Am 11.05.2019 um 18:50 schrieb Peter Schober:
- Peter Gietz peter.gietz@daasi.de [2019-05-10 20:10]:
In the new world of born-digital content provided on the web there is less need for the publisher services. Also for printed content the redaction and the layout are very often already done by the researcher. Of course the publishers have moved on as well providing databases and such and some now also provide open access services, but as commercial organisation often with share holders that want to consume the profits, again they want to charge considerable amounts for basically providing PDFs via a web server.
I wasn't aware this initiative was trying to take a stand in this ongoing debate (and what it would be; I don't see any short-term progress to be made in a global discussion about the ownership and openness knowledge). That's not at all clear from any of the guideance and charter document drafts I've seen.
No I don't think FIM4L should take a stand in this, but I just wanted to name the political context here to explain, why libraries are often negative towards RA21 and the SSO technology they are promoting. Taking this context into consideration, our guidelines should thus promote a very data privacy preserving policy. Again: I am not proposing to even mention open access in our guidelines.
May be now you have more sympathy for my proposal
It's not lack of sympathy, it's that I still don't know what it is, specifically.
Coco and R&S -> more personal data
Those exist and there's nothing to do for FIM4L other than maybe to promote their use where appropriate.
publisherCoCo -> less (but not zero) personal data
This use-case is still unclear to me, esp since you seem to be intending to force this category on (only) some publishers -- to/and prevent them from opt'ing in to "proper" CoCo to reviece more data? And who would ultimately decide on good (reviece PII) and bad (recieve less data) publishers?
I never spoke of two different kinds of publishers, only about different types of Service Providers (publishers vs. research infrastructures)
If each institution we're already there (every IDP decides for itself). If you're aiming for global agreement I'd sure like to know how you imagine that happening. So I'd invite you to actually write up the proposal for the category somewhere, in as specific language as you can. e.g. on the REFEDS wiki.
Well before I do so, I wanted to discuss here whether it would be worth while or not. Since I didn't convince you and since no one else seemed interested, I'd at this point rather not push this further.
Cheers, Peter G.
N.B.: As explained earlier entity categories should not change the workings or meaning of other entity categories because that makes combinations of categories impossible (or their semantics unclear). As such negative rules will not be welcome by the community, I think. So whatever you aim for should work without negative requirements ("should not release", "must not do"...)
-peter _______________________________________________ FIM4L mailing list FIM4L@lists.daasi.de http://lists.daasi.de/listinfo/fim4l