After that title, I hardly need to write a summary. Seriously, there's some pretty good thinking in this document, including some points worth repeating as frequently as necessary: "Disaggregation of components and support for repository, e-portfolio and ubiquitous informal systems is necessary; central units supporting monolithic systems are unlikely to have the flexibility to respond to future needs.... The bottom-up approach was proving to be very successful and indeed called into question the need for a single institutional-wide (or national) repository, as opposed to community based systems." And I think it would be helpful, too, to clearly distinguish between (a) providing a repository service to which people would contribute, and (b) enabling academics and others to create repositories for themselves. This distinction isn't clear in the document, and forms the basis for much of the disagreement, espacially as seen on page 5. Thanks to Seb Schmoller for the link. PDF.
Today: 0 Total: 1089 [Direct link] [Share]
