[open-bibliography] Tomorrow: 4th Virtual Meeting

[Adrian Pohl]

> 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?

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.
> 
>