Re: Call for Commentary: http://www.text-e.org/debats/

One subversion too far? http://www.text-e.org/debats/ Chris Armstrong Stevan Harnad: "The anomaly, in my view, is that journals are charging readers and their institutions anything at all for access to the author's give-away work. so as to maximize the uptake and hence the imp

Re: Copyright: Form, Content, and Prepublication Incarnations

list, but feel free to do so in full if you see fit. ____ Chris Armstrong UKOLUG Chair & Newsletter Editor lisq...@cix.co.uk

Re: Copyright: Form, Content, and Prepublication Incarnations

. Perhaps something to do with fair trading? And I bet the universities cave in first! ____ Chris Armstrong Centre for Information Quality Management (CIQM) (+44) 1974 251441 lisq...@cix.co.uk <http://www.i-a-l.co.uk>

Re: BMJ/Stanford Pre-Empts E-Biomed?

. My views are mine and represent BMA library policy and are independent of the BMJ Publishing Group and the BMJ journal editorial team." Chris Armstrong Centre for Information Quality Management Information Automation Limited lisq...@cix.co.uk Forwarded Message >Dear all, > &

Re: Do not confuse LIBERATION and PUBLICATION

OK, I think we got there! My final worry (!): >From : >1.Decide a maximal set of metadata fields that should be >stored (for example, "authors", "title", "journal", >"journal volume", etc.) >... >3.For each EPrint type, decide which metadata fields >should be

Re: Do not confuse LIBERATION and PUBLICATION

Stevan >Perhaps I could ask you to make explicit exactly what >the implications of your a-priori worries are, for this >transition (be it ever so "longish") Steve Hitchcock may have answered this to some extent: "a good eprint archive is an authority because it provides a service that is clearly l

Do not confuse LIBERATION and PUBLICATION

management models/rules need not apply - is surely Zeno's Folly. >Please, let's not keep confusing LIBERATION with >PUBLICATION. Please, let's not keep pretending that we are NOT talking about PUBLICATION and that LIBERATION makes everything OK. LIBERATION may be good, but

Re: Electronic archiving and IIS talk

e current "anomalous state of knowledge" or query. Whether the answer was likely to accurate, current, complete, biased, etc did not seem to come into it: it was published therefore it was OK. Chris Armstrong Centre for Information Quality Management (CIQM) (+44) 1974 251441 lisq...@cix.co.uk <http://www.i-a-l.co.uk>

Re: Electronic archiving and IIS talk

gs very much worse. > The old framework needs to change, not the other way > round. Yes And now we have to consider future-proofed archiving, future-proofed access, bibliographic control and warehousing maintenance. Chris Armstrong Centre for Information Quality Management (CIQM) (+44) 1974 251441 lisq...@cix.co.uk <http://www.i-a-l.co.uk>

Electronic archiving and IIS talk

nd tested formal publishing. Sincerely Chris Armstrong Centre for Information Quality Management (CIQM) Information Automation Limited (+44) 1974 251302 lisq...@cix.co.uk <http://www.i-a-l.co.uk>