RE: lib-ir: statement for Leonardo Garcia Pabon

[Carol Hixson <chixson@OREGON.UOREGON.EDU>]

Thanks for these suggestions and clarifications!
I'll make another stab at this and run it by the group
again.

Carol

At 10:11 AM 4/28/2003 -0700, you wrote:
>This was an excellent effort.  It points to a lot of areas where we need to
>reach a consensus before proceeding.
>
>I'd recommend that in the opening sentence we not quite be in the "proposing
>to set up" stage in our public pronouncements.  More like "exploring options
>for creating".  And I think the bullet points should be framed as
>possiblities rather than agreed policies, even though I do agree with most
>of them.  So instead of "The archive would have" how about "The archive is
>likely to have"?
>
>I'd start with a bullet that more strongly makes the point that this
>repository is for deposit of an author's OWN works, with a goal both of
>preservation and of making the works more widely available to the scholarly
>community.  I don't think the "authors select which materials" is strong
>enough, though "authors select which of their own works" would be ok.
>
>I'd definitely add under the examples a bullet for preprints and one for
>supporting materials:
>         o preprints and working papers
>         o research materials supporting scholarly publications
>
>I'd restructure the last bullet in the examples to re-emphasize publications
>BY UO authors.  I don't think we're anticipating this archive as being
>general-purpose, though we don't have details set yet.  How about replacing
>the "any publication where" bullet with
>         o works where copyright has been transferred but the copyright
>           holder permits the author to make the material freely available.
>
>Or eliminate the last example bullet entirely and add a top-level bullet
>such as:
>    - The submittor is responsible for insuring that deposit does not violate
>copyright or other relevant laws.
>
>I don't think we have consensus on formats accepted in the pilot project.
>For instance, I don't think I'd commit to archiving Word documents (though I
>would probably commit to reformatting the Word as PDF and storing the PDF).
>We will need to split format for acceptance from format for
>storage/retrieval.
>
>I don't agree that authors should be allowed to remove materials without
>limit.  I think it would be adequate to allow removal of materials IF we
>reserve the right to maintain a tombstone.
>
>I don't think we're quite ready to commit to the notion of communities.
>
>I think there are actually more than 2 freely available software options.
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-lib-ir@lists.uoregon.edu
>[mailto:owner-lib-ir@lists.uoregon.edu]On Behalf Of Carol Hixson
>Sent: Monday, April 28, 2003 8:54 AM
>To: Institutional Repository Group
>Subject: lib-ir: statement for Leonardo Garcia Pabon
>
>
>I have been working on drafting a brief explanation of
>what we're proposing that Garcia Pabon could share
>with his colleagues. Attached is what I've come up with.
>Before sending it on to him, I'd like to know if you think
>this is accurate. I tried to write it in simple terms, avoiding
>jargon. If there's anything that isn't clear or that you
>think is wrong, please let me know.
>
>Carol