On 15 Oct 2014, at 22:28, John Milner <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> The big sciences and UKDA are excellent, but it's not practical to do this for every discipline group. Therefore we thought that taking lessons learned there and elsewhere into institutions who can then cope with the long tail of research groups is a better strategy.
the two problems with this approach are that:
a) the institutional repository has to adopt a one-size-fits-all approach and therefore doesn’t offer the specialised (e.g.) APIs and visualisations that the specialist repo might provide
b) dividing up the data by institution doesn’t actually fit the needs of the researcher. most academics seem to be barely aware of what their
institution is, but identify with a subject grouping instead.
The answer, plainly, is that subject repositories become aggregating caches and not archival data holders; which is fine,
_if_ the institutions also accept some of the responsibilities for hosting and maintaining subject repositories.
--
Sebastian Rahtz
Director (Research) of Academic IT
University of Oxford IT Services
13 Banbury Road, Oxford OX2 6NN. Phone +44 1865 283431
Não sou nada.
Nunca serei nada.
Não posso querer ser nada.
À parte isso, tenho em mim todos os sonhos do mundo.
|