Comments on: A minor response to Repositories thru the looking glass http://blog.paulwalk.net/2008/02/14/a-minor-response-to-repositories-thru-the-looking-glass/ Thu, 21 Aug 2008 23:45:15 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6 By: Steve Hitchcock http://blog.paulwalk.net/2008/02/14/a-minor-response-to-repositories-thru-the-looking-glass/#comment-772 Steve Hitchcock Tue, 04 Mar 2008 18:55:00 +0000 http://blog.paulwalk.net/2008/02/14/a-minor-response-to-repositories-thru-the-looking-glass/#comment-772 I agree with much of your case, but it falls short on the history of repository software and its original focus on OA. > I think it is interesting that it might be considered to be open-access which has skewed the development of repository software in some respects - the community has largely started from scratch, building repository software, where it might have made more sense to simply adapt what was there. EPrints was announced in 2000 and formally launched at the announcement of OAI 1.0 in 2001, and represented the first software for broad IR purposes. Its origins were in Ginsparg's arXiv software, but it evolved some way from that via the Cogprints project. What are you suggesting it should have been based on at that time? Perhaps we should all have used a CMS (I'm not sure what was available in 2000), but the difference is like that between del.icio.us and Connotea - one is designed for general use and the other for scholarly purpose and detail. The OAI model was predicated on two earlier subject-based approaches - RePEc and NCSTRL. Going forward, DSpace followed in 2002, written by the original developer of EPrints. Fedora was around prior to EPrints - in fact it was being used in the JISC OpCit project that produced EPrints - but was only repurposed as repository software when it was picked up from Cornell by Virginia Tech, like much of the other repository software promoted by DL systems suppliers which saw the growth in this market from 2004. There has been a lot of adapting going on, and much of it started with EPrints. EPrints was designed specifically to promote (what later became formally known as) open access. Stevan Harnad wasn't just urging open access, he was giving institutions the tool to do it. So how has that 'skewed' the development of repository software? If anything, it is the objectives of many that have followed that have skewed repositories. There is no problem with repositories having other objectives, providing there is one. As I said in my response to Andy's blog, where is the objective in this cross-blog debate about the future of repositories? The brief history is by way of showing there has been at least one common objective throughout - OA - and it is still widely shared and strong. I agree with much of your case, but it falls short on the history of repository software and its original focus on OA.

> I think it is interesting that it might be considered to be open-access which has skewed the development of repository software in some respects - the community has largely started from scratch, building repository software, where it might have made more sense to simply adapt what was there.

EPrints was announced in 2000 and formally launched at the announcement of OAI 1.0 in 2001, and represented the first software for broad IR purposes. Its origins were in Ginsparg’s arXiv software, but it evolved some way from that via the Cogprints project. What are you suggesting it should have been based on at that time?

Perhaps we should all have used a CMS (I’m not sure what was available in 2000), but the difference is like that between del.icio.us and Connotea - one is designed for general use and the other for scholarly purpose and detail.

The OAI model was predicated on two earlier subject-based approaches - RePEc and NCSTRL. Going forward, DSpace followed in 2002, written by the original developer of EPrints. Fedora was around prior to EPrints - in fact it was being used in the JISC OpCit project that produced EPrints - but was only repurposed as repository software when it was picked up from Cornell by Virginia Tech, like much of the other repository software promoted by DL systems suppliers which saw the growth in this market from 2004. There has been a lot of adapting going on, and much of it started with EPrints.

EPrints was designed specifically to promote (what later became formally known as) open access. Stevan Harnad wasn’t just urging open access, he was giving institutions the tool to do it. So how has that ’skewed’ the development of repository software? If anything, it is the objectives of many that have followed that have skewed repositories.

There is no problem with repositories having other objectives, providing there is one. As I said in my response to Andy’s blog, where is the objective in this cross-blog debate about the future of repositories? The brief history is by way of showing there has been at least one common objective throughout - OA - and it is still widely shared and strong.

]]> By: Phil Wilson http://blog.paulwalk.net/2008/02/14/a-minor-response-to-repositories-thru-the-looking-glass/#comment-765 Phil Wilson Wed, 27 Feb 2008 22:44:27 +0000 http://blog.paulwalk.net/2008/02/14/a-minor-response-to-repositories-thru-the-looking-glass/#comment-765 haha! Last time I looked the Deposit API was still in the "evaluating all possibilities stage". I think I met with Julie or Rachel and recommended AtomPub ;) I'm glad that's what they went for in the end, although I'm not convinced by all of the extensions; but then again, I don't believe in metadata either ;) haha! Last time I looked the Deposit API was still in the “evaluating all possibilities stage”. I think I met with Julie or Rachel and recommended AtomPub ;)

I’m glad that’s what they went for in the end, although I’m not convinced by all of the extensions; but then again, I don’t believe in metadata either ;)

]]> By: paul http://blog.paulwalk.net/2008/02/14/a-minor-response-to-repositories-thru-the-looking-glass/#comment-764 paul Wed, 27 Feb 2008 22:07:44 +0000 http://blog.paulwalk.net/2008/02/14/a-minor-response-to-repositories-thru-the-looking-glass/#comment-764 Yes - and funny you should mention AtomPub - it was very much a topic of discussion at the CRIG event. Note the JISC funded <a href="http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/repositories/digirep/index/SWORD" rel="nofollow">SWORD</a> project, based on a profile of AtomPub Yes - and funny you should mention AtomPub - it was very much a topic of discussion at the CRIG event. Note the JISC funded SWORD project, based on a profile of AtomPub

]]> By: Phil Wilson http://blog.paulwalk.net/2008/02/14/a-minor-response-to-repositories-thru-the-looking-glass/#comment-762 Phil Wilson Wed, 27 Feb 2008 15:37:45 +0000 http://blog.paulwalk.net/2008/02/14/a-minor-response-to-repositories-thru-the-looking-glass/#comment-762 Did it add any more than, for example, applying the AtomPub rules might? I'd like to refer to http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/library/x-atommedia/ at this point :) Did it add any more than, for example, applying the AtomPub rules might?

I’d like to refer to http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/library/x-atommedia/ at this point :)

]]> By: ??? > OLDaily ??? » Blog Archive » 2008?2?19????????????????Google?Newspond????? http://blog.paulwalk.net/2008/02/14/a-minor-response-to-repositories-thru-the-looking-glass/#comment-749 ??? > OLDaily ??? » Blog Archive » 2008?2?19????????????????Google?Newspond????? Mon, 25 Feb 2008 09:15:14 +0000 http://blog.paulwalk.net/2008/02/14/a-minor-response-to-repositories-thru-the-looking-glass/#comment-749 [...] ??????????  ?????????????????????“???????????????????????????????”?????????Brian Kelly???Panlibus??????Andy Powell?“……???‘??’?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????”???????????Paul Walk????????????“??????????e-Framework???????????????????2.0-???REST???????????????????”Brian Kelly ????????,??????????????Brian Kelly, UK Web Focus February 19, 2008 [Link] [Tags: Networks, Web 2.0, Learning Object Repositories] [Comment] [...] [...] ??????????  ?????????????????????“???????????????????????????????”?????????Brian Kelly???Panlibus??????Andy Powell?“……???‘??’?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????”???????????Paul Walk????????????“??????????e-Framework???????????????????2.0-???REST???????????????????”Brian Kelly ????????,??????????????Brian Kelly, UK Web Focus February 19, 2008 [Link] [Tags: Networks, Web 2.0, Learning Object Repositories] [Comment] [...]

]]> By: Unilever Centre for Molecular Informatics, Cambridge - Jim Downing » Blog Archive » Fielding Has A Repositories Posse http://blog.paulwalk.net/2008/02/14/a-minor-response-to-repositories-thru-the-looking-glass/#comment-740 Unilever Centre for Molecular Informatics, Cambridge - Jim Downing » Blog Archive » Fielding Has A Repositories Posse Tue, 19 Feb 2008 12:02:35 +0000 http://blog.paulwalk.net/2008/02/14/a-minor-response-to-repositories-thru-the-looking-glass/#comment-740 [...] RESTful repository discussion in the wake of Andy Powell’s keynote at VALA (responses a, b, c, [...] [...] RESTful repository discussion in the wake of Andy Powell’s keynote at VALA (responses a, b, c, [...]

]]> By: Distributed Discussions On Repositories « UK Web Focus http://blog.paulwalk.net/2008/02/14/a-minor-response-to-repositories-thru-the-looking-glass/#comment-738 Distributed Discussions On Repositories « UK Web Focus Tue, 19 Feb 2008 06:04:06 +0000 http://blog.paulwalk.net/2008/02/14/a-minor-response-to-repositories-thru-the-looking-glass/#comment-738 [...] on his blog my colleague Paul Walk has given his thoughts on Andy’s post expressing agreement in several areas but disagreeing with Andy’s view [...] [...] on his blog my colleague Paul Walk has given his thoughts on Andy’s post expressing agreement in several areas but disagreeing with Andy’s view [...]

]]> By: paul http://blog.paulwalk.net/2008/02/14/a-minor-response-to-repositories-thru-the-looking-glass/#comment-732 paul Sat, 16 Feb 2008 18:46:43 +0000 http://blog.paulwalk.net/2008/02/14/a-minor-response-to-repositories-thru-the-looking-glass/#comment-732 I guess Representational State Transfer ought to be 'ReST', or even 'RST' but as Fielding himself uses 'REST' then I take your point! Of course there's strict REST and there's the looser notion of RESTful. The CRIG workshop was exploring the application of strict REST to repositories and, as such, was really interesting. While the Web itself is vaguely RESTful (it's made up of HTTP and addressed resources, many web applications are not.... I guess Representational State Transfer ought to be ‘ReST’, or even ‘RST’ but as Fielding himself uses ‘REST’ then I take your point!
Of course there’s strict REST and there’s the looser notion of RESTful. The CRIG workshop was exploring the application of strict REST to repositories and, as such, was really interesting.

While the Web itself is vaguely RESTful (it’s made up of HTTP and addressed resources, many web applications are not….

]]> By: Phil Wilson http://blog.paulwalk.net/2008/02/14/a-minor-response-to-repositories-thru-the-looking-glass/#comment-731 Phil Wilson Sat, 16 Feb 2008 17:31:23 +0000 http://blog.paulwalk.net/2008/02/14/a-minor-response-to-repositories-thru-the-looking-glass/#comment-731 Unless it's a different acronym, it's REST, not ReST (which I think is the ReStructured Text markup). "the community has largely started from scratch" and it's complete madness. To even need a "workshop devoted to exploring the relevance of ReST to repositories" !!! I mean, REST is how *the web* works. If it's not baked in from the start, what chance do you stand? On the note of wikipedia in search rankings, it's important to recognise things like stable URIs, internal linking, massive incoming links etc. all contribute hugely. Unless it’s a different acronym, it’s REST, not ReST (which I think is the ReStructured Text markup).

“the community has largely started from scratch”

and it’s complete madness. To even need a “workshop devoted to exploring the relevance of ReST to repositories” !!! I mean, REST is how *the web* works. If it’s not baked in from the start, what chance do you stand?

On the note of wikipedia in search rankings, it’s important to recognise things like stable URIs, internal linking, massive incoming links etc. all contribute hugely.

]]> By: Pete Johnston http://blog.paulwalk.net/2008/02/14/a-minor-response-to-repositories-thru-the-looking-glass/#comment-728 Pete Johnston Thu, 14 Feb 2008 12:33:22 +0000 http://blog.paulwalk.net/2008/02/14/a-minor-response-to-repositories-thru-the-looking-glass/#comment-728 Just on the point about the eFramework, and "business-level" SOA v "technical" SOA, I found this post http://www.innoq.com/blog/st/2007/09/27/faq_entry_whats_this_rest_vs_soa_debate_about.html and this presentation http://www.parleys.com/display/PARLEYS/The+State+of+REST+vs.+SOA both by Stefan Tilkov quite helpful. Just on the point about the eFramework, and “business-level” SOA v “technical” SOA, I found this post

http://www.innoq.com/blog/st/2007/09/27/faq_entry_whats_this_rest_vs_soa_debate_about.html

and this presentation

http://www.parleys.com/display/PARLEYS/The+State+of+REST+vs.+SOA

both by Stefan Tilkov quite helpful.

]]>