From: Sandy Thatcher <[log in to unmask]> Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2017 10:30:00 -0500 Has this not already been accomplished by the NISO standards? http://www.niso.org/publications/rp/RP-8-2008.pdf See, e.g., its definitions of "corrected version of record" and "enhanced version of record." Sandy Thatcher > From: "Jean-Claude Guédon" <[log in to unmask]> > Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2017 10:30:06 -0400 > > Ann Okerson's question is important and actually reaches well beyond > its ostensible target. The development of digital publishing leads to > a deep transformation in the nature of documents. > > Software writing was the first area where this issue arose. > Interestingly, and probably because the field of software writing was > unencumbered by previous, legacy habits, programmers developed > techniques that could track versions in a flexible and agile manner. > We are now all used to grappling with version 7.3 (or whatever) of > software X, and think nothing of it. "Requests for comments" (RFC), as > developed and used by the IETF in the context of the technical > developments of the Internet, followed a similar philosophy, while > applying it to straight texts, not software. > > Print forced us, a long time ago, to fix and harden what was being > published. It also foregrounded a vision of documents that depended on > techniques now embedded in critical editions: each critical edition > stands for eternity until a new critical edition challenges it, and > the result is a staccato mode of evolution that worked well with > print, but appears increasingly out of step with the potentials of > digital documents (especially with the inclusion of data sets and > software). Scientific and scholarly articles as they evolved through > print (and survive as PDF files, which is about as close to print as a > digital file can be - true digital incunabula, to use G. Crane's > clever image) also force the staccato mode of conversation and debate > that still dominates in scientific and scholarly circles. This leads > to a very inefficient way to feed the "Great Conversation" of science. > > With digital documents, what we need is an orderly system of versions > similar to what is used in software. In so doing, we no longer have to > grapple with any version "of record"; instead, we have to deal with a > time-driven succession of documents that can be easily identified if > the version system is well designed. Normally, the penultimate version > should be the most reliable, and the latest should be the cutting edge > solution that is on the chopping block for the next round of > Popperian-style refutations. Sometimes, the latest version adds little > to the previous one, but corrects minor problems; sometimes, it is a > real advance; sometimes it is a huge step forward. The numbering > system can reflect all of this, while keeping the history of a certain > thread of thought. Contributions to any document, however small or > large, so long as it is accepted, can be attributed to various > individuals. Free software shows how such an approach can be extended > to a broadly distributed system of contributors (which science and > scholarship, in general terms, are). > > If academic libraries, with their repositories, begin collaboratively > (and in a distributed manner) to develop a peer-review system - > somewhat like the F1000 approach to reviewing - then, the issue of > filtering unwanted materials and noise also begins to find a solution. > > Metadata can incorporate versions. Therefore, retrievability , > discoverability, as well as visibility issues can be addressed as > well. In fact, unpaywall, which is a wonderful tool by the way, could > be tweaked to take charge of the version issue, if a good version > system can be developed. OpenAIRE could be a good place to develop > such a system. > > Put all of this within the context of platforms, and not of journals, > and the digital communication system of science begins to take a > meaningful shape. > > Jean-Claude Guidon