Stevan Harnad writes
> Hence my conclusion that distributed, interoperable OAI institutional
> archives are enough (and the fastest route to open-access). No need
> to harvest their contents into central OAI discipline-based archives
> (except perhaps for redundancy, as backup).
I agree.
B
Lee Miller writes
> The simplest way to aggregate papers within disciplines would be include a
> discipline field in the metadata. This gets back to the problems of subject
> classification, but at the discipline level a short list of defined
> discipline descriptors should be sufficient.
>
> Fo
On Sun, 16 Mar 2003, Lee Miller wrote:
>sh> our rewards (research
>sh> grant funding and overheads, salaries, postdocs and students attracted
>sh> to our research, prizes and honors) are intertwined and shared with our
>sh> institutions (our employers) and not our disciplines (which are often
>sh>
On Sun, Mar 16 Stevan Harnad wrote:
> > The primary sense of belonging
> > of a scholar in her research activities is with the disciplinary
> > community of which she thinks herself a part... It certainly
> > is not with the institution.
>
>That may or may not be the case, but in any case
On Sun, 16 Mar 2003, Margaret H. Freeman wrote:
> I'd like to ask Stevan Harnad what arrangements can be made for publishing
> faculty and independent scholars who don't have the kind of institutional
> connections like a major research university for making their work OAI
> accessible without hav
On Sun, 16 Mar 2003, Lee Miller wrote:
> The simplest way to aggregate papers within disciplines would be include a
> discipline field in the metadata.
I agree. And this confirms that "aggregation" is merely (1) a
metadata-based from of re-packaging and (2) need not re-package the
full-text but m
On Sat, 15 Mar 2003, David Goodman wrote:
>sh> What is the most pressing
>sh> reason for creating and filling institutional repositories at this
>sh> time? Cliff thinks it is to promote new forms of scholarship whereas
>sh> I think it is to promote refereed research. The new scholarship
>sh> is co
On Sun, 16 Mar 2003, Lee Miller wrote:
> Thomas Krichel wrote:
>
> > The primary sense of belonging
> > of a scholar in her research activities is with the disciplinary
> > community of which she thinks herself a part of. It certainly
> > is not with the institution. Therefore, if you wan
On Sat, 15 Mar 2003, Thomas Krichel wrote:
> Stevan Harnad writes:
>
>sh> There is no need -- in the age of OAI-interoperability -- for
>sh> institutional archives to "feed" central disciplinary archives:
>
> I do not share what I see as a blind faith in interoperability
> through a technic
Thomas Krichel wrote:
> The primary sense of belonging
> of a scholar in her research activities is with the disciplinary
> community of which she thinks herself a part of. It certainly
> is not with the institution. Therefore, if you want to fill
> institutional archives---which I agre
Stevan, It can perfectly well be for both, and the relatively value is
not yet determinable. . It is not appropriate to try to settle
questions like this by argumentation beforehand.
What is appropriate is for all those with ideas on how the new forms of
communication should be used, to go ahead a
Stevan Harnad writes
> There is no need -- in the age of OAI-interoperability -- for
> institutional archives to "feed" central disciplinary archives:
I do not share what I see as a blind faith in interoperability
through a technical protocol. The primary sense of belonging
of a scholar
12 matches
Mail list logo
