1

Re: Proposed removal of the 'view only' access control

Hello
During the first round of consultation, the proposal to remove the ‘view only’ access control and make all non-sensitive species records downloadable raised some concerns.  35% of respondents disapproved of this proposal, while 52% approved, of whom 28% strongly approved.  Several respondents have since told us that they are happy with the proposal to remove the ‘view only’ control now that we have added a control over whole dataset downloads.   So, it looks as if there will be a fairly high level of acceptance of this part of the proposal after all, which is excellent news as it will make the Gateway a far more useful tool for ‘non-professional’ users such as students and members of the volunteer recording community.
However, some of you might still have concerns so I would like to clarify a few points about this proposal:
•    Users will only be able to download records at the level of resolution they have been granted – e.g. if you have restricted public access to 2km squares with no recorder names or attributes, that is all that the user will be able to download.
•    Users will only be able to download records for one species, or one site or one 10km square, the same as under the current system.  If they want to download your whole dataset, they will have to ask your permission and you can refuse if you don’t feel their request is justified.
•    Users will have to log in before downloading data and they will need to give a reason for their download, so you will be able to see exactly who downloaded your data and why.
•    Use of downloaded data is governed by the NBN Gateway Terms and Conditions.  I know that not everyone obeys T&Cs, but it will be easier to monitor this when we have information on who has downloaded the data and why.  We are taking steps to raise awareness of the T&Cs and taking legal advice on how to enforce them.
•    A big benefit of making the data downloadable is that users will be able to see the records on the screen rather than just squares on the map.  Just because these users can download the records doesn’t mean they will – but they will still enjoy the benefits.
•    I know some data providers are concerned that making data downloadable increases the risk of duplication.  The main reason for the proposed changes is to increase the use of biodiversity data for conservation and research.  This does mean that copies of records will be held in different databases around the country (e.g. by University researchers), but is that really a problem provided that the raw data are not passed on?  Because the current system of access controls does not allow you to grant access to a geographic or taxonomic subset of data, a huge number of data access request are dealt with ‘outside’ the Gateway by passing spreadsheets back and forth – a better system of access controls could actually reduce the risk of duplication.
•    We can add a control enabling you to ‘opt out’ of sharing your data with GBIF, the Global Biodiversity Information Facility, although I hope that most data providers will see the benefits of integrating UK expertise and data into broader international initiatives.
If you have questions or concerns about the proposal to remove the ‘view only’ control, please post in this forum or e-mail me at p.lightfoot@nbn.org.uk
Best wishes
Paula
NBN Trust Data Access Officer

2

Re: Proposed removal of the 'view only' access control

paula lightfoot wrote:

Users will only be able to download records for one species, or one site or one 10km square, the same as under the current system.  If they want to download your whole dataset, they will have to ask your permission and you can refuse if you don’t feel their request is justified.

A quick question here regarding the above statement regarding "single species" datasets.

If a dataset only holds data for a single species, would a download request for this be treated as a) a request for information on a single species, in which case the whole dataset could be downloaded by default, or b) would it be seen as a request to download an entire dataset, in which case permission wil be required.

3

Re: Proposed removal of the 'view only' access control

Hi Matt,
No such thing as a 'quick question' as you can see from my lengthy answer below!  You've raised a good point and I hope this answers it: 

In the current system there is no control over full dataset downloads which occur as part of a site search or species search.    This is relevant to data providers who supply datasets for a single species, a single site (e.g. a National Trust site), or for a very small geographic area that falls completely within a 10km square or designated site boundary.   
There is currently a technical limitation on downloading records for large geographic areas such as LRC boundaries – the maximum size of a polygon for which data can be downloaded is 900km2.  However, under the new system, this limitation is unlikely to apply.
We therefore propose to add a separate control over full dataset downloads and to apply this to ALL requests for whole datasets, whether they occur as a result of a direct request or incidentally as part of a species or site search.  This will also apply if the request occurs via a custom download or via Web Services.
We propose that data providers would receive an email asking for permission to download their whole dataset and would have 21 days in which to accept or refuse the request.  We propose that permission should be granted automatically if the request was not answered within 21 days.  This is detailed in the flow chart: http://www.nbn.org.uk/nbn_wide/media/Documents/Data/Single-dataset-download-flow-chart-screenshot.pdf

The data provider will have the following options when setting ‘public’ access to their dataset:
a)    Allow download of the whole dataset without delay.  These datasets will automatically be available via GBIF and Web Services.   The data provider will not have to deal with requests for full dataset downloads, but will receive feedback on who has downloaded their dataset and for what purpose.
b)    Allow download of the whole dataset with a 21 day delay.  If this option is selected, the data provider will be given two further options:
b1)    Allow export of the dataset to GBIF
b2)    Allow an exemption to the 21 delay to enable the dataset to be accessed through Web Services
The reasons for these separate controls are:
b1)     It is possible to download full datasets via GBIF (although there is a current limit of 100,000 records per download) and it is not possible to set a control over this on GBIF.  Some data providers have advised us that they want control over who downloads their whole dataset via the Gateway, but they are keen to make their dataset available via GBIF.
b2)    It is not possible to integrate a 21 day delay into Web Services, so if a Web Service request for data on a single species or single site calls for a whole dataset, and the data provider has set a control over whole dataset downloads, that dataset would simply be excluded from the Web Service return.  Some data providers have indicated that they want control over who downloads their whole dataset for use in their own in-house database (due to concerns over duplication), but they have no objection to their data being made available via Web Services.  Indeed, many data providers are also users of Web Services.  Please note that this will only affect Web Services that supply details of the records. Web Services that just return map images, such as the gridmap Web Service will not be affected
Most data providers supply multi-species, multi-site datasets so their whole dataset could never be downloaded through a single species or single site data search via the Gateway or via Web Services.   We therefore hope that the majority of data providers will agree to let their data be accessed via Web Services.
From a user’s point of view, if you download records following a site search or species search on the Gateway you will be notified if your download includes any whole datasets for which the data provider has set a control over full dataset download.  You will see a list of these datasets, enabling you to apply for permission to download them, and you will also have the option of downloading the rest of the data immediately.
Under the proposed new system, you will be able to apply for access to multiple datasets with a single request, so applying for permission to download the datasets will not be a lengthy task.
From a data provider’s point of view, please note the following:
•    Records flagged as ‘sensitive’ will always be excluded if a dataset is downloaded at the ‘public’ level of access.
•    If full dataset download is permitted at the ‘public’ level of access (with or without the 21 day control) the user will only be able to download the data at the level of resolution that has been set for ‘public’ access.
•    The ‘enhanced’ level of access to a dataset will always include the ability to download the whole dataset.
•    If a user has ‘enhanced’ access to a geographic/taxonomic/temporal subset of a dataset, and if the data provider has chosen not to allow full dataset download at the ‘public’ level of access, the user would need to apply for full access to the whole dataset in order to download the whole dataset.  In practice, this is unlikely to be an issue, as if they are only interested in a geographic/taxonomic/temporal subset then they are unlikely to want to download the whole dataset.

4

Re: Proposed removal of the 'view only' access control

Thanks for sharing.

5

Re: Proposed removal of the 'view only' access control

Thank you for the answer paula!