[Open-access] @ccess versus open access

Fri Jun 1 14:25:15 UTC 2012

Hi folks,

Been following along but not had time to write a cogent reply.

My suggestion would be as follows @ccess is a good name for our  initiative. That is a separate issue to what we want to call the target. We agree broadly on what that initiative is aiming for - and I think we agree that is actually BBB compliant because we broadly agree that Berlin and Bethesda enrich the original Budapest definition. 

However - there is an issue about pointing to a single definition. I don't think that's as much of an issue as people think - and I think that in any case Budapest probably captures enough of the meaning to be useful if we need a single link. The question is not "what is the single link that will give someone all the information" but "if someone is only going to click on one link, what is the link that gives them the *best* information". 

The OKD is not suitable in my view because it allows share-alike licensing. 

So the question of what is the "name" that we give this. I think any name either suffers from existing confusion and mis-use/disagreement, or is a new name that won't have traction. I know we are not the only group working through this at the moment - and there is a lot of thinking going on, but the message is clear and converging: "The ideal form of OA = CC-BY". I think in the short term, rather than worrying about coming up with a name ourselves we can use a short hand and "Budapest Compliant OA" seems as good as any. I quite like the idea that we could market a "B^3 OA" but we won't be able to do that alone - so better to wait until other groups have got themselves together. Then we can work as a team if a "rebranding" is needed.

Cheers

Cameron

On 1 Jun 2012, at 15:10, Tom Olijhoek wrote:

> Hi Mike and others,
> 
> I see your point of having a single def and a single place to look for it.
> I theredore agree to change from @ccess to BOAI compliant open access (I am still not very happy with this term, wish there were something better).
> Because I still think we have to somehow acknowledge the contributions of the Bethesda and especially the Berlin Series of conferences, we could just put a description on our website to this extent:; like:        for those cases not covered in the BOAI definition and for updates and extensions on the original BOAI descriptions we refer to the Bethesda Declaration and the Declarations of the continuing Berlin Series of Conferences on open access.
> 
> cheers
> 
> TOM
> 
> On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 1:41 PM, Mike Taylor <mike at indexdata.com> wrote:
> 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