[Open-access] NISO Recommendations on Open Access Metadata

[Daniel Mietchen]

I was also hoping for something more tailored towards CC licenses,
which would make it easier to implement such a system on Wikipedia, as
sketched out at
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Open_Access/Signalling_OA-ness
.

d.
--
http://www.naturkundemuseum-berlin.de/en/institution/mitarbeiter/mietchen-daniel/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Daniel_Mietchen/Publications
http://okfn.org
http://wikimedia.org


On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 10:36 AM, Mike Taylor <mike at indexdata.com> wrote:
> This looks pretty good, and I particularly endorse not using the term
> "open access" in light of the confusion that has been engineered
> surrounding that term.
>
> But it seems terribly weak not to encode the specific bits of the CC
> licences, which are nearly always what people want to express and
> search for, even when an actual CC licence is not used. This
> specification really needs elements like
>
> <attribution_required/>
> <non_commercial/>
> <no_derivatives/>
> <share_alike/>
>
> To make it useful.
>
> -- Mike.
>
>
>
> On 7 January 2014 09:29, Cameron Neylon <cn at cameronneylon.net> wrote:
>> Dear All
>>
>> I've been involved in a NISO working group looking at standards for
>> expressing licensing and readership rights in published literature. We have
>> generated a set of recommendations for metadata to be transmitted with
>> articles and/or made available in appropriate repositories. The
>> recommendations are now available for a comment:
>>
>> OAMI public workroom page (http://www.niso.org/workrooms/oami/)
>>
>> Public landing page for the draft and online comments form -
>> http://www.niso.org/apps/group_public/document.php?document_id=12047
>>
>> The recommendations are actually very minimal in form but they represent an
>> agreed view from a very wide range of stakeholders which is valuable. Their
>> adoption could significantly reduce the confusion around re-use rights and
>> reading rights. You will notice that there is a complete avoidance of the
>> term "open access" in the metadata elements. This is quite deliberate as a
>> means of avoiding disagreements over what "counts" as open access while
>> focussing on making information that is hopefully reasonably objective
>> available.
>>
>> There are also things we decided not to tackle, including the actual
>> location of copies (this is covered by existing Crossref elements and may in
>> fact be undefined if the metadata is being transmitted with a copy) and
>> visual identifiers. The fact that we didn't include that in this doesn't of
>> course mean that others couldn't expand this set of elements by local
>> agreement for their own purposes.
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>> Cameron
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> open-access mailing list
>> open-access at lists.okfn.org
>> https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-access
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/open-access
>>
> _______________________________________________
> open-access mailing list
> open-access at lists.okfn.org
> https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-access
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/open-access