Re: [Dspace-tech] Webometrics repository
l and developed in partnership with Slashdot Media, is your hub for all things parallel software development, from weekly thought leadership blogs to news, videos, case studies, tutorials and more. Take a look and join the conversation now. http://goparallel.sourceforge.net/ ___ DSpace-tech mailing list DSpace-tech@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dspace-tech List Etiquette: https://wiki.duraspace.org/display/DSPACE/Mailing+List+Etiquette -- Isidro F. Aguillo, HonDr. The Cybermetrics Lab, IPP-CSIC Grupo Scimago Madrid. SPAIN isidro.agui...@csic.es ORCID -0001-8927-4873 ResearcherID: A-7280-2008 Scholar Citations SaCSbeoJ Twitter @isidroaguillo Rankings Web webometrics.info --- El software de antivirus Avast ha analizado este correo electrónico en busca de virus. http://www.avast.com -- Dive into the World of Parallel Programming The Go Parallel Website, sponsored by Intel and developed in partnership with Slashdot Media, is your hub for all things parallel software development, from weekly thought leadership blogs to news, videos, case studies, tutorials and more. Take a look and join the conversation now. http://goparallel.sourceforge.net/___ DSpace-tech mailing list DSpace-tech@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dspace-tech List Etiquette: https://wiki.duraspace.org/display/DSPACE/Mailing+List+Etiquette
Re: [Dspace-tech] [Dspace-general] Regarding Ranking of Repositories
Dear German, Thanks for your support. I understand this can be difficult to implement or that needs time to develop. No problem for applying the proposals later or not applying at all. Best regards, Germán Biozzoli escribió: > I think that > > >> * Rule #7 (IRs that use more than 3 different numeric (or useless) codes >> in their URLs will be excluded.). It is unclear how they would determine >> this, and what the effect may be on DSpace sites worldwide. Again, >> looking at the common DSpace URL paths above, if a file had a "numeric" >> name, it may be excluded as DSpace URLs already include 2-3 numeric >> codes by default ([prefix],[id], and [sequence] are all numeric). > > I have a personal example. 20 years ago my email admin decided my > email account should be 'dctfa11', abusing from your notation > ([prefix],[id], and [sequence]). After several years it was possible > to change to 'isidro.aguillo'. > > I going to use the URL of my papers to cite them, to marketing them, > to copy in my CV, . Please, help me translating /56/89/567894 into > aguillo2014b > > --- > has no posible conceptual discussion: > > http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/URI_Design_and_Management_for_Persistence > > And of course, correct URIs have effects over SEO, that is an inherent > responsability to IRs platforms. As a DSpace implementor I understand that > it could have no inmediate solution, but to me it's undoubted the correct > requirement for future DSpace versions. > > Regards > German > > > > 2014-09-03 19:53 GMT-03:00 Isidro F. Aguillo : > >> Dear Tim, >> >> Tim Donohue escribió: >> >> > Hello Isidro, >> > >> > DuraSpace (the stewarding organization behind DSpace and Fedora >> > repository software) was planning to send you a compiled list of the >> > concerns with your proposal. As you can tell from the previous email >> > thread, many of the users of DSpace have similar concerns. Rather than >> > bombard you with all of them individually (which you could see from >> > browsing the thread), we hoped to draft up a response summarizing the >> > concerns of the DSpace community. >> >> Thanks a lot. That is far beyond my better expectations. >> >> >> > Below you'll find an initial draft of the summarized concerns. The rule >> > numbering below is based on the numbering at: >> > http://repositories.webometrics.info/en/node/26 >> > >> > --- Concerns with the Proposal from Ranking Web of Repositories >> > >> > * Rule #2 (IRs that don't use the institutional domain will be excluded) >> > would cause the exclusion of some IRs which are hosted by DSpace service >> > providers. As an example, some DSpaceDirect.org users have URLs >> > https://[something].dspacedirect.org which would cause their exclusion >> > as it is a non-institutional domain. Many other DSpace hosting providers >> > have similar non-institutional domain URLs by default. >> >> >> Major issue. Repository is not another bibliographic database, it is >> the archive of the academic output of the institution. And as such it >> should be iron brand. >> >> If .. the institution is very small or in a country with limited >> resources the hosting option is perfectly valid and we will do an >> exception. But in these cases, Is not a redirection possible? >> >> If .. the problem is related to governance we should not reward the >> institution bad practice. >> >> >> > * Rule #4 (Repositories using ports other than 80 or 8080) would wrongly >> > exclude all DSpace sites which use HTTPS (port 443). Many institutions >> > choose to run DSpace via HTTPS instead of HTTP. >> >> No problem adding a few more ports to the short list >> >> >> > * Rule #5 (IRs that use the name of the software in the hostname would >> > be excluded) may also affect IRs which are hosted by service providers >> > (like DSpaceDirect). Again, some DSpaceDirect customers have URLs which >> > use *.dspacedirect.org (includes "dspace"). This rule would also exclude >> > MIT's IR which is the original "DSpace" (and has used the same URL for >> > the last 10+ years): http://dspace.mit.edu/ >> >> This is easy. Imagine that the people at MIT decide next week they >> prefer eprints or other new software. A repository is a repository, >> why not a final one like?: >> >> repository.mit.edu >> >> On the other s
Re: [Dspace-tech] [Dspace-general] Regarding Ranking of Repositories
Dear colleaugue, User is user, not any casual reader. A non-casual reader of an academic paper is usually another scientist (a Higgs boson text is not for everybody), and any professional (including junior ones like PhD students) scientist is or is going to be an author. Best regards, sharad escribió: > Hi, > > Most of us will do agree with the fact that authors themselves (or > funder of research/repository) are not the sole end users of a > repository. In contrary major end users are non-authors or people who > have not contributed to a repository and are just the users of the > repository. > > If what ever changes that are proposed are for the better user > experience of end-user, let us not assume that the end users are only > authors. > > Best Regards, > Sharad > > > On Thu, Sep 4, 2014 at 2:55 AM, Anton Angelo wrote: >> Hi Isidro, >> >> As a librarian/technologist managing a institutional repository I have to >> disagree with you on the definition of our end users. There are two ways >> to look at this, and neither end up with the authors as end users. >> >> An idealistic approach would see the final readers of the items as the end >> users. They are the ones, defined by various OA declarations, the ones for >> whom we are doing this. >> >> A pragmatic approach would say the funders of the research are the end >> users, as they are demanding the output of their funding to be made OA. >> >> The latter group are the ones your service is most useful for, in >> determining the performance of their outputs - the more visible, the better >> vehicle for publication. >> >> I am beginning to think that rankings are not a very useful manner in which >> to compare IRs, but a list of platform agnostic best practice standards >> (like the orange book for security, back in the day) is the way forward. >> Though I have extensively used the service in my research on IR >> effectiveness, that was mostly because the repository I manage has a high >> ranking, and it was useful to promote it internally. This kind of behaviour >> usually ends up in 'gaming', and is counterproductive - exactly what OA is >> trying to get away from (h-index, impact factor, etc). >> >> IRs are really about getting the right output to the right person - even one >> download can be a total success. I think in the future altmetric tools are >> probably going to be more use than a ranking service, as useful as it has >> been in the past - provided they report on the work in OA being done in the >> global south. >> >> aa >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On 4 September 2014 09:12, Isidro F. Aguillo >> wrote: >>> >>> Dear Stuart, >>> >>> I do not know if you understand the ultimate purpose of Open access >>> initiatives in general and the institutional repositories in >>> particular. But I think you are mising the central point that the >>> end-users should guide the design of the repository according to their >>> real needs. >>> >>> Well, in OA the end users are the authors of the papers, their >>> institutions that fund the research and host the papers and the >>> librarians who manage the repository. In this scenario the software >>> developers task is to fulfill in the most professional way the needs >>> of the authors. >>> >>> Regarding authors needs, the W3C organization and its 'cool' proposals >>> is arbitrary basically because they do not know how scholarly >>> communication works, and the aims and methods of OA. They are not >>> stakeholders for us. >>> >>> In any case, I will prefer and thank from you comments on the specific >>> proposals and not a general, ambigous and unsupported global criticism. >>> >>> Best regards, >>> >>> >>> Stuart Yeates escribió: >>> >>> > I'm not sure that knee-jerk reaction to an arbitrary list of bad >>> > practice is a good place to start and seems like a really bad driver >>> > for software development. >>> > >>> > Maybe we should be talking to our fellow implementers and building >>> > on the work of http://www.w3.org/Provider/Style/URI.html, >>> > http://www.w3.org/TR/cooluris/, >>> > http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/openarchivesprotocol.html, etc. to >>> > build a compilation of _best_ practice. >>> > >>> > Cheers >>> > stuart >>> > >>> > -Original Message
Re: [Dspace-tech] [Dspace-general] Regarding Ranking of Repositories
Dear Anton, Thanks for your different point of view. It is good to opening the debate to further issues. Anton Angelo escribió: > Hi Isidro, > > As a librarian/technologist managing a institutional repository I have to > disagree with you on the definition of our end users. There are two ways > to look at this, and neither end up with the authors as end users. > > An idealistic approach would see the final readers of the items as the end > users. They are the ones, defined by various OA declarations, the ones for > whom we are doing this. Idealistic? It is the current situation. I search for a topic related to my research in Google and I obtain a few hundred results. I focus on the ones coming from the repositories because in most cases that means the full text is openly available. What are the problems? a) Sometimes the repositories results does not appear first, but those from Researchgate or Academia.edu. A few researchers already realizes that and now prefer those portals instead their own institutions for depositing. b) Checking the results some of them are deposited in webserves with suspicious names. I can not recognize trusted reliable university names when that info is not in the URL. c) The paper is in the correct webdomain but from the url I have no hints about if it is a unpublished thesis, a paper in a major journal, authored by a well known colleague or even how recent is it > A pragmatic approach would say the funders of the research are the end > users, as they are demanding the output of their funding to be made OA. For that users it is completely unneeded the huge effort for bulding an open public repository. An annual report of research results is more than enough. > The latter group are the ones your service is most useful for, in > determining the performance of their outputs - the more visible, the better > vehicle for publication. Well, I accept 100 funders. According to the statistics of visits of major repositories we are talking of millions of unique visitor each year. I think there is some misunderstanding about who is really using your (any) repository. > I am beginning to think that rankings are not a very useful manner in which > to compare IRs, but a list of platform agnostic best practice standards > (like the orange book for security, back in the day) is the way forward. Current situation is that most of the world scientific production is not deposited in open access repositories. ANY licit strategy to change that should be welcomed. The ranking is helping, at least pushing managers to convince authors to increase the number of papers deposited. > Though I have extensively used the service in my research on IR > effectiveness, that was mostly because the repository I manage has a high > ranking, and it was useful to promote it internally. Thanks, this is an intended welcomed use of our work This kind of > behaviour usually ends up in 'gaming', and is counterproductive - exactly > what OA is trying to get away from (h-index, impact factor, etc). I know you and the rest of the members of this list are professionals, not gamers. > > IRs are really about getting the right output to the right person - even > one download can be a total success. I think in the future altmetric tools > are probably going to be more use than a ranking service, as useful as it > has been in the past - provided they report on the work in OA being done in > the global south. Do you know that our ranking is including for at least the two last editions altmetrics indicators? Ten of them: Academia, Facebook, LinkedIn, Mendeley, ResearchGate, Slideshare, Twitter, Wikipedia (2) & YouTube. > aa > > > > > > > On 4 September 2014 09:12, Isidro F. Aguillo > wrote: > >> Dear Stuart, >> >> I do not know if you understand the ultimate purpose of Open access >> initiatives in general and the institutional repositories in >> particular. But I think you are mising the central point that the >> end-users should guide the design of the repository according to their >> real needs. >> >> Well, in OA the end users are the authors of the papers, their >> institutions that fund the research and host the papers and the >> librarians who manage the repository. In this scenario the software >> developers task is to fulfill in the most professional way the needs >> of the authors. >> >> Regarding authors needs, the W3C organization and its 'cool' proposals >> is arbitrary basically because they do not know how scholarly >> communication works, and the aims and methods of OA. They are not >> stakeholders for us. >> >> In any case, I will prefer and thank from you comments on the specific
Re: [Dspace-tech] [Dspace-general] Regarding Ranking of Repositories
mber of Theses/Dissertations. These Theses/Dissertations may > not be 100% Open Access to the world, but may be fully accessible > everyone "on campus". 50%!!! A 'place' with less than 50% of the full texts unavailable is NOT an Open Access Repository. > Another, perhaps more serious concern, is on the timeline you propose. > You suggest a timeline of January 2015 when these newly proposed rules > would be in place. Yet, if these rules were to go in place, some rules > may require changes to the DSpace software itself (as I laid out above, > some rules may not mesh well with DSpace software as it is, unless I'm > misunderstanding the rule itself). Do not worry about that, the objective is to promote better practices, the timing can be flexible > Unfortunately, based on our DSpace open source release timelines, we > have ONE new release (DSpace 5.0) planned between now and January 2015. > Even if we were able to implement some of these recommended changes at a > software level, the vast majority (likely >80-90%) of DSpace instances > would likely NOT be able to upgrade to the latest DSpace version before > your January deadline (as the 5.0 release is scheduled for Nov/Dec). > Therefore, as is, your January 2015 ranking may accidentally exclude a > large number of DSpace sites from your rankings, and DSpace is still the > most widely used Institutional Repository software in the world. i am not your enemy, my aim is to help as much as possible in the success of Open Access initiatives. For now I would like you understand there are other stakeholders involved with needs probably not well explained. > So, in general, I think our response is that these proposed > rules/guidelines are a bit concerning to many users of DSpace (as you > can see from this long thread of concerns from various people and > institutions). We worry that a larger number of DSpace instances would > be accidentally excluded from the rankings, which makes the final > ranking less useful to users of DSpace overall. > > I know DuraSpace would be open to discussing this with you and your > colleagues. Perhaps there's a middle ground here, or a way to slowly > "roll out" some of your recommended changes. This could allow DSpace > developers more time to enhance DSpace software itself, and allow users > of DSpace more time to upgrade to ensure they are included in the > Rankings. (Note: we've similarly had discussions with the Google Scholar > team to help gradually add improvements to DSpace to better meet their > indexing needs...so it seems like the same could occur with the > Webometrics team.) > > I've copied our DuraSpace Chief Strategy Officer, Jonathan Markow, on > this message as well. > > Tim Donohue > Technical Lead for DSpace & DSpaceDirect > DuraSpace.org | DSpace.org | DSpaceDirect.org > > -- > Slashdot TV. > Video for Nerds. Stuff that matters. > http://tv.slashdot.org/ > ___ > Dspace-general mailing list > dspace-gene...@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dspace-general Thanks again, -- Isidro F. Aguillo, HonPhD Cybermetrics Lab (3C1). CCHS - CSIC Albasanz, 26-28. 28037 Madrid. Spain isidro.aguillo @ cchs.csic.es www. webometrics.info -- Slashdot TV. Video for Nerds. Stuff that matters. http://tv.slashdot.org/ ___ DSpace-tech mailing list DSpace-tech@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dspace-tech List Etiquette: https://wiki.duraspace.org/display/DSPACE/Mailing+List+Etiquette
Re: [Dspace-tech] [Dspace-general] Regarding Ranking of Repositories
Dear Kim, Thanks for your message. I answer to your specific comments Kim Shepherd escribió: > Hi Isidro and lists, > > Regarding point 6 -- I see what you're saying, but it shouldn't really be > up to the DSpace community repositories (who all use the handle prefix / > identifier system, as I'm sure you know!) to argue why 1234/123 is better > than thesis/phsyics/something, because we're not the ones proposing that > URI segments be part of any metric used to judge the "world ranking" of a > repository. It's also not as simple as you might think, particularly when > ensuring unique URIs and persistent URIs, etc. > I think you're saying that URIs should either "look nice" or "be > meaningful", or both, but I'm not sure we should rely on URIs to be too > meaningful, especially when we have ways of including that with semantic > markup in references, structured data in our METS/ORE feeds via OAI, etc. This is the basic misunderstanding. The repository end user is an author that whishes to increase the global visibility and usage of his/her deposited papers. Looking nice is relevant because the main tool of the author for obtaining visibility and visits is to cite them in his/her future papers or to mention it for example in Wikipedia or Twitter. Looking nice is adding informative value (authors name, publication year, topic) that can be relevant for the reader helping to decide if following the link. Looking nice also works as quality control, a mistake in lastname is easier to notice that in a series of numbers. But far more importat: By far the largest number of visitors came from Google or other engines. If you are not searching for specific title, then the semantic content of the URL is increasing considerably your positioning in Google. Of course, you can ignore that, but there is already many people who prefers to deposit in ResearchGate or Academia as the visibility of their works is better. > > Regarding point 5 -- I don't see that this matters either. No end user > cares what the IR is actually called, surely? Whatever arguments you can > make for our IRs having "bad names", punishing us for preserving the > permanence of those names and URIs we've already minted seems a bit unfair? > The first IR I thought of when reading this was, of course, > http://dspace.mit.edu. > I think point 5 actually punishes EPrints repositories most unfairly, since > "eprints" is an accepted name for digital manuscripts as well as the > platform used -- I think I've even seen IRs called "eprints.something.etc" > running platforms other than EPrints. You are answering the question. Imagine that in the future I decide to use eprints instead of dspace or whatever other better that can be developed in the future. Then, are going to change the domain or not?. On the other side, why branding an intellectual result with the name of the tool?. I write my papers with MS Word and never made any significant mention of this fact in any of the papers. What is the problem with? http://repository.university.edu/ > > Numbers 6 and 7, I think I agree with Mark, but don't really have anything > to add. I don't really understand why this would even be considered as a > metric, let alone grounds for exclusion. What are some examples of cases > where long URIs (or, eg. "directories as fulltext" hosted in IRs with their > own dir structures, which happens) or URIs which happen to contain numbers > result in end users or machines not being able to properly locate/use > hosted resources? Metrics? Who is talking about metrics? I only said Keep It Simple. > Number 8 is probably the thing that will punish my own institution most, > which is a pity because we have a large absolute amount of fulltext, but > for various reasons, a lot of record only items as well. This is probably a > philisophical argument about defining an "OA repository" I guess? We can discuss about the threshold, I think 50% is reasonably but it could be used only for contents after embargo ends (usually 6 or 12 months). > I hope my criticisms here don't seem too harsh - thanks for taking the time > to listen to feedback. > > On a lighter note, I'm sort of pleased these proposals have been doing the > rounds, as I think it might just be the thing that convinces my own > institution to take "world repository ranking" off our KPIs, and > concentrate more on qualitative value of the repository we host. Thanks for your cooperation ... > Cheers > > Kim (a DSpace dev/admin, and already biased against quantitative metrics in > IRs so not exactly an objective commenter ;)) You are a perfect objective commenter as you identify as
Re: [Dspace-tech] [Dspace-general] Regarding Ranking of Repositories
Dear Stuart, I do not know if you understand the ultimate purpose of Open access initiatives in general and the institutional repositories in particular. But I think you are mising the central point that the end-users should guide the design of the repository according to their real needs. Well, in OA the end users are the authors of the papers, their institutions that fund the research and host the papers and the librarians who manage the repository. In this scenario the software developers task is to fulfill in the most professional way the needs of the authors. Regarding authors needs, the W3C organization and its 'cool' proposals is arbitrary basically because they do not know how scholarly communication works, and the aims and methods of OA. They are not stakeholders for us. In any case, I will prefer and thank from you comments on the specific proposals and not a general, ambigous and unsupported global criticism. Best regards, Stuart Yeates escribió: > I'm not sure that knee-jerk reaction to an arbitrary list of bad > practice is a good place to start and seems like a really bad driver > for software development. > > Maybe we should be talking to our fellow implementers and building > on the work of http://www.w3.org/Provider/Style/URI.html, > http://www.w3.org/TR/cooluris/, > http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/openarchivesprotocol.html, etc. to > build a compilation of _best_ practice. > > Cheers > stuart > > -Original Message- > From: Tim Donohue [mailto:tdono...@duraspace.org] > Sent: Wednesday, 3 September 2014 8:49 a.m. > To: Isidro F. Aguillo; dspace-tech@lists.sourceforge.net > Cc: Jonathan Markow; dspace-gene...@lists.sourceforge.net > Subject: Re: [Dspace-general] [Dspace-tech] Regarding Ranking of Repositories > > Hello Isidro, > > DuraSpace (the stewarding organization behind DSpace and Fedora > repository software) was planning to send you a compiled list of the > concerns with your proposal. As you can tell from the previous email > thread, many of the users of DSpace have similar concerns. Rather > than bombard you with all of them individually (which you could see > from browsing the thread), we hoped to draft up a response > summarizing the concerns of the DSpace community. > > Below you'll find an initial draft of the summarized concerns. The > rule numbering below is based on the numbering at: > http://repositories.webometrics.info/en/node/26 > > --- Concerns with the Proposal from Ranking Web of Repositories > > * Rule #2 (IRs that don't use the institutional domain will be > excluded) would cause the exclusion of some IRs which are hosted by > DSpace service providers. As an example, some DSpaceDirect.org users > have URLs https://[something].dspacedirect.org which would cause > their exclusion as it is a non-institutional domain. Many other > DSpace hosting providers have similar non-institutional domain URLs > by default. > > * Rule #4 (Repositories using ports other than 80 or 8080) would > wrongly exclude all DSpace sites which use HTTPS (port 443). Many > institutions choose to run DSpace via HTTPS instead of HTTP. > > * Rule #5 (IRs that use the name of the software in the hostname > would be excluded) may also affect IRs which are hosted by service > providers (like DSpaceDirect). Again, some DSpaceDirect customers > have URLs which use *.dspacedirect.org (includes "dspace"). This > rule would also exclude MIT's IR which is the original "DSpace" (and > has used the same URL for the last 10+ years): http://dspace.mit.edu/ > > * Rule #6 (IRs that use more than 4 directory levels for the URL > address of the full texts will be excluded.) may accidentally > exclude a large number of DSpace sites. The common download URLs for > full text in DSpace are both are at least 4 directory levels deep: > > - XMLUI: [dspace-url]/bitstream/handle/[prefix]/[id]/[filename] > - JSPUI: [dspace-url]/bitstream/[prefix]/[id]/[sequence]/[filename] > > NOTE: "prefix" and "id" are parts of an Item's Handle > (http://hdl.handle.net/), which is the persistent identifier > assigned to the item via the Handle System. So, this is how a > persistent URL like > http://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/26706 redirects to an Item in MIT's DSpace. > > * Rule #7 (IRs that use more than 3 different numeric (or useless) > codes in their URLs will be excluded.). It is unclear how they would > determine this, and what the effect may be on DSpace sites > worldwide. Again, looking at the common DSpace URL paths above, if a > file had a "numeric" > name, it may be excluded as DSpace URLs already in
[Dspace-tech] Regarding Ranking of Repositories
Dear colleagues, As editor of the Ranking Web of Repositories I published the referred info in order to open debate about issues that are, in my humble opinion, very concerning for the future of repositories. As my email address is clearly stated in the webpage, I do not understand why you decided not consider my position and explanations in this debate. I am going to answer the specific points introduced by Mark Wood and, of course, I am open not only to further discussions but to modify my proposals accordingly. > From: Mark H. Wood > Date: 2 September 2014 16:28 > Subject: Re: [Dspace-tech] IMPORTANT NEWS: Important Info for Future > Editions | Ranking Web of Repositories > To: dspace-tech@lists.sourceforge.net, General List < > dspace-gene...@lists.sourceforge.net> > > > Points 4, 6 and 7 reveal a profound lack of understanding of > hypertext and fundamental security issues, and I would not be > surprised to learn that they ignore typical user behavior as well. > Does anyone but a sysadmin. or developer really type in direct URLs to > repository content? Citations please. Point 4. In many academic institutions the access to ports other than standards is forbidden due to security reasons. If you use other ones, the contents are invisible to the people accesing from other universities. Point 6 y 7. Explain me why .../handle/556/78/6789 is better than .../thesis/physics/Wood2013b and why aliasing is not possible. Probably authors will cite the URL of deposited files in their published papers, but with this awful, lengthy, useless addresses they probably prefer not to do. One of the main reasons for depositing papers is to increase their visibility, but this is only possible if other authors can locate easily them. Tipically, for example, in Google. Do you know the advantages of URL semantic content for improving position in Google? There are thousands of papers about academic SEO. For example, there are ones stating the advantages of using "library" instead of "lib" in webnames. > I would argue that we can better do without appearing in the "Ranking > Web of Repositories," whatever that is, than to give up the ability > to protect our users' credentials. (Point 4, which disallows HTTPS) Are you mixing public and private sections? You can protect your users without destroying visibility. > Point 5 is just bizarre. Why does someone think this is a problem? > Not that I think it particularly useful to use the name of supporting > software in naming a repository service, but how can it possibly hurt? The repository is the probably the most important part of the intellectual treasure of the university and their authors, You are simply proposing to brand the continent instead of the content. > Are there any actual statistics to support the belief that long URLs > in the interior of a service actually affect anyone's behavior? Interior is irrelevant, the contents of the repository are for the end-users that are not sysadmin but the institution authors and authors and readers from the rest of the world. We are talking of "Open Access" and in my opinion the referred issues are barriers to the open. > It sounds like there should be some discussion among the various > parties. Where? As mentioned before here I am for further comments. Thanks for your cooperation. > -- > Mark H. Wood > Lead Technology Analyst > > University Library > Indiana University - Purdue University Indianapolis > 755 W. Michigan Street > Indianapolis, IN 46202 > 317-274-0749 > www.ulib.iupui.edu > > -- > Slashdot TV. > Video for Nerds. Stuff that matters. > http://tv.slashdot.org/ > ___ > DSpace-tech mailing list > DSpace-tech@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dspace-tech > List Etiquette: > https://wiki.duraspace.org/display/DSPACE/Mailing+List+Etiquette -- Isidro F. Aguillo, HonPhD Cybermetrics Lab (3C1). CCHS - CSIC Albasanz, 26-28. 28037 Madrid. Spain isidro.aguillo @ cchs.csic.es www. webometrics.info - Terminar mensaje reenviado - -- Isidro F. Aguillo, HonPhD Cybermetrics Lab (3C1). CCHS - CSIC Albasanz, 26-28. 28037 Madrid. Spain isidro.aguillo @ cchs.csic.es www. webometrics.info -- Slashdot TV. Video for Nerds. Stuff that matters. http://tv.slashdot.org/ ___ DSpace-tech mailing list DSpace-tech@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dspace-tech List Etiquette: https://wiki.duraspace.org/display/DSPACE/Mailing+List+Etiquette
