From: "Elizabeth E. Kirk" <[log in to unmask]> Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2013 18:12:30 +0000 It would appear to me that efforts like arxiv.org and HathiTrust demonstrate that there is a better chance of making SHARE work than Joe is willing to countenance. Elizabeth E. Kirk Associate Librarian for Information Resources Dartmouth College Library 6025 Baker Library, Rm. 115 Hanover, NH, USA [log in to unmask] -----Original Message----- From: Joseph Esposito <[log in to unmask]> Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2013 09:42:09 -0400 Given that the OSTP requirements are poorly thought out and yet another embarrassment for our representative democracy, there is the intriguing question of whether the publishers would be happier with their own CHORUS or with the library consortium's SHARE. I myself would be happier with anything that is not an acronym and does not require that I have to hit the "shift" key over and over, but that may be beside the point. The virtue of CHORUS is its problem: it will work. The publishers know how to set up things like this. It will be just another business project, with budgets assembled and responsibility assigned. On the other hand we have SHARE. Will it work? The track record is not good. Let's not forget that we have long had in place government mandates for filing reports on federally funded research. Those mandates have been honored mostly in the breach. A cynical publisher might say: Let's fight for CHORUS, but let's make sure SHARE wins. Then we (the publishers) have the best of all worlds: the costs of the service will not be ours to bear, the system will work haphazardly and pose little threat to library subscriptions, and the blame will lie with others. Joe Esposito