Sally, just read
http://www.ifla.org/publications/ifla-statement-on-text-and-data-mining-2013 seems a general position is being expressed. Peter Quoting Sally Morris <sa...@morris-assocs.demon.co.uk> on Fri, 13 Dec 2013 13:14:20 -0000: > I don't deny that re-use (e.g. text mining) is a valuable attribute of OA > for some scholars; interestingly, however, it is rarely if ever mentioned in > surveys which ask scholars for their own unprompted definition of OA. That > suggests to me that it is not fundamental in most scholars' minds. > > The few responses to my original posting have all focused on whether the > 'credo' of the BBB declarations is or is not fundamental to the underlying > concept of OA. I find it interesting that no one has commented at all on > the two main points I was trying to make (perhaps not clearly enough): > > 1) The focus of OA seems to be, to a considerable extent, the destruction > of the publishing industry: note the hostile language of, for example, > Peter M-R's 'occupying power' > > 2) It still seems curious to me (as to Beall) that scholars have to be > forced, by mandates, to comply with a behaviour which is considered be > self-evidently beneficial to them > > Does this mean that everyone agrees with me on both points?! ;-) > > Sally > > Sally Morris > South House, The Street, Clapham, Worthing, West Sussex, UK BN13 3UU > Tel: +44 (0)1903 871286 > Email: sa...@morris-assocs.demon.co.uk > > > _____ > > From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf > Of Penny Andrews > Sent: 12 December 2013 17:04 > To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) > Subject: [GOAL] Re: Jeffrey Beall Needlessly Compromises Credibility of > Beall's List > > > Sally, for many scholars (who do currently exist, not just in the future) > textmining is their main research activity. Open licensing to do that > unimpeded isn't some theoretical paradise, it's what they need right now to > do their work. > > On Thursday, December 12, 2013, Sally Morris wrote: > > > > I agree completely that 'green' and 'gold' (however tightly or loosely > defined) are the means, not the end > > But I still feel that the BOAI definition may be an unnecessarily > tight/narrow definition of the end: optimal scholarly exchange, as you put > it (or unimpeded access to research articles for those who need to read > them, as I would perhaps more narrowly describe it) > > Sally > > Sally Morris > South House, The Street, Clapham, Worthing, West Sussex, UK BN13 3UU > Tel: +44 (0)1903 871286 > Email: sa...@morris-assocs.demon.co.uk <javascript:_e({}, 'cvml', > 'sa...@morris-assocs.demon.co.uk');> > > > _____ > > From: goal-boun...@eprints.org <javascript:_e({}, 'cvml', > 'goal-boun...@eprints.org');> [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org > <javascript:_e({}, 'cvml', 'goal-boun...@eprints.org');> ] On Behalf Of Jan > Velterop > Sent: 12 December 2013 13:44 > To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) > Subject: [GOAL] Re: Jeffrey Beall Needlessly CompromisesCredibilityofBeall's > List > > > But Sally, so-called 'green' and 'gold' are the means. The BOAI definition > is an articulation of the end, the goal. Of course, if you navigate the > ocean of politics and vested interests of science publishing, you need to > tack sometimes to make progress against the wind. That's permissible, even > necessary. But it doesn't change the intended destination on which a good > sailor keeps his focus. If that's religion, anything is. (Which may be the > case :-)). > > One mistake made by some OA advocates is to elevate the means to the goal. > Another one is to confuse the temporary course of tacking with the overall > course needed to reach the destination. > > In the larger picture, OA itself is but a means, of course. To the goal of > optimal scholarly knowledge exchange. And so on, Russian doll like. But > that's a different discussion, I think > > Jan Velterop > > > On 12 Dec 2013, at 12:03, "Sally Morris" <sa...@morris-assocs.demon.co.uk> > wrote: > > > > What I'm saying is that OA may have done itself a disservice by adhering so > rigidly to tight definitions. A more relaxed focus on the end rather than > the means might prove more appealing to the scholars for whose benefit it is > supposed to exist > > Sally > > Sally Morris > South House, The Street, Clapham, Worthing, West Sussex, UK BN13 3UU > Tel: +44 (0)1903 871286 > Email: sa...@morris-assocs.demon.co.uk > > > _____ > > From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf > Of David Prosser > Sent: 12 December 2013 08:37 > To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) > Subject: [GOAL] Re: Jeffrey Beall Needlessly Compromises > CredibilityofBeall's List > > > Let me get this right, Jean-Claude mentioning the Budapest Open Access > Initiative to show that re-use was an integral part of the original > definition of open access and not some later ('quasi-religeous') addition as > Sally avers. And by doing so he is betraying some type of religious zeal? > > One of the interesting aspect of the open access debate has been the > language. Those who argue against OA have been keen to paint OA advocates > as 'zealots', extremists, and impractical idealists. I've always felt that > such characterisation was an attempt to mask the paucity of argument. > > David > > > > > > > > > > -- The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in Scotland, with registration number SC005336. _______________________________________________ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
