I have been skimming the September98 forum on and off for a few months.
As a cursory Internet search will demonstrate, I strongly support
what I consider the Ginsparg model, especially in my own discipline,
mathematics. I would call it the arXiv model. But while I agree in
outline with Stevan
On Thu, 2 Nov 2000, Greg Kuperberg wrote:
1) I have mixed feelings about the grass-roots connotations of the
Open Archives Initiative and even more in Harnad's phrase
self-archiving.
You have to distinguish between the Open Archives Initiative (OAI) and
the (Author/Institution) Self-Archiving
On Thu, Nov 02, 2000 at 03:07:58PM +, Stevan Harnad wrote:
It is not at all clear why you describe open archiving as anarchic!
It was precisely in order to put order into distributed online digital
archiving resources through interoperability that the OAI was
initiated!
I certainly think
On Thu, 2 Nov 2000, Greg Kuperberg wrote:
I certainly think that a standard for interoperability could be useful,
but it is wishful thinking to suppose that it can tame an anarchy of many
tiny little e-print archives. In my discipline, when the literature
is excessively decentralized, as it
On my other points:
On Thu, Nov 02, 2000 at 03:07:58PM +, Stevan Harnad wrote:
I have, as moderator, terminated discussion on a few irrelevant or
saturated topics (is there a conspiracy of university administrators to
control researchers' intellectual property? is the library serials
On Thu, 2 Nov 2000, Greg Kuperberg wrote:
what gives you the impression that
this Forum is trying to prevent companies from doing whatever they
like?
What you said originally was:
sh The Elsevier policy of publicly archiving pre-refereeing preprints
sh could be a good first step towards
Stevan Harnad wrote:
(3) The goal is to free the refereed literature, across
disciplines, now. Once the literature is thus freed the
process will be irreversible.
Do you mean free as in liberty or free as in free beer ?
This particular bone of contention has effectively split what used to be
On Fri, 3 Nov 2000, Stuart A Yeates wrote:
(3) The goal is to free the refereed literature, across
disciplines, now. Once the literature is thus freed the
process will be irreversible.
Do you mean free as in liberty or free as in free beer ?
This particular bone of contention has
I like Greg Kuperberg's postings, even though we disagree. Greg too is an
advocate of freeing the literature through author self-archiving, but he
prefers centralized archives, whereas I think both centralized and
distributed archiving are welcome and should be encouraged, as both can
hasten the
On Fri, 3 Nov 2000, Stuart A Yeates wrote:
So if I hear you correctly OAI will have no traffic with technical reports or
technical report servers? these _are_ vanity press.
Incorrect. Eprints Archives are for both unrefereed preprints and
refereed postprints, suitably tagged as such.
Stevan
On Thu, Nov 02, 2000 at 09:29:24PM +, Stevan Harnad wrote:
Centralized archiving has been with us for over 10 years, and at its
current rates it will take 10 more years to free the Physics literature
alone, where it is most advanced. In Greg's own field of mathematics,
it might be going
At 21:29 02/11/00 +, Stevan Harnad wrote:
Obviously I'm not a conservative offering rationales for inaction.
And my worry is not a priori. NCSTRL and MPRESS are two long-standing
attempts at standards-based fragmented interoperability. Neither one
has as much readership as the younger,
(note: I'm not sure this will get through all the aliases -- I don't think
this email addr is registered with the UPS list, for example)
On Thu, 2 Nov 2000, Steve Hitchcock wrote:
NCSTRL was effectively the model for OAi. Greg Kuperberg suggests that
NCSTRL has not been successful. It would be
On Thu, Nov 02, 2000 at 10:08:09PM +, Steve Hitchcock wrote:
NCSTRL was effectively the model for OAi. Greg Kuperberg suggests that
NCSTRL has not been successful.
I don't want to disparage a project as big and difficult as NCSTRL.
It has had some success. It's important. But I don't
14 matches
Mail list logo
