.gov/fedreg/legal/apa/552.html).
6. Harvey, Francis. 2001. U.S. National Spatial Data Infrastructure: The local government perspective. GIM International 15(3): 36-9.
7. th Congress. 1999. To amend title 17, United States Code, to provide protection for certain collections of information (the "Collections of Information Antipiracy Act"), January 19.
8. HR 1858 U.S. 106th Congress 1999. To promote electronic commerce through improved access for consumers to electronic databases, including securities market information databases (Consumer and Investor Access to Information Act of 1999), May 19.
9. ICSU/CODATA. 1997. Position paper on access to databases. ICSU/CODATA Group on Data and Information. (http://www.codata.org/data_access/wipo.pdf). 20p.
10. ICSU/CODATA. 1998. Responses to WIPO survey on database protection. ICSU/CODATA Group on Data and Information. (http://www.coda.org/data_access/position.pdf). 10p.
11. INSPIRE. 2003. Consultation paper on a forthcoming EU Legal Initiative on Spatial Information for Community Policy-making and Implementation. INSPIRE: Infrastructure for Spatial Information in Europe. (http://inspire.jrc.it/reports/ INSPIRE-InternetConsultationPhaseII.pdf).
12. Litman, Jessica. 1994. Rights in government-generated data. In: Proceedings of the Conference on Law and Information Policy for Spatial Databases. Tempe, Arizona: NCGIA & Center for the Study of Law, Science and Technology. (http://www.spatial.maine.edu/tempe/litman.html).
13. Lopez, Xavier R. 1998. The dissemination of spatial data: A North American-European comparative study on the impact of government information policy. London, U.K.: Ablex.
14. Masser, Ian, and Henk Ottens. 1999. Urban planning and geographic information systems. In: John Stillwell, S. Geertman and S. Openshaw (eds), Geographical Information and Planning. Berlin: Spinger-Verlay, pp. 25-42.
15. Maurer, S., P.B. Hugenholtz, and H. Onsrud. 2001. Europe's database experiment. Science 294: 789-90.
16. McLaughlin, John, and Sue Nichols. 1994. Developing a National Spatial Data Infrastructure. Journal of Surveying Engineering 120(2): 64-76.
17. Nelkin, Dorothy. 1984. Science as intellectual property: Who controls scientific research? AAAS series on Issues in Science and Technology. New York, New York: MacMillan Publishing Company.
18. NRC (National Research Council). 1995a. On the full and open exchange of scientific data. Committee on Geophysical and Environmental Data. Washington D.C., U.S.: National Academy Press.
19. NRC (National Research Council). 1995b. Preserving the scientific data on our physical universe: A new strategy for archiving the Nation's scientific information resource. Commission on Physical Sciences, Mathematics and Applications. Washington D.C., U.S.: National Academy Press.
20. NRC (National Research Council). 1997. Bits of power: Issues in global access to scientific data. Committee on Issues in the Transborder Flow of Scientific Data. U.S. National Committee for CODATA, Commission on Physical Sciences, Mathematics, and Applications. Washington D.C., U.S.: National Academy Press. (http://books.nap.edu/ catalog/5504.html).
21. NRC (National Research Council). 1999a. A question of balance: Private rights and the public interest in scientific and technical databases. Commission on Physical Sciences, Mathematics and Applications. Washington D.C., U.S.: National Academy Press. (http://books.nap.edu/catalog/9692.html).
22. NRC (National Research Council). 1999b. Distributed geolibraries: Spatial information resources. Mapping Science Committee. Washington D.C., U.S.: National Academy Press. (http://books.nap.edu/catalog/9460.html).
23. NRC (National Research Council). 2000. The digital dilemma: Intellectual property in the information age. Committee on Intellectual Property Rights and the Emerging Information Infrastructure. Washington D.C., U.S.: National Academy Press. (http://books.nap.edu/catalog/9601.html).
24. Okerson, Ann. 1996. Who owns digital works? Computer networks challenge Copyright Law, but some proposed cures may be as bad as the disease. Scientific American 275(1): 80-85.
25. Onsrud, H.J. 1992a. In support of cost recovery for publicly held geographic information. GIS Law 1(2): 1-7.
26. Onsrud, H.J. 1992b. In support of open access for publicly held geographic information. GIS Law 1(1): 3-6.
27. Onsrud, H.J., and X. Lopez. 1998. Intellectual property rights in disseminating geographic data, products, and services: Conflicts and commonalities among European Union and United States approaches. In: P. Burrough and I. Masser (eds), European Geographic Information Infrastructures: Opportunities and Pitfalls. London, U.K.: Taylor & Francis, pp. 153-167.
28. Paperwork Reduction Act. 1995. 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. (http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/44/3501.html).
29. Perritt, Henry H. Jr. 1996. Public policy for basic GIS data. GIS Law 3(2): 20-25.
30. Perritt, Henry H. Jr. 1999. Law and the information superhighway. Gaithersburg and New York, U.S.: Aspen Law and Business.
31. Pira International Ltd. 2000. Commercial exploitation of Europe's public sector information. Luxembourg, Luxembourg: Office of Official Publications of the European Communities.
32. Pluijmers, Y., and P. Weiss. 2002. Borders in cyberspace: Conflicting public sector information policies and their economic impacts. (http://205.156.54.206/2p/Borders_report.pdf).
33. Reichman J. H., and J.H. Franklin. 1999. Privately legislated intellectual property rights: Reconciling freedom of contract with public good uses of information. University of Pennsylvania Law Review 147(4): 875-970.
34. Reichman, Jerome H., and Pamela Samuelson. 1997. Intellectual property rights in data. Vanderbilt Law Review 50(51): 51-166.
35. Reichman, J.H., and P. Uhlir. 1999. Database protection at the crossroads: Recent developments and their impact on science and technology. Berkeley Law Journal 14(2): 793-838.
36. Rhind, David. 1992. Data access, charging and copyright and their implications for geographical information systems. Int. J. Geographical Information Systems 6(1): 13-30.
37. Sirkin, R. Mark. 1995. Statistics for the social sciences. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications.
38. Van Loenen, B. 2001. Access to scientific and technical data in an academic setting. M.Sc. thesis, University of Maine.
39. Varian, Hal R. 1995. The information economy. How much will two bits be worth in the digital market place? Scientific American (September): 200-201.
40. Weiss, Peter, and Peter Backlund. 1997. International information policy in conflict: Open and unrestricted access versus government commercialization. In: Brian Kahin and Charles Nesson (eds), Borders in Cyberspace: Information Policy and Global Information Infrastructure. Boston, Massachusetts: MIT Press.
41. Zikmund, William G. 1991. Business research methods. 3rd ed. Chicago, Illinois: Dryden Press.