|
|
Andy McGregor
|
 Andy McGregor
Member since : Jun-09-2008 (Verified)
|
| Votes Cast |
32 |
| Comments Posted |
7 |
| Topics/Ideas Posted |
11 |
| Topics/Ideas Tracking |
7 |
| | |
|
Ideas/Topics Posted
|
|
Posted by a.mcgregor 06/20/2008 07:00 AM GMT+00:00 It is important to take account of user's workflows when defining a repository so it is not considered a system that is removed from the users daily routine.
|
|
|
Posted by a.mcgregor 06/20/2008 07:00 AM GMT+00:00 (i.e. emphasise benefits)
|
|
|
Posted by a.mcgregor 06/20/2008 07:00 AM GMT+00:00 Examples include content management systems, virtual research environments, CRIS etc
|
|
|
Posted by a.mcgregor 06/20/2008 07:00 AM GMT+00:00 Repository does not mean much to a researcher but it has a very specific meaning to a librarian. Therefore we need to make sure that there are definitions that can be tailored to specific audiences to ensure that messages are understood.
|
|
|
Posted by a.mcgregor 06/20/2008 07:00 AM GMT+00:00 Definition should not make assumptions as to implementation architecture i.e. whether deposited collection(s) held at institutional or network level
|
Comments Posted
|
Andy McGregor
07/17/2008
|
Sorry about this. I changed the categories of some posts and this meant that the comments got lost somehow. I have told the developers about this and they have identified the bug and a fix should be put into the production system tomorrow. Hopefully that should mean that comments will reappear.
|
|
a.mcgregor
07/14/2008
|
I agree with this but the term Web 2.0 covers a lot of ground. Is it worth being a bit more specific about what parts of web 2.0 are the most important?
e.g.
The network effect - concentrating users in one place and using that concentration of users to provide useful services.
Social networks around research outputs or learning objects - providing services that help academics manage the various social interactions around their content?
|
|
a.mcgregor
06/27/2008
|
I agree that trying to get a manageable number of HE wide workflows would be an impossible task. However there might be common points in a large number of workflows that repositories could hook into. Say for example, use of a CRIS, use of word, use of a windows file management system, use of reference management tools. Perhaps couching repositories in terms of these familiar processes would help with selling deposit to researchers?
|
|
a.mcgregor
06/27/2008
|
Maybe this is not a definiton issue but a communication issue. Rather than having separate definitions, maybe more advice on communicating to different audiences is required.
|
|
a.mcgregor
06/27/2008
|
What is the reason that CRIS are not common in the UK? I believe that they are far more common in other European countries.
I agree that deposit into repositories needs to be embedded into other systems where the users do their day to day work but I think that repositories should be flexible enough to hook into whatever systems exist locally rather than focusing on one system like a CRIS.
|
|
a.mcgregor
06/20/2008
|
I disagree entirely
|
|
a.mcgregor
06/18/2008
|
I think that the definition is still useful, but it would be better if the institutional focus could be removed from the definition.
|
Activity Stream
|
Vote Up
Vote Down
Close