In reply to
@natesjacobs @csarven @lesliekwchan @ewout @sciteai @CrossrefOrg (20/N) And the idea that somehow it would be cheaper (or free) if it were "distributed" seems fanciful.
In reply to
@natesjacobs @csarven @lesliekwchan @ewout @sciteai @CrossrefOrg (20/N) And the idea that somehow it would be cheaper (or free) if it were "distributed" seems fanciful.
In reply to
@natesjacobs @csarven @lesliekwchan @ewout @sciteai @CrossrefOrg (19/N) And that costs money. And so does the technical stuff.
In reply to
@natesjacobs @csarven @lesliekwchan @ewout @sciteai @CrossrefOrg (18/N) ... getting the membership to define & agree on their mutual obligations. And educating them. And then nagging them relentlessly.
In reply to
@natesjacobs @csarven @lesliekwchan @ewout @sciteai @CrossrefOrg (17/N) We have joked that Crossref DOIs are only as persistent as Crossref staff. As a membership organization, most of our work is social...
In reply to
@natesjacobs @csarven @lesliekwchan @ewout @sciteai @CrossrefOrg (16/N) But while we are on the subject of obligations... It is by now a truism that persistence is more a social problem than a technical one.