Hi,
interesting info indeed. Thanks.
I think there are two issues within the PDF:
-The actual raw data, e.g. presented as a table, map or appendix.
-The actual interpretation and write up.
In terms of strict OA, one might not care that much for the latter, but the
first is the real asset and value (for us at least).
If one would store and keep the underlying database, statistics files and
word files/texts, we would be somewhat fine. Although, I cannot see why we
are not sending it all out in WORD or OO formats (let's say once it is
published).
'Rottening of software formats', high turn-over rate, is a relevant problem;
and who looks after these ones and keeps stuff technically accessible for
long ?
Should we have a governmental agency keeping a copy of each technological
format ever used for the sake of mankind ? And why not ?
We have here all the time 'tapes' from the 70s that nobody can read anymore;
data are basically lost then.
Very best
F.
Falk Huettmann PhD, Assistant Professor
-EWHALE lab- Biology and Wildlife Dept., Institute of Arctic Biology
419 IRVING I, University of Alaska Fairbanks AK 99775-7000 USA
Email [log in to unmask] Phone 907 474 7882 Fax 907 474 6716
-----Original Message-----
From: Repositories discussion list [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
On Behalf Of Stevan Harnad
Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2006 1:43 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: PLoS business models, global village
(1) OA just means free online access (immediate, permanent).
(2) PDF has its faults (XHTML would be far better), but it's fine for
now. OA self-archiving is at 15% today: what we need urgently is
for that to rise to 100% -- not that the file format should be
optimised, especially by calling for anything that sluggish
self-archivers cannot do easily already, and that might hence
burden them more, rather than less.
Stevan Harnad
On Tue, 12 Dec 2006, Brian Kelly wrote:
> Hi Les
> I'm with Falk on this one.
> Rather than "we should continue making PDFs open access with all our
> energy" I would argue that we should ensure that papers are made
available
> in open formats (such XHTML) wherever possible, and regard PDFs as a
tainted
> compromise (although the ISO PDF-A format can be useful as a preservation
> standard).
> As well as the technical and interoperability benefits that open and
> Web-native formats can provide, there is also a need (indeed, legal
> requirement) to address issues such as accessibility. Indeed you touch on
> this in your comment:
>
> ""True Open Access" is a hitherto unidentified specialisation of "Open
> Access". The latter simply requires research outputs to be accessible to
> everyone, without let or hindrance, now or in the future." "Without let
or
> hindrance" surely included access to people with disabilities?
>
> The WAI WCAG guidelines state:
>
> 3.2 Create documents that validate to published formal grammars. [Priority
> 2]
> 11.1 Use W3C technologies when they are available and appropriate for a
task
> and use the latest versions when supported. [Priority 2]
> 11.4 If, after best efforts, you cannot create an accessible page, provide
a
> link to an alternative page that uses W3C technologies, is accessible, has
> equivalent information (or functionality), and is updated as often as the
> inaccessible (original) page. [Priority 1]
> http://www.w3.org/TR/WAI-WEBCONTENT/
>
> This doesn't seem very PDF-friendly.
>
> Note that although WAI compliance is a legal requirement in various
contexts
> I (and others) have argued that the WAI model and WCAG guidelines have
> fundamental flaws (and UK legislation, unlike that in other countries,
> provides us with some degree of flexibility - we need to take reasonable
> measures to ensure people with disabilities aren't discriminated against
> unfairly, whereas legislation on other countries mandates WCAG
compliance).
> Our most recent papers are:
>
> Contextual Web Accessibility - Maximizing the Benefit of Accessibility
> Guidelines
> Sloan, D, Kelly, B., Heath, A., Petrie, H., Hamilton, F and Phipps, L. WWW
> 2006 Edinburgh, Scotland 22-26 May 2006. Conference Proceedings, Special
> Interest Tracks, Posters and Workshops (CD ROM).
> <http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/web-focus/papers/w4a-2006/>
>
> Forcing Standardization or Accommodating Diversity? A Framework for
Applying
> the WCAG in the Real World
> Kelly, B., Sloan, D., Phipps, L., Petrie, H. and Hamilton, F. Proceedings
of
> the 2005 International Cross-Disciplinary Workshop on Web Accessibility
> (W4A). ISBN: 1-59593-036-1.
> <http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/web-focus/papers/w4a-2005/>
>
> Our approach (which, in part, is being addressed in the WCAG 2.0
guidelines)
> argues that WAI should be neutral about technologies, as proprietary
formats
> (such as PDF, Flash, MS Word, etc.) can be accessible. However there is
> still a need to ensure that the formats ARE accessible - and it is not
clear
> to me how the workflow processes will ensure that PDFs will contain ALT
text
> for images and the structural information needed for assistive
technologies
> to work correctly.
>
> Surely if institutions need to handcraft PDFs in order to comply with
> accessibility guidelines, it would be a more effective use of resources to
> do this on the open format? Or perhaps I've missed these 'easy to use
> tools' you refer to.
>
> Brian
> --------------------------------
> Brian Kelly
> UKOLN, University of Bath, BATH, UK, BA2 7AY
> Email: [log in to unmask]
> Phone: +44 1225 383943
>
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: Leslie Carr [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: 10 December 2006 11:29
> Subject: Re: PLoS business models, global village
>
>
> On 10 Dec 2006, at 08:27, Falk Huettmann wrote:
>
> Am I correct to say that PDFs are not part
> of true OpenAccess (raw data, shared analysis) and should be fully
> abandoned/replaced ASAP ?
> "True Open Access" is a hitherto unidentified
> specialisation of "Open Access". The latter simply requires research
outputs
> to be accessible to everyone, without let or hindrance, now or in the
> future.
>
> Perhaps you are suggesting that PDFs are not an optimal information
> exchange vehicle - and many people (data miners) would agree with you.
> However, PDF files are the majority means of dissemination, and while we
> await the Next Great interoperability format (presumably based on XML)
> together with the easy-to-use tools to go with it, we should continue
making
> PDFs open access with all our energy.
> --
> Les Carr
>
|
