[Open-access] A publisher writes...

[Richard Kidd]

Hi Mike

But the communication says 

"Unfortunately any other reply than YES by 2012-03-15 will be regarded as unacceptable for the purposes of Hargreaves."

Which is all about a specific stance, isn't it? The only data is whether we agree with a request to mine, yes or no, and is put in the context of showing Hargreaves the benefits of mining. So as an information gathering exercise on policy I'm not sure it'll work.

In other news, there was a CCC meeting on Data and Text Mining in Amsterdam last week, and a draft cross-publisher mining license has been prepared for discussion with the pharma people; there's also a working group on a common text mining format. 

Best wishes

Richard








> -----Original Message-----
> From: sauropoda at gmail.com [mailto:sauropoda at gmail.com] On Behalf Of
> Mike Taylor
> Sent: 08 March 2012 10:15
> To: Richard Kidd
> Cc: open-access at lists.okfn.org
> Subject: Re: [Open-access] A publisher writes...
> 
> Hi, Richard.
> 
> The point of Peter's submission is not really to argue for any
> specific stance, but just to document what publishers' stances
> actually ARE.  It's an attempt to get publishers to be open about what
> their policies are -- something that one would think they can hardly
> object to -- so that we know where we stand, what further negotiations
> might be profitable, and whether other recommendations should be made
> elsewhere.
> 
> In short: it's a data-gathering exercise, not an argument.
> 
> -- Mike.
> 
> 
> 
> On 8 March 2012 09:59, Richard Kidd <KiddR at rsc.org> wrote:
> > Hi
> >
> > I'm just wondering whaat you're trying to achieve here. Your're
> preparing a submission from representatives on this list. As Peter said
> in reply to my question on his blog, this is your submission to
> Hargreaves, its not a negotiation. Publishers will also be putting
> forward their own nuanced submissions. This group also doesn't include
> other major text mining experts, so I would also ask that this should
> be presented as an OKFN or similar submission rather than the agreed
> text miners' bottom line - so I'm not convinced that I want to reply to
> this, to have yes/no/unhelpful reflected up to IPO as our views, when
> we'll be putting in our own submissions.
> >
> > Best wishes
> >
> > Richard
> >
> > DISCLAIMER:
> >
> > This communication (including any attachments) is intended for the
> use of the addressee only and may contain confidential, privileged or
> copyright material. It may not be relied upon or disclosed to any other
> person without the consent of the RSC. If you have received it in
> error, please contact us immediately. Any advice given by the RSC has
> been carefully formulated but is necessarily based on the information
> available, and the RSC cannot be held responsible for accuracy or
> completeness. In this respect, the RSC owes no duty of care and shall
> not be liable for any resulting damage or loss. The RSC acknowledges
> that a disclaimer cannot restrict liability at law for personal injury
> or death arising through a finding of negligence. The RSC does not
> warrant that its emails or attachments are Virus-free: Please rely on
> your own screening. The Royal Society of Chemistry is a charity,
> registered in England and Wales, number 207890 - Registered office:
> Thomas Graham House, Science Park, Milton Road, Cambridge CB4 0WF
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > open-access mailing list
> > open-access at lists.okfn.org
> > http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-access

DISCLAIMER:

This communication (including any attachments) is intended for the use of the addressee only and may contain confidential, privileged or copyright material. It may not be relied upon or disclosed to any other person without the consent of the RSC. If you have received it in error, please contact us immediately. Any advice given by the RSC has been carefully formulated but is necessarily based on the information available, and the RSC cannot be held responsible for accuracy or completeness. In this respect, the RSC owes no duty of care and shall not be liable for any resulting damage or loss. The RSC acknowledges that a disclaimer cannot restrict liability at law for personal injury or death arising through a finding of negligence. The RSC does not warrant that its emails or attachments are Virus-free: Please rely on your own screening. The Royal Society of Chemistry is a charity, registered in England and Wales, number 207890 - Registered office: Thomas Graham House, Science Park, Milton Road, Cambridge CB4 0WF