Talat Chaudhri [tac] wrote:
> I didn't suggest that tweaking the UIs of IRs is enough (though it might
> be a good idea too). In fact, what I was suggesting is that we can keep
> the IRs more or less as they are AND provide a central service using
> their content (through harvesting) in line with what you are suggesting.
> This is an architectural change in presentation but not in deposit.
Hmmm.... I thought you were doing it the other way around with the CRIS
you were working on?
Have a total architectural/conceptual change to the data collection, and
have the public "Institutional Repository" harvest that corpus.
Can I confirm that we are all agreed that Open Access is the right
thing, and that the author should be the primary "depositor" (however
that deposit work is accomplished)?
Can I confirm that we all want to strive towards the ideal of 100% deposits?
There after we have (in effect) archtecture/implimentation
"discussions", just as we had with the Main-Frame v's PC,
Big-Endian v's Little-Endian, and VHS v's BetaMax.
No?
--
Ian Stuart.
Bibliographics and Multimedia Service Delivery team,
EDINA,
The University of Edinburgh.
http://edina.ac.uk/
|