Want to take part in these discussions? Sign in if you have an account, or apply for one below
Vanilla 1.1.10 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.
Remake of Street’s Gummersbach paper: Characterization of Bicategories of Stacks (zoranskoda).
I have added a link to it from 2-topos.
Maybe you could make clearer at your page what the nature of the text there is. To me it is not entirely clear. You might say: the following is a summary / a literal reproduction of the article …
It is the entire article retyped – don’t you see the size – possibly with lots of typoses, of course. It has on the top the title, author etc. I think it is less misleading than most of the book articles in Lab which have table of contents, so the reader autmatically thinks (I know that it does not in Lab but still sometimes get tricked when browsing) that the links denoting chapters will lead to the actual online chapters of the book (usually hypelinked names of chapters of book on the internet lead to those chapters and not same-named articles from other people). So I will not add any disclaimers as no table of contents of books and articles in Lab has a disclaimer and, in my impression, those toc departs more from the internet default.
Hey Zoran,
of course you should feel free to do what you want. This was just a datapoint: this reader here (me) did not understand that this is necessarily meant to be a literal copy.
Hi Zoran - thanks for that. I’m really enjoying reading Street’s articles from that period. It is all very useful for the 2-categorical localisation project.
Are there any copyright issues here?
It did cross my mind too… Maybe email Ross ( if not legally enough for Springer, morally enough?)
6 It is on my private page. Lab has accessible files from several other published papers, like Brown’s on sheaf theory, the difference here is just that it is in html, not djvu or pdf. 7 Surely I will alert the author, but let me first make some proofreading in next few weeks, there are still lots of typoi.
this reader here (me) did not understand that this is necessarily meant to be a literal copy.
Because you got used to the convention which you implemented elsewhere. But usually if people put in the heading the name of the author and the publication data and continue with the text, then one does not expect that it is not that publication which is in the title and the heading.
But usually if people put in the heading the name of the author and the publication data and continue with the text,
If I see this on the web,I usually expect a review. Such as on MathSciNet.
OK, you can assume that it is a review. It is OK; as longas it diseminates mathematics I do not care :)
MathReviews is a specific database of reviews only, not a random page like zoranskoda private lab. Similarly with wikipedia etc.
My experience is that when one has a review one says that it is a review, when one just goes with table of contents and text then it is THE text (unlike in Lab). I went to experiment with few well known non-copyrighted texts. Google for mahabharata and looked first 10 hits. The ones which had the actual text, the toc went to the actual text without a warning. The ones which had a summary or synopsis said that. So the default was when not saying is that it was the actual text.
http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m01/index.htm (actual text, it does not confirm it is an actual text)
http://larryavisbrown.homestead.com/files/xeno.mahabsynop.htm – a synopsis only, it says synopsis (unfortunately it soon redirects, but I choose an example hi in google hits)
I do not care
Okay, sorry for voicing my impression.
1 to 11 of 11