On Sun, Apr 19, 2015 at 4:23 AM, Martin Fenner <[email protected]> wrote: > * Cameron Neylon and Geoff Bilder have done a lot of work on „principles for > open scholarly infrastructure“:
Thanks. ORCID is a wholly different beast, though. Much larger budget, actually has staff, has more institutional involvement, etc. But I asked Cameron if he has a few main pointers (https://twitter.com/rintzezelle/status/589837683444297728 and https://twitter.com/rintzezelle/status/589838592685539328), and we should definitely take a look at his writings. > * when ORCID started, the organization set up 10 principles > (https://orcid.org/about/what-is-orcid/our-principles). They have been very > helpful, and something like this could also be considered for the CSL > project, e.g. at the beginning of the document. But that's basically just a way to write down the project's mission, right? Regardless of format, are there any important 'principles' our mission is currently missing? > * "We will always make the specification and citation styles freely > available“. I suggest to me more specific and mention specific licenses, > e.g. CC-BY-SA for content, and either "an OSI-approved open source license“ > or a specific license such as MIT for code. Agreed. We should probably promise to use CC-BY-SA (or a less restrictive license) for content, and MIT for CSL-developed code. > * two people feels like a small number for a board. Yeah, I wrote that since I didn't know if we would always be able to find 4 people interested in sitting on the board. What if we don't? Maybe not an issue if we keep the duties of the board light. > * „predatory publisher“ is a term I would avoid, as it sometimes difficult > to define and possibly very political. I specifically decided not to mention Beall's list, since there is some (valid) criticism on it, but you may be right that it's better to avoid the term "predatory publishers" as well. I should also stress that to date we actually have never refused a single styles based on this criterion, and it might never come up. I'm not sure if it's better to include a statement that we reserve the right to refuse styles that wouldn't benefit the scientific community, or whether we should just not discuss this (potential) issue at all. Rintze ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ BPM Camp - Free Virtual Workshop May 6th at 10am PDT/1PM EDT Develop your own process in accordance with the BPMN 2 standard Learn Process modeling best practices with Bonita BPM through live exercises http://www.bonitasoft.com/be-part-of-it/events/bpm-camp-virtual- event?utm_ source=Sourceforge_BPM_Camp_5_6_15&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=VA_SF _______________________________________________ xbiblio-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xbiblio-devel
