Re: Definition of Open Access

From: Matthew Cockerill <matt_at_BIOMEDCENTRAL.COM>
Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2006 13:26:01 +0100

Don't forget ramblers:
http://www.openaccess.gov.uk/

No one has a monopoly on what such terms mean, and so, as I think you recognize, its really not fruitful to have a debate as to whether
"open access" does or doesn't involves A, B, C, or D. Different people mean different things by open access.
e.g. For some, rights of reuse are a key part of the open access concept. For others they are not. I would say that neither group is wrong, they are just using the term differently.

I guess you could always footnote it as "open access" in the BOAI sense. But still, as with the American constitution, the same wording can be understood very differently by different people, so you're still not out of the semantic thicket. Which is why I would say that rather than discussing the meaning of the term "open access" and what is and isn't required for it, I think it's better to focus on practical goals.

Matt
> -----Original Message-----
> From: American Scientist Open Access Forum
> [mailto:AMERICAN-SCIENTIST-OPEN-ACCESS-FORUM_at_LISTSERVER.SIGMAXI.ORG]On
> Behalf Of Stevan Harnad
> Sent: 30 June 2006 13:13
> To: AMERICAN-SCIENTIST-OPEN-ACCESS-FORUM_at_LISTSERVER.SIGMAXI.ORG
> Subject: Re: Definition of Open Access
>
>
> Dear Matt,
>
> I certainly don't want to compete for priority for such a banal thing
> as the name coined to designate toll-free online access, but I am
> surprised by your suggestion that PLoS or BMC had coined OA before
> BOAI! Jan Velterop of BMC and Mike Eisen of PLoS were there at the
> Budapest meeting in December 2001, and part of the drafting group that
> coined the term "Open Access" in the December-February
> drafting period,
> but I don't recall any suggestion that the term already existed and
> was in use. (That doesn't mean it wasn't, of course; indeed,
> it's almost
> certain that others -- including electricity grid and
> telephone companies,
> had been using "open access" in other senses before.)
>
> I have checked my archive of the drafting of the BOAI, and I
> note that Peter
> already used the term "Open access" in his first draft of
> December 6 2001,
> 4 days after the Budapest meeting. I also vaguely remember that we
> deliberately chose "Open Access Initiative" in order to
> resonate with the
> "Open Archives Initiative," which had already generated the
> all-important
> OAI metadata harvesting protocol, and the very notion of interoperable
> "Open Archives" that, along with the Internet itself, is what made OA
> possible.
>
> There is also an archive of the moment when the Open Archives
> Initiative
> first settled on "Open Archives" (in place of "UPS") in 1999 (the term
> was coined by Herbert van de Sompel).
>
> Peter: Do you have a better recollection of how we settled on
> OA, and when?
> Was it perhaps during the Budapest meeting itself? (Perhaps
> Jan and Mike
> can recall?)
>
> It's probably of some (minor) historic interest how "OA" came
> to be called
> OA.
>
> Chrs, Stevan
>
> On Fri, 30 Jun 2006, Matthew Cockerill wrote:
>
> > The Budapest meeting no doubt helped the term 'open access' to
> > achieve wide currency, and provided a definition for it.
> >
> > But, for what it's worth, the Internet Archive confirms
> that the term
> > open access was already being used in early 2001 by BioMed Central
> > (amongst others?) to describe:
> > (a) journals
> > http://web.archive.org/web/20010307122249/www.biomedcentral.com/
> > 1472-2091/1/2
> > (b) PubMed Central
> >
> http://web.archive.org/web/20010405071619/www.biomedcentral.com/info/
> > whatis.asp
> >
> >
> > I'm with Humpty Dumpty on this one though:
> > http://sundials.org/about/humpty.htm
> >
> > Matt
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On 30 Jun 2006, at 0:15, Stevan Harnad wrote:
> >
> > > Rick Anderson is unhappy with "my" definition of OA:
> > >
> > >
> > >>>>> SH:
> > >>>>> OA means free online access to published,
> peer-reviewed journal
> > >>>>> articles.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> RA:
> > >>>> No, Stevan, that's _your_ definition of OA. It is by
> no means the
> > >>>> only one.
> > >>>>
> > >>>
> > >>> SH:
> > >>> No, Rick, that's the BOAI definition, and that was where the
> > >>> word OA was coined:
> > >>> http://www.soros.org/openaccess/read.shtml
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >> RA:
> > >> Actually, the Barcelona definition departs significantly from
> > >> Stevan's.
> > >> It does not require content to be either peer-reviewed
> or formally
> > >> published in order for it to be considered OA, nor does it share
> > >> Stevan's narrow focus on self-archiving. More significantly, the
> > >> BOAI
> > >> definition is itself not the only one.
> > >>
> > >
> > > To repeat, the term "Open Access" was introduced into the language
> > > between December 2001 and February 2002 by the co-drafters of the
> > > Budapest Open Access Initiative (BOAI) (Peter Suber, principal
> > > drafter).
> > >
> > > Language being what it is, once coined, the term was of
> course free
> > > to take on any other meaning anyone wished to assign to it, but
> > > there is much to be said for the co-drafters' original intention
> > > and initiative: It was, after all, what launched the Open Access
> > > movement.
> > This email has been scanned by Postini.
> > For more information please visit http://www.postini.com
> >
>
This email has been scanned by Postini.
For more information please visit http://www.postini.com

Received on Fri Jun 30 2006 - 14:13:12 BST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Dec 10 2010 - 19:48:24 GMT