On 2012-10-11, at 12:26 AM, Andras Holl wrote:
> My opinion is that libre OA and CC By in particular is something
> that sounds good, but in reality nothing more than a misconception.
> It is thoughts, facts, ideas which should be reusable - and they
> already are - not articles. Gratis OA is what the scientific community
> needs, not libre. I operate a journal and several repository
> collections, all of my users appreciate and demand access, none
> of them wants anything more. Data mining would indeed be desirable,
> but how? At repositories we already have OAI-PMH. Green OA
> have the potential for even more. In my journal data mining is
> allowed (with technical conditions), but the journal's own
> sohisticated search system can provide more. Full text search
> is fine, but it is really semantic web? Is searching strings
> in the text data mining? I thing putting the CC BY label on
> articles does not help much in this direction. We should think
> about providing machine-readable abstracts for articles, applying
> technologies like OAI ORE, instead of championing CC BY - something
> that should serve a completely different purpose. See my
> letter in JLCS ( http://jlsc-pub.org/jlsc/vol1/iss2/5/ ).
>
> I agree with Stevan that tactically it is best to focus
> on gratis Green OA (without discouraging Gold). What I am saying
> more is that strategically CC BY is not what we want.
Thanks to Andras for his response. I think he would agree that
in some fields (such as crystallography) text-mining rights would
be useful today, but what his response underscore is that CC-BY
is not urgent in all fields (even technical ones like his own) whereas
Gratis OA is urgently needed in all fields.
Stevan Harnad
_______________________________________________
GOAL mailing list
[email protected]
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
