[Open-access] [open-science] OKF at Open Repositories 2014
pm286 at cam.ac.uk
Thu Dec 5 16:29:17 UTC 2013
On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 4:16 PM, Mike Taylor <mike at indexdata.com> wrote:
> Wikipedia works because there's one of it.
> eBay works for the same reason.
> More pertinently, that's why arXiv works, too.
In principle I agree. But none of these was by global design. Wikipedia
overtook other free encyclopedias. So I think we have to accept there will
be a small number of "competing" approaches (<= 3). Then the best and most
usable solutions will emerge. We cannot *design* the best final solution.
We can build it and work to making it the fittest.
The whole system of IRs necessarily and *by design* leads to
> balkanisation. How could it not? That's what the institutions actively
> *want* -- come and see *our* awesome repo!
Totally agreed. IRs have destroyed any sense of community solution. In fact
any solution of anything based on universities will balkanize. That is why
the excitement happens outside.
> What researchers need is
> for there to be one repo in the world. (Plus any number of mirrors, of
Yes. I'd be happy for one national repository per country because nations,
unlike universities have an interest and experience in building good
information systems. If done well it then becomes a feasible task to unite
or overlay them, because the nations will *want* them to be used.
The alternatives are:
* rapid uncontrolled evolution of bottom-up tools. This may work (e.g.
Figshare) as long as it's Open.
* large benign institutions such as Mozilla, Wikipedia or OKFN taking a
* monopolist capitalists (e.g. Mendeley). I'm not keen on this one.
Reader in Molecular Informatics
Unilever Centre, Dep. Of Chemistry
University of Cambridge
CB2 1EW, UK
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the open-access