>Tuesday, September 26, 2006, 2:16:34 PM, Dan wrote:
>
>The relevant definitions [of a mandate] from OED are:
>
>A judicial or legal command from a superior to an inferior; any
>order, request, etc., issued by a legislative body or embodied in
>a legislative act. In early English law: a command of the king and
>his justices relating to a private suit. In U.S. Law: a document
>conveying a decision of a court of appeal to an inferior court.
>
>and
>
>A command, order, or injunction
>
>And, I infer, that in either of the above definitions there are sanctions
>that can be applied to those who don't follow the mandate .... I can't
>imagine a tenured professor getting fired because he didn't put one
>of his articles up under open access.

Oh, no.  I see nothing in definition 2 (or even definition 1, for that
matter) implying that the ability to enforce one's command, or
impose sanctions if it is disobeyed, is a necessary feature of a
"mandate."  Anyone can issue a "command" or "order", even
without the authority or the desire to enforce it or punish violators
(e.g., a child giving an order).  The fact that the profs wouldn't be
fired wouldn't make it any less of a mandate.

The earlier argument with the text of these "mandates" was much
more persuasive.  Words such as "call upon," "encourage" or
"urge" do certainly indicate optionality.  SW

>dan
>--
>Dan Lester, Data Wrangler  dan@RiverOfData.com 208-283-7711
>3577 East Pecan, Boise, Idaho  83716-7115 USA
>www.riverofdata.com  The Road Goes On Forever....

Susan Wishnetsky
Electronic Resources Librarian
Galter Health Sciences Library
The Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University
303 East Chicago Avenue
Chicago, Illinois 60611-3008

(312) 503-9351
FAX (312) 503-1204
pasiphae@northwestern.edu