 |
 |
I appreciate your input Kyle, thanks. If your discovery strategy is predicated on having your scholarly IR harvested and presented to the world through a separate discovery tool and the vast bulk of your document views are coming from Google and Google Scholar users, does this lessen the 'compelling experience' requirement? I take your point about a potential Maintenance headache further down the road, but would like to think this could be mitigated by appropriate design and planning. Peter PS: Anything I express here is purely my own sentiment. On 10 Apr 2015 18:55, "Kyle Banerjee" <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > There's a lot in this question, but just to get at one common practice that > doesn't make sense at first glance (namely operating multiple repositories) > -- that's because you need something that meets needs both at the ingest > and use end. > > There is a case for consolidation, but what delivers a compelling > experience for born digital documents, scanned texts, archival images, > datasets (many different kinds of these), etc. is very different. Adapting > a repository that does one of these things well to perform a completely > different task really well often sets you up for maintenance headaches that > are far worse than you'd have with multiple repositories even if > containerizing your solution or using the cloud makes life easier. BTW, I > don't think the cloud helps that much with the lock in issue as the > platform and the data supporting it are so interrelated. > > We're always looking at possibilities, but having just one repository is > not a realistic course of action for us right now. > > kyle > > On Fri, Apr 10, 2015 at 4:12 AM, Peter Corrigan < > [log in to unmask] > > wrote: > > > I'm interested in hearing the views of this list on long-term strategy > > concerning the software platform for Scholarly Open Access Institutional > > Repositories. In particular, I'm interested in how systems like DSpace, > > Eprints, etc. have facilities that are to a degree, provided by Fedora > > based solutions, e.g. IslandScholar. Why operate two repositories? As > > some of us migrate these systems to the cloud, is there a case for > > consolidation to reduce duplication of effort and, in particular, > > duplication of the substantial long-term costs involved. > > Is it the case that we set strategy concerning the scholarly IR platform > > circa 2008 and now cloud-migration provides an opportunity to escape > > inertial lock-in. Alternatively, is it the case that only a dedicated > > scholarly repository provides the features our users demand. Agree, > > disagree? I'd be grateful for your input. > > Thanks in advance, > > > > Peter Corrigan > > > > > > Peter Corrigan, > > Head of Organisational Development & Performance, > > James Hardiman Library, > > National University of Ireland, Galway. > > > > [log in to unmask] > > >