Yes there is an appetite for trying to rebuilt the past in changing OA names! But even if the words Green and Gold can hurt some people it has been adopted for years now by all institutions, for example in European reports, since 2006. See the last one in June 2015 : http://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/open-access-scientific-information
Of course, everybody can rename Green and Gold as well as Open Access. But the difficulty will be to get the change worldwide. Nicolas Pettiaux, for example proposed in a previous mail, "Libre" instead of "Open Access"! Therefore mixing his idea with your option, "Born Open Access" and "Secondary Open Access" could become "Born Libre" and "Trying to get Libre"... ;-) BTW, I am not sure that I have well understood what means Green and what means Gold in your proposition! We could play on this list to find best definition and vote for it! But the aim of Open Access is not to find the best OA word for 2015, then for 2016 and for 2020! The aim is to stay clear for all stake holders, at the time of important political decisions are taken. Policy makers seem to have understood what is Green and what is Gold. They need only to have more details on the true Gold and Green roads which really conduct to OA. To be efficient today, we just need to repeat what is precisely Green or Gold, and how to get it, in each publication, conference, blog and forum, as Stevan Harnad and Jean-Claude Guédon do it for years now. Hélène Bosc ----- Original Message ----- From: Danny Kingsley To: [email protected] Sent: Thursday, August 13, 2015 6:56 PM Subject: [GOAL] Re: libre vs open - general language issues Hi all, There is some appetite it seems for looking at definitions at the moment. In the last couple of weeks I have tweeted about the following: a.. COAR has a 'Resource Type Vocabulary Draft' - standard naming of items in repositories available for comment - https://www.coar-repositories.org/activities/repository-interoperability/ig-controlled-vocabularies-for-repository-assets/deliverables/ b.. Open Research Glossary' so we can all be more informed about vastly complex topic 'Open Scholarship' - http://blogs.egu.eu/network/palaeoblog/2015/07/14/the-open-research-glossary-round-2/ c.. 'We hope to build a common dictionary of terms about open access to facilitate sharing of information' http:// http://dictionary.casrai.org/Open_Access_APC_Report My issue is with the terms 'green' and 'gold' which are entirely arbitrary. The main problem I have is that 'gold' implies 'the best' and it implies 'expensive' and it is not necessarily either. If we have an option I think we should refer to these two routes to OA as 'Born Open Access' and 'Secondary Open Access'. Considerably more understandable to the external audience. Danny -- Dr Danny Kingsley Head of Scholarly Communications Cambridge University Library West Road, Cambridge CB39DR P: +44 (0) 1223 747 437 M: +44 (0) 7711 500 564 E: [email protected] T: @dannykay68 ORCID iD: 0000-0002-3636-5939 On 13/08/2015 16:58, [email protected] wrote: Send GOAL mailing list submissions to [email protected] To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to [email protected] You can reach the person managing the list at [email protected] When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of GOAL digest..." Today's Topics: 1. Re: libre vs open (Darnton, Robert) 2. Re: libre vs open (Nicolas Pettiaux) 3. Re: libre vs open (Jean-Claude Gu?don) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2015 15:24:45 +0000 From: "Darnton, Robert" <[email protected]> Subject: [GOAL] Re: libre vs open To: H?l?ne.Bosc <[email protected]>, "Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)" <[email protected]> Cc: "Lessig, Lawrence" <[email protected]> Message-ID: <d1f22da9.77b3%[email protected]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Dear Fellow Travelers, For what it's worth, I would like to express my agreement with H?l?ne Bosc's argument. In my own experience, "acc?s libre" works well in France and Qu?bec, "open access" in English-speaking countries. Those phrases have caught on, and it is too late to change them now. Best wishes, Bob Darnton From: "H?l?ne.Bosc" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Reply-To: "H?l?ne.Bosc" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Date: Thursday, August 13, 2015 at 10:07 AM To: "Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Cc: "Lessig, Lawrence" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, Robert Darnton <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Subject: Re: [GOAL] libre vs open -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/pipermail/goal/attachments/20150813/26f8db98/attachment-0001.html ------------------------------ Message: 2 Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2015 17:27:34 +0200 From: Nicolas Pettiaux <[email protected]> Subject: [GOAL] Re: libre vs open To: [email protected] Message-ID: <[email protected]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" Much thanks H?l?ne for the detailed explanation. I know (and have known) personnally Bernard Lang and Jean-Claude Gu?don for years, and I admit that I am late writing again about such a topic. I appreciate that at least in French in 2002 it was clear that the word "libre acc?ss" was used (hence I supposed was better suited) I appreciate your reference to the post of Peter Suber and his long explanation about "gratis and libre OA". I appreciate that you blog itself is "Libre acc?s ? la connaissance". I have more insight about the topics, I understand more about the context (even though I had read a lot) I will not fight nor spend much energy on this topic (libre vs open), but I also consider that the word "open" today does not reflect the philosophy that many academic want to put when they speak about the kind of access they want just for science to exist. Science without full reproducibility is not science. Science with any barrier (eg. price) in a world where it is possible to remove them is not science for everyone, because the people who experience barriers cannot reproduce. About removing the barrier, as much as possible, in today's world, I consider that computer and internet access is not a barrier, even if I recognize that many people cannot afford them. I also see that some actors do not want or do not care, people who see their own financial interests before mankind progress ... even though they may claim it differently. Today, I see that some actors push for the meaning of "open access" to become by default "gold open access" which many of us do not appreciate. So even if my request comes late, possibly too late, I see that some semantic discussion still take place and will for a long foreseable future, and that such a discussion on the words used themselves will drive the views people have about the concepts. I remember reading an "old" book, 1984, where people are in charge of reviewing history and other deleting words from the dictionnary. As a teacher, as well as a citizen, I do teach every day people around me. Amongst them journalists. It is our responsability to teach them well. Fellows citizens and journalists. It will be a task for everyday. As a physics teacher, though physics is an old subject, and it is driven by the laws of nature that are not human made laws, that are well described, I have come to realize that many people have such a laking (could say bad) education of initial education, that I often need to reeducate them to correct their understanding of the world. If Open Access has some traction in Academia, it has still a long way as to go with the students and the population at large. So a change with the vocabulary when *these* people are addressed may still be very effective. Best regards, Nicolas ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ GOAL mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
_______________________________________________ GOAL mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
