On 11 July 2006 12:58, Stevan Harnad wrote:
>The only thing I have the energy to say (because I have said it, in
>vain, so very often!), is that this conflation is utter nonsense and
>extremely counterproductive. It advances neither OA self-archiving nor
>preservation-archiving. It merely sows confusion and indirection.
>OA self-archiving has *nothing whatsoever* to do with preservation
>archiving, despite the co-occurrence of the word "archiving" in both
>locutions! It is not that self-archived author drafts will not be
>preserved too -- they will be, of course --
I agree with your desire to remain focussed on a set goal - 100% self
archived journal articles. However, I would disagree that open access and
preservation have nothing in common. At the risk of repeating an argument
that you will have heard many times in the past, digital preservation is
much simpler if appropriate actions are taken at the deposit stage. Although
preservation and open access advocates approach the subject with different
objectives, both access and preservation can be considered at the same time
and appropriate actions taken to satisfy both requirements. A goal of the
Preserv and Sherpa DP projects is to encourage debate on the subject and,
more importantly, develop practical methods to preserve eprints, without
disrupting or distracting from existing efforts to make research content
accessible.
Kind regards,
Gareth
--
Gareth Knight
Digital Preservation Officer
Arts and Humanities Data Service
email: gareth.knight_at_ahds.ac.uk
phone: 0207 848 1979
http://www.sherpadp.org.uk/
Received on Wed Jul 12 2006 - 12:41:07 BST