 |
 |
Hi Santy, Don't know which Phil this was aimed at - but I'll make a couple of comments anyway! The reason Google gave for the amount of effort being disproportional to the amount of gain was because less than two hundred sites were using that method (a number that would hardly register a blip in the Google empire!). And that doesn't surprise me too much - installing an OAI-PMH repository specifically to get your pages on Google would be a lot to ask an administrator. We were using this technique with Intute, but that was because we had a repository set up anyway. But that doesn't disguise the large amount of resources that are required to normalize IR metadata. You could argue that isn't a fault with the OAI-PMH protocol, though, but is due to the simple fact that there is no standard format for exporting metadata from repositories - even though they all have to use Simple DC, there are quite a few ways in which that is used. And I think that problem will be there no matter what transport protocol is used to exchange the metadata. I think there is a suggestion there that an agreed richer metadata format could be widely adopted, e.g. SWAP anyone? ;) Phil Cross Santy Chumbe wrote: > Phil, > > Are you surprised to learn that Google's reason to no longer support OAI > harvesting is that "the information we gain from our support of OAI-PMH > is disproportional to the amount of resources required to support it"? > > I wonder what the amount of resources invested by our institutions to > harvest & normalize IR metadata via OAI is. > > Sitemaps was one of the few ones if not the last Google product to be > offering OAI support. > > Santy -- --------------------------------- Phil Cross Senior Technical Researcher Institute for Learning and Research Technology University of Bristol 8 - 10 Berkeley Square Bristol, BS8 1HH Tel: +44 (0)117 928 7067 Fax: +44 (0)117 928 7112 E-mail: [log in to unmask] URL: http://www.ilrt.bris.ac.uk/aboutus/staff?search=cmpac -----------------------------------