Hi all,
There is some appetite it seems for looking at definitions at the
moment. In the last couple of weeks I have tweeted about the following:
* COAR has a 'Resource Type Vocabulary Draft' - standard naming of
items in repositories available for comment -
https://www.coar-repositories.org/activities/repository-interoperability/ig-controlled-vocabularies-for-repository-assets/deliverables/
* Open Research Glossary' so we can all be more informed about vastly
complex topic 'Open Scholarship' -
http://blogs.egu.eu/network/palaeoblog/2015/07/14/the-open-research-glossary-round-2/
* 'We hope to build a common dictionary of terms about open access to
facilitate sharing of information' http:// <http://t.co/Y5tnTbcAGl>
http://dictionary.casrai.org/Open_Access_APC_Report
My issue is with the terms 'green' and 'gold' which are entirely
arbitrary. The main problem I have is that 'gold' implies 'the best' and
it implies 'expensive' and it is not necessarily either.
If we have an option I think we should refer to these two routes to OA
as 'Born Open Access' and 'Secondary Open Access'. Considerably more
understandable to the external audience.
Danny
--
Dr Danny Kingsley
Head of Scholarly Communications
Cambridge University Library
West Road, Cambridge CB39DR
P: +44 (0) 1223 747 437
M: +44 (0) 7711 500 564
E: da...@cam.ac.uk
T: @dannykay68
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-3636-5939
On 13/08/2015 16:58, goal-requ...@eprints.org wrote:
Send GOAL mailing list submissions to
goal@eprints.org
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
goal-requ...@eprints.org
You can reach the person managing the list at
goal-ow...@eprints.org
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of GOAL digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Re: libre vs open (Darnton, Robert)
2. Re: libre vs open (Nicolas Pettiaux)
3. Re: libre vs open (Jean-Claude Gu?don)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2015 15:24:45 +0000
From: "Darnton, Robert" <robert_darn...@harvard.edu>
Subject: [GOAL] Re: libre vs open
To: H?l?ne.Bosc <hbosc-tcher...@orange.fr>, "Global Open Access List
(Successor of AmSci)" <goal@eprints.org>
Cc: "Lessig, Lawrence" <les...@law.harvard.edu>
Message-ID: <d1f22da9.77b3%robert_darn...@harvard.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Dear Fellow Travelers,
For what it's worth, I would like to express my agreement with H?l?ne Bosc's argument. In my own
experience, "acc?s libre" works well in France and Qu?bec, "open access" in
English-speaking countries. Those phrases have caught on, and it is too late to change them now.
Best wishes,
Bob Darnton
From: "H?l?ne.Bosc" <hbosc-tcher...@orange.fr<mailto:hbosc-tcher...@orange.fr>>
Reply-To: "H?l?ne.Bosc"
<hbosc-tcher...@orange.fr<mailto:hbosc-tcher...@orange.fr>>
Date: Thursday, August 13, 2015 at 10:07 AM
To: "Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)"
<goal@eprints.org<mailto:goal@eprints.org>>
Cc: "Lessig, Lawrence" <les...@law.harvard.edu<mailto:les...@law.harvard.edu>>, Robert
Darnton <robert_darn...@harvard.edu<mailto:robert_darn...@harvard.edu>>
Subject: Re: [GOAL] libre vs open
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/pipermail/goal/attachments/20150813/26f8db98/attachment-0001.html
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2015 17:27:34 +0200
From: Nicolas Pettiaux <nico...@pettiaux.be>
Subject: [GOAL] Re: libre vs open
To: goal@eprints.org
Message-ID: <55ccb766.3010...@pettiaux.be>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
Much thanks H?l?ne for the detailed explanation.
I know (and have known) personnally Bernard Lang and Jean-Claude Gu?don
for years, and I admit that I am late writing again about such a topic.
I appreciate that at least in French in 2002 it was clear that the word
"libre acc?ss" was used (hence I supposed was better suited)
I appreciate your reference to the post of Peter Suber and his long
explanation about "gratis and libre OA".
I appreciate that you blog itself is "Libre acc?s ? la connaissance".
I have more insight about the topics, I understand more about the
context (even though I had read a lot)
I will not fight nor spend much energy on this topic (libre vs open),
but I also consider that the word "open" today does not reflect the
philosophy that many academic want to put when they speak about the kind
of access they want just for science to exist.
Science without full reproducibility is not science.
Science with any barrier (eg. price) in a world where it is possible to
remove them is not science for everyone, because the people who
experience barriers cannot reproduce.
About removing the barrier, as much as possible, in today's world, I
consider that computer and internet access is not a barrier, even if I
recognize that many people cannot afford them. I also see that some
actors do not want or do not care, people who see their own financial
interests before mankind progress ... even though they may claim it
differently.
Today, I see that some actors push for the meaning of "open access" to
become by default "gold open access" which many of us do not appreciate.
So even if my request comes late, possibly too late, I see that some
semantic discussion still take place and will for a long foreseable
future, and that such a discussion on the words used themselves will
drive the views people have about the concepts. I remember reading an
"old" book, 1984, where people are in charge of reviewing history and
other deleting words from the dictionnary.
As a teacher, as well as a citizen, I do teach every day people around
me. Amongst them journalists. It is our responsability to teach them
well. Fellows citizens and journalists. It will be a task for everyday.
As a physics teacher, though physics is an old subject, and it is driven
by the laws of nature that are not human made laws, that are well
described, I have come to realize that many people have such a laking
(could say bad) education of initial education, that I often need to
reeducate them to correct their understanding of the world.
If Open Access has some traction in Academia, it has still a long way as
to go with the students and the population at large. So a change with
the vocabulary when *these* people are addressed may still be very
effective.
Best regards,
Nicolas
_______________________________________________
GOAL mailing list
GOAL@eprints.org
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
