Greg Kuperberg writes
> But I disagree entirely with the claim that distributed
> interoperability has never been tried before. It has been tried several
> times, whole-heartedly with these two projects:
>
> MPRESS - mathnet.preprints.org
> NCSTRL - ncstrl.org
>
> And it has been a factor in ma
On Thu, 9 Nov 2000, Greg Kuperberg wrote:
> Entirely aside from whether your proposals are the best ones, you have
> previously described them as being nothing other than the "Ginsparg
> model". Well I think of myself as devoted to the Ginsparg model,
> but my interpretation of it is significantl
On Thu, 9 Nov 2000, David Goodman wrote:
> Steve, I think you misunderstand Greg's concern (and mine) We do not
> disagree with what you want to do; we want to add to it. We are
> assuming, I think, that something similar to the plan you advocate will
> be the basic process.
>
> I do not think it
> > Greg:
> > As a rule, it is better for web sites to share the same archive than
> > to each have fragments. It is better for Oxford and Cambridge to
> > each have all of Shakespeare's plays than for Oxford to have only the
> > comedies and Cambridge to have only the tragedies. That is why I favo
Steve, I think you misunderstand Greg's concern (and mine)
We do not disagree with what you want to do; we want to add to it. We are
assuming, I think,
that something similar to the plan you advocate will be the basic process.
I do not think it enough to say distributed=secure. It's only the first
On Wed, 8 Nov 2000, Greg Kuperberg wrote:
> Maybe you want to say more conservatively that new submissions should be
> superlinear, i.e., concave up.
Yes, yes, that's it.
(And that's: "new self-archived eprint (whether pre- or post-)," NOT
"new submission." Submission is for journals. Self-archi
On Thu, Nov 09, 2000 at 07:16:47PM +, Stevan Harnad wrote:
> I don't think sublinear or linear growth is right for
> your discipline (maths) either...
Of course more growth is better than less. Several of us (both the arXiv
staff led by Paul Ginsparg and the math advisory committee chaired by
On Wed, 8 Nov 2000, Greg Kuperberg wrote:
> While libraries certainly should help preserve e-prints, I do not trust
> any one library, nor any other sole institution, to archive material
> single-handedly. Any caretaker can lose or destroy a unique copy of
> any document... That is why it is impo
On Thu, Nov 09, 2000 at 05:58:14PM +, Tim Brody wrote:
> I may also point out that there are already archives that perform
> distributed mirroring - math arXiv is primarily made up of papers that
> have been archived elsewhere (judging by the lack of associated meta
> data and updates).
I don'
On Thu, Nov 09, 2000 at 11:16:11AM +, Stevan Harnad wrote:
> Nay! Release them from their hostagehood behind obsolete,
> impact-blocking, and completely surmountable access barriers online
> today through self-archiving, addict fellow-researchers the world over
> to that new, free form of acces
>Why should a pdf be locked? Getting away from the idea that work is always
>on paper says to me that it should not be read-only *at the user end*. The
>emerging means of authentication described by Adrian should be an excellent
>way forward, but why the need to lock as well?
>
>I ask because for p
11 matches
Mail list logo
