[Open-access] @ccess versus open access

Fri Jun 1 14:06:30 UTC 2012

Mike Taylor said:
>This needs to be quick, simple and painless.

Does the "Open Definition" help?  

Summary definition: "A piece of content or data is open if anyone is free to use, reuse, and redistribute it - subject only, at most, to the requirement to attribute and/or share-alike."  http://opendefinition.org/

Full definition:  http://opendefinition.org/okd/

Peter

--
Peter Morgan
Head of Medical and Science Libraries
Medical Library
Cambridge University Library
Addenbrooke's Hospital
Hills Road
Cambridge
CB2 0SP
UK

email: pbm2 at cam.ac.uk
tel: +44 (0)1223 336757
fax: +44 (0)1223 331918

-----Original Message-----
From: open-access-bounces at lists.okfn.org [mailto:open-access-bounces at lists.okfn.org] On Behalf Of Mike Taylor
Sent: 01 June 2012 12:41
To: Tom Olijhoek
Cc: open-access at lists.okfn.org
Subject: Re: [Open-access] @ccess versus open access

On 1 June 2012 12:26, Tom Olijhoek <tom.olijhoek at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I am not completely in agreement with the reasoning for wanting "BOAI 
> compliant open access" as the choice term.
>
> My most important objection is that the Berlin declaration added 
> description of open access to data and metadata which as far as I can 
> see were not included in Budapest Decl which focussed on scholarly publications.

That is an important issue, for sure.

I am not 100% sure that it's the SAME important issue, though.

> The
> Bethesda declaration was strong on the use of open access publication 
> records of scientists for appointments:

I am VERY strongly in favour of that!

But it has no place in a *definition* of what Open Access means, which is really what we're dealing with here.

>  Then second I find the term BOAI compliant a bit cumbersome and not 
> very appealing.

Google for "BOAI". The top hit is the right one.

Now Google for "BBB". The meaning we intend for it isn't anywhere on the first five pages of results. (I got bored of looking for that.) When "BBB" is mentioned in tweets, no-one who's not already an insider has any chance of figuring out what we mean by it.

But the real clincher for me is that if we say BOAI there is one place that someone has to look. If they're trying to determine whether something is BBB-compliant, then need to look in three places, compare, contrast, interpret, try to determine whether and where the definitions are compatible, how they diverge, and so on. All a waste of time. This needs to be quick, simple and painless.

-- Mike.

>
> Third I think that in the time of having all info only 1 click away , 
> looking up definitions is not really a big deal,  I wonder whether 
> many will do so anyway. Interested people can also find all info on 
> BBB definition in one place in the Wikipedia chapter on open access.
>
> I am also not wildly enthousiastic about B3 or 3B but I think we 
> should refer to all three definitions since they are complementary and 
> have added value.
>
>
> cheers
>
> TOM
>
> On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 5:47 PM, Ross Mounce <ross.mounce at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > I agree with what Mike has written.
>> >
>> > I also prefer BOAI as it's very easy to look up on the web and 
>> > there is a single definition to read
>>
>>
>> Ditto. All one needs to say is BOAI-compliant Open Access and link to 
>> http://www.soros.org/openaccess/read  to define *exactly* what one 
>> means. Clear and simple to me.
>>
>>
>> Ross
>>
>> --
>> -/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-
>> Ross Mounce
>> PhD Student & Panton Fellow
>> Fossils, Phylogeny and Macroevolution Research Group University of 
>> Bath, 4 South Building, Lab 1.07 http://about.me/rossmounce
>> -/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> open-access mailing list
>> open-access at lists.okfn.org
>> http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-access
>
>

_______________________________________________
open-access mailing list
open-access at lists.okfn.org
http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-access