[open-bibliography] Virtual meeting today

Tue Dec 7 15:45:28 UTC 2010

Karen Coyle <kcoyle at kcoyle.net> wrote:

> I'm confused by the Etherpad note that the meeting has taken place --  

The "Note: The meeting didn't take place, only Jim Pitman and Adrian Pohl had a phone talk."
refers to what happened last month.

> 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?

Right. Looks like its happening in 15 minutes from now.

--Jim

>
> Anyway, I have LOTS of comments on the draft, some of which I will  
> summarize here.
>
> 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.
>
> Other comments:
>
> 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  
> documents).
>
> 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.
>
> kc
>
> Quoting Adrian Pohl <adrian.pohl at okfn.org>:
>
> > Hello,
> >
> > 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:
> >
> > http://okfnpad.org/6th-open-bibliography-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.
> >
> > Cheers
> > Adrian
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > open-bibliography mailing list
> > open-bibliography at lists.okfn.org
> > http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-bibliography
> >
>
>
>
> -- 
> Karen Coyle
> kcoyle at kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
> ph: 1-510-540-7596
> m: 1-510-435-8234
> skype: kcoylenet
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> open-bibliography mailing list
> open-bibliography at lists.okfn.org
> http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-bibliography