Absolutely right, Stevan. I apologise for confusing the issue with an
irrelevant anecdote.
Fytton Rowland.
On Thu, 17 Mar 2005, Lee Giles wrote:
I strongly agree with these sentiments. If you don't include us, we will
go elsewhere and create our own open access policies and movement.
Iwas not planning to answer this thread, but any statement that does not reflect
the practices in communities such as computer science is not likely to be
endorsed by multidisciplinary bodies such as CNRS.
Laurent Romary
Selon J.F.B.Rowland j.f.rowl...@lboro.ac.uk:
Having spent all morning at a
I strongly agree with these sentiments. If you don't include us, we will
go elsewhere and create our own open access policies and movement.
What a waste.
Best
Lee Giles
Computer and Information Scientist and Scholar
Laurent Romary wrote:
Iwas not planning to answer this thread, but any
On Thu, 17 Mar 2005, Lee Giles wrote:
I strongly agree with these sentiments. If you don't include us, we will
go elsewhere and create our own open access policies and movement.
What a waste.
Please, this is a tempest in a tea-pot!
Distinguish (1) whatever it is that institutions and
On 13 Mar 2005, at 21:10, Stevan Harnad wrote:
Open Access is provided *by* researchers *for* researchers (and for
research progress and benefits).
Open Access, by this criterion, applies to Research Outputs (or
Researcher Outputs).
As a Computer Scientist, I automatically read peer
I am against updating the BOAI definition of OA because I think the
current definition is more than adequate and the proposed update is
needlessly confusing, as Heather's reply and Stevan's further attempt at
clarification aptly demonstrates. No one knows what permanent means in
the digital realm,
On Sun, 13 Mar 2005, Leslie Chan wrote:
I am against updating the BOAI definition of OA because I think the
current definition is more than adequate
Leslie, do you think it is more than adequate that (1) 12-month
delayed-access (NIH Back Access) is being offered in place of immediate
access
If I may add my two cents to this discussion, what is needed is not a
revision of this or that definition but an unequivocal legal license by
which the author permits the perpetual distribution of his/her work and
of derivative works on the Internet. Immediately and irrevocably.
Next thing
At the risk of sounding repetative, may I remind those of us from very rich,
very information-rich countries, that these discussions are a luxury. A
necessary luxury in the longer term, but I worry that they will currently
divert attention from what we should all be using our energies doing -
On Mon, 14 Mar 2005, Imre Simon wrote:
what is needed is not a revision of this or that definition but an
unequivocal legal license by which the author permits the perpetual
distribution of his/her work and of derivative works on the
Internet. Immediately and irrevocably...
There is no such
On 3/13/05 10:39 PM, Stevan Harnad har...@ecs.soton.ac.uk wrote:
On Sun, 13 Mar 2005, Leslie Chan wrote:
I am against updating the BOAI definition of OA because I think the
current definition is more than adequate
Leslie, do you think it is more than adequate that (1) 12-month
Regardless of any comments on larger issues,
I certainly do agree with Stevan's proposed changes.
As for the wording..
PERMANENTLY is clear enough
IMMEDIATELY -- immediately after what? Surely not immediately after writing,
and we do not all seem to mean the same thing by publication.
I think
note for moderator: Stevan, I'm sure you could not post this without
critiquing, so go ahead - but I would like to see this message posted
separately first. Also, if subsequent discussion needs to be referred to
another list, may I suggest SOAF? chrs, Heather
Stevan, I absolutely agree with
I would agree with Stevan, and would propose to begin by looking over
and updating Peter's overview with the goal of building a reference
glossary.
Just to give an example relating to a recent exchange between Stevan and
myself, the word publication was at stake. It turns out that for Stevan
a
On Sun, 13 Mar 2005, Heather Morrison wrote:
sh By open access to this literature, we mean its free availability
sh on the public internet, immediately and permanantly...
this raises the bar too high at present. My interpretation of your
proposed definition is that only gold
On Sun, 13 Mar 2005, Jean-Claude Guedon wrote:
a publication is a published article; this is indeed a common and
legitimate use of the term. However, from a librarian or publisher
perspective, a publication is a journal with the result that a
librarian/publisher publication is made up of
16 matches
Mail list logo
