[open-bibliography] Tomorrow: 4th Virtual Meeting

Tue Oct 5 11:20:29 BST 2010

On Tue, Oct 5, 2010 at 11:06 AM, Adrian Pohl <pohl at hbz-nrw.de> wrote:

> > I have got an important publisher on board who is happy to make all their
> > bibliography Open. I'd like to see if we can come up with a set of
> > guidelines - that we agree. It's a bit rushed. I don't want to announce
> > names till we have agreed.  Here is my suggested starting point - it's
> based
> > towards science publishing and online material
>
> This is great news! Shall we add this to today's agenda? You want us to
> give feedback on the guidelines text?
>

YES - and it maps onto the idea for (?panton) Principles for Bibliography.
Was that you who suggested that?

P.

>
> Adrian
>
>  >>>Peter Murray-Rust <pm286 at cam.ac.uk> schrieb am Dienstag, 5. Oktober
> 2010 um
> 11:52:
> > On Tue, Oct 5, 2010 at 8:44 AM, Adrian Pohl <pohl at hbz-nrw.de> wrote:
> >
> >> Oups,
> >>
> >> I am very sorry for that. Obviously, I was quite careless yesterday. (I
> >> copied and pasted that and then forgot to change the dates.) As it
> seems,
> >> you momentarily can't access the okfnpads. As soon as I can I will
> correct
> >> that.
> >>
> >> > Is it today (October 4 i.e. about now?) or tomorrow (October 5)?
> >>
> >> The meeting is today (October 5), 16:00 BST.
> >>
> >> I will try to be online - I shall be in the British Library. I will see
> if
> > there is somewhere I can use audio.
> >
> > I have got an important publisher on board who is happy to make all their
> > bibliography Open. I'd like to see if we can come up with a set of
> > guidelines - that we agree. It's a bit rushed. I don't want to announce
> > names till we have agreed.  Here is my suggested starting point - it's
> based
> > towards science publishing and online material
> >
> >
> > individual works (articles, monographs, etc.) are described by a
> > **bibliographic entry**. This is a necessary and unique collection of
> > information that allows:
> >     - addressing (how do I find the work)
> >     - identification (what is the work that I have found)
> > If the resources are electronic then the address can be a URL and the
> > identification a URI (possibly based on one ore more identifier systems)
> >
> > There are conventional many (semi-standard) metadata fields which
> describe
> > the work and are useful for bother discovery and identification. They
> > include:
> > * title of work
> > * authors, possibly including addresses and other contact details
> > * publisher
> > * dates
> > * title and identification of enclosing work (e.g. a journal)
> > * format of work (language, mimetype, document structure (number of
> words,
> > number of images, number of tables), manifest of associated files)
> > * rights associated with work
> > * abstract (usually a paragraph describing the contents of the work)
> > * sponsorship (e.g. funding)
> >
> > We assert that this information associated with an indivdual work is in
> the
> > public domain and is compliant with the Open Knowledge Definition. To
> > protect its nature we wish to apply a licence asserting this nature, such
> as
> > PDDL or CC0. It follows that an indivdiual bibliographic entry derived
> from
> > the work itself is free of restrictive rights. This information can be
> > derived either by copying it from the pysical work itself or by visiting
> the
> > manifestation of the work on the Internet.
> >
> > We agree that collections of bibliographic entries may have property
> rights
> > associated with them, but that individual entries derived from the works
> or
> > from an Open collection do not carry these restrictions.
> >
> > We would include some community norms. These are not covered by the
> licence
> > but are aspirations that the community holds and which might be invoked
> to
> > restrict certain types of usage:
> > * a re-publisher of bibliographic information should make best-endeavour
> to
> > ensure its correctness.
> > * large-scale robotic collection of information may need to be agreed
> with
> > the publisher to avoid load on server
> > * re-publishers should avoid asserting any non-explicit  endorsement from
> > the publisher
> >
> > Note that this assertion about the bibliographic entry for a work makes
> no
> > statement about the rights (if any associated with):
> > * a list of citations or a bibliography in the work
> > * content of text other than the abstract and fields above
> > * content of tables
> > * content of images
> > * content of associated files
> >
> > and we believe they should be covered by separate protocols.
> >
> > =================
> > There are many benefits to a completely Open scientific bibliography:
> > * discovery of works is made easier (especially through new technology).
> > This enhances the visibility of works
> > * identification of works is improved, leading to fewer mistakes in
> > recording bibliography.
> > * tools and resources can be created for scientists to speed up and
> enhance
> > quality in authoring
> > * bibliography can be made part of the Linked Open Data vision for the
> Web
> > * new analysis tools can be created for analysing patterns of research
> and
> > publication.
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > They are happy for their abstracts to be in the public domain - this is a
> > major win. If we can get the rubric right and agreed it is a major
> spearhead
> > to get other publishers on board. If we can win ones such as nature then
> I
> > think most of the rest will follow.
> >
> > P.
> >
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> open-bibliography mailing list
> open-bibliography at lists.okfn.org
> http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-bibliography
>

-- 
Peter Murray-Rust
Reader in Molecular Informatics
Unilever Centre, Dep. Of Chemistry
University of Cambridge
CB2 1EW, UK
+44-1223-763069
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/open-bibliography/attachments/20101005/cbd18d43/attachment.htm>