[Open-access] How to cite the Panton Principles?

Tue Feb 21 18:28:54 UTC 2012

Open Access refers according the Berlin definition also to heritage
items whic is a central point for me.

"Berlin Declaration on Open Access to Knowledge in the Sciences and Humanities"

I cannot understand the enthusiasm for BOAI if that means that the
Berlin progress is ignored.

"Open access contributions include original scientific research
results, raw data and metadata, source
materials, digital representations of pictorial and graphical
materials and scholarly multimedia
material."

Data isn't defined there and I cannot see any valid reason not to
transfer the Panton Principles 1:1 to scholarship outside science. I
do not have to work hard to define what is data and what is open. Data
is all the researchers need for his research, and open is open
according the OKF-definition.

Klaus

2012/2/21 Peter Murray-Rust <pm286 at cam.ac.uk>:
>
>
> On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 6:04 PM, Klaus Graf <klausgraf at googlemail.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> Let me be absolutely clear:
>>
>> (i) The Panton principles have exactly the same value for scholarship
>> which isn't Science = STM.
>
>
> I admit that I am an STM-centric thinker. I try to avoid it but often fail.
>
> However, rightly or wrongly, the PP are now a historical document. We
> deliberately limited ourselves to science because:
> * there was a pressing problem. (There still is but the problem is better
> defined now)
> * factual data are critical to many sciences. That's not to say that other
> disciplines don't also have facts but the sciences tend to have larger
> amounts
> * we were able to make a useful distinction between text, data and metadata.
> Later Adrian Pohl reused the PP to develop the Principles for Open
> Bibliography. In that we had to work harder to define what the "data" were
>>
>>
>>
>> (ii) Citations guidelines valid only for Science are not acceptable.
>>
>> There are enough disciplines with full first name standard. You cannot
>> identfiy something with personal IDs like PND etc. with first name
>> initals. I think it is bibliographically - open bibliography! -
>> important enough to know WHO wrote an article. "Pollock R" is saying
>> absolutely nothing - one has to do additional research to find out who
>> is R[ ] Pollock.
>
>
> I'm sympathetic to this. An electronic article has a fairly definitive
> canonicalisation (though not defined) and is intended to be locatable. It is
> possible to reconstruct most (but not all) authors. But the PP do not have a
> definitive location and are also LIBRE so they can be copied.
>>
>>
>> (iii) As is there is anglo-centric thinking that only contributions in
>> the English language have ontological value there is also STM-centric
>> thinking.
>>
>
> If you think there are disciplines beyond STM to which the principles could
> apply and be operated then it sounds an excellent idea. But you will
> probably have to work hard to define what is data and what is open.
>
>
>
>
> --
> Peter Murray-Rust
> Reader in Molecular Informatics
> Unilever Centre, Dep. Of Chemistry
> University of Cambridge
> CB2 1EW, UK
> +44-1223-763069