[open-bibliography] (Final?) discussion of the openbiblio principles

[Dr. Micah Altman]

Hello,

I've been mostly a listener in this ongoing discussion and I had read
closely developing drafts of the principles, but have hesitated to
edit or suggest changes because I wasn't sure I understood the primary
argument / models driving them. It does seem now that there
may be different views underlying the concepts of bibliographic data
and the main arguments underlying the draft principles.

Some gray areas at the boundaries of the definition of "bibliographic
data" is to be expected. However, the principles might be made more
compelling if the main arguments backing these principles were made
clear -- probably mostly by reference to previously published
statements on the value of open access, and some text to put
bibliographic data in the overall context of open access.
Making these arguments explicit may also help to reduce future
ambiguity in interpreting the principle statements.

My  current take on the  four core principles is that the most
compelling cases for them are for scholarly publications, and
specifically to the sharing of  quasi-factual bibliographic
information (over which multiple coders are unlikely to significantly
disagree -- identifying and locating information, but not necessarily
subject classification and abstracting).  If this data were available
broadly, the research impact across fields would be tremendous; and
the incentives to produce such information in future would  not  be
substantially reduced. I think one can also make a very compelling
argument about the need to have open  taxonomic/ontological
information (including controlled vocabularies, etc.) that are meant
to be shared across a community -- simply in terms of network effects.
As I get farther from these cases, I'm finding it somewhat harder to
apply these unconditionally...

Alternatively, one could (e.g. in the preamble) reframe these
principles as defining "open bibliographic data" rather than as
unconditional recommendations for all possible bibdata. And then list
some the compelling advantages of open bib data for research and other
applications... This might be a good rhetorical move -- establishing
the definition of OBD would be very useful (and likely not to generate
much resistance) for those who already the see the value of open
publication, and any criticism directed at whether or not an open
model was appropriate to a particular set of pulications and/or types
of information would then be separated from the definition of what it
means to be open.

I'm probably missing important parts of past conversations, and I
apologize if this rehashes. At the same time, my guess is that similar
questions will  come up when presenting these principles to new
audiences... Is there a consensus among the main authors about what
arguments are compelling for these principles, and could this be made
somewhat more explicit?

best,

Micah




On Sun, Jan 9, 2011 at 2:59 PM, Peter Murray-Rust <pm286 at cam.ac.uk> wrote:
> It is not surprising that we have slightly different views at this stage
> about what bibliographic data are. The same problems will occur in
> Scientific (Panton) data. But that should not prevent us going ahead with
> the principles.
>
> We are not sure exactly where the line will be drawn but we are reasonably
> clear that there is a concept of Bibliographic Data, just as we agreed there
> was a concept of Scientific Data. Some of that will be problematic but we
> shouldn't work too hard to try to draw lines. We are clear that there is
> Core data, secondary data and content. Let's leave it as that at present.
>
> It's possible that some of our anticipated problems will not materialise and
> vice versa. Using the general terms will help concentrate discussion and
> greater adoption of the Principles.
>
> Let's go with the wording we have got and - if necessary - refine it later
> in the light of experience.
>
> P.
>
>
>
> --
> Peter Murray-Rust
> Reader in Molecular Informatics
> Unilever Centre, Dep. Of Chemistry
> University of Cambridge
> CB2 1EW, UK
> +44-1223-763069
>
> _______________________________________________
> open-bibliography mailing list
> open-bibliography at lists.okfn.org
> http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-bibliography
>
>