In recent days, several signatories to the Principles on Open Scholarly Infrastructure have taken to performing self-audits of their compliance with the principles. Of course, holding oneself to account in this way is a welcome development. Without some form of self-appraisal it is not possible to know how close one is to fulfilling the goals of POSI.
It is sometimes easy, when discussing openness, to get bogged down in the technical weeds. People often want detail and specifics: what open license should I use? Precisely how much revenue do I need to keep in reserve safely to wind-down an organization? When does advocacy become lobbying?
As noted previously, I am vacating my martineve.com domain. To do so has been a painful process that involves changing every account that uses martin@martineve.com to a new email address. This is painful because it turned out to be about 350 accounts. Different sites categorise the email differently.
This is a quick note to say that, in the near future, I will be abandoning the martineve.com domain name. For quite some time now, the primary address for this blog and site has been https://eve.gd. I know that cool URLs don’t change. But I guess I am not totally cool.
I have read, with some dismay, the draft of Ithaka S+R’s most recent report. I offer here some critical remarks that I hope will allow for revision of the work, which I believe offers an insular, digital-nationalist, exclusionary vision for the future of scholarly communications. The views herein are my personal take, not those of any organization for which I work.
En esta y las próximas entradas me dedicaré a repasar el proceso de edición del Lucidario –lo que se ha hecho hasta ahora, en los ocho meses de proyecto desde que comencé este blog, y lo que falta hacer–. El Lucidario , escrito entre 1292 y 1295, es decir, tras la toma de Tarifa y antes de la muerte de Sancho IV, es una obra malentendida.
Clark & Fischer propose that people see social robots as interactive depictions and that this explains some aspects of people’s behaviour towards them. We agree with C&F’s conclusion that we don’t need a novel ontological category for these social artefacts and that they can be seen as intersecting with a lineage of depictions from Michelangelo’s David to Mattel’s talking barbie doll. We have two constructive contributions to make.
En la entrada anterior hablé del testimonio F del Lucidario , la traducción latina de Juan Eusebio Nieremberg, realizada en base a un testimonio en pergamino de la biblioteca de Lorenzo Ramírez de Prado, η. La traducción latina no fue la última vez que Nieremberg o sus contemporáneos se refirieran al Lucidario . En su Obras y días.
Tras el feliz descubrimiento del testimonio I del Lucidario en la Biblioteca de la Fundación Bartolomé March, en esta entrada quiero dedicar mi atención a las copias perdidas del Lucidario , esto es, las que nos llegan como anotaciones de catálogos antiguos o modernos, referencias en los testimonios supervivientes o cuya existencia puede ser inferida por la transmisión manuscrita de los testimonios supervivientes.
En la habitual práctica de revisión de los catálogos de manuscritos, gracias a la que di con el testimonio H del Lucidario en Rouen hace dos años, la semana pasada he tenido una sorpresa mayor al dar con un noveno testimonio del Lucidario , al que le corresponde la sigla I (aquí su entrada estática, que iré actualizando en las próximas semanas). Llegué al manuscrito leyendo al catálogo de Antonio Paz y Meliá de la Biblioteca