Er, I think I would, Andy, perhaps because I'm a layperson in this context, not being a Librarian or Information Scientist or whatever they're called these days. To me, and I suspect to Jane and Joe Punter, the word "repository" means a place where resources repose, a resource bank. If you say a repository isn't a repository because it doesn't use this or that interoperability protocol, then that doesn't leave many repositories that really are repositories. Sounds almost sectarian ;-)
Perhaps you could differentiate a repository employing a particular protocol (of which there seems to be quite an alphabetti spaghetti assortment) as a LRI-compliant or a OAI-PMH-compliant or CDM-and-bar-compliant repository.
Following this, I'll certainly be careful about what I call the database of learning objects I'm starting to put together, if repository is going to be a reserved word - any suggestions for alternatives? Tongue-in-cheek suggestions welcome ;-)
Cheers
Fred
Fred Riley
Learning Technologist
Room C57
School of Nursing
University of Nottingham
Queen's Medical Centre
Nottingham
NG7 2HA
Tel: +44 (0)115 92 49924 ext 37180
Email: [log in to unmask]
>>> Andy Powell <[log in to unmask]> 05/08/2004 16:25:26 >>>
Therefore, if any of the 'repositories' listed on
http://elearning.utsa.edu/guides/LO-repositories.htm does not support the
OAI-PMH (or one of the other protocols specified in the DR spec) then it
isn't really a LOR!
Would people disagree with that?
This message has been scanned but we cannot guarantee that it and any
attachments are free from viruses or other damaging content: you are
advised to perform your own checks. Email communications with the
University of Nottingham may be monitored as permitted by UK legislation.
|