On 27 Jan 2010, at 17:41, Mark H. Wood wrote: > Interesting. Much of the stuff they are pushing into IR+ is stuff I > would like to see pushed *out* of DSpace.
I completely agree. > On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 11:05:28AM +0100, Bram Luyten wrote [in part]: >> Elaborated user account settings >> >> - Multiple Email Addresses >> - Publication Name Management (especially useful when you get married >> during the course of your academic career) >> - An overview of accepted licences > > The last is properly part of DSpace, I think. The rest shouldn't be > part of any customer-facing product; those are functions of the > enterprise directory service (when there is one) and DSpace should > just ask the directory for what it needs when it is queried, returning > as many results as it got, and letting the directory make decisions > about who gets to see telephone numbers (for example). Those properties do make sense for a service that goes out and finds all the publications of a particular researcher. A service that has two useful outputs for a researcher - a publications list, and deposit of publications into a repository. Such a service should exist to researchers (and I'll note that some already do), and may be offered as part of the overall library ecosystem. But whilst it has an impact on the content of a repository, at no point does that functionality need to be built within the repository software - and nor should it. >> User Workspace >> >> - File and Folder Management >> - Share files with other users >> - Version management: upload new versions for files >> - File locks & Permission mechanism >> >> The implementation of User Workspaces gave me a very Google-Docs like >> feeling, but without the in-browser editors. Uploading & downloading files, >> and managing them locally on a PC could possibly be a show stopper here. But >> the version management, permission & locks and sharing system seem well >> implemented. > > Can't we find a well-made workflow system already existing, and fit it > in? (Or fit DSpace into it. Again, this is something that applies > across various repositories, not all of which will be DSpace.) Workspaces and workflows are different things! But I agree with the second part that the repository should integrate with a workspace system, and not the other way round. I like the comment "it's Google-Docs like, but without the in-browser editors". Yes, Google Docs is a fantastic, truly collaborative environment. Do we really think we can pretend to be Google Docs? Of course not, so why be a crap imitation, if we could just integrate with the real thing? Why should we be a place that people share transient document states, as well as somewhere that permanently preserves documents as they exist at the time? These aren't just logically conflicting ideas, dealing with documents in a state of flux has an impact on what we can reasonably achieve in preservation and dissemination. More importantly, why bother? Alfresco already does it open source, Sharepoint closed source. They are far more focussed in that space, integrating with office suites and providing collaboration. So let them get on with it - and automatically push the documents you want to preserve to the repository when you are ready. Let's benefit from so many people invested in solving those problems, and focus on our own. We'll achieve so much more by not trying to compete with them. G ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ The Planet: dedicated and managed hosting, cloud storage, colocation Stay online with enterprise data centers and the best network in the business Choose flexible plans and management services without long-term contracts Personal 24x7 support from experience hosting pros just a phone call away. http://p.sf.net/sfu/theplanet-com _______________________________________________ Dspace-general mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dspace-general
