Re: [CODE4LIB] Seeking feedback on database design for an open source software registry
(Back from vacation now. Thanks again for everyone's thoughts and suggestions.) On Aug 9, 2011, at 7:34 PM, Jonathan Rochkind wrote: Just to play Simplicity Devil's Advocate, and admittedly not having followed this whole thread or your whole design. What if the model was nothing but two entities: Software Person/Group (Yes, used either for an individual or a group of any sort). With a directed 'related' relationship between each entity and reflexive. (Software - Person/Group ; Software - Software; Person/Group - Software ; Person/Group- Person/Group ). That 'related' relationship can be annotated with a relationship type from a controlled vocabulary, as well as free-entered user tags. Controlled vocabulary would include Person/Group *uses* Software; Person/Group *develops* Software; Software *component of* Software. Person/Group *member of* Person/Group. People could enter 'tags' on the relationship for anything else they wanted. You could develop the controlled vocabulary further organically as you get more data and see what's actually needed -- and what people free tag, if they do so. Additional attributes are likely needed on Software; probably not too many more on Person/Group. But to encourage 'crowd source', you can enter a Software without filling out all of those attributes, it's as easy as filling out a simple form, and if you want making a couple relationships to other Software or Person/Group, or those can be made later by other people, if it catches on and people actually edit this. Things like URLs to software (or people!) home pages can really just be entered in a big free text field -- using wiki syntax, or better yet, Markdown. I think if the success of the project depends on volunteer crowd sourcing, you've got to keep things simple and make it as easy as possible to enter data in seconds. Really, even without the entering, keeping it simple will lead you to a simple interface, which will be useable and more likely to catch on. Interesting model. I'd like to think this through a little more; my first thoughts are that while it might make the user interface and the data model simpler, enforcement of consistency of the data itself would diminish, which might cause a hodgepodge data that would be difficult to page through. Simplicity in data entry might be sacrificed for simplicity in search/browse. On Aug 9, 2011, at 7:50 PM, stuart yeates wrote: You may also be interested in the (older?) work at http://projects.apache.org/ and http://trac.usefulinc.com/doap For example: http://projects.apache.org/projects/xindice.html / http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/xml/xindice/trunk/doap_Xindice.rdf Interoperability with RDF/DOAP lets you build on others work and lets others in turn pick your work over. At the very least if allows you to get suck in the latest and greatest releases automatically. Ah, yes! That is the sort of linked data interoperability I was thinking would be possible. Thanks for the pointers to those efforts. On Aug 9, 2011, at 8:23 PM, Matt Jones wrote: On Tue, Aug 9, 2011 at 3:50 PM, stuart yeates stuart.yea...@vuw.ac.nzwrote: ... Ohloh is great. However it relies almost completely on metrics which are easily gamed by the technically competent. Use of these kinds of metrics in ways which encouraging gaming will only be productive in the short term, perhaps the very short term. For example: it's easy to set up dummy version control accounts and there can be good technical reasons for doing so. It's easy to set up a build/test suite to update a file in the version control after it's daily run and there can be good technical reasons for doing so. But doing these things can also transform a very-low activity single user project into a high-activity dual user project, in the eyes of ohloh. Turning on template-derived comments in the next big migration handles the is the code commented? metric. The more metrics are used, the more motivation there is to use tools (which admittedly have other motivations) which make a project look good. I agree the ohloh metrics are easily gamed. What metrics do you recommend that can't be gamed but still provide a synopsis of the project for evaluation, comparison, and selection? I think there is some utility even though they can be gamed. The metrics are not a substitute for critical evaluation, but provide a nice synopsis as a jumping off point. For example, if I am interested in projects that have a demonstrable lifespan 5 years, and that have had more than 10 developers contribute, I can find that via these metrics. I can then assess for myself if any of the resulting projects are false positives (e.g., the commit log will give some idea of the types of commits made by each person). If you're concerned about the system being gamed via metrics, then you should also be concerned about
Re: [CODE4LIB] Seeking feedback on database design for an open source software registry
I'd be curious to know if this project itself would be open source. Second, I'm intrigued because I've never seen a UML diagram so close before in the wild and it's fascinating to discover the jokes are true (I kid, I kid...). Let's get serious and pull out your Refactoring book by Fowler and turn to page 336... you can Extract superclass to get Provider/Institution/Person to inherit from Entity. Then Merge Hierarchy to tear it down into a single Entity class and add a self-referencing association for employs. ProviderType should be renamed to Services and be made an association allowing 0..* services. At that point, the DB design is pretty straight forward and the architecture astronauts can come back down to earth. Seriously though, I think that technically, you might be over thinking this. If you replace Package with Blog, Release with Post, Technology with Tag, Provider/Institution/Person with User, Keep Comment as Comment, and ignore Event for now It's just a simple collection of blogs with posts with tags and users that have roles and can leave comments. Lastly, you may want to look into Drupal's project module. I think that's what they use to run their module directory. It seems like it would be a good starting point and may work out of the box. It's a bold project. The library needs it and it's something no single institution would ever pay to have done, so I'm glad to see there is a grant for it. Brice Stacey Digital Library Services University of Massachusetts Boston brice.sta...@umb.edu 617-287-5921 On 15 July 2011 19:42, Peter Murray peter.mur...@lyrasis.org wrote: Colleagues -- As part of the Mellon Foundation grant funding the start-up of LYRASIS Technology Services, LTS is establishing a registry to provide in-depth comparative, evaluative, and version information about open source products. This registry will be free for viewing and editing (all libraries, not just LYRASIS members, and any provider offering services for open source software in libraries). Drupal will be the underlying content system, and it will be hosted by LYRASIS. I'm seeking input on a data model that is intended to answer these questions: * What open source options exist to meet a particular need of my library? * What are the strengths and weaknesses of an open source package? * My library has developers with skills in specific technologies. What open source packages mesh well with the skills my library has in-house? * Where can my library go to get training, documentation, hosting, and/or contract software development for a specific open source package? * Are any peers using this open source software? * Where is there more information about this open source software package? The E-R diagram and narrative surrounding it are on the Code4Lib wiki: http://wiki.code4lib.org/index.php/Registry_E-R_Diagram Comments on the data model can be made as changes to the wiki document, replies posted here, or e-mail sent directly to me. In addition to comments on the data model, I'm particularly interested in answers to these questions (also listed at the bottom of the wiki page): 1. The model does not provide for a relationship between a person and a software package. Would such a relationship be useful? E.g., individuals self-identifying as affiliated with an open source software package. 2. The initial planning process did not account for the inclusion of packages that were not themselves end products. Should code libraries and support programs be included as packages in the registry? The model could conceivably be adjusted in two ways to account for this. The simplest would only require the addition of new PackageType enumerations (e.g. code library); this would not allow for searching of packages that use code libraries (e.g., answering the question What repositories use the djatoka JPEG2000 viewer system?) Another simple change would be to add code library to the TechType enumeration; the code library would not have the benefit of links to other relationships and entities. A more complicated change would do both but there would be no relationship between the code library as a Package and as a Technology. Are there better ways to add code libraries to the model? 3. Some who have reviewed the concept for the registry suggested other attributes. Should these be added? (And what is missing?) * Package - Translations * Package - Intended audience (e.g. developers, patrons/desktop, patrons/web, library-staff/desktop, library-staff/web) * Version - Code maturity (e.g., alpha, beta, release candidate, formal release) 4. To answer the question Are any peers using this open source software? is it necessary to have an enumeration of library types? Public library, school library, university library, community college
Re: [CODE4LIB] Seeking feedback on database design for an open source software registry
As some points for comparison, you might look at two exisintg and similar systems for registering software... First, a software tools database that is maintained for the environmental sciences community: http://ebmtoolsdatabase.org/ An example of one of my tool entries in this system is here: http://ebmtoolsdatabase.org/tool/kepler-scientific-workflow-system-0 The system is easy to use, has some nice descriptions of the software, and is user-maintained. Maybe some of their use cases and yours overlap? I'm not sure which CMS they use, but I found it easy to edit entries myself. Second, the open source site Ohloh has some nice features for characterizing a project, such as languages used, licenses, etc. Here's the page for the same Kepler system in Ohloh: https://www.ohloh.net/p/kepler Ohloh is nice because much of its information is harvested directly from links to the open source code repositories for the project, which allows it to show some nice trends in the software project's life. Hope these are helpful to you in designing your system. Matt On Tue, Aug 9, 2011 at 10:21 AM, Jonathan Rochkind rochk...@jhu.edu wrote: I agree with Brice think you might be over-thinking/over-**architecting it, although over-thinking is one of my sins too and I'm not always sure how to get out of it. But am I correct that you're going to be relying on user-submitted content in large part? Then it's important to keep it simple, so it's easy for users to add content without having to go through a milliion steps and understand a complicated data model. If you can keep it simple in a way that is flexible (the 'tags' idea for instance), you also may find users using it in ways that you didn't anticipate, but which are still useful. On 8/9/2011 12:47 PM, Brice Stacey wrote: I'd be curious to know if this project itself would be open source. Second, I'm intrigued because I've never seen a UML diagram so close before in the wild and it's fascinating to discover the jokes are true (I kid, I kid...). Let's get serious and pull out your Refactoring book by Fowler and turn to page 336... you can Extract superclass to get Provider/Institution/Person to inherit from Entity. Then Merge Hierarchy to tear it down into a single Entity class and add a self-referencing association for employs. ProviderType should be renamed to Services and be made an association allowing 0..* services. At that point, the DB design is pretty straight forward and the architecture astronauts can come back down to earth. Seriously though, I think that technically, you might be over thinking this. If you replace Package with Blog, Release with Post, Technology with Tag, Provider/Institution/Person with User, Keep Comment as Comment, and ignore Event for now It's just a simple collection of blogs with posts with tags and users that have roles and can leave comments. Lastly, you may want to look into Drupal's project module. I think that's what they use to run their module directory. It seems like it would be a good starting point and may work out of the box. It's a bold project. The library needs it and it's something no single institution would ever pay to have done, so I'm glad to see there is a grant for it. Brice Stacey Digital Library Services University of Massachusetts Boston brice.sta...@umb.edu 617-287-5921 On 15 July 2011 19:42, Peter Murraypeter.murray@lyrasis.**orgpeter.mur...@lyrasis.org wrote: Colleagues -- As part of the Mellon Foundation grant funding the start-up of LYRASIS Technology Services, LTS is establishing a registry to provide in-depth comparative, evaluative, and version information about open source products. This registry will be free for viewing and editing (all libraries, not just LYRASIS members, and any provider offering services for open source software in libraries). Drupal will be the underlying content system, and it will be hosted by LYRASIS. I'm seeking input on a data model that is intended to answer these questions: * What open source options exist to meet a particular need of my library? * What are the strengths and weaknesses of an open source package? * My library has developers with skills in specific technologies. What open source packages mesh well with the skills my library has in-house? * Where can my library go to get training, documentation, hosting, and/or contract software development for a specific open source package? * Are any peers using this open source software? * Where is there more information about this open source software package? The E-R diagram and narrative surrounding it are on the Code4Lib wiki: http://wiki.code4lib.org/**index.php/Registry_E-R_Diagramhttp://wiki.code4lib.org/index.php/Registry_E-R_Diagram Comments on the data model can be made as changes to the wiki document, replies posted here, or e-mail sent directly to me. In addition to comments
Re: [CODE4LIB] Seeking feedback on database design for an open source software registry
I agree with Brice think you might be over-thinking/over-architecting it, although over-thinking is one of my sins too and I'm not always sure how to get out of it. But am I correct that you're going to be relying on user-submitted content in large part? Then it's important to keep it simple, so it's easy for users to add content without having to go through a milliion steps and understand a complicated data model. If you can keep it simple in a way that is flexible (the 'tags' idea for instance), you also may find users using it in ways that you didn't anticipate, but which are still useful. On 8/9/2011 12:47 PM, Brice Stacey wrote: I'd be curious to know if this project itself would be open source. Second, I'm intrigued because I've never seen a UML diagram so close before in the wild and it's fascinating to discover the jokes are true (I kid, I kid...). Let's get serious and pull out your Refactoring book by Fowler and turn to page 336... you can Extract superclass to get Provider/Institution/Person to inherit from Entity. Then Merge Hierarchy to tear it down into a single Entity class and add a self-referencing association for employs. ProviderType should be renamed to Services and be made an association allowing 0..* services. At that point, the DB design is pretty straight forward and the architecture astronauts can come back down to earth. Seriously though, I think that technically, you might be over thinking this. If you replace Package with Blog, Release with Post, Technology with Tag, Provider/Institution/Person with User, Keep Comment as Comment, and ignore Event for now It's just a simple collection of blogs with posts with tags and users that have roles and can leave comments. Lastly, you may want to look into Drupal's project module. I think that's what they use to run their module directory. It seems like it would be a good starting point and may work out of the box. It's a bold project. The library needs it and it's something no single institution would ever pay to have done, so I'm glad to see there is a grant for it. Brice Stacey Digital Library Services University of Massachusetts Boston brice.sta...@umb.edu 617-287-5921 On 15 July 2011 19:42, Peter Murraypeter.mur...@lyrasis.org wrote: Colleagues -- As part of the Mellon Foundation grant funding the start-up of LYRASIS Technology Services, LTS is establishing a registry to provide in-depth comparative, evaluative, and version information about open source products. This registry will be free for viewing and editing (all libraries, not just LYRASIS members, and any provider offering services for open source software in libraries). Drupal will be the underlying content system, and it will be hosted by LYRASIS. I'm seeking input on a data model that is intended to answer these questions: * What open source options exist to meet a particular need of my library? * What are the strengths and weaknesses of an open source package? * My library has developers with skills in specific technologies. What open source packages mesh well with the skills my library has in-house? * Where can my library go to get training, documentation, hosting, and/or contract software development for a specific open source package? * Are any peers using this open source software? * Where is there more information about this open source software package? The E-R diagram and narrative surrounding it are on the Code4Lib wiki: http://wiki.code4lib.org/index.php/Registry_E-R_Diagram Comments on the data model can be made as changes to the wiki document, replies posted here, or e-mail sent directly to me. In addition to comments on the data model, I'm particularly interested in answers to these questions (also listed at the bottom of the wiki page): 1. The model does not provide for a relationship between a person and a software package. Would such a relationship be useful? E.g., individuals self-identifying as affiliated with an open source software package. 2. The initial planning process did not account for the inclusion of packages that were not themselves end products. Should code libraries and support programs be included as packages in the registry? The model could conceivably be adjusted in two ways to account for this. The simplest would only require the addition of new PackageType enumerations (e.g. code library); this would not allow for searching of packages that use code libraries (e.g., answering the question What repositories use the djatoka JPEG2000 viewer system?) Another simple change would be to add code library to the TechType enumeration; the code library would not have the benefit of links to other relationships and entities. A more complicated change would do both but there would be no relationship between the code library as a Package and as a Technology. Are there better ways to add code libraries to the model? 3.
Re: [CODE4LIB] Seeking feedback on database design for an open source software registry
I'm combining several responses into one. Apologies for the delay in getting back to folks; I'm technically on vacation at the moment... On Aug 9, 2011, at 12:47 PM, Brice Stacey wrote: I'd be curious to know if this project itself would be open source. Yes, we'll post the registry code and configuration in an open code repository. Second, I'm intrigued because I've never seen a UML diagram so close before in the wild and it's fascinating to discover the jokes are true (I kid, I kid...). Let's get serious and pull out your Refactoring book by Fowler and turn to page 336... you can Extract superclass to get Provider/Institution/Person to inherit from Entity. Then Merge Hierarchy to tear it down into a single Entity class and add a self-referencing association for employs. ProviderType should be renamed to Services and be made an association allowing 0..* services. At that point, the DB design is pretty straight forward and the architecture astronauts can come back down to earth. Hmmm, interesting. It has several modeling implications. For instance, the model was forcing a Person to be associated with a Provider, and it came up in an earlier discussion (about using the word Provider for independent developers and consultants) that this was an unnecessary constraint. And I think there is a difference between uses and supports that would need to be captured. Seriously though, I think that technically, you might be over thinking this. If you replace Package with Blog, Release with Post, Technology with Tag, Provider/Institution/Person with User, Keep Comment as Comment, and ignore Event for now It's just a simple collection of blogs with posts with tags and users that have roles and can leave comments. Possible, but I think simplifying it that far will make it hard to answer some of the target questions. The relationships (uses) are necessary to tease out peer institutions who are using the package of interest. Lastly, you may want to look into Drupal's project module. I think that's what they use to run their module directory. It seems like it would be a good starting point and may work out of the box. Cool -- thanks for the tip! It's a bold project. The library needs it and it's something no single institution would ever pay to have done, so I'm glad to see there is a grant for it. I appreciate that. I think so, too, and the external validation is useful. On Aug 9, 2011, at 2:21 PM, Jonathan Rochkind wrote: I agree with Brice think you might be over-thinking/over-architecting it, although over-thinking is one of my sins too and I'm not always sure how to get out of it. Oh, geez -- and as I was coming up with the draft I kept thinking of other entities for other features that would be useful, but put all of that off for possible later work. But am I correct that you're going to be relying on user-submitted content in large part? Then it's important to keep it simple, so it's easy for users to add content without having to go through a milliion steps and understand a complicated data model. If you can keep it simple in a way that is flexible (the 'tags' idea for instance), you also may find users using it in ways that you didn't anticipate, but which are still useful. It will be user-submitted content with a little oversight from a volunteer group of interested individuals. (The group would curate the various vocabularies, for instance -- this became a much lighter burden with the characteristics/features function removed.) I didn't include a tag function. Do you think it would be useful? With such a small set of entities I wasn't sure if it would be. On Aug 9, 2011, at 2:42 PM, Matt Jones wrote: As some points for comparison, you might look at two exisintg and similar systems for registering software... First, a software tools database that is maintained for the environmental sciences community: http://ebmtoolsdatabase.org/ An example of one of my tool entries in this system is here: http://ebmtoolsdatabase.org/tool/kepler-scientific-workflow-system-0 The system is easy to use, has some nice descriptions of the software, and is user-maintained. Maybe some of their use cases and yours overlap? I'm not sure which CMS they use, but I found it easy to edit entries myself. Cool! I'm still looking for more exemplars as points of comparison. EBMTools seems to be based on Drupal as well. It doesn't seem to be taking advantage of the built-in taxonomy structure; at least, there isn't a browse functionality beyond the alphabetical list. I'll need to take a deeper look. Second, the open source site Ohloh has some nice features for characterizing a project, such as languages used, licenses, etc. Here's the page for the same Kepler system in Ohloh: https://www.ohloh.net/p/kepler Ohloh is nice because much of its information is harvested directly from links to the open source code
Re: [CODE4LIB] Seeking feedback on database design for an open source software registry
On 10/08/11 09:45, Peter Murray wrote: Lastly, you may want to look into Drupal's project module. I think that's what they use to run their module directory. It seems like it would be a good starting point and may work out of the box. Cool -- thanks for the tip! You may also be interested in the (older?) work at http://projects.apache.org/ and http://trac.usefulinc.com/doap For example: http://projects.apache.org/projects/xindice.html / http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/xml/xindice/trunk/doap_Xindice.rdf Interoperability with RDF/DOAP lets you build on others work and lets others in turn pick your work over. At the very least if allows you to get suck in the latest and greatest releases automatically. Second, the open source site Ohloh has some nice features for characterizing a project, such as languages used, licenses, etc. Here's the page for the same Kepler system in Ohloh: https://www.ohloh.net/p/kepler Ohloh is nice because much of its information is harvested directly from links to the open source code repositories for the project, which allows it to show some nice trends in the software project's life. A colleague e-mailed me privately about Ohloh as well, and in particular the metrics function to tell how viable a project is. I haven't lookedat Ohloh yet to see if it is possible to call into its service to get themetrics for registered projects, but at the very least this kind of project activity statistics is an important point for considering an open source package and I'd like to find a way to get it into this registry. Ohloh is great. However it relies almost completely on metrics which are easily gamed by the technically competent. Use of these kinds of metrics in ways which encouraging gaming will only be productive in the short term, perhaps the very short term. For example: it's easy to set up dummy version control accounts and there can be good technical reasons for doing so. It's easy to set up a build/test suite to update a file in the version control after it's daily run and there can be good technical reasons for doing so. But doing these things can also transform a very-low activity single user project into a high-activity dual user project, in the eyes of ohloh. Turning on template-derived comments in the next big migration handles the is the code commented? metric. The more metrics are used, the more motivation there is to use tools (which admittedly have other motivations) which make a project look good. On Aug 7, 2011, at 4:10 PM, stuart yeates wrote: On 06/08/11 10:27, Peter Murray wrote: Well, we certainly don't want to get into a situation where we find it is turtles all of the way down. Am I right in parsing that as we have consciously decided to make the registry blind to the concept of visualisation. ? Given that visualisation is such a huge trend at the moment, good luck with that. Stuart -- I apologize for not fully understanding your point; I think we are talking past each other. I don't see how limiting the scope of the definition of Package to just library-related or library-specific entities makes a statement one way or another on visualization. General-purpose package modelling allows concepts such as virtualisation to be modelled using other package relationships. Library-specific package modelling requires visualisation (and by implication the next big development in that field) to be explicitly modelled. cheers stuart -- Stuart Yeates Library Technology Services http://www.victoria.ac.nz/library/
Re: [CODE4LIB] Seeking feedback on database design for an open source software registry
On Tue, Aug 9, 2011 at 3:50 PM, stuart yeates stuart.yea...@vuw.ac.nzwrote: ... Ohloh is great. However it relies almost completely on metrics which are easily gamed by the technically competent. Use of these kinds of metrics in ways which encouraging gaming will only be productive in the short term, perhaps the very short term. For example: it's easy to set up dummy version control accounts and there can be good technical reasons for doing so. It's easy to set up a build/test suite to update a file in the version control after it's daily run and there can be good technical reasons for doing so. But doing these things can also transform a very-low activity single user project into a high-activity dual user project, in the eyes of ohloh. Turning on template-derived comments in the next big migration handles the is the code commented? metric. The more metrics are used, the more motivation there is to use tools (which admittedly have other motivations) which make a project look good. I agree the ohloh metrics are easily gamed. What metrics do you recommend that can't be gamed but still provide a synopsis of the project for evaluation, comparison, and selection? I think there is some utility even though they can be gamed. The metrics are not a substitute for critical evaluation, but provide a nice synopsis as a jumping off point. For example, if I am interested in projects that have a demonstrable lifespan 5 years, and that have had more than 10 developers contribute, I can find that via these metrics. I can then assess for myself if any of the resulting projects are false positives (e.g., the commit log will give some idea of the types of commits made by each person). If you're concerned about the system being gamed via metrics, then you should also be concerned about user-submitted project descriptions. Projects have a tendency to over-generalize on what their software does, under-report defects, and generally paint a rosy picture. Will there be some sort of quality control/editing/verification of the claims made by submitters? Will it matter if some of the projects are described more generously than in reality? Won't the system still be useful even if they are? Matt
Re: [CODE4LIB] Seeking feedback on database design for an open source software registry
On 06/08/11 10:27, Peter Murray wrote: Well, we certainly don't want to get into a situation where we find it is turtles all of the way down. Am I right in parsing that as we have consciously decided to make the registry blind to the concept of visualisation. ? Given that visualisation is such a huge trend at the moment, good luck with that. cheers stuart -- Stuart Yeates Library Technology Services http://www.victoria.ac.nz/library/
Re: [CODE4LIB] Seeking feedback on database design for an open source software registry
On Aug 4, 2011, at 4:17 PM, stuart yeates wrote: On 04/08/11 13:09, Peter Murray wrote: Thanks for the reply, Stuart. With the first question, I've updated the diagram to add an Association entity. (Technically, I don't think this is an entity but rather a specialization of a relationship.) This is based off some great work I saw at the NITRC. Take a look at the Associations section of these page: http://www.nitrc.org/projects/fcon_1000/ http://www.nitrc.org/projects/fsl/ This fits the use case you describe and that of modules that would be a part of a Drupal installation or how djatoka can be a component of several different projects. Regarding the second question, I think of standards as a kind of technology. I've added standard to the list of enumerations at http://wiki.code4lib.org/index.php/Registry_E-R_Diagram So in your example, if a dspace / fedora run in a servlet container (which is a standard) which depends on Java (which is both a standard and a project) would you be expecting to break those out? If so, that's a lot of entities and your proposed mockups are going to have to be redone; If not, you can’t do proper dependency tracking. Well, we certainly don't want to get into a situation where we find it is turtles all of the way down. As the model is shaping up now, there is an important distinction between an Association and a Technology. An Association is a relationship between a Package and another Package and a Technology is an attribute of a Package. So the key is defining what a Package is to represent, which is some unit of open source software that is unique or specific in its implementation to libraries. (DSpace and Fedora are not necessarily specific and unique to libraries, but those two packages are highly visible in libraries and related communities.) Tomcat as a servlet container and Java as a programming language would be considered Technologies not Packages (since they are not unique and specific to libraries) and so would not have a relationship to other packages. Peter -- Peter Murray peter.mur...@lyrasis.orgtel:+1-678-235-2955 Ass't Director, Technology Services Development http://dltj.org/about/ LYRASIS --Great Libraries. Strong Communities. Innovative Answers. The Disruptive Library Technology Jesterhttp://dltj.org/ Attrib-Noncomm-Share http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/
Re: [CODE4LIB] Seeking feedback on database design for an open source software registry
Taken as a whole, the community and member surveys LYRASIS did a year ago found that open source software is still in early adoption. There are notable packages that are breaking out of that stage, but the the majority of survey responses said that libraries are seeking assistance with figuring out if and what software is right for them. Marshall's numbers do show an interesting up-tick in the adoption of open source, but I don't think we can call it a trend yet. The way the world looks from my vantage point is that there is still a lot of interest in open source and usefulness in a tool like the one being proposed. (I will concede to some bias on this point, though.) Peter On Aug 4, 2011, at 6:13 PM, BWS Johnson wrote: I am fascinated by this assertion. Perhaps I'm just misreading. The technology adaptation curve I remember from Rogers and Crossing the Chasm would break down to about a third of folks finding themselves in the early majority. Much fizzles between the Innovators and Early Adopters, and the same occurs again between the early adopters and the early majority. Are you really viewing all open source at the same point in the curve, namely still in early adoption? Even if one were to squint and apply the lens of Librarians being more conservative than average in terms of adopting new things (which I'm not sure is true profession wide) open source and Library Science at this point have a history. Koha is in its eleventh year. Dspace is 9ish. This listserv is cruising about its 8th. Evergreen is at least 5 years on, now. VuFind is 4ish years. There are certainly many more that belong on this list that slip my mind at present. When one considers Johnson's arguments on innovation contained in Where Good Ideas Come From (Less scholarly than Diffusion of Innovations, but every bit as valuable in my eyes) the diversity contained here parallels the explosion in the pace of innovation elsewhere. Marshall Breeding stated that This year SirsiDynix and Innovative Interfaces were especially hard struck by open source competitors. in this year's Automation Marketplace. I'd argue that if the development were pre chasm, it wouldn't eat the established competition's lunches like that. With all due respect, I would think that it would be fair to peg a large consortial entity or National Library at the right hand side of the curve. I think this ends up happening more often than not since there is a perception that if the wrong decisions were taken too early on, it would reflect poorly on a prestigious institution. Cheers, Brooke -- Peter Murray peter.mur...@lyrasis.orgtel:+1-678-235-2955 Ass't Director, Technology Services Development http://dltj.org/about/ LYRASIS --Great Libraries. Strong Communities. Innovative Answers. The Disruptive Library Technology Jesterhttp://dltj.org/ Attrib-Noncomm-Share http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/
Re: [CODE4LIB] Seeking feedback on database design for an open source software registry
On Aug 5, 2011, at 6:27 PM, Peter Murray wrote: Marshall's numbers do show an interesting up-tick in the adoption of open source, but I don't think we can call it a trend yet. The way the world looks from my vantage point is that there is still a lot of interest in open source and usefulness in a tool like the one being proposed. (I will concede to some bias on this point, though.) I concur. In this particular community (Code4Lib) open source is the norm, if not the expectation, but we are only 2,000 people out of tens of thousands. I think the majority of libraries do not possess the necessary personnel to support open source software. Similarly, I think there is a large number of existing library administrators who say, We tried that open source thing in the beginning of my career, but we called it 'home grown systems'. It didn't pan out then, it won't pan out now. I think there are still others who say things like, Writing and maintaining software is not our core business. Farming it out to commercial vendors, whether they use open source software or not, is financially the right thing to do. Finally, like most institutions, libraries are risk adverse places. I believe all of these factors contribute to the idea that open source software is still in the adoption phase. -- Eric Lease Morgan
Re: [CODE4LIB] Seeking feedback on database design for an open source software registry
Salvete! This is insightful, Eric. The thrust of our justification to the Mellon Foundation was to help take open source from early adopt to early majority (on Everett Roger's Diffusion of Innovations scale). So while early adopters will want to scratch an itch I don't think the same can be said for the early majority. There are certainly consultants and self starters among library staff that will move the pace of adoption along, but what we also heard in surveying LYRASIS members was that they needed a location to find information about open source software and tools that they could use to evaluate it along side corporate offerings. That is the gap that this work is trying to fill. I am fascinated by this assertion. Perhaps I'm just misreading. The technology adaptation curve I remember from Rogers and Crossing the Chasm would break down to about a third of folks finding themselves in the early majority. Much fizzles between the Innovators and Early Adopters, and the same occurs again between the early adopters and the early majority. Are you really viewing all open source at the same point in the curve, namely still in early adoption? Even if one were to squint and apply the lens of Librarians being more conservative than average in terms of adopting new things (which I'm not sure is true profession wide) open source and Library Science at this point have a history. Koha is in its eleventh year. Dspace is 9ish. This listserv is cruising about its 8th. Evergreen is at least 5 years on, now. VuFind is 4ish years. There are certainly many more that belong on this list that slip my mind at present. When one considers Johnson's arguments on innovation contained in Where Good Ideas Come From (Less scholarly than Diffusion of Innovations, but every bit as valuable in my eyes) the diversity contained here parallels the explosion in the pace of innovation elsewhere. Marshall Breeding stated that This year SirsiDynix and Innovative Interfaces were especially hard struck by open source competitors. in this year's Automation Marketplace. I'd argue that if the development were pre chasm, it wouldn't eat the established competition's lunches like that. With all due respect, I would think that it would be fair to peg a large consortial entity or National Library at the right hand side of the curve. I think this ends up happening more often than not since there is a perception that if the wrong decisions were taken too early on, it would reflect poorly on a prestigious institution. Cheers, Brooke
Re: [CODE4LIB] Seeking feedback on database design for an open source software registry
On Aug 1, 2011, at 4:22 PM, Peter Murray wrote: As part of the Mellon Foundation grant funding the start-up of LYRASIS Technology Services, LTS is to produce a series of tools that enable libraries to decide whether open source is right for their environments. I’ve put a page up on the Code4Lib wiki describing the kinds of tools that will initially fall into this area. After review by the LTS Advisory Panel and comments from the community, statements of work will be drafted for consultants to create these tools and the work will be let out for contract. The completed tools will be turned into web documents in the form of whitepapers, checklists, spreadsheets, etc., and published along with the open source software registry now under development. To encourage consultants to share their knowledge, we are considering allowing consultants to identify themselves in the text of the document (e.g. “Prepared for LYRASIS with funding from the 2011-2012 Mellon Foundation! Open Source Support Grant by name of consultant.”) With this background in mind, answers to these questions would be helpful: • Based on your experience and/or knowledge of open source software adoption, are there other tools or techniques that would be useful to document and make available? Peter, if I understand you correctly, your approach seems novel. Usually open source software developers have scratched their itch, made their software available to the world, and if so inclined, spent time and effort building a community around the software. Your approach seems RFP-like. Statements of work will be drafted by LTS. Developers (consultants) will respond, be selected, and contracted. Software will be created. -- Eric Lease Morgan
Re: [CODE4LIB] Seeking feedback on database design for an open source software registry
On 02/08/11 08:22, Peter Murray wrote: Colleagues -- please excuse the cross-posting; I've found the circle of people potentially interested in this was wider than I thought. As part of the Mellon Foundation grant funding the start-up of LYRASIS Technology Services, LTS is to produce a series of tools that enable libraries to decide whether open source is right for their environments. I’ve put a page up on the Code4Lib wiki (http://wiki.code4lib.org/index.php/Decision_Support_Tools) describing the kinds of tools that will initially fall into this area. After review by the LTS Advisory Panel and comments from the community, statements of work will be drafted for consultants to create these tools and the work will be let out for contract. The completed tools will be turned into web documents in the form of whitepapers, checklists, spreadsheets, etc., and published along with the open source software registry now under development. To encourage consultants to share their knowledge, we are considering allowing consultants to identify themselves in the text of the document (e.g. “Prepared for LYRASIS with funding from the 2011-2012 Mellon Found ation Open Source Support Grant by name of consultant.”) Two points: (1) The model seems appears not to capture Project A builds on Project B This will make the model less-than-optimal for comparing (for example) an open source Project A with an propriety Project B when B is a fork of A. (2) Standards. They appear not to be mentioned at all. cheers stuart -- Stuart Yeates Library Technology Services http://www.victoria.ac.nz/library/
Re: [CODE4LIB] Seeking feedback on database design for an open source software registry
Thanks for the reply, Stuart. With the first question, I've updated the diagram to add an Association entity. (Technically, I don't think this is an entity but rather a specialization of a relationship.) This is based off some great work I saw at the NITRC. Take a look at the Associations section of these page: http://www.nitrc.org/projects/fcon_1000/ http://www.nitrc.org/projects/fsl/ This fits the use case you describe and that of modules that would be a part of a Drupal installation or how djatoka can be a component of several different projects. Regarding the second question, I think of standards as a kind of technology. I've added standard to the list of enumerations at http://wiki.code4lib.org/index.php/Registry_E-R_Diagram Peter On Aug 3, 2011, at 7:06 PM, stuart yeates wrote: Two points: (1) The model seems appears not to capture Project A builds on Project B This will make the model less-than-optimal for comparing (for example) an open source Project A with an propriety Project B when B is a fork of A. (2) Standards. They appear not to be mentioned at all. cheers stuart -- Peter Murray peter.mur...@lyrasis.orgtel:+1-678-235-2955 Ass't Director, Technology Services Development http://dltj.org/about/ LYRASIS --Great Libraries. Strong Communities. Innovative Answers. The Disruptive Library Technology Jesterhttp://dltj.org/ Attrib-Noncomm-Share http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/
Re: [CODE4LIB] Seeking feedback on database design for an open source software registry
Ken -- Thanks for this info and for forwarding my initial message to the LIS-OSS mailing list. There does seem to be some overlap, and I need to study the great content on the wiki. On a similar note, if folks are aware of other efforts in other disciplines or areas of the world, I'd appreciate hearing about them. Peter On Jul 27, 2011, at 10:03 AM, Ken Chad wrote: The issue of building a community was also looked at in a JISC supported SCONUL project earlier this year that culminated in the 'Open Edge, Open source in libraries' event. It looks to me that what you are doing could be a great way to help move the agenda forward. The theme of the initiative was 'building capacity to help enable open source solutions to flourish in the HE library community'. After the event a (JISCMail) discussion list was set up lis-...@jiscmail.ac.uk. The outputs of the initiative and conference now form part of the SCONUL Higher Education Library Technology (HELibTech) wiki. This has a general page on open source http://helibtech.com/Open+Source and specific pages on 'community' http://helibtech.com/open+source+community and a very preliminary start at mapping various forms of 'capacity' (e.g. development expertise, expertise of licensing etc). http://helibtech.com/Open+Source+Capacity Ken CEO, Ken Chad Consulting Ltd Tel +44 (0)7788 727 845. Email: k...@kenchadconsulting.com www.kenchadconsulting.com Skype: kenchadconsulting Twitter: @KenChad Open Library Systems Specifications: http://libtechrfp.wikispaces.com -Original Message- From: Code for Libraries [mailto:CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU] On Behalf Of Peter Murray Sent: 18 July 2011 16:02 To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] Seeking feedback on database design for an open source software registry Nate -- Thanks for the pointer to NITRC. There are some good interface elements there that might be useful to emulate. I want to be clear that our grant mandate extends only to the FreshMeat registry functionality. Source code hosting is definitely out of scope for what we are doing. Building community will be hard, particularly because the intent of the registry isn't for just developers themselves but also for any library that is interested in applying open source solutions to their library needs. It doesn't mean that the library will be developing or running the software themselves (that is where the Provider entity comes in, and it is a point that distinguishes this registry from FreshMeat and NITRC). Peter On Jul 17, 2011, at 11:22 PM, Nate Vack wrote: On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 2:09 PM, Peter Murray peter.mur...@lyrasis.org wrote: On Jul 15, 2011, at 2:59 PM, Mike Taylor wrote: Isn't this pretty much what FreshMeat is for? http://freshmeat.net/ It is similar in concept to Freshmeat, but the scope is limited to library-oriented software (which might be too use-specific for Freshmeat and certainly harder to find among the vast expanse of non-library-oriented stuff). You might look at NITRC[1], which has tried very hard to do the same thing for neuroscience software in addition to providing project hosting like Sourceforge. They get funded by some federal grant thing[2]. Unfortunately, they've also found that the world wasn't really looking for a site to review and host a small subset of open-source projects, so their usage isn't high. They've convinced some projects to come live in their domain, so they seem to attract enough funding to stay online, but they've never succeeded in becoming much of a community. And the people who do neuroscience crowd is probably two orders of magnitude larger than the people who do open-source in libraries crowd -- so building a vibrant community will be even harder in this case. The real problem for me is that their site doesn't seem to warrant enough attention to really be made usable or stay up reliably. So if you want to get software that's hosted only by them, it can be really frustrating. It's like a crappy FreshMeat combined with a crappy, unreliable Sourceforge. My ultimate take: you can probably do something more interesting with your grant money than building a FreshMeat-alike. Either way, you might talk to the NITRC folks about their experiences -- Peter Murray peter.mur...@lyrasis.orgtel:+1-678-235-2955 Ass't Director, Technology Services Development http://dltj.org/about/ LYRASIS --Great Libraries. Strong Communities. Innovative Answers. The Disruptive Library Technology Jesterhttp://dltj.org/ Attrib-Noncomm-Share http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/
Re: [CODE4LIB] Seeking feedback on database design for an open source software registry
The issue of building a community was also looked at in a JISC supported SCONUL project earlier this year that culminated in the 'Open Edge, Open source in libraries' event. It looks to me that what you are doing could be a great way to help move the agenda forward. The theme of the initiative was 'building capacity to help enable open source solutions to flourish in the HE library community'. After the event a (JISCMail) discussion list was set up lis-...@jiscmail.ac.uk. The outputs of the initiative and conference now form part of the SCONUL Higher Education Library Technology (HELibTech) wiki. This has a general page on open source http://helibtech.com/Open+Source and specific pages on 'community' http://helibtech.com/open+source+community and a very preliminary start at mapping various forms of 'capacity' (e.g. development expertise, expertise of licensing etc). http://helibtech.com/Open+Source+Capacity Ken CEO, Ken Chad Consulting Ltd Tel +44 (0)7788 727 845. Email: k...@kenchadconsulting.com www.kenchadconsulting.com Skype: kenchadconsulting Twitter: @KenChad Open Library Systems Specifications: http://libtechrfp.wikispaces.com -Original Message- From: Code for Libraries [mailto:CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU] On Behalf Of Peter Murray Sent: 18 July 2011 16:02 To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] Seeking feedback on database design for an open source software registry Nate -- Thanks for the pointer to NITRC. There are some good interface elements there that might be useful to emulate. I want to be clear that our grant mandate extends only to the FreshMeat registry functionality. Source code hosting is definitely out of scope for what we are doing. Building community will be hard, particularly because the intent of the registry isn't for just developers themselves but also for any library that is interested in applying open source solutions to their library needs. It doesn't mean that the library will be developing or running the software themselves (that is where the Provider entity comes in, and it is a point that distinguishes this registry from FreshMeat and NITRC). Peter On Jul 17, 2011, at 11:22 PM, Nate Vack wrote: On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 2:09 PM, Peter Murray peter.mur...@lyrasis.org wrote: On Jul 15, 2011, at 2:59 PM, Mike Taylor wrote: Isn't this pretty much what FreshMeat is for? http://freshmeat.net/ It is similar in concept to Freshmeat, but the scope is limited to library-oriented software (which might be too use-specific for Freshmeat and certainly harder to find among the vast expanse of non-library-oriented stuff). You might look at NITRC[1], which has tried very hard to do the same thing for neuroscience software in addition to providing project hosting like Sourceforge. They get funded by some federal grant thing[2]. Unfortunately, they've also found that the world wasn't really looking for a site to review and host a small subset of open-source projects, so their usage isn't high. They've convinced some projects to come live in their domain, so they seem to attract enough funding to stay online, but they've never succeeded in becoming much of a community. And the people who do neuroscience crowd is probably two orders of magnitude larger than the people who do open-source in libraries crowd -- so building a vibrant community will be even harder in this case. The real problem for me is that their site doesn't seem to warrant enough attention to really be made usable or stay up reliably. So if you want to get software that's hosted only by them, it can be really frustrating. It's like a crappy FreshMeat combined with a crappy, unreliable Sourceforge. My ultimate take: you can probably do something more interesting with your grant money than building a FreshMeat-alike. Either way, you might talk to the NITRC folks about their experiences -- Peter Murray peter.mur...@lyrasis.orgtel:+1-678-235-2955 Ass't Director, Technology Services Development http://dltj.org/about/ LYRASIS --Great Libraries. Strong Communities. Innovative Answers. The Disruptive Library Technology Jesterhttp://dltj.org/ Attrib-Noncomm-Share http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/
Re: [CODE4LIB] Seeking feedback on database design for an open source software registry
Nate -- Thanks for the pointer to NITRC. There are some good interface elements there that might be useful to emulate. I want to be clear that our grant mandate extends only to the FreshMeat registry functionality. Source code hosting is definitely out of scope for what we are doing. Building community will be hard, particularly because the intent of the registry isn't for just developers themselves but also for any library that is interested in applying open source solutions to their library needs. It doesn't mean that the library will be developing or running the software themselves (that is where the Provider entity comes in, and it is a point that distinguishes this registry from FreshMeat and NITRC). Peter On Jul 17, 2011, at 11:22 PM, Nate Vack wrote: On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 2:09 PM, Peter Murray peter.mur...@lyrasis.org wrote: On Jul 15, 2011, at 2:59 PM, Mike Taylor wrote: Isn't this pretty much what FreshMeat is for? http://freshmeat.net/ It is similar in concept to Freshmeat, but the scope is limited to library-oriented software (which might be too use-specific for Freshmeat and certainly harder to find among the vast expanse of non-library-oriented stuff). You might look at NITRC[1], which has tried very hard to do the same thing for neuroscience software in addition to providing project hosting like Sourceforge. They get funded by some federal grant thing[2]. Unfortunately, they've also found that the world wasn't really looking for a site to review and host a small subset of open-source projects, so their usage isn't high. They've convinced some projects to come live in their domain, so they seem to attract enough funding to stay online, but they've never succeeded in becoming much of a community. And the people who do neuroscience crowd is probably two orders of magnitude larger than the people who do open-source in libraries crowd -- so building a vibrant community will be even harder in this case. The real problem for me is that their site doesn't seem to warrant enough attention to really be made usable or stay up reliably. So if you want to get software that's hosted only by them, it can be really frustrating. It's like a crappy FreshMeat combined with a crappy, unreliable Sourceforge. My ultimate take: you can probably do something more interesting with your grant money than building a FreshMeat-alike. Either way, you might talk to the NITRC folks about their experiences -- Peter Murray peter.mur...@lyrasis.orgtel:+1-678-235-2955 Ass't Director, Technology Services Development http://dltj.org/about/ LYRASIS --Great Libraries. Strong Communities. Innovative Answers. The Disruptive Library Technology Jesterhttp://dltj.org/ Attrib-Noncomm-Share http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/
Re: [CODE4LIB] Seeking feedback on database design for an open source software registry
On Jul 18, 2011, at 9:34 AM, Kevin S. Clarke wrote: You might also talk to the http://oss4lib.org/ folks to see what they did. I had some early conversations with Dan Chudnov about six months ago as early plans were being drawn up. I haven't reached out to Dan specifically with the latest message, and that is a good suggestion. Peter -- Peter Murray peter.mur...@lyrasis.orgtel:+1-678-235-2955 Ass't Director, Technology Services Development http://dltj.org/about/ LYRASIS --Great Libraries. Strong Communities. Innovative Answers. The Disruptive Library Technology Jesterhttp://dltj.org/ Attrib-Noncomm-Share http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/
Re: [CODE4LIB] Seeking feedback on database design for an open source software registry
On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 2:09 PM, Peter Murray peter.mur...@lyrasis.org wrote: On Jul 15, 2011, at 2:59 PM, Mike Taylor wrote: Isn't this pretty much what FreshMeat is for? http://freshmeat.net/ It is similar in concept to Freshmeat, but the scope is limited to library-oriented software (which might be too use-specific for Freshmeat and certainly harder to find among the vast expanse of non-library-oriented stuff). You might look at NITRC[1], which has tried very hard to do the same thing for neuroscience software in addition to providing project hosting like Sourceforge. They get funded by some federal grant thing[2]. Unfortunately, they've also found that the world wasn't really looking for a site to review and host a small subset of open-source projects, so their usage isn't high. They've convinced some projects to come live in their domain, so they seem to attract enough funding to stay online, but they've never succeeded in becoming much of a community. And the people who do neuroscience crowd is probably two orders of magnitude larger than the people who do open-source in libraries crowd -- so building a vibrant community will be even harder in this case. The real problem for me is that their site doesn't seem to warrant enough attention to really be made usable or stay up reliably. So if you want to get software that's hosted only by them, it can be really frustrating. It's like a crappy FreshMeat combined with a crappy, unreliable Sourceforge. My ultimate take: you can probably do something more interesting with your grant money than building a FreshMeat-alike. Either way, you might talk to the NITRC folks about their experiences -- I'm speaking as an end-user, not as one of their team. Cheers, -Nate 1: http://www.nitrc.org/ 2: The National Institutes of Health Blueprint for Neuroscience Research
Re: [CODE4LIB] Seeking feedback on database design for an open source software registry
Isn't this pretty much what FreshMeat is for? http://freshmeat.net/ -- Mike. On 15 July 2011 19:42, Peter Murray peter.mur...@lyrasis.org wrote: Colleagues -- As part of the Mellon Foundation grant funding the start-up of LYRASIS Technology Services, LTS is establishing a registry to provide in-depth comparative, evaluative, and version information about open source products. This registry will be free for viewing and editing (all libraries, not just LYRASIS members, and any provider offering services for open source software in libraries). Drupal will be the underlying content system, and it will be hosted by LYRASIS. I'm seeking input on a data model that is intended to answer these questions: • What open source options exist to meet a particular need of my library? • What are the strengths and weaknesses of an open source package? • My library has developers with skills in specific technologies. What open source packages mesh well with the skills my library has in-house? • Where can my library go to get training, documentation, hosting, and/or contract software development for a specific open source package? • Are any peers using this open source software? • Where is there more information about this open source software package? The E-R diagram and narrative surrounding it are on the Code4Lib wiki: http://wiki.code4lib.org/index.php/Registry_E-R_Diagram Comments on the data model can be made as changes to the wiki document, replies posted here, or e-mail sent directly to me. In addition to comments on the data model, I'm particularly interested in answers to these questions (also listed at the bottom of the wiki page): 1. The model does not provide for a relationship between a person and a software package. Would such a relationship be useful? E.g., individuals self-identifying as affiliated with an open source software package. 2. The initial planning process did not account for the inclusion of packages that were not themselves end products. Should code libraries and support programs be included as packages in the registry? The model could conceivably be adjusted in two ways to account for this. The simplest would only require the addition of new PackageType enumerations (e.g. “code library”); this would not allow for searching of packages that use code libraries (e.g., answering the question “What repositories use the djatoka JPEG2000 viewer system?”) Another simple change would be to add “code library” to the TechType enumeration; the code library would not have the benefit of links to other relationships and entities. A more complicated change would do both but there would be no relationship between the code library as a Package and as a Technology. Are there better ways to add code libraries to the model? 3. Some who have reviewed the concept for the registry suggested other attributes. Should these be added? (And what is missing?) • Package – Translations • Package – Intended audience (e.g. developers, patrons/desktop, patrons/web, library-staff/desktop, library-staff/web) • Version – Code maturity (e.g., alpha, beta, release candidate, formal release) 4. To answer the question “Are any peers using this open source software?” is it necessary to have an enumeration of library types? Public library, school library, university library, community college library, special library, museum (others?) 5. Is the location of Institutions and Providers desired? One reason it might be desirable is to do a geography-based search (e.g. training providers within a 60-mile radius). Feel free to add to the list of questions. I'm looking forward to your thoughts. Peter -- Peter Murray peter.mur...@lyrasis.org tel:+1-678-235-2955 Ass't Director, Technology Services Development http://dltj.org/about/ LYRASIS -- Great Libraries. Strong Communities. Innovative Answers. The Disruptive Library Technology Jester http://dltj.org/ Attrib-Noncomm-Share http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/
Re: [CODE4LIB] Seeking feedback on database design for an open source software registry
On Jul 15, 2011, at 2:59 PM, Mike Taylor wrote: Isn't this pretty much what FreshMeat is for? http://freshmeat.net/ It is similar in concept to Freshmeat, but the scope is limited to library-oriented software (which might be too use-specific for Freshmeat and certainly harder to find among the vast expanse of non-library-oriented stuff). Peter -- Peter Murray peter.mur...@lyrasis.orgtel:+1-678-235-2955 Ass't Director, Technology Services Development http://dltj.org/about/ LYRASIS --Great Libraries. Strong Communities. Innovative Answers. The Disruptive Library Technology Jesterhttp://dltj.org/ Attrib-Noncomm-Share http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/
