I'm considering adding version control to the files. This is going to be needed for the oft discussed j-prints (eprints with peer review)
I think for archives like ECS letting the author un-deposit then resubmit is probably OK, but bad for cogprints. I'm considering adding it as an *option* which the archive admin can enable/disable. This is definitely a quality vs. quantity issue. ECS EPrints is already such a state I don't think it can hurt. Cogprints is another matter. Suggestions of a perfect(better) solution are more than welcome. On Mon, Dec 02, 2002 at 07:40:34 +0000, Stevan Harnad wrote: > On Mon, 2 Dec 2002, J Adrian Pickering wrote: > > > It isn't just a technical issue. > > > > If you follow Mark's solution you end up with the risk of people citing > > papers that don't contain the information they cite anymore. > > Mark suggested that an archived article should be a persisting object, > with a persisting identifier. That seems reasonable. Now if there have > been several successive versions of a paper (which the author wants to > consider as successive versions rather than new papers), then it also > seems reasonable that the archive should link all the successive > versions and point to the latest one by default. > > All the prior versions are preserved, and accessible (unless the archive > has a policy allowing withdrawal -- a policy that should not be > encouraged). > > It is the user's or citer's responsibility to specify which version they > have used/cited, if there are more than one. That will become part of > good scholarship, just as spelling the author's name correctly is. > > So we need both unique identifier for a generic paper and a unique > identifier for a specific draft of that paper. > > > This is particularly likely when the matter being discussed is > > controversial. A citation strictly refers to a manifestation/version > > not the generic paper. > > Correct. It refers to a specific draft, usually with a calendar date and > some other identifying features. > > > If the person making the citation wishes to change the citation to a later > > version then that is *their* right. The link is *their* link, not the > > target's. If you have 'published' something then it is in the public domain > > and you must expect people to cite it (and that version). > > I mostly agree. But this seems to be covered by providing unique version > identifies; it does not prevent the Archive from defaulting to the most > recent version -- while offering the earlier versions too. > > It might be making a subtle difference in the view people are taking on > this whether they are thinking of the Archive as a centralized one > (rather like a journal) or a distributed institutional one (rather like > author-provided reprints). It is conceivable that different drafts of a > paper will be in different archives. Those distributed versions too, > need to be trackable and integrated. My technical inexpertise leaves me > unable to propose how to do this, but it is the hardest-case scenario, > and the one we should aim to cover, eventually. Assuming it will all > be in one central archive is probably unrealistic (and unnecessary, in the > spirit of distributed OAI archiving and interoperability). > > To my layman's ear it sounds as if every version of a paper will need a > unique version identifier, and in addition, there will need to be some > interoperable ways of integrating different versions as being different > versions of the same paper. The new scholarship will be, at the gross > level, concerned only with citing the generic paper (without worrying > about version fine-tuning), but the careful scholars need to have the > option of specifying the version too, uniquely, for those cases where > it matters. > > > I agree that archive items should persist and, therefore, the references to > > them. The relationship between the versions should be issue to click > > through too. > > > > Regards the 'user' query, they need to be told not to submit so many > > versions i.e. *think* carefully before submission! This is a matter of > > policy and governs the degree of 'resistance' there is to making > > submissions. There needs to be some otherwise the quality level drop. > > It cuts both ways. Yes, authors should not start archiving willy-nilly > every raw draft and every afterthought. But they should not feel > constrained in doing corrections and updates whenever they are needed > too. Authors should know, though, that from the moment they place a draft > into a public open-access archive, it may be read, cited, and pointed to > -- that specific draft -- in perpetuum. That is part of what it means > to have archived something publicly. > > I'm sure scholars will easily get a sense for this, as they have for > everything else. In the beginning some will fumble and treat the > archive as labile first drafts or lapidary touch-me-nots, but experience > and feedback will calibrate everyone's practice and reflexes. The > Archives just have to make sure they do not pre-judge or short-circuit > any important options a priori. > > Stevan > > > A/ > > > > > > >Stevan Harnad > > > > > >On Mon, 2 Dec 2002, Mark Doyle wrote: > > > > > > > Greetings, > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, November 26, 2002, at 08:27 PM, Stevan Harnad wrote: > > > > > > > > > Now it is conceivable that the eprints architecture can be slightly > > > > > modified, so that the old, suppressed URL for the deleted paper > > > > > automatically redirects to the new draft if someone tries to access > > > > > the old one. That I have to let Chris reply about. Here I have merely > > > > > explained the rationale for not having designed the archive so a paper > > > > > could be deposited, and then modified willy-nilly under the same URL. > > > > > For that would not have been an archive at all, and user complaints, > > > > > about trying to use and cite a moving target, would have far > > > > > out-numbered > > > > > depositor complaints about what to do with after-thoughts and > > > > > successive > > > > > drafts. > > > > > > > > Well, that is one way to look at it. On the other hand, arXiv.org uses > > > > version numbers and the persistent name/id and URL (say hep-th/0210311 > > > > and http://arXiv.org/abs/hep-th/0210311) always points to the latest > > > > version > > > > with links to the earlier versions. > > > > > > > > I believe you are advocating a poor design choice here. One cannot > > > > overemphasize > > > > the importance of human-friendly persistent names that are easily > > > > converted > > > > to URL's for linking and quick location. Patching the system to > > > > redirect to the > > > > latest linked version is a hack. Is one actually able to download > > > > the earlier version (which is what was cited)? Generally, a better > > > > approach > > > > is to give a good persistent name to a "work" and not a single > > > > manifestation > > > > of that work (whether it be a particular format or a particular > > > > version) and > > > > then give a reader a single point of entry into the system that can be > > > > bookmarked > > > > or cited reliably which gives a choice of what to download. Cutting off > > > > access > > > > to an earlier, citeable version is a mistake. Archives should not > > > > delete items > > > > or make them hard to access - rather they should show items in context > > > > and give easy access to an item's history and versioning with a single > > > > identifier for the work taken as a whole. > > > > > > > > Cheers, > > > > Mark > > > > > > > > Mark Doyle > > > > Manager, Product Development > > > > The American Physical Society > > > > > > -- Christopher Gutteridge -- [email protected] -- +44 (0)23 8059 4833 ,___O< _________________________________________________________________(___)____ | | | | Now Playing: "" from - | "Just once I'd like to learn a | | | lesson without something exploding" | | | - Malcolm in the Middle | |___________________________________|______________________________________|
