Print

Print


Amber THOMAS wrote:
> In terms of the core functionality of repositories, maybe it would help for
> people to model/sketch/diagram out what that core functionality is to
> support the “data model” in question: open access research papers, learning
> materials, multimedia collections etc. That might get us closer to seeing
> where the commonalities are, and where there really are differences. I know
> its not all in the functionality, its also in the underlying data model, but
> I'm sure there's ways of describing that?
>
> If you can put those sketches online and share the url with this list that
> would be great, I think it would help with these discussion.
>   
One starting point would be the OAIS, simplified and with less emphasis 
on preservation, see 
http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/repositories/publications/oais-evaluation-200607/#oais-evaluation-200607
and perhaps modified (see, e.g., 
http://www.icbl.hw.ac.uk/lmap/domainModel.html [model for actions part]) 
to allow for web2.0 ideas. You would also want to be careful about 
interpreting the "communities" in such a way that acknowledged that 
"providers" may also have a hand in "management".

It could be done, but I'm not sure it helps much. While you can argue 
that YouTube, WordPress, ePrints etc all support functions such as 
ingest, storage, management, access etc. the ways that they do so will 
have little in common. What works for accessing & disseminating video on 
YouTube won't work for accessing & disseminating text documents on 
ePrints; what works for administration on a personal/web2.0 site won't 
work for administration on a centralized library system. In other words: 
what Scott said, but at a finer level of detail. It might be worth 
asking whether the requirements for every component vary when the media 
type and formal/informal parameters are changed, but unless actual 
repository systems are disaggregated into these components finding the 
ones that didn't would be pretty academic.

Phil