On Fri, Sep 5, 2008 at 11:34 AM, Graham Triggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> That's a good question. You could also ask how long it would be the > solution of choice if we simply chase other implementations? > > And I mean that in the sense of could we be leapfrogging other > solutions, rather than simply following what they've done? That's a question I can get behind! > Dorothea, you can't simply go around uploading inflammatory material > into your repositories to get the numbers up ;) +1 -- and you owe me a Diet Coke and a new keyboard. :) Roach Motel isn't the only item in [EMAIL PROTECTED] that's done those kinds of numbers. I'd love to know what's inflammatory about an undergraduate kinesiology journal -- I've been wondering! > If they want these numbers in anything approaching a formal capacity, I > think we both realise that we might as well just put a random number > generator in there rather than bother trying to actually count anything!! I got an excellent, excellent private email from Robert Roggenbuck (which I strongly encourage him to post back to the list!) pointing out that the serials world already has a standard called COUNTER that addresses this question (see <http://www.projectcounter.org/cop_books_ref.html#rbr_5> and <http://www.projectcounter.org/cop_books_appendix_d.html>). I think as much COUNTER compliance as we can claim (some of it, such as independent audits, we can't) would be a big win, and an example for other software and services. > Or you could just use SVN ;) Yeah, I can, but can my faculty? Having all of this inside your > 'preservation' repository is rather sub-optimal - both for the purposes > of the workspace, and for the long term sustainability of the repository. Is it? I've been saying all along that a repository viewed as *useful* is going to be a lot more sustainable! > Maybe a neater solution would be a workspace / collaboration type > service that enables all of the gathering of data and people working > together, with the end result a SWORD submission to the final repository. No argument. Show it to me such that John Q. Librarian can install and manage it as simply as he currently does DSpace. > Yes, it's a selling point of DSpace that it's a 'out-of-the-box' > solution - but that doesn't mean it (or anyone's customised > implementation of it) should incorporate every aspect of anything that > touches on the content finding it's way into the repository. It should if we want something other than empty repositories. The > repository has a job to do, and there is nothing wrong - in fact, there > is quite a lot of right - in having a suite of distinct, but integrated, > services. And there's quite a lot of wrong, too, in that institutions have committed to DSpace, not such a suite. I can argue until I'm blue in the face (and have done!) that they *ought* to have so committed, but they didn't, and now we're stuck. The more I can make DSpace do along those lines, then, the more wins I win, and the more leverage I have to win still more wins. Maybe the answer is finding another group of implementers to build and document that suite. That would be a super-interesting project. Likely? I dunno. I think I may get more mileage out of what I'm doing now, honestly. Here's another thing to think about. Resolved: it makes more sense to build that suite on top of Fedora Commons than on top of DSpace. Corollary: insofar as institutions decide they want such a suite (and I definitely see motion in that direction from where I am), they will abandon DSpace for Fedora. > Now, can any one of the developers / committers unilaterally decide - > actually, let's have the submission process look like this? Probably not... but I'm giving my little all here to building enough of a vocal userbase that the devs can make that decision and blame it on us. :) Maybe I won't get there -- I know full well I haven't yet -- but we'll see. > If there was a consensus as to what the sensible defaults should be, > then there could be a commitment to delivering them in future release(s). Putting on my Alan-Cooper-fan hat, I would say that design-by-consensus piled atop some initial poor decisions landed us in the usability mess we're currently in. I don't think more of the same will haul us out, especially given the Ronco-Spray-On-Usability approach we've taken heretofore. (See the brilliant and hilarious <http://daringfireball.net/2004/04/spray_on_usability> for the origin of that phrase.) I would be all for us throwing a real usability expert (which I'm not; I just read a lot about it and understand the low-level basics) at DSpace, and if the DSpace Foundation were to canvass the membership, I wouldn't be surprised if an institution containing such an expert proved willing to contribute his or her services. (I know I'd be knocking on a few doors at MPOW.) Maybe for 2.0? Dorothea -- Dorothea Salo [EMAIL PROTECTED] Digital Repository Librarian AIM: mindsatuw University of Wisconsin Rm 218, Memorial Library (608) 262-5493 _______________________________________________ Dspace-general mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/dspace-general
