[GOAL] Re: Definition of OA and its Priorities and Obstacles

Wed Aug 29 08:35:34 BST 2012

I will comment on JV and then SH

On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 7:34 AM, Jan Velterop <velterop at gmail.com> wrote:

> So the definition of Open Access as formulated in the BOAI is now no more
> than 'mortal improvisation', according to Harnad.
>
> What's happening is that for reasons of expediency, the definition of OA
> (which didn't represent 'Holy Writ', but an ambitious goal, for the benefit
> of science) is being changed, quite arbitrarily, instead of any OA
> achievements being measured against the goal that has been set.
>

I agree with this. The "definitions" have been continually and continuously
changed over the last 10 years since BOAI with *no public process*. It is
now left to one (SH) or possibly two (PS) individuals to state what OA is.
This has led to the totally emasculated definition of Open Access which we
have just seen.

> Changing the definition – the goal – only serves to promote confusion and
> ambiguity. Tampering with the definition makes the term Open Access so
> ambiguous as to be meaningless.
>

Yes. "Open Access" is now meaningless. It means as much as "healthy",
"democracy" or "freedom".

> Anybody can now call just about any publishing or repository offering Open
> Access, removing all clarity of purpose contained in the original
> definition.
>

Yes.

On 28 Aug 2012, at 15:00, Stevan Harnad wrote:

On 2012-08-28, at 4:26 AM, Peter Murray-Rust wrote:

Warning: I shall get shouted down for this post.
>
> On Mon, Aug 27, 2012 at 1:04 PM, Stevan Harnad <harnad at ecs.soton.ac.uk>
>  wrote:
>
> "OA means free online access."
>
> When and where and by whom was this decided? It is incompatible with the
> BBB definitions.
> One of the problems of "Open Access" as a movement is that the terms used
> (in the period after BBB) are so poorly defined as to be essentially
> meaningless - Humpty-Dumpty ("  "When *I* use a word," Humpty Dumpty
> said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to
> mean—neither more nor less.").
>
> Peter, you will not get shouted down -- but it would be a great help if
you were to listen, because you have asked and been given this information
now countless times.

I do listen. I have been asking several times for definitions of "Open
Access". I get no answers but am flooded with political slogans such as
"Reach for the Reachable and Grasp for the Graspable".  I am told ex
cathedra that defining OA must wait until 100% Green access has been
achieved. This is not constructive argued debate - in many cases it is
proof-by-repeated-assertion, which at least in science is not acceptable as
a form of discourse unless supported by evidence. Many of your (SH) answers
are opinions without evidence stated as fact.

>>>There have been updates of the BBB definition of OA, which was drafted
in early days and has since seen a decade of developments not envisioned or
anticipated in 2002:
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/newsletter/08-02-08.htm#gratis-libre

I have read this carefully several times - I *do* listen. It is one
person's (PS) analysis of the situation, not an agreed communal view. It
may be than many of the community agree it, but it is still one person's
view.
It is not "an update of the BBB definition" - this cannot be unilaterally
decided by one-and-a-half signatories on a rolling basis. If there were a
community process rather than individual pronouncements I would probably
feel more comfortable.

I am criticized on this list for being ignorant, sterile, obstructive,
stupid. If I get clear definitive answers to these questions I will stop
asking. I would like community agreed answers, not the SH
answer-of-the-day. Definitions are critically important as people are
paying for "Open Access" and arguing politically for it and there is no
public agreement as to what it is. "Green" and "Gold" are not definitions
of the state of Open Access, they are - at best - definitions of a process.

>>1. Free online access is Gratis OA.

Where is "free online access" defined? It is not a simple concept. (a) is
it permanent or temporary? (b) how is it recognised? (c) is it a property
of (i) a document or (ii) a location or (iii) a process? Or some
combination?

2. Free online access plus (some) re-use rights is Libre OA.

(i) What are the "some" re-use rights? (ii) Where are they listed and
defined? (iii) How are they recognised? Although I am personally saddened
by "libreOA" being different from "libre" in software and libre for data
(as in the Panton Principles) I might be prepared to work with "libreOA" if
I knew what it was. For example is "permission to deposit in a University
repository" could be claimed as a re-use right, in which case all Green
University OA was by definition libre.

3. Gratis OA is a necessary condition for Libre OA.

I would agree, although without operational definitions I cannot be sure

4. 5.

>> Political and irrelevant to a definition.

.6. Global Gratis Green OA is within reach of Green OA mandates (ID/OA +
"Almost-OA" Button)

We  now have another concept "Almost OA" which again is not defined. And I
assume that the "OA" in ID/OA is not "Open Access" but "Optional
something-or-other".

7. 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14. Irrelevant (a mixture of political assertions
and opinions-stated-as-facts).

15. The reason you get shouted down is that you keep putting the particular
additional needs of your discipline ahead of the generic access needs of
all disciplines.

No. I get shouted down because asking factual questions is uncomfortable.

16. The "A" in OA stands for access;

Agreed.  Though "access" is not defined. The O is almost completely
undefined.

>>>the OA movement is not the Open License movement

I have never argued that it was. I am arguing that unless Open Access is
clearly defined then huge amounts of energy and money are wasted and great
confusion ensues. The confusion is not of my making - I am trying to
resolve it by asking questions.

>>Peter Murray-Rust, at least, has a discipline-specific reason for his
impatience for Libre OA.

No. This is science-wide at least. I am also arguing on behalf of people
outside academia. I am arguing that many beneficial developments are
stalled unless we have BOAI-compliant OA. For example the next generation
of search engines depend on unrestricted access to full-text. (I will not
use the term LibreOA until I get a clear answer as to what it is in
practice.

Here are some more questions. They should have a simple YES/NO/factual
answer:

* many repositories consist largely of metadata-only. Is metadata-only
counted as Open Access?
* some repositories have "ID/OA". (a) what does the O stand for? (b) where
is ID/OA defined? (c) is ID/OA counted as Open Access? (d) is this concept
defined by a community process?
* Under what circumstances can a "green-created" document be copied from a
repository? Or is it "Open Access" only when the reader has access to the
Internet?
* If only part of the community has access to a document in a repository
(as in Ghent and many other repositories) is this document counted as Open
Access?

I have more questions, but I'll wait to see whether I get answers. I hope
the questions are clear. Some may have complicated answers and for some the
answers may be unknown, in which case
pleaes say so clearly.

The questions are simple enough to be part of acceptable academic and other
discourse. If this list has any purpose other than as a political arena
then I hope they can be addressed.

-- 
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://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/pipermail/goal/attachments/20120829/19feffbb/attachment.html 