On 7 May 2008, at 09:10, Andy Powell wrote:
> In the SWAP work we toyed with leaving out one or more of the layers
> (e.g. merging scholarly work and expression into one entity) but
> always
> came back to requiring the 4 layers to correctly model the scholarly
> communication space.
I beleive that the problem with SWAP is that there is a mismatch
between the "Scholarly Work" and the "Work of the Scholar". The
"Scholarly Work" part of SWAP only models a single "publication" (text/
story/identifiable piece of content) with all its varied expressions
and manifestations. It is too bibliocentric to properly model the
broader "Work of the Scholar" which can find preprints, postprints,
supplemental data, presentations and even news reports jammed together
into a single repository item. I'm not saying that it's the majority
use case for a repository, but its certainly emerging.
--
Les
|