Hi Hilton,
Looking at their proposal I can see that as an institution we’ll be excluded
on at least 3 points, assuming that they meant to finish point 4 with “will be
excluded”.
4) Repositories using ports others than 80 or 8080
5) Institutional repositories that use the name of
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
Hi, there is more cause for concern than just the handle issue (which is
alarming enough), re-read the announcement:
http://repositories.webometrics.info/en/node/26
They intend to no longer rank repositories running on ports that are not
cleartext (80 or 8080) which, I'm sorry, is completely
Would it be possible for DuraSpace leadership to contact them to explain the
problems with their proposal? I agree that this seems only likely to diminish
the relevance of their rankings.
Sarah
Sarah L. Shreeves
IDEALS Coordinator – http://ideals.illinois.edu/
Scholarly Commons Co-Coordinator
Sarah (et al) -
Yes, DuraSpace will respond to the Cybermetrics Lab to explain the problems
with this proposal.
-Jonathan
On Tue, Sep 2, 2014 at 10:39 AM,
dspace-general-requ...@lists.sourceforge.net wrote:
Send Dspace-general mailing list submissions to
This odd collection of guidelines makes Webometrics lose credibility in my
book.
i.e. Google / Google Scholar indexing guidelines is all anyone should be
paying attention to.
Regarding #5 (software name in hostname). Should MIT be reconsidering the
use of dspace.mit.edu ?? They have a very good
Hi, Brian. The EFF.org free https-everywhere plugin probably has an answer to
your question.
https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
But, the gist of it is, in some situations, merely reading the content of the
traffic is the desired attack vector. Though, realistically, if there's a
strong
Hi All,
Thanks for the notifications here great analysis!
DuraSpace is tracking all these points/analysis and we've come up with a
few additional ones (see below). I fully agree that the newly proposed
Webometrics standards are not ideal as they will accidentally exclude a
large portion of
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 concerning for the future of repositories. As my email address
is clearly stated in the webpage I do not understand why you decided
Hi All
As meat for further constructive debate, I would like to submit our
rationalisations for the selection of our URL.
http://wiki.lib.sun.ac.za/index.php/SUNScholar/Guidelines/Step_2 (Step 2 -
Marketing Friendly (Vanity URL), Persistent URL and Preservable Digital
Objects)
Regards
Hilton
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
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
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,
13 matches
Mail list logo
