[GOAL] Re: Text mining

[Peter Burnhill]

Sally,

just read

http://www.ifla.org/publications/ifla-statement-on-text-and-data-mining-2013

seems a general position is being expressed.

Peter

Quoting Sally Morris <sally at morris-assocs.demon.co.uk> on Fri, 13 Dec  
2013 13:14:20 -0000:

> I don't deny that re-use (e.g. text mining) is a valuable attribute of OA
> for some scholars; interestingly, however, it is rarely if ever mentioned in
> surveys which ask scholars for their own unprompted definition of OA.  That
> suggests to me that it is not fundamental in most scholars' minds.
>
> The few responses to my original posting have all focused on whether the
> 'credo' of the BBB declarations is or is not fundamental to the underlying
> concept of OA.  I find it interesting that no one has commented at all on
> the two main points I was trying to make (perhaps not clearly enough):
>
> 1)    The focus of OA seems to be, to a considerable extent, the destruction
> of the publishing industry:  note the hostile language of, for example,
> Peter M-R's 'occupying power'
>
> 2)    It still seems curious to me (as to Beall) that scholars have to be
> forced, by mandates, to comply with a behaviour which is considered be
> self-evidently beneficial to them
>
> Does this mean that everyone agrees with me on both points?!  ;-)
>
> Sally
>
> Sally Morris
> South House, The Street, Clapham, Worthing, West Sussex, UK  BN13 3UU
> Tel:  +44 (0)1903 871286
> Email:  sally at morris-assocs.demon.co.uk
>
>
>   _____
>
> From: goal-bounces at eprints.org [mailto:goal-bounces at eprints.org] On Behalf
> Of Penny Andrews
> Sent: 12 December 2013 17:04
> To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
> Subject: [GOAL] Re: Jeffrey Beall Needlessly Compromises Credibility of
> Beall's List
>
>
> Sally, for many scholars (who do currently exist, not just in the future)
> textmining is their main research activity. Open licensing to do that
> unimpeded isn't some theoretical paradise, it's what they need right now to
> do their work.
>
> On Thursday, December 12, 2013, Sally Morris wrote:
>
>
>
> I agree completely that 'green' and 'gold' (however tightly or loosely
> defined) are the means, not the end
>
> But I still feel that the BOAI definition may be an unnecessarily
> tight/narrow definition of the end: optimal scholarly exchange, as you put
> it (or unimpeded access to research articles for those who need to read
> them, as I would perhaps more narrowly describe it)
>
> Sally
>
> Sally Morris
> South House, The Street, Clapham, Worthing, West Sussex, UK  BN13 3UU
> Tel:  +44 (0)1903 871286
> Email:  sally at morris-assocs.demon.co.uk <javascript:_e({}, 'cvml',
> 'sally at morris-assocs.demon.co.uk');>
>
>
>   _____
>
> From: goal-bounces at eprints.org <javascript:_e({}, 'cvml',
> 'goal-bounces at eprints.org');>  [mailto:goal-bounces at eprints.org
> <javascript:_e({}, 'cvml', 'goal-bounces at eprints.org');> ] On Behalf Of Jan
> Velterop
> Sent: 12 December 2013 13:44
> To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
> Subject: [GOAL] Re: Jeffrey Beall Needlessly CompromisesCredibilityofBeall's
> List
>
>
> But Sally, so-called 'green' and 'gold' are the means. The BOAI definition
> is an articulation of the end, the goal. Of course, if you navigate the
> ocean of politics and vested interests of science publishing, you need to
> tack sometimes to make progress against the wind. That's permissible, even
> necessary. But it doesn't change the intended destination on which a good
> sailor keeps his focus. If that's religion, anything is. (Which may be the
> case :-)).
>
> One mistake made by some OA advocates is to elevate the means to the goal.
> Another one is to confuse the temporary course of tacking with the overall
> course needed to reach the destination.
>
> In the larger picture, OA itself is but a means, of course. To the goal of
> optimal scholarly knowledge exchange. And so on, Russian doll like. But
> that's a different discussion, I think
>
> Jan Velterop
>
>
> On 12 Dec 2013, at 12:03, "Sally Morris" <sally at morris-assocs.demon.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> What I'm saying is that OA may have done itself a disservice by adhering so
> rigidly to tight definitions.  A more relaxed focus on the end rather than
> the means might prove more appealing to the scholars for whose benefit it is
> supposed to exist
>
> Sally
>
> Sally Morris
> South House, The Street, Clapham, Worthing, West Sussex, UK  BN13 3UU
> Tel:  +44 (0)1903 871286
> Email:  sally at morris-assocs.demon.co.uk
>
>
>   _____
>
> From: goal-bounces at eprints.org [mailto:goal-bounces at eprints.org] On Behalf
> Of David Prosser
> Sent: 12 December 2013 08:37
> To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
> Subject: [GOAL] Re: Jeffrey Beall Needlessly Compromises
> CredibilityofBeall's List
>
>
> Let me get this right, Jean-Claude mentioning the Budapest Open Access
> Initiative to show that re-use was an integral part of the original
> definition of open access and not some later ('quasi-religeous') addition as
> Sally avers.  And by doing so he is betraying some type of religious zeal?
>
> One of the interesting aspect of the open access debate has been the
> language.  Those who argue against OA have been keen to paint OA advocates
> as 'zealots', extremists, and impractical idealists.  I've always felt that
> such characterisation was an attempt to mask the paucity of argument.
>
> David
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>



-- 
The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
Scotland, with registration number SC005336.