On 28 Jan 2009, at 18:52, Scott Wilson wrote:
> Exactly - Slideshare and YouTube are both "repositories". There is
> no "repository abstraction layer".
I was referring to the repository abstraction layer as the layer of
software that turns a naked file store and a database into a coherent
repository.
> It would not be meaningful to make one (beyond the level of
> aggregating their RSS feeds, which I don't think really counts as
> creating a repository!).
Surely the fact that YouTube, SlideShare and Scribd are three separate
but very similar services for video, slides and word processor
documents seems to make them a very good candidate for some kind of
aggregation!
> I think one of the big, big fundamental problems in repository-land
> (both scholarly and learning resources) stems from what I think is a
> mistaken belief that the "media doesn't matter" and that you *can*
> have an abstract "stuff" repository. Talk about making a rod for
> your own back! ;-)
I would agree that when you reduce everything to just undistinguished
"stuff" then you have done everyone a dis-service. But if you can
provide media- and task-specific services for a broad range of
material, surely you are on to a winner?
Can you give an example of where you think that things have gone wrong?
--
Les
|