commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Phil Steitz <stei...@yahoo.com>
Subject Re: [math] [OT]UnivariateImpl - when sumsq ~ xbar*xbar*((double) n)
Date Thu, 05 Jun 2003 00:47:01 GMT

--- Al Chou <hotfusionman@yahoo.com> wrote:
> --- "Mark R. Diggory" <mdiggory@latte.harvard.edu> wrote:
> > Al Chou wrote:
> > >>>OK, I hope the article we want is available online, given that it's
> pretty
> > >>>old.
> > >>>      
> > >>>
> > >>Strangely, it's actually the recent stuff that is not available.  JSTOR
> has
> > >>American Statistician from 1947-1997.  If you want a chuckle, have a look
> > at
> > >>http://www.jstor.org/about/movingwall.html, which explains the rationale
> > for
> > >>this.
> > >>    
> > >
> > >It's all about money, eh?  Well, as long as we have access to what we
> need,
> > >that's fine.  Incidentally, I'm much more accustomed to seeing online
> > editions
> > >directly from the publisher, which explains why I expected only issues
> more
> > >recent than some date to be available.
> > >
> > >
> > >Al
> >
> > 
> > Yes, the deal is that JStor would undercut the publishers profits from 
> > printing if they exposed an article too soon. JStor isn't a "publisher", 
> > just a "digital library". Its the publishers choice to provide access 
> > online to the article, if they decide not to release it online, its to 
> > promote subscriptions to the printed copies.
> > 
> > IMHO, in cases where we can't find references to content that is 
> > publicly available, we should feel ok about referencing a 
> > "semi-protected" source like a journal article as long as its abstract 
> > is public and its content is accessible at educational institutions.
> > -M.
> 
> I agree that references to printed journal articles should be sufficient if
> there aren't online references.  There are certainly scientific authors whose
> publications reference works that are hard to obtain, and that seems to be
> acceptable to the publishers even if it's frustrating to the readers.  I hope
> we do at least somewhat better than that.
> 
I agree.  We should *always* favor references to freely available online
resources (i.e., no subscription required). In some cases, we will have to
refer to books or journals.  What is most important is that we provide clear
definitions and stick to standard algorithms.  Hopefully, the need for offline
resources will be mostly limited to references, as in the this case.  What I
mean by "references" is attirbution and/or support for assertions that we make
in our documentation about algorithms or computations.  In the present case,
the reference is necessary to attribute the source of the computational formula
and the derivation of its claimed properties (better accuracy and no bias).


> Al
> 
> =====
> Albert Davidson Chou
> 
>     Get answers to Mac questions at http://www.Mac-Mgrs.org/ .
> 
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM).
> http://calendar.yahoo.com
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
> 


__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM).
http://calendar.yahoo.com

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org


Mime
View raw message