On Thu, 7 Sep 2000, Chris Armstrong wrote:
[RE] <http://www.iis.org.uk/events/agm2k/index.html>.
As someone who has studied electronic publishing in some depth over the
last few years and produced a report on the subject for JISC,
I can't this find on the JISC site.
it is here that I have to take issue with it. How is the user to know
which is the copy of record?
I think we have an answer for this. If we could get the editorial
committee to work this with the 'publishers' (whoever/whatever they may
be - hopefully academic/learned institutions) then the digests
('signatures') and the link to the post prints could be registered.
Thus the site would say
- this article is the one we published from
- a preprint received whose signature was xx (and the author
would have an independently published certification of this)
- the author revised it in the light of discussion (links to such)
and revised it
- and it can be seen here (link) and the signature is xx
(and so on until the thread stops).
Essentially there would then be an officially- and impartially recorded
thread of development.
The only snag I see is that for this to work the post prints need a
measure of review. But, however, this essentially happens when the (e-)
correspondence happens.
This is pretty much what happens with the IETF endeavours except that
the 'papers' are Draft Technical Standards and only lodged in one place
(so can't be altered except by the secretariat).
equivalent) and legal deposit.
Well, that's what my project objective is trying to achieve - legal deposit
electronically and publically.
publishing, others and you, I think, somewhat less. The interregnum
will prove difficult for users who are faced with such choices - I fear
that all but the most committed will remain faithful to the tried and
tested formal publishing.
We need to manage in the interregnum with some proper and attractive
ways to pull the community across.
Adrian Pickering
Electronics and Computer Svience
Southampton University
