I think there is some talking at cross purposes going on here. The
term `central repository' or CR is a misnomer and has led you astray,
because even so-called CRs are distributed repositories in the
context of global scholarly work. Better to talk about `subject
repository' or SR, to make it
You can repeat the IR mantra as many times as you like... it doesn't
make it true.
Despite who knows how much funding being pumped into IRs globally (can
anyone begin to put a figure on this, even in the UK?), most remain
largely unfilled and our only response is to say that funding bodies and
On Sat, 8 Mar 2008, Atanu Garai/Lists wrote:
with the emergence of
large digitisation projects, notably Google Books, the advantages of
having a centralised global databases are becoming obvious.
Google books is actively scanning books and paying for it. No OA CR is
doing that for OA content:
Just a suggestion: have a look at the website of Songza. It's a web
searcher that plays (I think) anything that is available on the web,
free, but not downloadable. It's an interesting form of open access
to which nobody could possibly object.
On Sun, 9 Mar 2008, Andy Powell wrote:
You can repeat the IR mantra as many times as you like... it doesn't
make it true.
I'd settle for a substantive reply to the substantive points, empirical
and logical (however repetitive they may be)...
Despite who knows how much funding being pumped
On Sun, 9 Mar 2008, R. Stephen Berry wrote:
Just a suggestion: have a look at the website of Songza. It's a web
searcher that plays (I think) anything that is available on the web,
free, but not downloadable. It's an interesting form of open access
to which nobody could possibly object.
On Sun, 9 Mar 2008, Ian Stuart wrote:
The cost to install a bog-standard EPrints or DSpace application, and pass
a
bylaw that says thou shalt deposit is dead easy.
There is a minimal cost (say 5% of a sysadmin's time)
Add to the bylaw: And the IR will henceforth be the sole source of all
