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

[Peter Murray-Rust]

On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 6:28 PM, Klaus Graf <klausgraf at googlemail.com>wrote:

> 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."
>
> I would be delighted if all these could be included but it will require a
massive shift in scholarly opinion. The key point for me is that factual
data cannot be copyrighted and are effectively PD. in PP-1.0 we were
addressing scientific data as already in the public domain but not widely
represented as such. Metadata, pictorial and graphical materials are
copyrightable. So there is a fundamental difference - we would be asking
for people to change the copyright on copyrighted material. The PP and the
Principles of Open Bibliography required people simply to assert what they
believe to the the rights to data ad=nd bibliographic metadata - that they
are inherently PD.

P.


> 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.
>
>  Is a photograph of an archaeological site data in law? No, it's protected
by copyright. The author would have to deliberately give up rights. We
still have to fight this in science as well.

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 However, rightly or wrongly, the PP are now a historical document.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
>



-- 
Peter Murray-Rust
Reader in Molecular Informatics
Unilever Centre, Dep. Of Chemistry
University of Cambridge
CB2 1EW, UK
+44-1223-763069
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/open-access/attachments/20120221/167cc888/attachment.html>