On Fri, Sep 05, 2008 at 01:08:34PM -0500, Dorothea Salo wrote: > On Fri, Sep 5, 2008 at 11:34 AM, Graham Triggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 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!
Are we having a communication problem here? I think I see two different uses of the word "inside". If "inside" means "designed and built and maintained as part of DSpace" then I have to say I think we should not do that. If "inside" means "can easily be made to appear as part of a system which also includes DSpace" then that makes a lot of sense. I see the same people seeming to argue both yea and nay, and that makes me think I haven't understood all of their words. -- Mark H. Wood, Lead System Programmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] Typically when a software vendor says that a product is "intuitive" he means the exact opposite.
pgpbE2euHmBCl.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Dspace-general mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/dspace-general
