On 17 September 2013 21:13, Hector Santos <hsan...@isdg.net> wrote: >> On 17 September 2013 14:37, Hector Santos <hsan...@isdg.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
