Open source, open standards, open access
Reading the MIRACLE project report on institutional repositories today, I came across a survey question that asked respondents to rate various factors involved in choosing a repository platform. The exact phrasing of one factor: "Adherence to open-access standards."
This betrays a common and sometimes distracting confusion, which I will try to clear up.
The phrase "open source" applies to software. The exact parameters surrounding what software is open source and what isn't are (still!) a matter of debate, but the general idea is that open-source software makes its source code available for (re)distribution and modification, whereas closed-source software does not. (The Open Source Initiative's definition is available for those who wish to learn more.)
The phrase "open standards" applies to specifications, specifications for software, data formats, metadata, and so on. The Wikipedia page offers links to several definitions of an open standard… but again, the general idea is that it is a set of rules surrounding a particular data or metadata format (or type of software, or whatever) that is available to the world at large for examination and implementation.
Unlike open-source software, an open standard may not be free-as-in-beer to the implementor, and it is almost certainly not easily modifiable by the world at large. Open standards are typically created and maintained either by an interest group such as the Open Archives Initiative, or by a formally-constituted national or international standards organization such as the International Standards Organization.
The phrase "open access" applies to the research literature. Again, the exact parameters are a matter of debate, but "open access" literature is generally considered to be that made available on the open Web without fees, subscription or membership requirements, or other access barriers aside from gaining access to the Web itself. Peter Suber has written a lucid introduction to the concept.
"Open-access standards" with reference to institutional-repository software is at best ambiguous, and at worst meaningless. Does it mean that the IR software implements open technical standards related to access provision, standards such as OAI-PMH? Or does it simply mean that the software provides open access to the repository's contents?
Surveys in especial need to pay careful attention to their wording to ensure useful results. I hope that future IR surveys address this confusion appropriately.
I hear ya on this. I was at a meeting the other day when someone high up in EDUCAUSE (of all places) kept using "open source" when he meant "open access". Sigh.