Internet Archaeology - open access

[Judith Winters]

I'm pleased to announce that Internet Archaeology http://intarch.ac.uk/ is an open access journal.  We've concluded our hybrid phase and will no longer charge a subscription for access to any of our past and future content.

Several things have spurred this decision. Over the last 4 years, we have made active efforts in this direction, by switching to a default CC-BY license, by opening up our back issues with an annual rolling wall, and by adjusting our subscription charges accordingly. During this time, we have also witnessed a marked increase in quality, funded submissions, including several themed issues. Internet Archaeology has always tried to be more than 'just a journal'. We explore the possibilities of the web and have delved into many different publication formats. This flexibility extends into everything we do. Being a small operation has meant we could be responsive to changes in the wider scholarly landscape, and the journal has simply reached the tipping point.

Funded through JISC's eLib programme, Internet Archaeology was launched in 1995 as a born-digital journal and published its first issue in 1996. It was also open access before the term was really invented. As part of the initial funding agreement, and as the only sustainable option for us at that time, we introduced institutional subscriptions in 2000, followed by subscriptions for individuals in 2001. By 2010, the open access debate had truly sparked into life and it was around that time that we started to publish open access content where funds were available. By the start of 2014 however, over 50% of the articles we had published were open access, so we have decided to make open access the focus of our efforts from now on.

There will always be challenges of course but I'm very excited to be taking the journal into this new phase.

http://intarch.ac.uk/open_access.html

Judith


--
Judith Winters
Editor, Internet Archaeology
http://intarch.ac.uk
@IntarchEditor
https://www.facebook.com/internet.archaeology

Internet Archaeology is now fully open access!

Department of Archaeology, University of York YO1 7EP

EMAIL DISCLAIMER http://www.york.ac.uk/docs/disclaimer/email.htm

[Anthony Beck]

Congratulations Judith

:-)

Ant

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Antiquist" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to antiquist+...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to anti...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/antiquist.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Leif Isaksen]

Woo! Great news and delighted to hear that the decision was not purely
on principle but also because it had become the obvious thing to do.
Thanks for updating us!

All the best

Leif

[Ethan Watrall]

Big kudos and congrats!

Cheers,

Ethan

--
Assistant Professor, Anthropology
Associate Director, MATRIX (matrix.msu.edu)
Director, Cultural Heritage Informatics Initiative (chi.anthropology.msu.edu)
Michigan State University
@captain_primate

Judith Winters wrote:

[Maximilian Schich]

Dear all,

Let me say something provocative here:

The subject line should say:
"Re: [Antiquist] Internet Archaeology - author pays"

We should indeed be happy that broader audiences can see Internet Archaeology – Congrats for that, Judith!

But we should also acknowledge that "author pays" is like a democracy in the presence of SuperPACs.
Those who have funding can pay more fees and publish more, getting more funding, publish more, etc.

True open-access would include open-access from both sides:
Open-access for the audience AND open-access for excellent authors (without free-as-an-option-to-apply-for).
As long as free submission is not the rule, but an exception, open-access is not truly open, but privileges those with more money.

Open-access with author-pays is inherently exclusive, just like open-source without documentation of code.
Author pays nurtures topocracy, not meritocracy!

Can there be a solution for that?

Best, Max

[geoff carver]

Kind of like what used to be called a “vanity press,” in other words?

[Maximilian Schich]

In a sense yes: Author-pays decouples publisher's income from audience attention by one step.
Both authors and publishers would be less dependent on the audience, potentially nurturing invisible colleges.

The key question is: How can we add open-for-authors-by-default to open-for-audiences-by-default?

Don't get me wrong: I am not against author-pays. But I think we should aim for better!

Best, Max

--

[Sebastian Rahtz]

I don't buy this exclusivity thing. Very very seldom does an author pay with her own money, it comes from her research grant or institution. We all recognize that doing research which results in  publication has costs, and now they are being made explicit and visible. The category of person who loses, I guess, is the archaeologist in (say) Liberia who's working on a shoestring, and has no funds at all to buy a new trowel, let alone a fee to IA to publish their paper. Yes, it is hard on them. It is not as hard as being unable to read anyone else's articles because their local library can't afford to fund Elsevier shareholders' sybaritic lifestyle.

Judith's announcement about this move by IA is really inspiring because of its positivity, instead of an impression of their being dragged into it against their will.

I for one will be passing the email around my colleagues saying "See? there is some hope".

--

Sebastian Rahtz      

Director (Research) of Academic IT

University of Oxford IT Services

13 Banbury Road, Oxford OX2 6NN. Phone +44 1865 283431

Não sou nada.

Nunca serei nada.

Não posso querer ser nada.

À parte isso, tenho em mim todos os sonhos do mundo.

[geoff carver]

If you have one.

[Sebastian Rahtz]

Oh come on, Geoff. We've moved on from gentlemen scholars of the 18th century. Academic, and archaeology, is a professional business, with funding. You just have to make sure the cost of the publication is included in the budget, and take a holistic view of the process. Use the same pot of money that pays for your electricity, your camera, your computer, your internet connection, your plastic bags, your trowel, you name it. Why should things suddenly become "free" at the very last point in the process?

The issue of publishers "double dipping" by charging you a fee _and_ a journal sub to your library is another matter, but luckily IA can have a clear conscience there, I think.

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Antiquist" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to antiquist+...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to anti...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/antiquist.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Anthony Beck]

This brings into question

1. why do we publish in the first place?
2. in the 21st century are journals the correct place to ‘publish’ research?

In respect of the first point it can be argued that academic publishing (particularly the traditional model) is partially about communicating research but also has other elements thrown into the mix including funding models, career advancement etc.

However, in terms of communicating research are academic journals the right way to go (point 2). Internet Archaeology has long recognised that discourse and change is part of the scientific/archaeological process and needs to be encouraged. The shift to Open Access opens up the arena and is to be applauded. But is this actually communicating the research? It is communicating a synthesis - without the data or the algorithms that transform that data the research can not be replicated. Hence, the research loses its impact to all audiences.

I think we need to go further. Journal outputs need to stop being the way academics and academic archaeologists value themselves. Academics are now mandated to have impact yet they mainly publish their results behind paywalls focussed at a small audience. We need to change the nature of the discourse from a lecture into a collaboration. We need to provide the data and tools so that research outputs can be re-implemented by anybody (academic or lay-person). We need to provide the incentives that can make this happen. Open Science, Open Data, [Open Processing] and Altmetrics are the way to do this.

Open Data and Open Processing provide the nuts and bolts - the data and how you transform it. There are many open web processing frameworks and workflow environments in existence. They’re just missing data. The Open Data bit is going to be hard - people do not instinctively want to provide open access to something they have worked hard to get and have not yet fully exploited. People need to be encouraged to do this - you can achieve career progression by depositing good quality open data, you are acting professionally as a contract unit by depositing good quality open data. To make this happen it probably needs to be mandated by funding bodies (be they academic or developer funders) and supported by career progression metrics (altmetrics)

The Open Science bit provides the sugar that links the things together. This means you may no longer need traditional journals. You need to produce research which:

• your peers use (credible research)
• can be immediately used by the public, industry, policy (informing research, transferable research, research with impact)
• stimulates the debate (sustainable research)

This is by nature an open system in which all stakeholders can contribute. It’s also a dream (but it’s mine and I like it)

In response to Max’s question there is an answer: it’s called Open Science.

Best

Ant

[Sebastian Rahtz]

Mr Beck, he say it right. +1000

[Anthony Beck]

If you're talking about those people who are *formally* doing archaeology I agree wholeheartedly.

However there are those people who are *informal* contributers. Those who are working on a different project but doing some sideline stuff in archaeology (the pot may not want to fund this or their supervisor may not be interested). Those who no longer work in academic archaeology but still have something to offer (me :-). It's the informal group that need the love.

That said I'm not overly worried about this - if the work is of good quality the journal/community will find the way! I also think we are going through a period of significant change and the landscape will be very different in a few years time.

Best

Ant

[geoff carver]

Developers aren’t going to pay for that; it’s hard enough to get them to pay for toilets on site.

 

From: anti...@googlegroups.com [mailto:anti...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Sebastian Rahtz

 

Oh come on, Geoff. We've moved on from gentlemen scholars of the 18th century. Academic, and archaeology, is a professional business, with funding. You just have to make sure the cost of the publication is included in the budget, and take a holistic view of the process. Use the same pot of money that pays for your electricity, your camera, your computer, your internet connection, your plastic bags, your trowel, you name it. Why should things suddenly become "free" at the very last point in the process?

[Anthony Beck]

Then it begs the question of what is the point of digging it in the first place. If the data/impact can not be realised it may as well be bulldozed. It amounts to the same thing in the end.

A

--

[geoff carver]

Yep: we keep asking that. The local state service is now working on a database, which will allow people working within the state service itself to access site info, but will still require anyone working in CRM to visit the archives and examine hardcopy if they want to find anything out.

That’s sort of an advance, in a way; previously all data had to be sent in as excel tables; even Access wasn’t allowed because only one machine had a copy and no one knew the password.

All we seem to do is antagonize developers, waste their money and waste our own time.

[geoff carver]

The CRM folk who are doing 90% of the work but never able to publish anything because there’s no budget for it?

[Anthony Beck]

On 29/09/14 15:50, geoff carver wrote:

The CRM folk who are doing 90% of the work but never able to publish anything because there’s no budget for it?

>That said I'm not overly worried about this - if the work is of good quality the journal/community will find the way! I also think we are going through a period of significant change and the landscape will be very different in a few years time.

Which I appreciate is weak for your case.

That said: CRM should not just be a glorified data curation role on the behalf of planners (as it currently is). In my dream Open Data/Open Science is a  transformative process. Those in CRM roles become pivotal to the whole system - through CRM flows an appreciation of the nuances of the data in respect of the research agendas and an understanding of the archaeological relevance/impact of different activities at a local, regional, national and international level. The CRM community structures the nature of engagement between every stakeholder and shapes much of the debate. They are a key information/knowledge provider.

[geoff carver]

Ideally, yes; in reality… seems like we’re just perpetuating the divide between those inside and outside the ivory tower; all the data we’ve been collecting in the field going to waste because the archives can’t make it accessible and in some cases aren’t really interested in doing so. If we can’t even afford to deal with health and safety properly, it’ll be a long time before we start discussing data dissemination…

 

From: anti...@googlegroups.com [mailto:anti...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Anthony Beck

[Stuart Eve]

I think Geoff, if you are doing developer funded archaeology and you DON'T have money in the budget agreed at point of contract, then you should stop doing developer funded archaeology immediately as you are not doing it responsibly. Every developer is now well aware of the need for a post-excavation budget and the curator at the local authority should be ensuring any planning condition that is put on a site should have a requirement for publication if necessary. Anything else is just irresponsible and has no place in the modern CRM world.

--

[geoff carver]

Again; ideally, yes. In reality… one of the companies here was facing 42 separate lawsuits for failing to pay wages, failing to pay for things like containers and heavy equipment, failing to pay the temporary employment agency that provided most of the (very temporary) diggers, etc.; and yet… they still get contracts.

Another falsely published a report under his own name, then disappeared to Albania; the record of authorship has been changed at the German national library and the publisher has been forbidden to sell copies with the false author’s name, but… it’s not going to be reprinted.

This kind of thing happens every day.

[Sebastian Rahtz]

You're switching goalposts here.  How people in the field make data accessible in archives is a different issue from whether you have to pay to publish an article in an academic journal.

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Antiquist" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to antiquist+...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to anti...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/antiquist.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Sebastian Rahtz]

On 29 September 2014 16:17, Stuart Eve <stua...@gmail.com> wrote:

 Every developer is now well aware of the need for a post-excavation budget and the curator at the local authority should be ensuring any planning condition that is put on a site should have a requirement for publication if necessary. 

where the APC paid to IA for an analytical article which arises is a minuscule part of the post-excavation cost.

Sebastian

[Maximilian Schich]

Open Science is an excellent goal, but not an answer to my question (of getting around author-pays).
In fact, answering the question will take us a step closer towards Open Science.

The solution is unclear:
We now live in a world where most students pay substantial amounts of tuition and leave university in deep debt.
Many humanists, including archaeologists, can't afford publication fees in the same way as biologists funded by the NIH can.

Your argument that you just have to include the publication fees into your funding application just feeds into my critique:
It means you acquire the ability to publish based on your past work, not based on the results of your work.
This is topocracy, not meritocracy.

Best, Max 

[geoff carver]

I was responding to your assertion that “Academic, and archaeology, is a professional business, with funding,” and pointing out that, yes, ideally, but…

Some places have moved on; some have not.

[Sebastian Rahtz]

On 29 September 2014 17:04, Maximilian Schich <maxim...@schich.info> wrote:

Your argument that you just have to include the publication fees into your funding application just feeds into my critique:
It means you acquire the ability to publish based on your past work, not based on the results of your work.
This is topocracy, not meritocracy.

There is a bootstrapping problem, I agree. But in general, it is a fair bet that most of your applications (for places at university, excavation funds, jobs, expenses) are based on an assessment of your past results. Measuring _absolute merit_ is not something we are very experienced at.

Yes, today's PhD students come out with huge debts, because they have decided this is how they want to invest in the future; they are gambling that they'll eventually get a decent job and pay off the debt. It sounds brutal, but is it so stupid to include some publication costs in that debt you incur? In practice, you almost certainly _will_ find some source of funds to pay an APC, or the journal will give you a waiver, but in extremis the student may pay. 

To say that phd students are severely disadvantaged compared to tenured academics is undoubtedly true. But hardly a new problem.

 

Sebastian 

[Anthony Beck]

On 29/09/14 17:04, Maximilian Schich wrote:
> Open Science is an excellent goal, but not an answer to my question
> (of getting around author-pays).
> In fact, answering the question will take us a step closer towards
> Open Science.

I believe the point is that the traditional journal will not exist in
its current form any more. Future variants will include a variety of
models. Some of which will be *free at point of submission* and *free at
point of consumption*. The challenge is to make them useful and credible.

We already have such publishing models (wikipedia) - but not that
satisfy academic requirements. The question we should be asking is
whether the current journal publication system is fit for purpose in the
21st century (it is not) and what it should be replaced with. That said
I'd be interest to find what *requirements* academics need for a
dissemination system. I'm absolutely positive that if we designed
something from scratch you would not re-build Elsevier! Although you may
rebuild Internet Archaeology ;-)

Best

A

[Leif Isaksen]

Hi all

it's been a bracing and interesting exchange (as we would hope and
expect on Antiquist), but on the basis that there's a limited number
of voices contributing to it we'll need to wrap up there before it
fills up everyone's inbox...

http://www.antiquist.org/blog/list-discussion-guidelines

All best

Leif

[Maximilian Schich]

So the provocation worked. Cas[cad]e closed.
;) Max

[Nick Boldrini]

Hmmm - a few hours discussion is enough - not sure about that...

And now I've missed my chance to contribute - because most of the discussion happened after I left work? - again - not good.

So ignoring your Guillotine

The focus of this discussion has seemed to me to be very much about students and academia, who arguably have pretty good access to Journals etc - even if it could be better

As someone outside academia my access to any journals is still limited by a pay wall, and on that basis Internet Archaeology are joining a trend that addresses that for local government employees, local societies, and other independent archaeologists


I think publishing in a journal has the important aspect of peer review which I don't think anyone mentioned but is a key component of what journals do - and if you doubt that just google your favourite topic to see what weird and wonderful theories people come up without it - so Journals have a place still - though their model may need to change

Finally - access to archives - interesting point - but actually I think the issue is that there is no culture in archaeology to go back and review someone elses archives - generally you make your name investigating a new site, or digging a different bit of a known site - so making digital archives available is a bit of a red herring until the culture of looking at archives is encouraged.


best wishes

Nick Boldrini
Historic Environment Record Officer
Archaeology Section
Design and Historic Environment Team
Planning Service
Regeneration and Economic Development
Durham County Council
County Hall
Durham
DH1 5UQ
Tel: 03000 267008
nick.b...@durham.gov.uk

www.durham.gov.uk

________________________________


Help protect our environment by only printing this email if absolutely necessary. The information it contains and any files transmitted with it are confidential and are only intended for the person or organisation to whom it is addressed. It may be unlawful for you to use, share or copy the information, if you are not authorised to do so. If you receive this email by mistake, please inform the person who sent it at the above address and then delete the email from your system. Durham County Council takes reasonable precautions to ensure that its emails are virus free. However, we do not accept responsibility for any losses incurred as a result of viruses we might transmit and recommend that you should use your own virus checking procedures.

[Sebastian Rahtz]

On 30 September 2014 08:47, Nick Boldrini <Nick.B...@durham.gov.uk> wrote:

Finally - access to archives - interesting point - but actually I think the issue is that there is no culture in archaeology to go back and review someone elses archives - generally you make your name investigating a new site, or digging a different bit of a known site - 

Really??? When you're writing an excavation report, and trying to work out what that

pattern of postholes might be, you don't trawl through lots of existing reports to see who else had one similar? Is that not accessing someone elses archive?

PS its amusing to see a "this correspondence is closed" message. Haven't encountered one of those on a list since the heady days of the 1980s. Willard McCarty had a good line in them.

[Nick Boldrini]

I’m distinguishing reports and articles from the rest of the archive – which I understood was the point about the suggestion about getting the archives online – ie access to the wider archive (plans, sections, context sheets, spreadsheets, GIS, cad etc etc) as opposed to the published (even in Grey literature) parts of the archive. Apologies if I misunderstood.

 

But then that kinda helps emphasise my point – if the fuller archive is adequately represented in those reports – do you really need access to the wider archive?

 

And if the culture is to look at the reports not the archive – do we really need access to the wider archive?

 

Things cost resources, so just because we can do something and it would  be nice to, shouldn’t distract us from asking “is that the priority for resources right now?”

 

 

Best wishes

 

Nick Boldrini

Historic Environment Record Officer

Ext 267008

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Antiquist" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to antiquist+...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to anti...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/antiquist.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Anthony Beck]

On 30/09/14 10:07, Nick Boldrini wrote:

I’m distinguishing reports and articles from the rest of the archive – which I understood was the point about the suggestion about getting the archives online – ie access to the wider archive (plans, sections, context sheets, spreadsheets, GIS, cad etc etc) as opposed to the published (even in Grey literature) parts of the archive. Apologies if I misunderstood.

 

But then that kinda helps emphasise my point – if the fuller archive is adequately represented in those reports

Depends what you mean by ‘adequately represented’. Adequate for what? Fit for what purpose?

– do you really need access to the wider archive?

Again…. Fit for what purpose?

If the output of a commercial system is a report that contains stagnant data summaries then I suggest the industry needs to revise its recording systems accordingly.

 

And if the culture is to look at the reports not the archive – do we really need access to the wider archive?

 

Things cost resources, so just because we can do something and it would  be nice to, shouldn’t distract us from asking “is that the priority for resources right now?”

In my dream world I want access to all the data. I want access to all the data because archaeologists don’t deal with facts. Archaeologists deal with observations and theories which become loosely coupled interpretative frameworks. Any one of these things can change and it has ramifications on everything else. I want pottery specialists to state that their Type IIb is the same as someone elses Type 4b which refines the data range and then look at the implications this has for dating and interpretations across every site.

This requires open frameworks, linked data, digital data, interoperabilty and the semantic web. But again this is my dream world.

In the real world - bits of paper are put into storage. The barriers to entry to do anything meaningful with them are really high. Hence, nothing gets done.

I don’t think archaeology is about creating islands of knowledge stored on paper….

Ultimately someone needs to do a requirements analysis.

[Leif Isaksen]

Hi Nick, all

a quick clarification here - antiquist mods don't wish to be a
guillotine on a topic, we just need to make sure as a community we're
broadly following our own guidelines (which I encourage everyone to
take a look at):

http://www.antiquist.org/blog/list-discussion-guidelines

In particular:

"Make a point only once in a given discussion. Repeating it provides
no new information, will not convince the unconvinced, and only
creates more email for others to wade through."

While we welcome people making substantively new points (or offering
+1s), conversations which keep circling between a small number of
posters are best moved to a private exchange (but feel free to report
back if you reach a consensus!)

We'd also ask for people to take particular consideration of these
issues when dealing with topics like openness which tend to inflame
passions and in which people sometimes form entrenched positions. This
is a space for debates certainly, but not battles of attrition.

All the best

L.

[Leif Isaksen]

PS And creating a new thread does not exempt you from the guidelines! ;-)

[Nick Boldrini]

Was going to write a long reply but bearing in mind the guidelines ; )

 

I’ll just say this

 

Like you say a requirement analysis needs to be done. And it needs to show that the costs of all that good stuff are worth the outcome – concretely, not hopefully – because otherwise those resources could be better spent in my view

 

The barriers to access paper archives are not as high as people think – theres generally no cost to access things in a museum (in my experience) the cost is in time and potentially travel. Digital access only deals with the travel element (and possibly a little time – as you are working instead of travelling) - but without the culture/drive/desire to look at archives, then still nothing will happen. And I think it is that culture/drive/desire that is the key part that is missing. If it wasn’t – some use of archives would be happening routinely, but it doesn’t appear to me to be happening (though bear in mind my lack of access to Journals may mean I am missing out on loads of examples where it is…)

 

Just to be clear – I am not against sharing data – I just think there are higher priorities which limited resources should go into

 

Best wishes

 

Nick Boldrini

Historic Environment Record Officer

Ext 267008

 

[Chris Puttick]

Ohh, this thread is too good to die...

Archives are not in practice available. Although they are mostly on
deposit in paper form, in practice many of those creating the majority
of archives (the archaeological contractors) are sitting on those
archives awaiting space to deposit them; and those that are deposited
are not easily accessed, more stored than made available. In
particular any of the really interesting things that can be done with
the data requires it to be held in a machine-readable form and
aggregate-searchable. Oxford Archaeology's efforts in this area during
the last decade were accessed and those elements still in operation
are still being accessed. Something done on a greater scale would have
way more potential to ask and answer questions about the
archaeological record and thus almost certainly result in
proportionally more interest.

Preserving the record is pointless if it's not easily available. The
report *is not* the definitive record of a site, the data captured is.

Regards

Chris

@putt1ck
putt1ck.blogspot.com
http://twoten.is
skype: putt1ck

Opinions in this email are my own and may not reflect that of my
clients, past employers, associates, friends, family, pets etc..

[Stuart Eve]

I would be interested to find out if anyone has done any projects that compare actual context records across sites (rather than just the interpretations of those). I am sure this happens, but it would be great to see examples. Do people really compare Munsell colour values of contexts from different sites?

Preserving data by record and doing that digitally obviously leads to a number of questions - i.e. how much do you input to a database (every field on the paper sheet?) or do you cherry pick the ones you think are most useful to be machine-searched and then just upload a scan of the paper sheet for the rest?

Stu

[Anthony Beck]

On 30/09/14 13:21, Stuart Eve wrote:
> I would be interested to find out if anyone has done any projects that compare actual context records across sites (rather than just the interpretations of those). I am sure this happens, but it would be great to see examples.

I've been involved with a few.

Raunds re interpretation. Jan Harding. Not only a mix of excavation
teams (EH, Oxford... someone else) but a mix of recording systems as
well. Is probably the most coherent . If memory serves the full records
weren't entered.

Some work on the Maidenhead flood alleviation scheme - but I don't think
it was formalised.

The HS2 tenders should learn from CTRL and other large infrastructure
projects.

> Do people really compare Munsell colour values of contexts from different sites?

Munsell..... munsell? It's a mid browny orange..... I know..... I'm
colour blind.

best

A

>>> that the costs of all that good stuff are worth the outcome - concretely,
>>> not hopefully - because otherwise those resources could be better spent in
>>> my view
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The barriers to access paper archives are not as high as people think -

>>> theres generally no cost to access things in a museum (in my experience) the
>>> cost is in time and potentially travel. Digital access only deals with the

>>> travel element (and possibly a little time - as you are working instead of

>>> travelling) - but without the culture/drive/desire to look at archives, then
>>> still nothing will happen. And I think it is that culture/drive/desire that

>>> is the key part that is missing. If it wasn't - some use of archives would

>>> be happening routinely, but it doesn't appear to me to be happening (though
>>> bear in mind my lack of access to Journals may mean I am missing out on

>>> loads of examples where it is...)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Just to be clear - I am not against sharing data - I just think there are

>>> higher priorities which limited resources should go into
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Best wishes
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Nick Boldrini
>>>
>>> Historic Environment Record Officer
>>>
>>> Ext 267008
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> From: anti...@googlegroups.com [mailto:anti...@googlegroups.com] On
>>> Behalf Of Anthony Beck
>>> Sent: 30 September 2014 10:34
>>> To: anti...@googlegroups.com
>>> Subject: [MASSMAIL][Antiquist] Open data: was Open Access
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 30/09/14 10:07, Nick Boldrini wrote:
>>>

>>> I'm distinguishing reports and articles from the rest of the archive - which

>>> I understood was the point about the suggestion about getting the archives

>>> online - ie access to the wider archive (plans, sections, context sheets,

>>> spreadsheets, GIS, cad etc etc) as opposed to the published (even in Grey
>>> literature) parts of the archive. Apologies if I misunderstood.
>>>
>>>
>>>

>>> But then that kinda helps emphasise my point - if the fuller archive is

>>> adequately represented in those reports
>>>
>>> Depends what you mean by 'adequately represented'. Adequate for what? Fit
>>> for what purpose?
>>>

>>> - do you really need access to the wider archive?
>>>
>>> Again.... Fit for what purpose?

>>>
>>> If the output of a commercial system is a report that contains stagnant data
>>> summaries then I suggest the industry needs to revise its recording systems
>>> accordingly.
>>>
>>>
>>>

>>> And if the culture is to look at the reports not the archive - do we really

>>> need access to the wider archive?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Things cost resources, so just because we can do something and it would be
>>> nice to, shouldn't distract us from asking "is that the priority for
>>> resources right now?"
>>>
>>> In my dream world I want access to all the data. I want access to all the
>>> data because archaeologists don't deal with facts. Archaeologists deal with
>>> observations and theories which become loosely coupled interpretative
>>> frameworks. Any one of these things can change and it has ramifications on
>>> everything else. I want pottery specialists to state that their Type IIb is
>>> the same as someone elses Type 4b which refines the data range and then look
>>> at the implications this has for dating and interpretations across every
>>> site.
>>>
>>> This requires open frameworks, linked data, digital data, interoperabilty
>>> and the semantic web. But again this is my dream world.
>>>
>>> In the real world - bits of paper are put into storage. The barriers to
>>> entry to do anything meaningful with them are really high. Hence, nothing
>>> gets done.
>>>
>>> I don't think archaeology is about creating islands of knowledge stored on

>>> paper....