On 17 September 2013 21:13, Hector Santos <hsantos(_at_)isdg(_dot_)net> wrote:
On 17 September 2013 14:37, Hector Santos <hsantos(_at_)isdg(_dot_)net>
wrote:
Seems to me to be a conflict of interest issue.
Please explain where this conflict supposedly lies.
Too many to list.
Then please list a few.
Why not gmail.com, google+, facebook.com, linked-in, and
so forth?
I believe that is at least the third time you have asked a variant of
that question; I have just answered at the first.
I support the basic concept but why not use a IETF registry instead?
To avoid duplicating work already done, for one.
But farming this registry out to a 3rd party is problematic, at many levels.
Again, please list some, so that we may discuss specifics, rather than
vague assertions.
Solves several of the conflict of interest concerns, including about 3rd
party entities disappearing, losing support, etc.
I have already addressed the "entities disappearing, losing support"
myth in an an earlier email.
You have no guarantee ORCID will be tomorrow
We have guarantees that the software and data will be available openly.
nor gmail.com, google+,
facebook.com, linked-in, nor tomorrows fad will stick around for ever.
I'm not sure why that's relevant.
Even
then, the means of contract can also chance. Will ORCID keep up?
What do you mean by "means of contract"? Keep up with what?
--
Andy Mabbett
@pigsonthewing
http://pigsonthewing.org.uk