<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 11:50 AM, Stevan Harnad <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:harnad@ecs.soton.ac.uk" target="_blank">harnad@ecs.soton.ac.uk</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div style="word-wrap:break-word">For the perplexed reader:<div><br></div></div></blockquote><div>I hope that it is allowed to discuss matters on this list other than the absolute need for the whole world to move towards Green OA and that their arguments can be read and acted on. There are a number of inaccuracies in what is posted here and I have to go through the process of correcting them<br>
</div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div style="word-wrap:break-word"><div></div><div>1. Peter Murray-Rust is a dedicated advocate for certain text-mining and</div>
<div>re-use rights that are very important and very fruitful in certain fields</div><div>of research </div></div></blockquote><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div style="word-wrap:break-word"><div>(but not all, and probably not many).</div></div></blockquote><div><br>The "probably not many" is not based on evidence and does not help the tone of the debate. The following are evidence:<br>
* JISC and Manchester University set up the National Text-mining centre (NaCTeM) because it believed in the value of Textmining and has spent considerable public funds on it. It covers many fields in medicine , bioscience and chemistry at least.<br>
* JISC has recently published a position statement on text-mining which asserts its considerable value.<br>* The UK government has initiated the Hargreaves report which specifically recommended that exceptions or changes to copyright law be made for the purpose of, inter alia, textmining.<br>
* there are many conferences on the value of textmining in science - I will list some if you don't trust this assertion<br><br><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div style="word-wrap:break-word"><div><br></div><div>2. One of the necessary conditions for the kind of text-mining and</div><div>re-use rights PM-R seeks is free online access to the articles</div><div>(Gratis OA).</div>
</div></blockquote><div><br>That is an unnecessary simplification. There are at least two major cases:<br>* where material is "freely available" (Gratis) and where the textminer wishes to know whether they have rights to mine it.<br>
* where material is toll-access and where the subscriber wishes to text-m ine it and publish some or all of the mined content under a permissive licence (e.g. CC0). <br><br>There are intermediate cases where material is available in certain places such as IRs and the conditions and access are unclear.<br>
</div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div style="word-wrap:break-word"><div><br></div>PM-R keeps reiterating that Gratis OA is not enough, <div>
but he takes no practical account of the fact that we don't </div><div>even have Gratis OA, that Gratis OA is within reach, via </div><div>mandates, and that more than Gratis OAis not within reach.</div><div><br></div>
</div></blockquote><div> </div><div>As I said clearly above Gratis OA does not confer automatic rights to textmine. Note that access to a subset of the literature with BOAI-compliant rights may be sufficient for many types of textmining activity. These include generation of corpora and their redistribution, collections of representative material, educational materials, etc. A major problem with UK/PMC is that much of the "Open" material is not sufficiently labelled for re-use.<br>
</div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div style="word-wrap:break-word"><div></div>Whatever you call it, "Libre OA" or Gratis OA plus certain<div>
further re-use rights is not within reach today. Publishers oppose</div><div>it and it is not at all clear whether all, many, or most authors</div><div>want it -- but it is clear that only 20% of authors are providing</div>
<div>even just Gratis OA.</div></div></blockquote><div><br>And - as I have just said, even 10% of the literature as BOAI-compliant OA is valuable for many purposes. The problem is that the 10% is not clearly defined and in practice.<br>
<br>I support Green OA rather than nothing but where authors and funders wish to provide re-usable material they should be taken seriously and the issues carefully looked at.<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div style="word-wrap:break-word"><div><br></div><div>Hence immediate burden of the OA movement is not, as PM-R </div><div>suggests, to gather evidence as to how many authors need and </div><div>want the further re-use rights PM-R seeks. </div>
</div></blockquote><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div style="word-wrap:break-word"><div>Nor is there any practical </div>
<div>strategy for mandating the further re-use rights PM-R seeks.</div><div><br></div></div></blockquote><div>I many cases this is simply the labelling of material correctly and the correct use of terminology. (It is a great pity that "Libre" means almost nothing in this area).<br>
<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div style="word-wrap:break-word"><div></div><div>The immediate priority is to mandate the Green Gratis</div>
<div>OA that is already within reach -- and that also happens</div><div>to be a necessary condition for the further re-use rights PM-R </div><div>seeks.</div></div></blockquote><div><br>but not a sufficient condition. 100% Green OA would per se give 0% re-use rights <br>
</div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div style="word-wrap:break-word"><div><br></div><div>I urge PM-R to stop arguing that Gratis OA is not enough,</div>
</div></blockquote><div><br>Maybe I will have a dream tonight and see the One True Green Path. <br></div><br></div><br clear="all"><br>-- <br>Peter Murray-Rust<br>Reader in Molecular Informatics<br>Unilever Centre, Dep. Of Chemistry<br>
University of Cambridge<br>CB2 1EW, UK<br>+44-1223-763069<br>