[open-bibliography] BibSoup/BibServer collaboration model?

Fri Feb 3 15:06:49 UTC 2012

Glad we all agree.

but blasted! ... they have a Ferrari and we still have a VW Bug (but now
with one turbo and leather seats thanks to Mark. :)

On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 8:15 AM, Jim Pitman <pitman at stat.berkeley.edu> wrote:

> Mark, bravo for this post!
>
> > So the question is, should we contest such claims, or are they
> reasonable claims to make?
>
> The declared purpose of this working group to contest such claims, and
> thereby protect
> and enlarge the public domain of biblio metadata.
>
> --Jim
>
>
>
>
>
> > Sure, some person or business may incur costs whilst developing a
> service,
> > and may justifiably want to recoup that cost and turn a profit. This is
> > typical business practice - find a way to add value, and find customers
> > willing to pay for it.
> >
> > But doing so by placing restrictions on subsequent reuse of some
> coincident
> > resource - in this case bibliographic metadata - is not finding that way;
> > rather, it is an obfuscation. Risk and effort involved in the process of
> > adding value are being mitigated by making simultaneous claims to
> ownership
> > of the resource around which value is being added.
> >
> > of course, this is a great business plan; reduce risk and effort by
> owning
> > more things. These claims to ownership will be accepted unless they are
> > contested.
> >
> > So the question is, should we contest such claims, or are they reasonable
> > claims to make?
> >
> > I find it unreasonable that someone be allowed to pollute a resource
> during
> > the process of their attempting to exploit it for profit; there is no
> > reason why their attempts should restrict my desire to utilise said
> > resource.
> >
> > this is doubly true in the contexts of service delivery and intellectual
> > property.
> >  On Feb 2, 2012 11:12 PM, "Thad Guidry" <thadguidry at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > There is a COST to collecting facts, however.  Each one of us on this
> list
> > > gets PAID for our time by our employers collecting various facts and
> even
> > > maintaining them.  Someone has to bear the cost of collecting and
> > > maintaining public facts, and others will want to form a business
> model in
> > > maintaining and improving the collection of those public facts.  I
> agree
> > > that Mendeley is not a public institution, and I also agree that
> Mendeley
> > > with good technological resources and ideas is allowed to form that
> > > business model.
> > >
> > > Kudos to Adrian and team for continuing to collect the facts and open
> them
> > > up from the public sources, just as Mendeley does themselves, but
> perhaps
> > > sometimes Mendeley does this with more "flair" and "excitement"
> because of
> > > a polished user interface that had a COST to build.
> > >
> > > On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 5:04 PM, Peter Murray-Rust <pm286 at cam.ac.uk>
> wrote:
> > >
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 10:49 PM, Jim Pitman <pitman at stat.berkeley.edu
> >wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> -- Any content obtained from Mendeley must include proper
> attribution as
> > >>> such. Mendeley brand elements should be placed within close
> proximity to
> > >>> the content, so that the users can easily understand the source. For
> those
> > >>> wishing to brand the content as their own, please contact
> > >>> trademarks at mendeley.com with the subject line "SELF BRANDING."
> > >>>
> > >>> I do not think this community should encourage or condone this sort
> of
> > >>> commercialization of
> > >>> biblio data. I would rather see promotion of ideas of provenance of
> > >>> biblio data, enforced by
> > >>> open community norms, rather than legal attribution requirements. I
> > >>> would rather see us promote
> > >>> non-commercial alternatives, and create bibliographic stores
> > >>> unencumbered with BY requirements,
> > >>> but including provenenance assertions whenever possible.
> > >>>
> > >>> I agree. A year ago Adrian Pohl led the OKF effort to create
> Principles
> > >> for Open Bibliography:
> > >> http://openbiblio.net/principles/
> > >> We worked hard on this and recommended that licences should be CC0. We
> > >> realised that attribution was not appropriate for bibliographic data ,
> > >> which we see as FACTUAL data and therefore effectively in the public
> domain.
> > >>
> > >> (I hadn't seen the Mendeley "requirement" for "attribution". This is
> > >> extremely similar to claiming database rights and IMO has no place. )
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >> 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
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > -Thad
> > > http://www.freebase.com/view/en/thad_guidry
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > open-bibliography mailing list
> > > open-bibliography at lists.okfn.org
> > > http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-bibliography
> > >
> > >
>
> _______________________________________________
> open-bibliography mailing list
> open-bibliography at lists.okfn.org
> http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-bibliography
>

-- 
-Thad
http://www.freebase.com/view/en/thad_guidry
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/open-bibliography/attachments/20120203/8b1ef114/attachment-0001.html>