[Open-access] @ccess versus open access

Fri Jun 1 14:31:20 UTC 2012

+1 what Cameron said.
On Jun 1, 2012 3:25 PM, "cameronneylon.net" <cn at cameronneylon.net> wrote:

> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> open-access mailing list
> open-access at lists.okfn.org
> http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-access
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/open-access/attachments/20120601/740644e1/attachment.html>