RE: the open spectrum

32 views
Skip to first unread message

Glenn Hampson

unread,
Jul 27, 2018, 9:38:05 PM7/27/18
to osi20...@googlegroups.com

Hi everyone,

 

Okay---our new website (osiglobal.org) is live and our old site (osinitiative.org) redirects to it.

 

On a different topic, with regard to the open spectrum document, thanks for your comments so far. Here are a couple of notes:

  1. “Open” and “open access” are different---in this proposal, open access is a discrete state on the open spectrum that more or less conforms to the variation OA definitions we’re used to seeing (e.g., free, immediate, and no reuse restrictions). The open spectrum includes a multitude of states, including “open access,” while “open” is variously used---as Ilona Miko notes---as both a phenomenon (ex: “to improve the future of open”) and descriptor (ex: “Help guide the future of open”). Clear as mud?
  2. With regard to the numbering system, “A” seems to be the most problematic. For instance, what do we call open data that is open for just a specific set of users? Take a research group like Sage Bionetworks. Their data isn’t public, but it is wide open for the researchers who contribute their findings and have the need and expertise to use this data. This is definitely a valuable contribution to open, but if we were scoring this on a 0-9 scale, would the “A” (Access) value be a 5? A more informative solution might be to preface the DARTS number with an X or O, where X indicates paywalled or otherwise limited solution, and O means public. This way, efforts to build out robust private networks of data could be ranked separately from public networks; a Sage database could score an X-99999 instead of a misleading (or at least not clear) 95999. With this approach, we could acknowledge the growth (and needs/shortcomings) of open in industry, subscription, membership, and other “non-public” networks as well as the solely public networks. Another clear as mud paragraph---sorry.

 

Best,

 

Glenn

 

 

Glenn Hampson
Executive Director
Science Communication Institute (SCI)
Program Director
Open Scholarship Initiative (OSI)

osi-logo-2016-25-mail

2320 N 137th Street | Seattle, WA 98133
(206) 417-3607 | gham...@nationalscience.org | nationalscience.org

 

 

From: Glenn Hampson <gham...@nationalscience.org>
Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2018 12:20 PM
To: 'osi20...@googlegroups.com' <osi20...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: the open spectrum

 

Hi Folks,

 

Two alerts for you:

 

  1. I’m anticipating that the new OSI site (osiglobal.org) will go live tomorrow pending approval of the summit group on Friday morning’s summit call. For now, use the password osi2018 to sneak a preview. This site will be a work in progress---more content will be added over time. Let me know at any time if you have recommendations, want to write a post for it, etc. The current site (osinitiative.org) will be redirected to this one---the content on the current site will no longer be visible after tomorrow.
  2. Open resources are a key part of this new site. We’ve discussed the OSI issue briefs. Several of these are in progress---let me know if you’re interested in tackling one. Attached is the draft of an even shorter information piece I’d like to suggest---“key concepts” flyers. This one deals with the open spectrum. The idea behind these is to provide graphic distillations of important concepts in a manner that an be easily printed and shared. The content of this particular flyer also needs to be discussed and vetted by our group. Specifically, we’ve discussed the concept of the open spectrum but haven’t really discussed these two important parts of it:
    1. What do we mean by open? Here’s the definition I’m proposing for your consideration: Open means information that has been optimized for sharing with the public or with a particular set of readers. At its most open, this information is available without cost, immediately upon publishing, and includes the right to repurpose without attribution. Other types of open can be more restrictive, including open information that carries limited reuse conditions, limited embargo periods, and/or has less than ideal discoverability. The DARTS Framework, developed by OSI participants, proposes that the openness of information exists along five dimensions: discoverability, accessibility, reusability, transparency, and sustainability. The result is a broad spectrum of open states, not binary open-closed values.
    2. How do we measure values on this spectrum? Assigning a 0-9 value for each letter in DARTS would be one way. A perfectly open information artifact would be denoted by 99999; an entirely closed artifact would be 00000; and an artifact that was discoverable, reusable, transparent, and sustainable, but only available via subscription (so with restricted “access”) might be 95999. Over time, including the DARTS value next to the DOI, ORCID ID, and other key values would help give readers an instant snapshot of the openness of a particular information artifact and how/where this openness could be improved (and in doing so, help promote and guide the move toward open).

 

Best,

 

Glenn

 

 

Glenn Hampson
Executive Director
Science Communication Institute (SCI)
Program Director
Open Scholarship Initiative (OSI)

osi-logo-2016-25-mail

2320 N 137th Street | Seattle, WA 98133
(206) 417-3607 | gham...@nationalscience.org | nationalscience.org

 

 

image001.jpg

Glenn Hampson

unread,
Jul 27, 2018, 10:58:58 PM7/27/18
to osi20...@googlegroups.com

Sorry for piling on (to myself) here, but thinking about this some more, non-public information artifacts like at Sage may fall short on both the discoverability AND accessibility attributes of DARTS, not just accessibility. So in a numerical system, are we suggesting that anything private (i.e., not public) or fee-based (e.g., memberships, subscriptions) must be limited in value to 0-4? Should free and public information start at a value of 5 on the 0-9 scale? Private artifacts can be exquisitely discoverable to members of the private network but totally invisible outside that network, thus earning a “D” score of 0-4, but if we don’t value these artifacts in context then we’re losing out on the opportunity to learn from (and about) them and apply best practices.

 

So---again continuing with the clear as mud explanation---we could preface each DART score with letters and symbols that more accurately describe the location and nature of this information---maybe using something like S=Subscription, RN=research network, G=government, I=industry, P=public,  F=free, $=nominal price, $$=modest price, $$$=expensive. So a Sage database open only to network researchers might carry a DARTS ID of RN-88999; a subscription database might be S$-88999; and a free public database might be PF-88999.

 

Without this preface, the DARTS ID for a subscription database with nominal cost might be 00999. Is this preferable (is it too judgemental)? I guess it depends if we define “open” as necessarily being free and public. Doing so knocks a lot of outcomes off the open spectrum, but I understand the argument for doing so.

 

DISCOVERABLE: Can this information be found online? Is it indexed by search engines and databases, and hosted on servers open to the public? Does it contain adequate identifiers (such as DOIs)?

 

ACCESSIBLE: Once discovered, can this information be read by anyone? Is it available free of charge? Is it available in a timely, complete, and easy-to-acceess manner (for instance, is it downloadable or machine-readable, with a dataset included)?

 

Thanks for thinking this through---sorry for the additional spam.

--
As a public and publicly-funded effort, the conversations on this list can be viewed by the public and are archived. To read this group's complete listserv policy (including disclaimer and reuse information), please visit http://osinitiative.org/osi-listservs.
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Open Scholarship Initiative" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to osi2016-25+...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to osi20...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/osi2016-25.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

image001.jpg

Rick Anderson

unread,
Jul 28, 2018, 1:08:30 AM7/28/18
to Glenn Hampson, osi20...@googlegroups.com

> what do we call open data that is open for just a specific set of users?

 

Wouldn’t we call that “closed”?

 

Rick

 

 

From: <osi20...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of Glenn Hampson <gham...@nationalscience.org>
Date: Friday, July 27, 2018 at 7:38 PM
To: "osi20...@googlegroups.com" <osi20...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: RE: the open spectrum

 

Hi everyone,

 

Okay---our new website (osiglobal.org) is live and our old site (osinitiative.org) redirects to it.

 

On a different topic, with regard to the open spectrum document, thanks for your comments so far. Here are a couple of notes:

1.       “Open” and “open access” are different---in this proposal, open access is a discrete state on the open spectrum that more or less conforms to the variation OA definitions we’re used to seeing (e.g., free, immediate, and no reuse restrictions). The open spectrum includes a multitude of states, including “open access,” while “open” is variously used---as Ilona Miko notes---as both a phenomenon (ex: “to improve the future of open”) and descriptor (ex: “Help guide the future of open”). Clear as mud?

2.       With regard to the numbering system, “A” seems to be the most problematic. For instance, what do we call open data that is open for just a specific set of users? Take a research group like Sage Bionetworks. Their data isn’t public, but it is wide open for the researchers who contribute their findings and have the need and expertise to use this data. This is definitely a valuable contribution to open, but if we were scoring this on a 0-9 scale, would the “A” (Access) value be a 5? A more informative solution might be to preface the DARTS number with an X or O, where X indicates paywalled or otherwise limited solution, and O means public. This way, efforts to build out robust private networks of data could be ranked separately from public networks; a Sage database could score an X-99999 instead of a misleading (or at least not clear) 95999. With this approach, we could acknowledge the growth (and needs/shortcomings) of open in industry, subscription, membership, and other “non-public” networks as well as the solely public networks. Another clear as mud paragraph---sorry.

 

Best,

 

Glenn

 

 

Glenn Hampson
Executive Director
Science Communication Institute (SCI)
Program Director
Open Scholarship Initiative (OSI)

osi-logo-2016-25-mail

2320 N 137th Street | Seattle, WA 98133
(206) 417-3607 | gham...@nationalscience.org | nationalscience.org

 

 

From: Glenn Hampson <gham...@nationalscience.org>
Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2018 12:20 PM
To: 'osi20...@googlegroups.com' <osi20...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: the open spectrum

 

Hi Folks,

 

Two alerts for you:

 

1.       I’m anticipating that the new OSI site (osiglobal.org) will go live tomorrow pending approval of the summit group on Friday morning’s summit call. For now, use the password osi2018 to sneak a preview. This site will be a work in progress---more content will be added over time. Let me know at any time if you have recommendations, want to write a post for it, etc. The current site (osinitiative.org) will be redirected to this one---the content on the current site will no longer be visible after tomorrow.

2.       Open resources are a key part of this new site. We’ve discussed the OSI issue briefs. Several of these are in progress---let me know if you’re interested in tackling one. Attached is the draft of an even shorter information piece I’d like to suggest---“key concepts” flyers. This one deals with the open spectrum. The idea behind these is to provide graphic distillations of important concepts in a manner that an be easily printed and shared. The content of this particular flyer also needs to be discussed and vetted by our group. Specifically, we’ve discussed the concept of the open spectrum but haven’t really discussed these two important parts of it:

a.       What do we mean by open? Here’s the definition I’m proposing for your consideration: Open means information that has been optimized for sharing with the public or with a particular set of readers. At its most open, this information is available without cost, immediately upon publishing, and includes the right to repurpose without attribution. Other types of open can be more restrictive, including open information that carries limited reuse conditions, limited embargo periods, and/or has less than ideal discoverability. The DARTS Framework, developed by OSI participants, proposes that the openness of information exists along five dimensions: discoverability, accessibility, reusability, transparency, and sustainability. The result is a broad spectrum of open states, not binary open-closed values.

b.       How do we measure values on this spectrum? Assigning a 0-9 value for each letter in DARTS would be one way. A perfectly open information artifact would be denoted by 99999; an entirely closed artifact would be 00000; and an artifact that was discoverable, reusable, transparent, and sustainable, but only available via subscription (so with restricted “access”) might be 95999. Over time, including the DARTS value next to the DOI, ORCID ID, and other key values would help give readers an instant snapshot of the openness of a particular information artifact and how/where this openness could be improved (and in doing so, help promote and guide the move toward open).

 

Best,

 

Glenn

 

 

Glenn Hampson
Executive Director
Science Communication Institute (SCI)
Program Director
Open Scholarship Initiative (OSI)

osi-logo-2016-25-mail

2320 N 137th Street | Seattle, WA 98133
(206) 417-3607 | gham...@nationalscience.org | nationalscience.org

 

 

--

As a public and publicly-funded effort, the conversations on this list can be viewed by the public and are archived. To read this group's complete listserv policy (including disclaimer and reuse information), please visit


---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Open Scholarship Initiative" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to


To post to this group, send email to

Anthony Watkinson

unread,
Jul 28, 2018, 7:00:40 AM7/28/18
to Rick Anderson, Glenn Hampson, osi20...@googlegroups.com

I would call it closed. For scientists certainly all data is available to a closed set – the research group and often it is made available do a slightly wider network of other regular collaborators – “circle of trust”.

Open is open.

Anthony

image001.jpg

Mike Roy

unread,
Jul 28, 2018, 7:07:06 AM7/28/18
to Glenn Hampson, osi20...@googlegroups.com
Kind of open is like kind of pregnant or kind of dead. I suspect that spending time imagining degrees of open is counter productive as it will provide those who dont want their stuff to be actually open to make it sort of available to some people under some circumstances (aka restrict access) and claim that it is kind of open. 

Mike

On Fri, Jul 27, 2018 at 10:59 PM Glenn Hampson <gham...@nationalscience.org> wrote:
Notice: This email is from an external sender. Please use caution before clicking links or opening attachments.


--
Michael Roy
Dean of the Library
Middlebury College

mobile: 860 301 2611
twitter: @michaeldroy
skype:  roymichaeldonald

David Wojick

unread,
Jul 28, 2018, 7:13:47 AM7/28/18
to Anthony Watkinson, Rick Anderson, Glenn Hampson, <osi2016-25@googlegroups.com>
Doesn't making it binary rather miss the point of the spectrum model? Perhaps I have the model wrong but I was thinking of it as multi-dimensional, with each dimension being an aspect of openness and having multiple possible states along each dimension (hence a spectrum).

David

<image001.jpg>

2320 N 137th Street | Seattle, WA 98133
(206) 417-3607 | gham...@nationalscience.org | nationalscience.org

 

 

From: Glenn Hampson <gham...@nationalscience.org>
Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2018 12:20 PM
To: 'osi20...@googlegroups.com' <osi20...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: the open spectrum

 

Hi Folks,

 

Two alerts for you:

 

1.       I’m anticipating that the new OSI site (osiglobal.org) will go live tomorrow pending approval of the summit group on Friday morning’s summit call. For now, use the password osi2018 to sneak a preview. This site will be a work in progress---more content will be added over time. Let me know at any time if you have recommendations, want to write a post for it, etc. The current site (osinitiative.org) will be redirected to this one---the content on the current site will no longer be visible after tomorrow.

2.       Open resources are a key part of this new site. We’ve discussed the OSI issue briefs. Several of these are in progress---let me know if you’re interested in tackling one. Attached is the draft of an even shorter information piece I’d like to suggest---“key concepts” flyers. This one deals with the open spectrum. The idea behind these is to provide graphic distillations of important concepts in a manner that an be easily printed and shared. The content of this particular flyer also needs to be discussed and vetted by our group. Specifically, we’ve discussed the concept of the open spectrum but haven’t really discussed these two important parts of it:

a.       What do we mean by open? Here’s the definition I’m proposing for your consideration: Open means information that has been optimized for sharing with the public or with a particular set of readers. At its most open, this information is available without cost, immediately upon publishing, and includes the right to repurpose without attribution. Other types of open can be more restrictive, including open information that carries limited reuse conditions, limited embargo periods, and/or has less than ideal discoverability. The DARTS Framework, developed by OSI participants, proposes that the openness of information exists along five dimensions: discoverability, accessibility, reusability, transparency, and sustainability. The result is a broad spectrum of open states, not binary open-closed values.

b.       How do we measure values on this spectrum? Assigning a 0-9 value for each letter in DARTS would be one way. A perfectly open information artifact would be denoted by 99999; an entirely closed artifact would be 00000; and an artifact that was discoverable, reusable, transparent, and sustainable, but only available via subscription (so with restricted “access”) might be 95999. Over time, including the DARTS value next to the DOI, ORCID ID, and other key values would help give readers an instant snapshot of the openness of a particular information artifact and how/where this openness could be improved (and in doing so, help promote and guide the move toward open).

 

Best,

 

Glenn

 

 

Glenn Hampson
Executive Director
Science Communication Institute (SCI)
Program Director
Open Scholarship Initiative (OSI)

<image001.jpg>

David Wojick

unread,
Jul 28, 2018, 7:19:54 AM7/28/18
to Mike Roy, Glenn Hampson, osi20...@googlegroups.com
I suspect that "kind of open" is all that will ever be possible for every aspect of open. For example, what is open to the hundreds of millions of people without electricity? It is all a matter of degrees.

David

Mike Roy

unread,
Jul 28, 2018, 7:28:53 AM7/28/18
to David Wojick, <osi2016-25@googlegroups.com>, Anthony Watkinson, Glenn Hampson, Rick Anderson
Yes, it is another way of saying that a spectrum model is not the way to think about open access. It may be a way to think about access but if you start defining open as something that has degrees, I think you open the door for publishers to make claims about being sort of open that are counter productive.

Mike

On Sat, Jul 28, 2018 at 7:13 AM David Wojick <dwo...@craigellachie.us> wrote:
Notice: This email is from an external sender. Please use caution before clicking links or opening attachments.


--

Mike Roy

unread,
Jul 28, 2018, 7:47:20 AM7/28/18
to David Wojick, <osi2016-25@googlegroups.com>, Anthony Watkinson, Glenn Hampson, Rick Anderson
While I would concede that open requires access to the internet, am I alone in thinking that introducing the notion of degrees of open is counter productive and provides an out for those who want to claim to be open but are not?

Mike

Joyce Ogburn

unread,
Jul 28, 2018, 10:04:12 AM7/28/18
to The Open Scholarship Initiative
Labels imply things will get labeled. Glenn, are you suggesting that we go down that path? Not only does that imply a huge burden, it will lead to endless arguments and may only be temporally based since the openness of some items changes over time, ie embargoed then not, open to read when first issued then put behind a paywall later, or on the web and then it disappears and with luck one can find it in the Internet Archive.

Joyce

Joyce L. Ogburn
Professor, Digital Strategies and Partnerships Librarian
Appalachian State University
218 College Street
Boone NC 28608-2026
@libjoyce

Lifelong learning requires lifelong access 

Anthony Watkinson

unread,
Jul 28, 2018, 10:26:08 AM7/28/18
to Mike Roy, David Wojick, osi20...@googlegroups.com, Glenn Hampson, Rick Anderson

One problem we have as I see it is the for many years advocates and opponents alike of OA saw open access as (well) open access or gratis as Peter Suber called it but now some people now do not accept gratis as true OA and it has to be libre – no barriers on re-use except need to attribute – which was envisaged though not very clearly expressed in the early declarations. So whatever we do there will be some debate about open access. Mike – is open access in the first sense open access or not? Is that what you are complaining about?

Anthony

Rick Anderson

unread,
Jul 28, 2018, 10:48:34 AM7/28/18
to Mike Roy, David Wojick, <osi2016-25@googlegroups.com>, Anthony Watkinson, Glenn Hampson

The problem, though, is that in the real world openness very clearly does exist in degrees. A paper that the author never publishes and never lets anyone see is clearly less “open” (i.e., less available for reading and reuse) than a paper that she publishes under copyright in a toll-access journal. A paper that is published under copyright in a toll-access journal is less available for reading and reuse than one published under copyright in a free-to-read journal. A paper that is published under a CC-BY-NC-ND license is less open than one published under a CC-BY license. And so forth. Each of this situations offers a different degree of public availability for reading and reuse – and if “public availability for reading and reuse” isn’t “openness,” then what is it?

 

It seems to me that when we promote the idea of “open” as completely binary, what we’re doing is imposing a political or even religious view: “Unless it’s open enough by my standards, it’s not open at all.” That poses all kinds of problems, not least the fact that it asks people to pretend something is true when they can clearly see that it isn’t.

 

---

Rick Anderson

Assoc. Dean for Collections & Scholarly Communication

Marriott Library, University of Utah

rick.a...@utah.edu

Lisa Hinchliffe

unread,
Jul 28, 2018, 10:51:36 AM7/28/18
to Mike Roy, David Wojick, The Open Scholarship Initiative, Anthony Watkinson, Glenn Hampson, Rick Anderson
I don't think we're introducing the spectrum idea, I think we're describing it. How people do use the term rather than how they should. Lisa 

Mike Roy

unread,
Jul 28, 2018, 11:07:09 AM7/28/18
to Rick Anderson, <osi2016-25@googlegroups.com>, Anthony Watkinson, David Wojick, Glenn Hampson
I agree that there is a spectrum of accessibility, ranging from completely inaccessible ( on my hard drive where no one else can access it) to open access, meaning available to all on the internet. I think the trouble starts when you say that open is on a spectrum. What is on a spectrum is the level of access. My preference is to reserve the term open for things that are truly open, and to not allow for a notion of sort of open to creep into our vocabulary. This has less to do with ideology or religion than it does with politics. To give up on the first principles of open which is that it means open to all without restriction is to give up something important in the politics of reclaiming control over the scholarly commons. How the narrative is framed and the care we take in the words we use matters. 

Mike

Lisa Hinchliffe

unread,
Jul 28, 2018, 11:12:12 AM7/28/18
to Mike Roy, Rick Anderson, The Open Scholarship Initiative, Anthony Watkinson, David Wojick, Glenn Hampson
What's "really open" mean then?

Lisa Hinchliffe

unread,
Jul 28, 2018, 11:15:23 AM7/28/18
to Mike Roy, Rick Anderson, The Open Scholarship Initiative, Anthony Watkinson, David Wojick, Glenn Hampson
Sorry ... hit send too soon.

If "available on the Internet" is truly open,  is there then something beyond open for when something is not only accessible but also reusable without restriction? 

Lisa 


Mike Roy

unread,
Jul 28, 2018, 11:24:32 AM7/28/18
to Lisa Hinchliffe, Anthony Watkinson, David Wojick, Glenn Hampson, Rick Anderson, The Open Scholarship Initiative
Lisa, I think that is correct. I would not want to burden open with also having to allow unrestricted reuse. Thanks for pointing that out. 


Mike

Lisa Hinchliffe

unread,
Jul 28, 2018, 11:33:46 AM7/28/18
to Mike Roy, Anthony Watkinson, David Wojick, Glenn Hampson, Rick Anderson, The Open Scholarship Initiative
So, I think this is a great example of the spectrum that does appear to already exist.  What you, Mike, don't want to burden open with is definitional for BOAI: 

"By “open access” ... we mean its free availability on the public internet, permitting any users to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of these articles, crawl them for indexing, pass them as data to software, or use them for any other lawful purpose, without financial, legal, or technical barriers other than those inseparable from gaining access to the internet itself. The only constraint on reproduction and distribution, and the only role for copyright in this domain, should be to give authors control over the integrity of their work and the right to be properly acknowledged and cited."

Lisa

Rick Anderson

unread,
Jul 28, 2018, 11:34:43 AM7/28/18
to Mike Roy, Lisa Hinchliffe, Anthony Watkinson, David Wojick, Glenn Hampson, The Open Scholarship Initiative

But Mike, if you don’t consider unrestricted reuse to be an essential component of “truly open,” then your definition is at odds with the one preferred by many (if not most) OA advocates. Why should they adopt your definition?

 

As for politics: I can see how pretending that openness is binary might have a political benefit. But I have concerns about a political stance that requires people to believe things that they can clearly see aren’t true (such as that openness is binary). That’s the kind of thing totalitarian governments do.

 

---

Rick Anderson

Assoc. Dean for Collections & Scholarly Communication

Marriott Library, University of Utah

rick.a...@utah.edu

 

Abel L. Packer

unread,
Jul 28, 2018, 11:50:54 AM7/28/18
to Rick Anderson, Mike Roy, David Wojick, <osi2016-25@googlegroups.com>, Anthony Watkinson, Glenn Hampson
My experience [/ view] is that full text open access is an event that happens [/ is perceived] when any user can read the full text in the public Web or within a research social network empowering the user with basic data to formally read and cite the full text in another text or interaction (words [/ concepts] intentionally repeated to correctly express the idea). That is what matters in terms of access to advance research and knowledge. 

The event can be "legal" or "illegal" or "legally undefined". When "legal", the event can be qualified in terms of how to access, and after it is accessed, what are the "legal" usage attribution. For the purpose of the concept, when "legal" the URL can be included in the citation. 

The above concept is neutral to "legal" or "illegal" 

Abel



 










Abel L Packer

Anthony Watkinson

unread,
Jul 28, 2018, 11:57:42 AM7/28/18
to Rick Anderson, Mike Roy, Lisa Hinchliffe, David Wojick, Glenn Hampson, The Open Scholarship Initiative

I am on the outside in all this but looking at this question from the point of view of a researcher on researchers my evidence is that open access is open access (available on the internet) for most researchers.

I accept that unrestricted re-use is what the majority of advocates now consider is necessary but this is really a very different from what advocates were saying a few years ago.

 

I recently asked a leading European librarian if he and his friends in LIBER had consulted any representative European organisations in the formulation of their demands. He was puzzled. For him “full open access” was crucial because re-use was necessary for innovation and for the EU. I cannot understand why it would give the EU any advantage but that is how he saw it.

 

How OSI should handle this I do not know. I think Glenn is probably on top of this – maybe the spectrum.

 

Anthony

Mike Roy

unread,
Jul 28, 2018, 12:01:41 PM7/28/18
to Rick Anderson, Lisa Hinchliffe, Anthony Watkinson, David Wojick, Glenn Hampson, The Open Scholarship Initiative
Well, you know it's turning out to be a *great* Saturday when your
arguments are likened to those of totalitarian governments ;>

To Lisa's question, it is exactly the phrase "The only constraint on
reproduction and distribution, and the only role for copyright in this
domain, should be to give authors control over the integrity of their
work and the right to be properly acknowledged and cited." that I had
in mind when I did not endorse the idea of unrestricted reuse.

And Rick, what I'm saying here is that we should agree on a definition
of Open and stick with that, and that to introduce the idea of degrees
of Open is a bad idea. I think you can do the same work of capturing
the reality that there are degrees of how accessible a work is by
talking about degrees of access, and reserving the word open for
things that fit the definition.

Mike


Michael Roy
Dean of the Library
Middlebury College

mobile: 860 301 2611
twitter: @michaeldroy
skype: roymichaeldonald
zoom: https://middlebury.zoom.us/my/mikeroy

free/busy calendar https://beta.doodle.com/mikeroy

Glenn Hampson

unread,
Jul 28, 2018, 12:10:32 PM7/28/18
to Mike Roy, Lisa Hinchliffe, Anthony Watkinson, David Wojick, Rick Anderson, The Open Scholarship Initiative

Hi Everyone

 

Here’s the link to the OSI2016 report containing the original DART proposal (the “S” was added by OSI2017): http://osiglobal.org/2016/06/23/report-from-the-what-is-open-workgroup/. Lest we try to relitigate this recommendation here, this report does a good job of explaining why the spectrum approach might help. As Lisa notes succinctly and correctly, “I don't think we're introducing the spectrum idea, I think we're describing it.”

 

Perhaps it’s too soon to discuss “actualizing” DARTS so we can use it to measure open outputs instead of just describe the spectrum. Getting comfortable with the spectrum might be an important first step. What I do worry about with our current spectrum construct, however----where open means public and free---is what David was zeroing in on: Open efforts themselves exist on a spectrum of openness. The global evolution toward open isn’t just about making public information public and free; it’s also about making proprietary information more available. In many ways, this proprietary information is then “functionally open”---it’s open to the people who need to see it. This is no small accomplishment and needs to be encouraged and cultivated.

 

In the research world, there is a need for staged rollouts if you will---for a transition from private to public. Understanding this, embracing it, and helping others do the same is a real and important part of making the open spectrum more than just a concept. Let me give you a specific example---I’ve used this before so please pardon my repetition here. In  For the past three years, the Gates Foundation has been funding work at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center to daylight all HIV/AIDS research work (beginning with work from the CAVD network) with dataspace.cavd.org. This data has gone through several years of “cleaning”---PIs have cross-checked entries and unearthed details that otherwise would have been lost to time; researchers have grown comfortable with the idea of having their data shared; and critically, this data has been integrated and standardized, which is an incredible feat in itself (full disclosure: my wife, Drienna Holman, has managed this project; also on the honor roll is Artifact, which designed the user interface, and LabKey Software, on which the entire system runs). For the first few years this was a “functionally open” system where the entire research community but not the general public could view and use this data. Last week, it became fully public, although the network (and Gates) hasn’t really thought through what might happen when/if someone wants to use this data to publish their own paper. Not everyone has the same level of knowledge about these open issues (CC-BY, etc.) as the people in OSI, so a group like ours can help a group like theirs complete their transition to open. Similarly, a group like theirs can help a group like ours understand the barriers to open so we can help other organizations make this journey. Getting a better understanding of the full open ecosystem---including the proprietary ecosystem---is critically important to our work.

 

So, was the CAVD system “open” a few years ago? I would argue yes, for all practical purposes. Was it perfectly open? No. But for all practical purposes, any researcher with the appropriate expertise who wanted to get at this data could get at it via free registration. I suppose the simplest DARTS “score” in this case would be to just give it a 1 or 2 on the “access” scale, which would signify some sort of partly closed arrangement. Giving the DARTS score a preface, though (like RN) would allow us to evaluate access on its relative merits.

 

Best,

 

Glenn

 

 

Glenn Hampson
Executive Director
Science Communication Institute (SCI)
Program Director
Open Scholarship Initiative (OSI)

osi-logo-2016-25-mail

2320 N 137th Street | Seattle, WA 98133
(206) 417-3607 | gham...@nationalscience.org | nationalscience.org

 

 

 

 

 

From: osi20...@googlegroups.com <osi20...@googlegroups.com> On Behalf Of Mike Roy
Sent: Saturday, July 28, 2018 8:24 AM
To: Lisa Hinchliffe <lisali...@gmail.com>

image001.jpg

Glenn Hampson

unread,
Jul 28, 2018, 12:27:24 PM7/28/18
to Mike Roy, Rick Anderson, Lisa Hinchliffe, Anthony Watkinson, David Wojick, The Open Scholarship Initiative

As the report notes, though, Mike, there may be varying degrees of discoverability in open outputs, as well as varying degrees of access, degrees of reusability, degrees of transparency, and degrees of sustainability (of the open solution). So, unless this is observation is wrong (and maybe that’s what you’re suggesting?), then your premise that there is open that simply has varying degrees of access captures on part of the variation. Here's the table from the 2016 paper:

 

The DART Framework

Dimension

Attributes include

Description

Discoverable

  • Indexed by search engines
  • Sufficient, good quality discovery metadata
  • Links
  • Persistent unique identifiers
  • Explicit rights statements
  • Open and widely used standards (for all of the above attributes)

This may be the most fundamental baseline condition of open (meaning that if an object is not discoverable, it is not open). However, there is a wide range here, including open with bad metadata or links and no or faulty identifiers.

Accessible

  • Free (in terms of cost) to all users at point of use, in perpetuity
  • Downloadable (binary)
  • Machine-readable (binary)
  • Timeliness of availability (spectrum)

Generally drives whether we currently consider something to be open, although many variations exist (taking into account embargoes and other conditions).

Reusable

  • Usable and reusable (including commercial uses)
  • Able to be further disseminated
  • Modifiable

Openness is advanced by having fewer restrictions on reuse, dissemination and modification.

Transparent

  • Peer review
  • Impact metrics
  • Transparency in the research process (based on the Center for Open Science TOP Guidelines), including data transparency (metadata and level of availability), and software (including version and operating system/hardware)
  • Research design and analytical methods (plus software and versions), including citation standards, pre-registration of studies and of analysis, and replication
  • Author transparency (funding source, affiliations, roles, other disclosures such as conflict of interest)

Serves the research lifecycle, given that outputs of research become inputs. Some of the factors that affect transparency include the software used, inclusion of data, the transparency of the peer review process and analytical methods, and more.

 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: osi20...@googlegroups.com <osi20...@googlegroups.com> On Behalf Of Mike Roy

Rick Anderson

unread,
Jul 28, 2018, 12:32:35 PM7/28/18
to Mike Roy, Lisa Hinchliffe, Anthony Watkinson, David Wojick, Glenn Hampson, The Open Scholarship Initiative

> And Rick, what I'm saying here is that we should agree on a definition

> of Open and stick with that, and that to introduce the idea of degrees

> of Open is a bad idea.

 

I understand what you’re saying, Mike, but what I’m pointing out is that we’re not “introducing” the idea of degrees of openness here. Degrees of openness are an objective phenomenon that occurs in the real world: some articles are more freely available to read and reuse, and some are less so. We can deny that fact all we want (whether for political purposes or not), but we won’t be able to convince other people not to see what they see. 

 

Though to be fair, what I think you’re really suggesting is that we identify one point on the spectrum of openness and say “this is the only point that we should call ‘open’; everything else should be called ‘closed’.” That’s a less totalitarian (:-)) approach, but it’s one that poses another problem: what about everyone who disagrees with us, and who has no less authority to make such pronouncements than we do?

 

---

Rick Anderson

Assoc. Dean for Collections & Scholarly Communication

Marriott Library, University of Utah

rick.a...@utah.edu

From: Mike Roy <md...@middlebury.edu>


Date: Saturday, July 28, 2018 at 10:02 AM
To: Rick Anderson <rick.a...@utah.edu>

Lisa Hinchliffe

unread,
Jul 28, 2018, 12:35:06 PM7/28/18
to Mike Roy, Rick Anderson, Anthony Watkinson, David Wojick, Glenn Hampson, The Open Scholarship Initiative
So, you do mean the BOAI definition? (Operationalized as CC-BY in the 20 year report?) That is not what I understood. 

Mike Roy

unread,
Jul 28, 2018, 1:33:51 PM7/28/18
to Rick Anderson, Lisa Hinchliffe, Anthony Watkinson, David Wojick, Glenn Hampson, The Open Scholarship Initiative
I think your summary of my position is right on: we should have an
agreed upon definition of open, and only call things open that meet
that definition. As Lisa pointed out, we have such a definition
already in BOAI. No need to re-litigate that! My concern which began
with my flip remark about "kind of open is like kind of pregnant or
kind of dead" is that I fear we let ourselves (and each other) off the
hook from actually making our work truly, actually, and fully open if
we allow for our work to be "kind of open." As I said earlier, you can
achieve the same effect of describing the movement from totally
inaccessible to completely accessible by talking about degrees of
access rather than degrees of openness. It may seem a small point, but
it isn't. By doing so, it keeps the word open as something that can
only be used when something meets our definition, and as a reminder of
the ambitious goal of reimagining the system of scholarly
communication as something quite different than the current system.

Mike


Michael Roy
Dean of the Library
Middlebury College

mobile: 860 301 2611
twitter: @michaeldroy
skype: roymichaeldonald
zoom: https://middlebury.zoom.us/my/mikeroy

free/busy calendar https://beta.doodle.com/mikeroy

Glenn Hampson

unread,
Jul 28, 2018, 1:33:56 PM7/28/18
to The Open Scholarship Initiative

I’m going to reply to my reply---sorry. This is an interesting conversation and maybe even one that hasn’t happened before---certainly not here. The open world already has lots of definitions, but this conversation suggests that it may benefit from having a few more still. For instance:

 

  • Open: Open means information that has been optimized for sharing with the public or with a particular set of readers. At its most open, this information is available without cost, immediately upon publishing, and includes the right to repurpose without attribution. Other types of open can be more restrictive, including open information that carries limited reuse conditions, limited embargo periods, and/or has less than ideal discoverability. The DARTS Framework, developed by OSI participants, proposes that the openness of information exists along five dimensions: discoverability, accessibility, reusability, transparency, and sustainability. The result is a broad spectrum of open states, not binary open-closed values (see “open spectrum,” below).
  • Open access: Information (generally peer reviewed scholarly works) which is freely available without delay or restriction, permitting anyone to use this for any lawful purpose, without barriers other than those inseparable from gaining access to the internet itself. Several different states of OA exist, including green, gold, hybrid, etc. (as defined in this list). [Mike---I think (personally) that this is where we can get out the hammer and nails and agree on an immovable definition---a baseline of perfect open (a 99999 on the DARTS scale).]
  • Open spectrum: The range of different types of open, from public access information (see “public access”) to open access information and everything in-between. The DARTS Framework, developed by OSI participants, proposes that the openness of information exists along five dimensions: discoverability, accessibility, reusability, transparency, and sustainability. The result is a broad spectrum of open states, not binary open-closed values.
  • Public access: A type of open, used predominately by US government agencies, in which information is made freely available following a brief embargo period and to which typical copyright restrictions (e.g., requiring author permission and/or source citation) normally apply.
  • Usable open: A space that is not only open but that allows users to make good use of the open information available. A website that contains a giant jumble of open datasets that aren’t standardized, don’t contain research notes and data instructions, etc., might be more of a junk pile than a usably open space. [Note: As we endeavor to build out open, we need to understand that not all open is created equal---we need to be aiming for usably open spaces and we need to know what these look like.]
  • Functional open: A space that isn’t open to the public but is open to a set of specialized users who, for all practical purposes, are the only users who will make use of this information anyway might be functionally open. For example, this kind of space might be a proprietary research database of clinical trials research in a particular field. There is a limited universe of experts who know how to interpret this data and are interested in doing so. A functionally open space might be open just to these experts and not to the general public. Functionally open spaces are sometimes transitional and may become open or open access spaces later on.
image001.jpg

T Scott Plutchak

unread,
Jul 28, 2018, 1:37:15 PM7/28/18
to Lisa Hinchliffe, Mike Roy, David Wojick, The Open Scholarship Initiative, Anthony Watkinson, Glenn Hampson, Rick Anderson
Fascinating discussion, and very helpful as I’m working on the next revision of Brief #1: What Do We Mean When We Talk About “Open”

I think Lisa is exactly right, at least as I’m approaching the draft.  It’s intended to be an empirical look at how people use the term(s) and the DARTS framework is a model for arranging and discussing those definitions.

The question of how people should use the term as opposed to how they actually use the term is reminiscent of the ongoing debate in the world of dictionaries — should a dictionary be descriptive or proscriptive.  In the case of the Brief, I’m leaning towards descriptive.

On the Summit call yesterday we spent much of the time discussing what it means for OSI to make statements — and didn’t come to any clear conclusions.  As this morning’s discussion illustrates, there are many views among OSI participants and it may be the best OSI can do is illuminate that range rather than trying to come up with an OSI definition.

Scott


T Scott Plutchak
Librarian
Epistemologist
Birmingham, Alabama

Glenn Hampson

unread,
Jul 28, 2018, 2:07:12 PM7/28/18
to T Scott Plutchak, Lisa Hinchliffe, Mike Roy, David Wojick, The Open Scholarship Initiative, Anthony Watkinson, Rick Anderson

In a very real way though, Scott, descriptive is or will become proscriptive. When we publish your brief saying that open exists along a spectrum, we are making both an observation and a policy recommendation that UNESCO will advocate to the rest of the world. This will be significant because the world needs to know what open means, not just that it means a variety of things to a variety of people (to Rick’s point from this week’s summit call). And clarifying this will help all open efforts move forward. We need to be using the same vocabulary---otherwise, good people with passionate beliefs will just continue to speak past each other instead of work with each other toward their common goals.

 

Is this a problem? I don’t think so. I think the key is recognizing that we’re talking about different things here---“open” as an ill-defined noun and a verb, versus “open access” as a discrete, well-defined, widely-recognized outcome on the open spectrum. The former is what’s used in a wide variety of ways and is best described by the spectrum---the latter is much narrower and exists in a much narrower range.

 

From: osi20...@googlegroups.com <osi20...@googlegroups.com> On Behalf Of T Scott Plutchak
Sent: Saturday, July 28, 2018 10:37 AM
To: Lisa Hinchliffe <lisali...@gmail.com>

Lisa Hinchliffe

unread,
Jul 28, 2018, 2:12:53 PM7/28/18
to Mike Roy, Rick Anderson, Anthony Watkinson, David Wojick, Glenn Hampson, The Open Scholarship Initiative
Sorry to keep asking questions but I'm puzzling through this idea of
open as yes/no and then an access spectrum/degrees of access. Is there
then also a reuse spectrum? Or, would you, Mike, you consider reuse a
kind of access that is beyond access to read? Lisa
___

Lisa Janicke Hinchliffe
lisali...@gmail.com

Rick Anderson

unread,
Jul 28, 2018, 3:51:10 PM7/28/18
to Glenn Hampson, T Scott Plutchak, Lisa Hinchliffe, Mike Roy, David Wojick, The Open Scholarship Initiative, Anthony Watkinson

But Glenn, I think this is the heart of the problem:

 

> “open” as an ill-defined noun and a verb, versus “open access” as a discrete,

> well-defined, widely-recognized outcome on the open spectrum.

 

“Open access” isn’t a term with a single definition that is anything like universally accepted. I don’t think OSI is going to change that unilaterally – the world is not looking to us to tell them what OA “really” means. The best we can hope to do is say something like “When we, in OSI, say ‘open access,’ we mean [definition X].” We can also urge others to accept our preferred definition, of course.

 

We then have a corollary question to answer: are we willing to accept a future world in which OA (however we decide to define it) is less-than-universally accepted – or, in other words, a diverse environment of access models? Or are we working towards a world in which open access is the only kind of access to scholarship and science (or, in other words a world of total OA)?

 

Those are two separate questions.

 

---

Rick Anderson

Assoc. Dean for Collections & Scholarly Communication

Marriott Library, University of Utah

rick.a...@utah.edu

JJE Esposito

unread,
Jul 28, 2018, 4:02:24 PM7/28/18
to Rick Anderson, Glenn Hampson, T Scott Plutchak, Lisa Hinchliffe, Mike Roy, David Wojick, The Open Scholarship Initiative, Anthony Watkinson
Speaking as a former dictionary publisher, it's a fool's errand to get people to agree on how a word can be used. The language has its own physics and is resistant to top-down taxonomies. When I first got interested in open access publishing about 20 years ago, I did a search on the term and found that the term was most often used to refer to a kind of hospital service in California.

There is a way around this, but (not surprisingly) many people don't like it, and that is to develop a taxonomy and trademark it. So rather than use generic terms like "open" and "share" and "access," you would come up with something distinctive to refer to specific properties. The trademark prevents improper use. It's not prudent to expect people to obey rules simply because they exist. Trust, but verify.

On a related point, for something to be "truly open," as some would put it, means that every word in this thread could be appropriated by a bad actor, who could then modify the language to make it say something nasty. How open do you want to be? Do you want your words to be put in the mouth of Himmler? I think very well-educated people without a cynical bone in their bodies often overlook the (to me) obvious point that the world is a dangerous place, made more dangerous in the face of temptation, and the purely open is nothing if not tempting.

Joe Esposito

.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to osi2016-25+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.


To post to this group, send email to

--
As a public and publicly-funded effort, the conversations on this list can be viewed by the public and are archived. To read this group's complete listserv policy (including disclaimer and reuse information), please visit
http://osinitiative.org/osi-listservs

.


---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Open Scholarship Initiative" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to osi2016-25+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.


To post to this group, send email to

--
As a public and publicly-funded effort, the conversations on this list can be viewed by the public and are archived. To read this group's complete listserv policy (including disclaimer and reuse information), please visit
http://osinitiative.org/osi-listservs

.


---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Open Scholarship Initiative" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to osi2016-25+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.


To post to this group, send email to

--
As a public and publicly-funded effort, the conversations on this list can be viewed by the public and are archived. To read this group's complete listserv policy (including disclaimer and reuse information), please visit
http://osinitiative.org/osi-listservs

.


---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Open Scholarship Initiative" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to osi2016-25+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to osi2016-25+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.


To post to this group, send email to

--
As a public and publicly-funded effort, the conversations on this list can be viewed by the public and are archived. To read this group's complete listserv policy (including disclaimer and reuse information), please visit
http://osinitiative.org/osi-listservs

.


---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Open Scholarship Initiative" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to osi2016-25+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.


To post to this group, send email to

--
As a public and publicly-funded effort, the conversations on this list can be viewed by the public and are archived. To read this group's complete listserv policy (including disclaimer and reuse information), please visit
http://osinitiative.org/osi-listservs

.


---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Open Scholarship Initiative" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to osi2016-25+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.


To post to this group, send email to

--
As a public and publicly-funded effort, the conversations on this list can be viewed by the public and are archived. To read this group's complete listserv policy (including disclaimer and reuse information), please visit http://osinitiative.org/osi-listservs.
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Open Scholarship Initiative" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to osi2016-25+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to osi20...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/osi2016-25.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.



--
Joseph J. Esposito
espo...@gmail.com
@josephjesposito
+Joseph Esposito

Glenn Hampson

unread,
Jul 28, 2018, 4:33:33 PM7/28/18
to JJE Esposito, Rick Anderson, T Scott Plutchak, Lisa Hinchliffe, Mike Roy, David Wojick, The Open Scholarship Initiative, Anthony Watkinson

Boy---if we want to raise the ire of our colleagues in this space, I can’t think of a better way than to trademark “open.” And trying to maintain (or even find) trust as we seek a common ground and common road forward is really where we’re at in this conversation.

 

Rick, to your points:

 

  • You wrote: “Open access” isn’t a term with a single definition that is anything like universally accepted. I don’t think OSI is going to change that unilaterally – the world is not looking to us to tell them what OA “really” means. The best we can hope to do is say something like “When we, in OSI, say ‘open access,’ we mean [definition X].” We can also urge others to accept our preferred definition, of course.
    • We don’t need to change a thing, nor should we even try---this isn’t our definition to mess with. We can, and should, acknowledge that open access means different things to different people, and we can mention that to many, the preferred definition is BOAI. But in practice, there’s wiggle room in what gets labeled as OA (although it’s all probably on the far right end of the open spectrum---somewhere in the 77777 and higher range of DARTS). This is all just observational, not prescriptive.
  • You write: We then have a corollary question to answer: are we willing to accept a future world in which OA (however we decide to define it) is less-than-universally accepted – or, in other words, a diverse environment of access models? Or are we working towards a world in which open access is the only kind of access to scholarship and science (or, in other words a world of total OA)?
    • Again, I would argue that we’re actually talking about two different things here---“open” and “open access.” Are we willing to accept a future world in which OA is less than universally accepted? Absolutely. This isn’t our fight---it isn’t even a fight. The real struggle here is to understand and improve “open” writ large---we can’t move forward without understanding and embracing what open means. Only then can we work effectively together to get more information on the open spectrum, learn what works and what doesn’t, share best practices, unite communities of effort, and in doing so push more information toward the right end of the open spectrum over time. Whether this right end gets labeled “OA” or whatever is irrelevant---this is just a label.

 

There are both practical and political benefits to this approach. Practically speaking, we’re not trying to shoehorn information into a particular state of open---we’re just trying to improve the open world and improve the ability of open advocates to work together toward their common goals. And politically speaking, we’re not co-opting or redefining anything, which is hugely important. I can’t imagine making any progress with this initiative whatsoever if we come out of the gate saying “move aside, there’s a new sheriff in town.” That’s never what we intended, it’s not what we want, and this approach wouldn’t do any good anyway. What we’re trying to say is that the open access movement reflects one end of the open spectrum, but that there’s a lot more spectrum to understand, learn from, and improve, plus a world of information---past and future---that isn’t even on this spectrum yet. The amount of common ground and common interest here absolutely dwarfs any disagreement we might have (which is almost trivial by comparison) about the definition of “open access.”

 

I hope this makes sense---happy to keep yapping but I don’t want to drown out other voices.

 

Best,

 

Glenn

 

 

Glenn Hampson
Executive Director
Science Communication Institute (SCI)
Program Director
Open Scholarship Initiative (OSI)

osi-logo-2016-25-mail

2320 N 137th Street | Seattle, WA 98133
(206) 417-3607 | gham...@nationalscience.org | nationalscience.org

 

 

 

 

From: JJE Esposito <jjoh...@gmail.com>
Sent: Saturday, July 28, 2018 1:02 PM
To: Rick Anderson <rick.a...@utah.edu>

Cc: Glenn Hampson <gham...@nationalscience.org>; T Scott Plutchak <splu...@gmail.com>; Lisa Hinchliffe <lisali...@gmail.com>; Mike Roy <md...@middlebury.edu>; David Wojick <dwo...@craigellachie.us>; The Open Scholarship Initiative <osi20...@googlegroups.com>; Anthony Watkinson <anthony....@btinternet.com>
Subject: Re: the open spectrum

 

Speaking as a former dictionary publisher, it's a fool's errand to get people to agree on how a word can be used. The language has its own physics and is resistant to top-down taxonomies. When I first got interested in open access publishing about 20 years ago, I did a search on the term and found that the term was most often used to refer to a kind of hospital service in California.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to osi2016-25+...@googlegroups.com.


To post to this group, send email to osi20...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/osi2016-25.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
As a public and publicly-funded effort, the conversations on this list can be viewed by the public and are archived. To read this group's complete listserv policy (including disclaimer and reuse information), please visit
http://osinitiative.org/osi-listservs

.


---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Open Scholarship Initiative" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to osi2016-25+...@googlegroups.com.


To post to this group, send email to

--
As a public and publicly-funded effort, the conversations on this list can be viewed by the public and are archived. To read this group's complete listserv policy (including disclaimer and reuse information), please visit http://osinitiative.org/osi-listservs.
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Open Scholarship Initiative" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to osi2016-25+...@googlegroups.com.


To post to this group, send email to osi20...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/osi2016-25.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
As a public and publicly-funded effort, the conversations on this list can be viewed by the public and are archived. To read this group's complete listserv policy (including disclaimer and reuse information), please visit http://osinitiative.org/osi-listservs.
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Open Scholarship Initiative" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to osi2016-25+...@googlegroups.com.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to osi2016-25+...@googlegroups.com.


To post to this group, send email to osi20...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/osi2016-25.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
As a public and publicly-funded effort, the conversations on this list can be viewed by the public and are archived. To read this group's complete listserv policy (including disclaimer and reuse information), please visit http://osinitiative.org/osi-listservs.
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Open Scholarship Initiative" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to osi2016-25+...@googlegroups.com.


To post to this group, send email to osi20...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/osi2016-25.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
As a public and publicly-funded effort, the conversations on this list can be viewed by the public and are archived. To read this group's complete listserv policy (including disclaimer and reuse information), please visit http://osinitiative.org/osi-listservs.
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Open Scholarship Initiative" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to osi2016-25+...@googlegroups.com.


To post to this group, send email to osi20...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/osi2016-25.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
As a public and publicly-funded effort, the conversations on this list can be viewed by the public and are archived. To read this group's complete listserv policy (including disclaimer and reuse information), please visit http://osinitiative.org/osi-listservs.
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Open Scholarship Initiative" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to osi2016-25+...@googlegroups.com.


To post to this group, send email to osi20...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/osi2016-25.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

image001.jpg

Joyce Ogburn

unread,
Jul 28, 2018, 4:45:05 PM7/28/18
to Glenn Hampson, JJE Esposito, Rick Anderson, T Scott Plutchak, Lisa Hinchliffe, Mike Roy, David Wojick, The Open Scholarship Initiative, Anthony Watkinson
We can’t protect a trademark unless it is commercially used which we won’t do. 

I hear you guys saying this is fascinating and new  but I think we are going over a lot of old ground which may tell us that this will never be settled by the group. 

Also I asked the question of whether there is an intent to apply labels or numbers to items. Is this the purpose? I didn’t get an answer. 

Plus I disagree with you Glenn on your definitions that tie open to peer reviewed material. Much more information than that with degrees of openness. I will no longer download “free” reports the require me to sign in and share my info. That’s not free or open. Others may disagree or not be worried about this. 

Joyce

Sent from my iPhone

On Jul 28, 2018, at 4:33 PM, Glenn Hampson <gham...@nationalscience.org> wrote:

Boy---if we want to raise the ire of our colleagues in this space, I can’t think of a better way than to trademark “open.” And trying to maintain (or even find) trust as we seek a common ground and common road forward is really where we’re at in this conversation.

 

Rick, to your points:

 

  • You wrote: “Open access” isn’t a term with a single definition that is anything like universally accepted. I don’t think OSI is going to change that unilaterally – the world is not looking to us to tell them what OA “really” means. The best we can hope to do is say something like “When we, in OSI, say ‘open access,’ we mean [definition X].” We can also urge others to accept our preferred definition, of course.
    • We don’t need to change a thing, nor should we even try---this isn’t our definition to mess with. We can, and should, acknowledge that open access means different things to different people, and we can mention that to many, the preferred definition is BOAI. But in practice, there’s wiggle room in what gets labeled as OA (although it’s all probably on the far right end of the open spectrum---somewhere in the 77777 and higher range of DARTS). This is all just observational, not prescriptive.
  • You write: We then have a corollary question to answer: are we willing to accept a future world in which OA (however we decide to define it) is less-than-universally accepted – or, in other words, a diverse environment of access models? Or are we working towards a world in which open access is the only kind of access to scholarship and science (or, in other words a world of total OA)?
    • Again, I would argue that we’re actually talking about two different things here---“open” and “open access.” Are we willing to accept a future world in which OA is less than universally accepted? Absolutely. This isn’t our fight---it isn’t even a fight. The real struggle here is to understand and improve “open” writ large---we can’t move forward without understanding and embracing what open means. Only then can we work effectively together to get more information on the open spectrum, learn what works and what doesn’t, share best practices, unite communities of effort, and in doing so push more information toward the right end of the open spectrum over time. Whether this right end gets labeled “OA” or whatever is irrelevant---this is just a label.

 

There are both practical and political benefits to this approach. Practically speaking, we’re not trying to shoehorn information into a particular state of open---we’re just trying to improve the open world and improve the ability of open advocates to work together toward their common goals. And politically speaking, we’re not co-opting or redefining anything, which is hugely important. I can’t imagine making any progress with this initiative whatsoever if we come out of the gate saying “move aside, there’s a new sheriff in town.” That’s never what we intended, it’s not what we want, and this approach wouldn’t do any good anyway. What we’re trying to say is that the open access movement reflects one end of the open spectrum, but that there’s a lot more spectrum to understand, learn from, and improve, plus a world of information---past and future---that isn’t even on this spectrum yet. The amount of common ground and common interest here absolutely dwarfs any disagreement we might have (which is almost trivial by comparison) about the definition of “open access.”

 

I hope this makes sense---happy to keep yapping but I don’t want to drown out other voices.

 

Best,

 

Glenn

 

 

Glenn Hampson
Executive Director
Science Communication Institute (SCI)
Program Director
Open Scholarship Initiative (OSI)

<image001.jpg>

T Scott Plutchak

unread,
Jul 28, 2018, 4:46:00 PM7/28/18
to Glenn Hampson, JJE Esposito, Rick Anderson, Lisa Hinchliffe, Mike Roy, David Wojick, The Open Scholarship Initiative, Anthony Watkinson
To go back to something I mentioned on the call yesterday, I want to be careful about the word “we.”  When you say “Are we willing to accept a future world in which OA is less-than-universally accepted, I understand “we” to mean the diverse collection of individuals who are concerned with this question, some of whom will answer “yes" to the question while some will answer “no”.

But when you say "we’re not trying to shoehorn information into a particular state of open” or "That’s never what we intended, it’s not what we want…” I’m much less clear about who you think that “we” refers to.  Surely some subset of the OSI participants agree with that, but just as surely some don’t.

Scott

On Jul 28, 2018, at 3:33 PM, Glenn Hampson <gham...@nationalscience.org> wrote:

Boy---if we want to raise the ire of our colleagues in this space, I can’t think of a better way than to trademark “open.” And trying to maintain (or even find) trust as we seek a common ground and common road forward is really where we’re at in this conversation.
 
Rick, to your points:
 
  • You wrote: “Open access” isn’t a term with a single definition that is anything like universally accepted. I don’t think OSI is going to change that unilaterally – the world is not looking to us to tell them what OA “really” means. The best we can hope to do is say something like “When we, in OSI, say ‘open access,’ we mean [definition X].” We can also urge others to accept our preferred definition, of course.
    • We don’t need to change a thing, nor should we even try---this isn’t our definition to mess with. We can, and should, acknowledge that open access means different things to different people, and we can mention that to many, the preferred definition is BOAI. But in practice, there’s wiggle room in what gets labeled as OA (although it’s all probably on the far right end of the open spectrum---somewhere in the 77777 and higher range of DARTS). This is all just observational, not prescriptive.
  • You write: We then have a corollary question to answer: are we willing to accept a future world in which OA (however we decide to define it) is less-than-universally accepted – or, in other words, a diverse environment of access models? Or are we working towards a world in which open access is the only kind of access to scholarship and science (or, in other words a world of total OA)?
    • Again, I would argue that we’re actually talking about two different things here---“open” and “open access.” Are we willing to accept a future world in which OA is less than universally accepted? Absolutely. This isn’t our fight---it isn’t even a fight. The real struggle here is to understand and improve “open” writ large---we can’t move forward without understanding and embracing what open means. Only then can we work effectively together to get more information on the open spectrum, learn what works and what doesn’t, share best practices, unite communities of effort, and in doing so push more information toward the right end of the open spectrum over time. Whether this right end gets labeled “OA” or whatever is irrelevant---this is just a label.
 
There are both practical and political benefits to this approach. Practically speaking, we’re not trying to shoehorn information into a particular state of open---we’re just trying to improve the open world and improve the ability of open advocates to work together toward their common goals. And politically speaking, we’re not co-opting or redefining anything, which is hugely important. I can’t imagine making any progress with this initiative whatsoever if we come out of the gate saying “move aside, there’s a new sheriff in town.” That’s never what we intended, it’s not what we want, and this approach wouldn’t do any good anyway. What we’re trying to say is that the open access movement reflects one end of the open spectrum, but that there’s a lot more spectrum to understand, learn from, and improve, plus a world of information---past and future---that isn’t even on this spectrum yet. The amount of common ground and common interest here absolutely dwarfs any disagreement we might have (which is almost trivial by comparison) about the definition of “open access.”
 
I hope this makes sense---happy to keep yapping but I don’t want to drown out other voices.
 
Best,
 
Glenn
 
 
Glenn Hampson
Executive Director
Science Communication Institute (SCI)
Program Director
Open Scholarship Initiative (OSI)

Rick Anderson

unread,
Jul 28, 2018, 4:59:36 PM7/28/18
to T Scott Plutchak, Glenn Hampson, JJE Esposito, Lisa Hinchliffe, Mike Roy, David Wojick, The Open Scholarship Initiative, Anthony Watkinson

Sorry, to clarify: the question “are we willing to accept a future world in which OA is less-than-universally accepted” is from me, and when I said “we” I meant “OSI, the organization.”

 

The other quotes are from Glenn.

 

---

Rick Anderson

Assoc. Dean for Collections & Scholarly Communication

Marriott Library, University of Utah

rick.a...@utah.edu

 

From: T Scott Plutchak <splu...@gmail.com>
Date: Saturday, July 28, 2018 at 2:46 PM
To: Glenn Hampson <gham...@nationalscience.org>
Cc: JJE Esposito <jjoh...@gmail.com>, Rick Anderson <rick.a...@utah.edu>, Lisa Hinchliffe <lisali...@gmail.com>, Mike Roy <md...@middlebury.edu>, David Wojick <dwo...@craigellachie.us>, The Open Scholarship Initiative <osi20...@googlegroups.com>, Anthony Watkinson <anthony....@btinternet.com>
Subject: Re: the open spectrum

 

 

But when you say "we’re not trying to shoehorn information into a particular state of open” or "That’s never what we intended, it’s not what we want…” I’m much less clear about who you think that “we” refers to.  Surely some subset of the OSI participants agree with that, but just as surely some don’t.

 

Scott



On Jul 28, 2018, at 3:33 PM, Glenn Hampson <gham...@nationalscience.org> wrote:

 

Boy---if we want to raise the ire of our colleagues in this space, I can’t think of a better way than to trademark “open.” And trying to maintain (or even find) trust as we seek a common ground and common road forward is really where we’re at in this conversation.

 

Rick, to your points:

 

·         You wrote: “Open access” isn’t a term with a single definition that is anything like universally accepted. I don’t think OSI is going to change that unilaterally – the world is not looking to us to tell them what OA “really” means. The best we can hope to do is say something like “When we, in OSI, say ‘open access,’ we mean [definition X].” We can also urge others to accept our preferred definition, of course.

o    We don’t need to change a thing, nor should we even try---this isn’t our definition to mess with. We can, and should, acknowledge that open access means different things to different people, and we can mention that to many, the preferred definition is BOAI. But in practice, there’s wiggle room in what gets labeled as OA (although it’s all probably on the far right end of the open spectrum---somewhere in the 77777 and higher range of DARTS). This is all just observational, not prescriptive.

·         You write: We then have a corollary question to answer: are we willing to accept a future world in which OA (however we decide to define it) is less-than-universally accepted – or, in other words, a diverse environment of access models? Or are we working towards a world in which open access is the only kind of access to scholarship and science (or, in other words a world of total OA)?

o    Again, I would argue that we’re actually talking about two different things here---“open” and “open access.” Are we willing to accept a future world in which OA is less than universally accepted? Absolutely. This isn’t our fight---it isn’t even a fight. The real struggle here is to understand and improve “open” writ large---we can’t move forward without understanding and embracing what open means. Only then can we work effectively together to get more information on the open spectrum, learn what works and what doesn’t, share best practices, unite communities of effort, and in doing so push more information toward the right end of the open spectrum over time. Whether this right end gets labeled “OA” or whatever is irrelevant---this is just a label.

T Scott Plutchak

unread,
Jul 28, 2018, 5:10:47 PM7/28/18
to Rick Anderson, Glenn Hampson, JJE Esposito, Lisa Hinchliffe, Mike Roy, David Wojick, The Open Scholarship Initiative, Anthony Watkinson
Thanks for that — but the question remains.  As we’ve tried to clarify in the past (and here the “we” are those members of the Summit group who’ve participated in the discussions), OSI is a project of SCI, not an organization itself.  Even if you view OSI as a quasi-organization, how do you determine the “we”?  Who is empowered to speak for OSI and where does that authority come from?

Scott

Rick Anderson

unread,
Jul 28, 2018, 5:19:52 PM7/28/18
to T Scott Plutchak, Glenn Hampson, JJE Esposito, Lisa Hinchliffe, Mike Roy, David Wojick, The Open Scholarship Initiative, Anthony Watkinson

Fair question. But clearly there’s some kind of a “we” here. We’re a group of people – most of whom are not formally affiliated with SCI – who are trying to do something or other. So I guess when I said “we” I was referring to that group of people. Or at least the “we” who are on this email list and party to this discussion.

 

After three years, I’m still trying to figure out what our goal is. I bring the question up every so often, but I don’t feel like we’ve ever really answered it. Maybe another way of putting the question would be “How will we [those of us involved with the OSI initiative] know when our work is accomplished? What will the scholcomm ecosystem look like when our work is done?”

 

Please note that the desired goal doesn’t have to be strictly achievable – it can be an unachievable ideal that just keeps us moving in the right direction. But I’d find it really helpful if I knew at least what the ideal outcome is. I’m particularly concerned with the question of whether or not our ideal outcome would continue to feature freedom of choice for authors.

 

Rick

Richard Poynder

unread,
Jul 28, 2018, 5:20:45 PM7/28/18
to Glenn Hampson, JJE Esposito, Rick Anderson, T Scott Plutchak, Lisa Hinchliffe, Mike Roy, David Wojick, The Open Scholarship Initiative, Anthony Watkinson

Funnily enough OSI (the Open Source Initiative) has long made use of trademarks.

 

https://opensource.org/trademark-guidelines

 

Richard Poynder

image001.jpg

Glenn Hampson

unread,
Jul 28, 2018, 6:37:34 PM7/28/18
to Rick Anderson, T Scott Plutchak, JJE Esposito, Lisa Hinchliffe, Mike Roy, David Wojick, The Open Scholarship Initiative, Anthony Watkinson

There’s probably a spectrum of we’s here 😊 I suppose most of these uses can refer to OSI as an entity (whether or not we have complete agreement within OSI), the larger scholcomm community, or society at large. But as I mentioned in an email yesterday, I think it’s important that we---OSI as an entity and not necessarily all OSI participants as individuals--- agree on a fundamental set of principles---to wit, that open is here to stay, open exists on a spectrum, open should work for everyone everywhere, and we can only get there by working together. Richard Gedeye even suggested creating an OSI badge that people can download, signifying agreement with these core principles (whatever we take these to be). This inclusiveness and globalness is a cutting edge perspective in scholcomm, but it really isn’t controversial internally---is why most of us joined this effort to begin with (and it’s why our funders have stood behind us).

 

As for OSI’s goals, is our new website already an utter failure or have folks just not had time to look at it yet? I’ve tried to summarize these a number of different ways---the main one (added yesterday) is that we (OSI) are “working together in partnership with UNESCO to develop broadly accepted, comprehensive, sustainable solutions to the future of open scholarship that work for everyone everywhere.” I hope our site does a reasonable job of explaining OSI’s goals, but if not, please do let me know. The question of when we’ll be done is “we’ll get there when we get there.” We have eight more years of UNESCO commitment but I don’t think it will take eight more years to start seeing some real improvement stemming from our efforts.

 

Joyce, with regard to the numbering system, this is just a thought---as I mentioned earlier, it may take time to get used to the DARTS concept first (and this concept may undergo transformation) before we start describing it quantitatively.

 

Best,

 

Glenn

Rick Anderson

unread,
Jul 28, 2018, 6:47:25 PM7/28/18
to Glenn Hampson, T Scott Plutchak, JJE Esposito, Lisa Hinchliffe, Mike Roy, David Wojick, The Open Scholarship Initiative, Anthony Watkinson

>As for OSI’s goals, is our new website already an utter failure or have folks just

> not had time to look at it yet? I’ve tried to summarize these a number of

> different ways---the main one (added yesterday) is that we (OSI) are “working

> together in partnership with UNESCO to develop broadly accepted,

> comprehensive, sustainable solutions to the future of open scholarship that

> work for everyone everywhere.”

 

Right, but what I’d really like to know is what we’re hoping those solutions will look like, and how we’ll know when we’ve achieved them. “Broadly accepted, comprehensive, and sustainable” are definitely general characteristics that I can support, but they don’t tell us anything about what the solutions actually are towards which we’re working. We can’t even agree (yet) on what we mean by “open.”

 

I want to be clear that I’m not blaming this lack of clarity on you, Glenn, or on anyone else in particular. It just seems like we as a group don’t have a strong desire to nail this down. Three years ago the general response was “it’s too soon.” Today I’m not sure that response continues to apply. At the same time, I do recognize the risk inherent in getting specific about our goals: as long as our goals are vague, our tent can remain maximally big and inclusive. As soon as we say “We’re trying to achieve X and not Y,” those who really want either both X and Y or Y and not X will probably fall away.

 

---

Rick Anderson

Assoc. Dean for Collections & Scholarly Communication

Marriott Library, University of Utah

rick.a...@utah.edu

Glenn Hampson

unread,
Jul 28, 2018, 7:00:28 PM7/28/18
to Rick Anderson, T Scott Plutchak, JJE Esposito, Lisa Hinchliffe, Mike Roy, David Wojick, The Open Scholarship Initiative, Anthony Watkinson

I see what you mean now Rick. And I think the answer is still that it’s too soon to know. I think there is tremendous merit on simply agreeing on what our goals framework will look like at this juncture---open, inclusive, collaborative, and spectrum. That alone helps define possible solutions, or at least points us in the right direction. Once we all start rowing in the same direction, I think the particular details of what common ground we can find and what workable, sustainable solutions we can develop will gradually become more and more apparent.

 

The analogy here might be a group of people who gather together to fight for the independence of their country. In every case throughout history, the exact tools and goals became more apparent over time---constitutions, administrations, currency reform, laws, and so on. Revolutions aren’t won with all these details decided in advance---these details are worked out over time as needs, resources, and capabilities become more apparent. Sorry if this sounds grandiose---less grandiose analogies are welcome 😊

 

Best,

 

Glenn

 

 

Glenn Hampson
Executive Director
Science Communication Institute (SCI)
Program Director
Open Scholarship Initiative (OSI)

osi-logo-2016-25-mail

image001.jpg

Joe Esposito

unread,
Jul 28, 2018, 7:14:50 PM7/28/18
to Rick Anderson, Glenn Hampson, T Scott Plutchak, Lisa Hinchliffe, Mike Roy, David Wojick, The Open Scholarship Initiative, Anthony Watkinson
I hope you make room for Z.

Joe

Sent from my iPhone

Anthony Watkinson

unread,
Jul 29, 2018, 5:47:47 AM7/29/18
to Joyce Ogburn, Glenn Hampson, JJE Esposito, Rick Anderson, T Scott Plutchak, Lisa Hinchliffe, Mike Roy, David Wojick, The Open Scholarship Initiative

When I a publisher and subsequently teaching publishing law at UCL I came to the view (which I still hold) that trademarks were not appropriate for the scholarly publishing industry but that legal action could always be taken on the ground of “passing off” i.e. pretending your product was the same as someone else’s. I do not think trademarks (which I know are big in the USA) are appropriate for OSI – not at all. Nor are we much bothered about “passing off” unless someone attributes ideas to use which are not our ideas.

I am only adding to a debate as someone who has thought about issues raised – in the past.

Anthony

Toby....@oecd.org

unread,
Jul 29, 2018, 5:51:29 AM7/29/18
to jjoh...@gmail.com, rick.a...@utah.edu, gham...@nationalscience.org, splu...@gmail.com, lisali...@gmail.com, md...@middlebury.edu, dwo...@craigellachie.us, osi20...@googlegroups.com, anthony....@btinternet.com

ICYMI, there’s a preprint from Martín-Martín et al on arXiv which illustrates the definitional challenge. Reflecting that the ways documents are being made freely accessible no longer adheres to Budapest/Bethesda/Berlin definitions, the preprint (which has yet to be peer-reviewed) proposes a conceptual model of OA comprising 6 dimensions: cost, authoritativeness, user rights, stability, immediacy and peer-review. Since each dimension is present in one way or another with any published object, there must be at least 720 OA variants. When customers are given many choices they hit “choice paralysis” and often choose nothing at all – so perhaps we’ve reached OA paralysis?

 

Martín-Martín, A et al (2018) Unbundling Open Access dimensions: a conceptual discussion to reduce terminology inconsistencies (preprint). https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1806/1806.05029.pdf

 

Schwartz: Choice isn’t always better. Harvard Business Review https://hbr.org/2006/06/more-isnt-always-better

Joyce Ogburn

unread,
Jul 29, 2018, 8:43:11 AM7/29/18
to Toby....@oecd.org, jjoh...@gmail.com, rick.a...@utah.edu, gham...@nationalscience.org, splu...@gmail.com, lisali...@gmail.com, md...@middlebury.edu, dwo...@craigellachie.us, osi20...@googlegroups.com, anthony....@btinternet.com
Interesting Sunday morning reading.  The idea of dimensions provides a combination of factors that a spectrum doesn’t do as well.  Depends on the level of speciality one is seeking. Even in the dimensions presented there will be definitional issues such as authority. But in any case, the dimensions are more nuanced and descriptive than more or less open.  I’m not arguing against the DARTS approach.  They may both have something to offer.

And indeed, too much choice can be paralyzing. Not knowing ones options at all can also keep on on the same path when there may be possibilities to consider.

Joyce 



Sent from my iPad

David Wojick

unread,
Jul 29, 2018, 9:08:57 AM7/29/18
to Joyce Ogburn, Toby....@oecd.org, jjoh...@gmail.com, rick.a...@utah.edu, gham...@nationalscience.org, splu...@gmail.com, lisali...@gmail.com, md...@middlebury.edu, osi20...@googlegroups.com, anthony....@btinternet.com
Perhaps spectrum is the wrong word because DARTS is clearly a 5 dimensional space. Cost might be an important dimension as well. It is certainly a big issue.

Regarding the discussion of OSI goals, at this stage clear and comprehensive issue analysis would be a big step forward. There is a tremendous amount of confusion about OA to overcome in the world. The multi-dimensional complexity of the issues and options is driving a lot of that confusion. (I once did an issue analysis for the Chief of Naval Research, who asked why I had made it so complex. I said "Admiral, that is an accurate picture of your situation." It helped him.)

David

Glenn Hampson

unread,
Jul 29, 2018, 12:27:12 PM7/29/18
to Joyce Ogburn, Toby....@oecd.org, jjoh...@gmail.com, rick.a...@utah.edu, splu...@gmail.com, lisali...@gmail.com, md...@middlebury.edu, dwo...@craigellachie.us, osi20...@googlegroups.com, anthony....@btinternet.com

Hi Joyce, Toby,

 

This is interesting---thanks much. Personally, what I like about the Martin-Martin model is that it does a better job than DARTS of unbundling what’s important to open access (as opposed to open) as defined by BOAI. What I think DARTS does better, though, is group together what’s important to the broader spectrum of open outcomes (including but not limited to open access). Both of these constructs cover the same basic ground. They just use different groupings in places to highlight what’s important to each. DARTS, for instance, includes cost, immediacy and peer-review as subsets of “Access,” in addition to qualities such as downloadability, and machine-readability. Martin-Martin, on the other hand, breaks out each of these qualities as separate categories.

 

If we were to adopt DARTS as our go-to model (whether this is represented by a spectrum or a multidimensional space or some other graphic), we could also recommend models like Martin-Martin or SPARC (“How open is it?”) to evaluate the openness of products endeavoring to achieve BOAI-OA.

 

And I’m drawing a blank at the moment but weren’t there also a few other graphical and/or conceptual representations of the open space we’ve discussed here? We may want to ask the DARTS teams (from 2016 and 2017) to look at these and see if the DARTS model needs to be improved, merged, etc., in light of all these additional insights and proposals. If these teams would be willing, I could try to coordinate a one-hour Zoom call toward the end of August to talk through some of these issues. In the meantime, I’ll set up a Slack space for this at #DARTS.

 

Best,

 

Glenn

 

 

Glenn Hampson
Executive Director
Science Communication Institute (SCI)
Program Director
Open Scholarship Initiative (OSI)

osi-logo-2016-25-mail

image001.jpg

Joyce Ogburn

unread,
Aug 3, 2018, 2:44:05 PM8/3/18
to Glenn Hampson, Toby....@oecd.org, JJE Esposito, Rick Anderson, T Scott Plutchak, Lisa Hinchliffe, Mike Roy, David Wojick, The Open Scholarship Initiative, Anthony
Sorry for my late response - this email ended up in my spam folder. 

I have collected many different models that represent scholcom or open but I don't recall discussing them in OSI. 

Joyce

Joyce L. Ogburn
Professor, Digital Strategies and Partnerships Librarian
Appalachian State University
218 College Street
Boone NC 28608-2026
@libjoyce

Lifelong learning requires lifelong access 

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages