Understanding the legal implications of data sharing, access and reuse in the Australian research landscape

Researchers are increasingly involved in data-intensive research projects that cut across geographic and disciplinary borders. Quality research now often involves virtual communities of researchers participating in large-scale web-based collaborations, opening their earlystage research to the research community in order to encourage broader participation and accelerate discoveries. The result of such large-scale collaborations has been the production of ever-increasing amounts of data. In short, we are in the midst of a data deluge. Accompanying these developments has been a growing recognition that if the benefits of enhanced access to research are to be realised, it will be necessary to develop the systems and services that enable data to be managed and secured. It has also become apparent that to achieve seamless access to data it is necessary not only to adopt appropriate technical standards, practices and architecture, but also to develop legal frameworks that facilitate access to and use of research data. This chapter provides an overview of the current research landscape in Australia as it relates to the collection, management and sharing of research data. The chapter then explains the Australian legal regimes relevant to data, including copyright, patent, privacy, confidentiality and contract law. Finally, this chapter proposes the infrastructure elements that are required for the proper management of legal interests, ownership rights and rights to access and use data collected or generated by research projects.

The culture of the journey as structure of the landscape: an inquiry on mobility facilities and identity of place

The structure of the travel, meant as cultural activity, is proposed as a key to read and design the urban or rural landscape.

Extreme architecture : can architects future proof us against fire and flood.

In the face of Australia’s disaster-prone environment, architects Ian Weir and James Davidson are reconceptualising how our residential buildings might become more resilient to fire, flood and cyclone. With their first-hand experience of natural disasters, James, director of Emergency Architects Australia (EAA), and Ian, one of Australia’s few ‘bushfire architects’, discuss the ways we can design with disaster in mind. Dr Ian Weir is one of Australia’s few ‘bushfire architects’. Exploring a holistic ‘ground up’ approach to bushfire where landscape, building design and habitation patterns are orchestrated to respond to site-specific fire characteristics. Ian’s research is developed through design studio teaching at QUT and through built works in Western Australia’s fire prone forests and heathlands.

Enacted Cartography : Formations - 2012 Venice Architecture Biennale

RESEARCH BACKGROUND Enacted Cartography documents 10 years of creative research practice by Ian Weir Research Architect and was developed as standalone exhibition to support Dr Weir’s selection by the Australian Institute of Architects to represent innovative architectural practice via the Institute’s review entitled Formations: New Practices in Australian Architecture – which took the form of an exhibition and book presented in Venice, Italy for 13th International Architecture Exhibition (Venice Architecture Biennale). All works exhibited in Enacted Cartography are original works by Dr Weir and are generated either from or for the remote biodiverse landscapes of the Fitzgerald Bioregion on the south coast of Western Australia. RESEARCH CONTRIBUTION As a creative work in its own right, the Enacted Cartography exhibition makes the following contributions to knowledge: 1. Expands understandings of architectural practice by presenting a geographically-specific but multimodal form of architectural practice - wherein practitioners cross over discipline boundaries into art practice, landscape representation, website design, undergraduate university teaching and community advocacy. 2. Contributes to understandings of how such a diverse multimodal form of practice might be represented through both digital media and traditional print media in an exhibition format. 3. Expands understandings of how architectural practitioners might work within a particular place to develop a geographically-specific sense of identity, a ‘landscape of resistance’. RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE Enacted Cartography was presented to an international audience during the 13th International Architecture Exhibition (Venice Architecture Biennale). The significance of Dr Weir’s research is evidence by his selected by the Australian Institute of Architects to represent innovation in architectural practice for the Biennale. Enacted Cartography addresses problems of national and international importance including: 1. The sustainable development of biodiverse remote landscapes; 2. The reconciliation of bushfire safety and biodiversity conservation; 3. The necessity for rethinking of architectural design methodologies to meet the complexity of landscape management and design; 4. It challenges orthodox forms of landscape representation (aerial photography, for example) which are demonstrably inadequate registrations of biophysical and cultural landscapes.

Architecture for a free subjectivity

In October 2012, Simone presented her book Architecture for a Free Subjectivity to the University of Michigan, Taubman College of Architecture and Urban Planning. This book explores the architectural significance of Deleuze’s philosophy of subjectivization, and Guattari’s overlooked dialogue on architecture and subjectivity. In doing so, it proposes that subjectivity is no longer the exclusive provenance of human beings, but extends to the architectural, the cinematic, the erotic, and the political. It defines a new position within the literature on Deleuze and architecture, while highlighting the neglected issue of subjectivity in contemporary discussion.

The subject and architecture

Invited Presentation on my book Architecture for a Free Subjectivity. In March of 1982, Skyline, the Institute for Architecture and Urban Studies serial, published the landmark interview between Paul Rabinow, an American anthropologist, and Michel Foucault, which would only appear two years later under the title “Space, Knowledge, and Power,” in Rabinow’s edited book The Foucault Reader. Foucault said that in the spatialization of knowledge and power beginning in the 18th century, architecture is not a signifier or metaphor for power, it is rather the “technique for practising social organization.” The role of the IAUS in the architectural dissemination of Foucault’s ideas on the subject and space in the North American academy – such as the concept “heterotopia,” and Foucault’s writing on surveillance and Jeremy Bentham’s Panopticon, subsequently analysed by Georges Teyssot, who was teaching at the Venice School – is well known. Teyssot’s work is part of the historical canalization of Foucauldianism, and French subjectivity more broadly, along its dizzying path, via Italy, to American architecture schools, where it solidified in the 1980s paradigm that would come to be known as American architecture theory. Foucault was already writing on incarceration and prisons, from the 1970s. (In the 1975 lectures he said “architecture was responsible for the invention of madness.”) But this work was not properly incorporated into architectural discussion until the early ’80s. What is not immediately apparent, what this history suggests to me is that subjectivity was not a marginal topic within “theory”, but was perhaps a platform and entry point for architecture theory. One of the ideas that I’m working on is that “theory” can be viewed, historically, as the making of architectural subjectivity, something that can be traced back to the Frankfurt School critique which begins with the modern subject...

A model of enterprise architecture evolution

Enterprise architectures are exposed to fast emerging business and information technology capabilities. A prominent example is the paradigm of service-orientation, which leads to its own architectural requirements and impacts the design and ongoing evolution of Enterprise Architectures. This thesis develops the first theoretical model describing enterprise architecture evolution and outcomes in light of a changing IT landscape such as service-oriented architectures. The developed theoretical model explains enterprise architecture evolution, its main stages and related capabilities. This model can be used to derive theoretical, sound guidelines to manage enterprise architectures in a changing environment.

In pursuit of an architecture realism

The noble idea of studying seminal works to ‘see what we can learn’ has turned in the 1990s into ‘let’s see what we can take’ and in the last decade a more toxic derivative ‘what else can’t we take’. That is my observation as a student of architecture in the 1990s, and as a practitioner in the 2000s. In 2010, the sense that something is ending is clear. The next generation is rising and their gaze has shifted. The idea of classification (as a means of separation) was previously rejected by a generation of Postmodernists; the usefulness of difference declined. It’s there in the presence of plurality in the resulting architecture, a decision to mine history and seize in a willful manner. This is a process of looking back but never forward. It has been a mono-culture of absorption. The mono-culture rejected the pursuit of the realistic. It is a blanket suffocating all practice of architecture in this country from the mercantile to the intellectual. Independent reviews of Australia’s recent contributions to the Venice Architecture Biennales confirm the malaise. The next generation is beginning to reconsider classification as a means of unification. By acknowledging the characteristics of competing forces it is possible to bring them into a state of tension. Seeking a beautiful contrast is a means to a new end. In the political setting, this is described by Noel Pearson as the radical centre[1]. The concept transcends the political and in its most essential form is a cultural phenomenon. It resists the compromised position and suggests that we can look back while looking forward. The radical centre is the only demonstrated opportunity where it is possible to pursue a realistic architecture. A realistic architecture in Australia may be partially resolved by addressing our anxiety of permanence. Farrelly’s built desires[2] and Markham’s ritual demonstrations[3] are two ways into understanding the broader spectrum of permanence. But I think they are downstream of our core problem. Our problem, as architects, is that we are yet to come to terms with this place. Some call it landscape others call it country. Australian cities were laid out on what was mistaken for a blank canvas. On some occasions there was the consideration of the landscape when it presented insurmountable physical obstacles. The architecture since has continued to work on its piece of a constantly blank canvas. Even more ironic is the commercial awards programs that represent a claim within this framework but at best can only establish a dialogue within itself. This is a closed system unable to look forward. It is said that Melbourne is the most European city in the southern hemisphere but what is really being described there is the limitation of a senseless grid. After all, if Dutch landscape informs Dutch architecture why can’t the Australian landscape inform Australian architecture? To do that, we would have to acknowledge our moribund grasp of the meaning of the Australian landscape. Or more precisely what Indigenes call Country[4]. This is a complex notion and there are different ways into it. Country is experienced and understood through the senses and seared into memory. If one begins design at that starting point it is not unreasonable to think we can arrive at an end point that is a counter trajectory to where we have taken ourselves. A recent studio with Masters students confirmed this. Start by finding Country and it would be impossible to end up with a building looking like an Aboriginal man’s face. To date architecture in Australia has overwhelmingly ignored Country on the back of terra nullius. It can’t seem to get past the picturesque. Why is it so hard? The art world came to terms with this challenge, so too did the legal establishment, even the political scene headed into new waters. It would be easy to blame the budgets of commerce or the constraints of program or even the pressure of success. But that is too easy. Those factors are in fact the kind of limitations that opportunities grow out of. The past decade of economic plenty has, for the most part, smothered the idea that our capitals might enable civic settings or an architecture that is able to looks past lot line boundaries in a dignified manner. The denied opportunities of these settings to be prompted by the Country they occupy is criminal. The public realm is arrested in its development because we refuse to accept Country as a spatial condition. What we seem to be able to embrace is literal and symbolic gestures usually taking the form of a trumped up art installations. All talk – no action. To continue to leave the public realm to the stewardship of mercantile interests is like embracing derivative lending after the global financial crisis.Herein rests an argument for why we need a resourced Government Architect’s office operating not as an isolated lobbyist for business but as a steward of the public realm for both the past and the future. New South Wales is the leading model with Queensland close behind. That is not to say both do not have flaws but current calls for their cessation on the grounds of design parity poorly mask commercial self interest. In Queensland, lobbyists are heavily regulated now with an aim to ensure integrity and accountability. In essence, what I am speaking of will not be found in Reconciliation Action Plans that double as business plans, or the mining of Aboriginal culture for the next marketing gimmick, or even discussions around how to make buildings more ‘Aboriginal’. It will come from the next generation who reject the noxious mono-culture of absorption and embrace a counter trajectory to pursue an architecture of realism.

Communication Architecture Design for Real-Time Networked Control Systems

Networked control over data networks has received increasing attention in recent years. Among many problems in networked control systems (NCSs) is the need to reduce control latency and jitter and to deal with packet dropouts. This paper introduces our recent progress on a queuing communication architecture for real-time NCS applications, and simple strategies for dealing with packet dropouts. Case studies for a middle-scale process or multiple small-scale processes are presented for TCP/IP based real-time NCSs. Variations of network architecture design are modelled, simulated, and analysed for evaluation of control latency and jitter performance. It is shown that a simple bandwidth upgrade or adding hierarchy does not necessarily bring benefits for performance improvement of control latency and jitter. A co-design of network and control is necessary to maximise the real-time control performance of NCSs