[open-bibliography] Virtual meeting today
kcoyle at kcoyle.net
Tue Dec 7 15:35:45 UTC 2010
I'm confused by the Etherpad note that the meeting has taken place --
I thought it would be in an hour from now, but maybe I have my time
zones mixed up. GMT is 8 hours from Pacific, right?
Anyway, I have LOTS of comments on the draft, some of which I will
First, there are wording changes that I would normally like to make.
However, because there is the UK/US language difference, if a native
UK speaker has already gone over this, then we should discuss before I
suggest those changes.
1. Do not use "free", which is ambiguous. Use "without cost" or
"without restriction" as appropriate.
2. Do not use "record" -- the citations created by authors are not
records. Can we find another term, such as "bibliographic
description", "bibliographic data"?
3. "addressing" does not work for me... I want to use something based
on the term "location"
4. I don't think the list of data elements in the first second is
helpful, and I don't think it necessarily serves both functions
(identification and location). Perhaps for actual identification of a
publication we can refer to library catalog entries and citation rules
like MLA without needing a list of data elements. For the location
function (assuming this means actually getting your hands or eyes on
the item) you need a library catalog entry or a URL (for online
5. I'm not sure why the heading in this first section is
"Bibliographic data already in the public domain", unless the
intention is "Why we maintain that bibliographic data is not covered
by copyright." The wording does not say that to me.
6. the section on URIs seems to be aimed at online resources, not
bibliographic data in the web environment. We have bib data in the web
environment that does not have URIs or URLs.
7. I would not assert that user-generated tags are public domain. We
can't make that decision for all users who contribute tags. I agree
that it is a good idea to get users to agree that use of their tags is
unrestricted, but the circumstances in which users tag things varies
greatly, so this broad statement is problematic.
7a. Rather than asserting that things are public domain, I would
rather assert that these things are not covered by intellectual
property rights. It's a language quibble, but I feel that "public
domain" is a legal term and not a description. That may just be me.
8. Subject headings and classification notations may be considered
creative work on the part of the cataloger. I would put them in the
second category of data elements to which rights may apply.
9. "Sponsorship" -- is this sponsorship of the content or the
publication? I assume that it refers to the sponsorship of research
that is often cited.
10. This is more of a general concept, but in my own mind I am
unclear on the rights status of name authority data. Selecting one
fact to represent a display of many similar facts does not seem to
meet the creativity requirement (that US law requires). But I agree
that it belongs in this "grey area" category in the document.
11. #3 of the recommendations should refer to ANY restrictions on the
data, including attribution. Once we start mashing up data, anything
but pure open use becomes impossible. So perhaps this point should be
about ANY restrictions, of which non-commercial is one, attribution is
another, and even share-alike is another. (Note, if W3C provenance
work becomes a reality, we could say that people should pass on
provenance data that is received. This wouldn't so much be for the
rights issue, in my mind, but so that people can make selections based
on whose data they trust most. One issue with provenance is that is
could give people a way to attempt to control their data, and we will
probably need to address that if it becomes a reality.)
I hope this all doesn't sound harsh -- I didn't take the time to
soften my language :-) in my haste to get this down. I can make the
purely editorial corrections on the Google doc if you would like. The
other bits we may need to discuss. Another option would be that I make
changes -- perhaps in another copy of the document? (I can't remember
off-hand if Google docs has a "revert" function) And then we can
discuss that version.
Quoting Adrian Pohl <adrian.pohl at okfn.org>:
> it's the month's first tuesday and so today the Openbiblio virtual
> meeting is scheduled at 16:00 GMT. Unfortunately I can't attend due to
> private obligations. Anyway, I created an Etherpad for the meeting:
> I proposed one agenda point on the etherpad: Commenting and correcting
> the principles on open bibliographic data draft.
> Peter, Mark and I did some more work on the principles and would
> bevery happy to get some comments by other people.
> Please add further agenda points as needed.
> Hope you'll have a fruitful meeting.
> open-bibliography mailing list
> open-bibliography at lists.okfn.org
kcoyle at kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
More information about the open-bibliography