Sarven Capadisli writes > By persistency, I assume you mean archival ie. a source deemed to be > trustable as it promises to preserve knowledge for long-term. Along the > lines of [1].
Yes. > Isn't archiving an independent and an external function that any actor > should have read-write access to ie. to create snapshots and read > existing ones? Yes, but it's still a third party. And a lot of open access material is not immediately accessible in bulk. I'm sure Peter can sing us a song about that issue. > Third-party (non- or for-profit) publishing services neither provide the > archival service or expected to, but merely act as a proxy. Yes, but they are big, extremely well funded and they have agreement with third-party services. Building a low-cost scholarly communication system that is decentralized is a complicated issue. Even in situation where we have a head start, like in RePEc, there are important conceptual and organizational challenges. I think we should take that discussion off list, but before we do, let me add the following. I think the current centralized systems we use for scholarly communication are an overhang of the paper era, that made such centralization unavoidable. In future, better days, there may be systems that are much more discipline or subject specific, depending on * the requirements for formal review of material * the structural nature of the outputs * the economic circumstances surrounding its production * some initial conditions -- Cheers, Thomas Krichel http://openlib.org/home/krichel skype:thomaskrichel _______________________________________________ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
