Apologies for cross-posting
A meeting will be held on April 4, 2008 at the University of
Southampton, in conjunction with Open Repositories 2008, to roll-out the
beta release of the OAI-ORE specifications. This meeting is the European
follow-on to a meeting that will be held in the USA on March
On Thu, 2008-05-08 at 11:41 -0400, Godmar Back wrote:
On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 11:25 AM, Dr R. Sanderson
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Like what? The current API seems to be concerned with search. Search
is what SRU does well. If it was concerned with harvest, I (and I'm
sure many others)
to provide all the ingest, transformation and
dissemination support required in DSpace.
Please feel free to download and play with the source code, and let us
have your feedback via the Google group:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
All the best,
Richard Jones Rob Sanderson
[1] Foresite project page: http
To throw in my 2c.
Eric Lease Morgan wrote:
On Aug 21, 2008, at 4:34 PM, Jonathan Rochkind wrote:
If you can figure out what the difference between an 'institutional
repository' and a 'digital library' is, let me know.
I think an institutional repository is a type of digital library.
I
My first question would be: Why?
Why invent a new element for title (etc.) rather than using Dublin Core?
Wouldn't it have been easier to do this building from SWAP?
http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/repositories/digirep/index/Eprints_Application_Profile
And my second question would be: Really?
251
And if you could get access to the catalogue, you could then train a
classifier (maybe bayes?) to predict BISAC given the other types of
headings (or other data) in the records.
Rob
On Wed, 2009-01-21 at 12:21 -0500, Andrew Nagy wrote:
I saw a great presentation by Jesse Haro from Phoenix
On Mon, 2009-03-30 at 16:08 +0100, Ross Singer wrote:
There should be no issue with having both, mainly because like I
mentioned earlier, nobody cares about info:uris.
s/nobody cares/the web doesn't care/
'The Web' isn't the only use case. There are plenty of reasons for
having non
On Wed, 2009-04-01 at 14:17 +0100, Mike Taylor wrote:
Ed Summers writes:
Assuming a world where you cannot de-reference this DOI what is it
good for?
It wouldn't be good for much if you couldn't dereference it at all.
The point is that (I argue) the identifier shouldn't tie itself to a
See also the thread, 'RDA: A Standard Nobody Will Notice'.
http://www.mail-archive.com/code4lib@listserv.nd.edu/msg04422.html
A standard nobody will notice ... for good reason.
Rob
On Tue, 2009-04-07 at 18:24 +0100, Eric Lease Morgan wrote:
On Apr 7, 2009, at 1:15 PM, Karen Coyle wrote:
On Mon, 2009-05-11 at 11:31 +0100, Jakob Voss wrote
A format should be described with a schema (XML Schema, OWL etc.) or at
least a standard. Mostly this schema already has a namespace or similar
identifier that can be used for the whole format.
This is unfortunately not the case.
For
On Mon, 2009-05-11 at 12:02 +0100, Alexander Johannesen wrote:
On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 16:04, Rob Sanderson azar...@liverpool.ac.uk wrote:
* One namespace is used to define two _totally_ separate sets of
elements. There's no reason why this can't be done.
As opposed to all the reasons
On Mon, 2009-05-11 at 14:53 +0100, Jakob Voss wrote:
A format should be described with a schema (XML Schema, OWL etc.) or at
least a standard. Mostly this schema already has a namespace or similar
identifier that can be used for the whole format.
This is unfortunately not the case.
RDF is fine with one 'thing' having multiple identifiers, it just hands
the problem up a level to the application to deal with.
For example, the owl:sameAs predicate is used to express that the
subject and object are the same 'thing'. Then the application can infer
that if a owl:sameAs b, and a
13 matches
Mail list logo
