Some notes:

There are many opensource software packages that can do the repository thing. 
  There's a Guide to Institutional Repository Software at BOAI 
(http://www.soros.org/openaccess/software/) that gives a brief overview of the 
most popular packages.  I personally like ARNO, based on the writeup, but 
dspace & eprints are perhaps the most well known.  And dspace seems to have a 
good workflow arrangement.

The cmte will have to slough thru the doc to choose the best one for our 
purposes.  I note that there's also a nice comparison table at 
http://www.soros.org/openaccess/pdf/OSI_Guide_to_IR_Software_Table_v3.pdf

As to whether everything should be in one place or be distributed - I think 
this depends on how we structure the thing as a whole, and on which software 
package is chosen.

It's important that Swinburne is willing to consider being site #1 - even if 
we end up distributing it, at least we can start sooner.

Cheers.
Fil

Ken Friedman wrote:
> Friends,
> 
> Tuesday evening, Chris Rust suggested that we ought to develop a digital 
> repository for design research. With an eye to long-term maintenance, he 
> requested an offer from someone willing to provide this resource with a 
> commitment to long-term support. I offered to explore the possibilities 
> at Swinburne University.
> 
> As stated in a post to the list, the idea is that Swinburne should 
> provide server space and support while the Design Research Society 
> organizes a committee to manage content. This committee would make all 
> decisions on standards, governance, and policy.
> 
> Yesterday, the Vice Chancellor of Swinburne and the Deputy Vice 
> Chancellor for Research both stated that they support the idea. While 
> there is some way to go between the initial offer and a working project, 
> the way to meeting Chris's request seems open.
> 
> Chris and I conferred, and we decided to convene a meeting at the 
> Sheffield DRS conference to talk this over with interested parties. We 
> are also collecting names for the committee, and this may include people 
> who do not come to Sheffield.
> 
> In the ensuing conversation, David Durling suggested that a distributed 
> model might be better on the grounds that some people may be concerned 
> about one university controlling the repository. In the model I 
> proposed, no university would control the repository -- Swinburne would 
> take responsibility for the repository much as the Los Alamos National 
> Laboratory is responsible for the physics paper server. The DRS 
> committee would control the repository through decisions on standards, 
> governance, and policy.
> 
> While I understand the concern over control, it never crossed my mind 
> that this would be a problem. Control and governance are determined by 
> the agreements that establish the repository. Once all parties have 
> signed the agreement, the agreement obliges everyone involved to abide 
> by the system we create.
> 
> As it stands now, there are two rough models for the system.
> 
> In one model, one university would provide a server with commitments for 
> long-term support. The server would be governed by a committee that DRS 
> organizes on behalf of the field. I suggested to Chris that this 
> committee should welcome representatives from outside DRS, and the 
> server should be open to content from the entire field based on the 
> standards and policies determined by the committee.
> 
> In the other model, a group of universities and design research 
> societies would form a consortium provide a server network. The network 
> would be governed by a committee that DRS and possibly other societies 
> organize on behalf of the field. I imagine this committee would welcome 
> broad representation, and the network would be open to content from the 
> entire field based on the standards and policies determined by the 
> committee.
> 
> There are advantages to both models, and there may be other models 
> still. It's up to the design research community. I'm committed to 
> supporting any model that works.
> 
> Someone asked me off-list which model we prefer. My answer is that we 
> prefer whichever model suits the community.
> 
> If you have ideas or proposals, float them here or send them to Chris. 
> Chris is on vacation until April 21st, so he won't answer right away. 
> Come to Sheffield this July and let's pursue the proposal.
> 
> There is only thing that won't work is losing track of the idea and 
> failing to follow through. We are ready to contribute to a digital 
> design research repository in whatever way the DRS committee decides to 
> move forward. If we all agree on that, we can launch the first version 
> of a Design Research Repository before the end of 2008.
> 
> Warm wishes,
> 
> Ken
> 

-- 
Prof. Filippo A. Salustri, Ph.D., P.Eng.
Department of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering
Ryerson University                         Tel: 416/979-5000 x7749
350 Victoria St.                           Fax: 416/979-5265
Toronto, ON                                email: [log in to unmask]
M5B 2K3  Canada                            http://deseng.ryerson.ca/~fil/