Thanks Ian.. your answers point out that - yes - the business
requirements have changed and so potentially the systems (and practices)
need to change or expand to meet those further requirements.
Though, I will counter your point about marketing. The listing of all
publications is one thing; the marketing oneself with a CV is another.
In some situations (or disciplines potentially) it is de rigueur to list
all that has been written, in others, only what has been written
recently, or only those works that are most pertinent to whatever
audience and role (or situation) the person (and CV) is being pitched
at.
Cheers, Ingrid
-----Original Message-----
From: Repositories discussion list
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Ian Stuart
Sent: Wednesday, 27 August 2008 9:21 a.m.
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: new faculty and IR publications
Ingrid Mason wrote:
> -Is the assumption that academics all want CVs with a full listing of
> their publications correct?
I would contend that an academic who wishes to market herself properly
whould want nothing less that a complete CV in a single location
> -Do academics actually have to deposit their works in the
institutional
> repository in the institution they work at so that they can generate a
> full (or partial) CV?
Historically, I understand that only 20% of research output is actually
deposited and, of that, only 20% is self-deposited.... which by my
calculation means that just 5% of research output is self deposited.
(this possibly conflicts with Stevan Harnards earlier comment of "15% is
self-deposited")
> -Are there other information systems in the institution that serve
this
> purpose already?
There are other system, which some institutions may be using, which
provide similar services (the RAE/REF reports, CRIS')
> -Is it not feasible to expect repository software to enable exports
(or
> data exchange) of metadata to import into other software?
Absolutely.... and they do!
(just not very well.... and too many repositories are 'tweeked' for the
specific institution.)
For example: is there a common Subject Classification?
The Depot and Jorum both use JACS.
GNU-EPrints ships with LCC
DSpace has a couple of scandinavian systems, out the box
> -Is not feasible to expect CV or publication list generating software
to
> be able to import that metadata package?
It is feasable for a competant programmer to create a routine with will
export the data from HER repository into HER CV/Publishing system... but
as a general solution? No, not yet
> -Does CV or publication list generation necessarily have to be part of
> the repository application?
No - that's what m2m interfaces and data sharing is all about
Heck - call it Web 2.0 :lol:
> -Does repository software need to change to accommodate more than an
> open access purpose?
Open Access? No.
Open Interopaerability? Probably
> -Does repository software need to be more amenable to interoperate
> easily with other systems to enable CV or publications list metadata
> collection?
Yes
> I tend to toward the KISS principle: system interoperation and
> efficiency are 'good things'.
"Keep It Stupid, Simple!"
> But; how much is expecting too much from repository software (in terms
> of serving individual and institutional needs) and business operations
> without undermining the primary aim of maintaining open access
> repositories? What other systems are available in institutions that
can
> manage these other requirements?
Or, to put this another way: does the current Repository Software
conceptually furfil the business needs of the institutions and authors,
or has the model changed since the software model was concived?
|