Instead of posting each recommendation as it comes, I will tally them
offline and post a batch all at once.
(Regarding the possibility of gerrymandered access of the google
form, or the "copy-protected" form: that definitely is not OA, and
this has been stated before.
http://tinyurl.com/45uchc
The model to keep in mind is the actual target: the good-faith
self-archiving by authors of their refereed postprints, in their IRs.
Nothing to do with trying to scrape out and OCR contents from google
pages...)
Stevan Harnad
On 3-May-08, at 6:58 AM, Jean-Claude Guédon wrote:
At the risk of disturbing symmetries that always look
pleasant to th eeye and the mind, I would suggest taking
the first two suggestions fronm the "transparent"
category and work them together as follows:
Read OA vs Re-use OA
Otherwise, like Stevan, I have the feeling that the
distinction between "basic" and "full" will win the day,
precisely because it is a little fuzzy. However, it
clearly marks the presence of an important distinction.
There is an interesting case stuck cleverly somewhere in
the middle of all of this: it is the case of documents
digitized by Google. They can be easily accesed and
read. If you accept Google's tools, they are searchable.
However, if you download them, you end up with inert,
paper-like digital material because you are stuck with
page images. You can OCR them anew, of course, but ... In
short, as Clifford Lynch has pointed out, the
computational potential of these documents is locked up
unless you are ready to redo Google's indexing work.
Is this basic OA? Is it more as it appears to be? I would
be interested in knowing what others think about this.
Best,
Jean-Claude
Jean-Claude Guédon
Université de Montréal
Received on Sat May 03 2008 - 13:59:59 BST