<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: INFORMAL comparison of some institutional repository solutions</title>
	<atom:link href="http://metalogger.wordpress.com/2008/10/19/comparing-some-institutional-repository-solutions/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://metalogger.wordpress.com/2008/10/19/comparing-some-institutional-repository-solutions/</link>
	<description>Neil Godfrey's passing thoughts and queries as a Metadata Specialist (RUBRIC), Repository Coordinator (Murdoch University), and Principal Librarian (Singapore National Library Board)</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 30 Sep 2009 08:26:21 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: neilgodfrey</title>
		<link>http://metalogger.wordpress.com/2008/10/19/comparing-some-institutional-repository-solutions/#comment-2099</link>
		<dc:creator>neilgodfrey</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 21 Nov 2008 02:21:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://metalogger.wordpress.com/?p=279#comment-2099</guid>
		<description>Having attempted a few times on http://techessence.info/node/104 to register to add a comment, without success, to Roy Tennant&#039;s referral to my repository comparison, I am left to make one comment here. 

Roy rightly comments that the picture is bigger than I have indicated here (my blog comparison is in fact a much abbreviated and highly edited report I wrote for another institution to assist them to investigate one specific issue), but I would suggest that his illustration of Digital Commons extra capabilities vis a vis DSpace is one example of many factors that seem to me to cloud decision making among some institutions. 

A peer view/publishing system no doubt will serve the interests of many universities, and anything that can save academics or their support staff quantities of keyboard and mouse clicks to process their publishing and reporting and other administrative work is a good thing. 

But a scholarly publishing workflow system does not have to be the preserve of a single enterprise solution. One example from Australia: the Integrated Content Environment for Research and Scholarship (ICE-RS) is a Federal Government funded project to create a collaborative authoring and publishing (cum repository deposit!) tool that is open-source, and capable of integration with repository systems. But it does not handle peer-review.

Moreover, the same number of clicks for authors can be reduced for repository ingest purposes where there can be collaboration and integration with a university&#039;s research office and reporting system. Some universities have been able to have current papers (including preprints) deposited in their repositories directly from a research system. Murdoch University is engaged in establishing such a workflow between their IRMA research system and VITAL repository. The University of Sydney has a similar arrangement in production between IRMA and their DSpace repository.

Further, Roy&#039;s allusion to the &quot;highly popular DSpace&quot; repositories may be seen as further testimony to the success and sustainability of open-source solutions in a world of highly competitive and highly expensive enterprise products.



&lt;blockquote&gt;M&lt;strong&gt;ore on ICE-RS:&lt;/strong&gt;

&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.dest.gov.au/Ministers/Media/Bishop/2006/07/B001310706.asp&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Australian govt archive news release&lt;/a&gt;

&lt;a href=&quot;http://adlaustralia.org/idea2006/presentations/ice-presentation/ice.slide.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Slide presentation&lt;/a&gt;

&lt;a href=&quot;http://ice.usq.edu.au/introduction/about.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;ICE: Integrated Content Management&lt;/a&gt;

&lt;a href=&quot;http://eprints.usq.edu.au/2653/1/Sefton_etd_2007.pdf&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Integrated approach to preparing, publishing, presenting and preserving theses&lt;/a&gt;

&lt;a href=&quot;http://ask-oss.mq.edu.au/index.php?option=com_content&amp;task=view&amp;id=42&amp;Itemid=69&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;ASK-OSS post -- courseware publishing system&lt;/a&gt;

&lt;a href=&quot;http://ptsefton.com/blog/2007/08/10/09-25-10.681066/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Why ICE works&lt;/a&gt;

&lt;a href=&quot;http://ice.usq.edu.au/blog/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;ICE developers blog&lt;/a&gt;

More on Dr Peter Sefton&#039;s &lt;a href=&quot;http://ptsefton.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;blog&lt;/a&gt;

&lt;/blockquote&gt;

</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Having attempted a few times on <a href="http://techessence.info/node/104" rel="nofollow">http://techessence.info/node/104</a> to register to add a comment, without success, to Roy Tennant&#8217;s referral to my repository comparison, I am left to make one comment here. </p>
<p>Roy rightly comments that the picture is bigger than I have indicated here (my blog comparison is in fact a much abbreviated and highly edited report I wrote for another institution to assist them to investigate one specific issue), but I would suggest that his illustration of Digital Commons extra capabilities vis a vis DSpace is one example of many factors that seem to me to cloud decision making among some institutions. </p>
<p>A peer view/publishing system no doubt will serve the interests of many universities, and anything that can save academics or their support staff quantities of keyboard and mouse clicks to process their publishing and reporting and other administrative work is a good thing. </p>
<p>But a scholarly publishing workflow system does not have to be the preserve of a single enterprise solution. One example from Australia: the Integrated Content Environment for Research and Scholarship (ICE-RS) is a Federal Government funded project to create a collaborative authoring and publishing (cum repository deposit!) tool that is open-source, and capable of integration with repository systems. But it does not handle peer-review.</p>
<p>Moreover, the same number of clicks for authors can be reduced for repository ingest purposes where there can be collaboration and integration with a university&#8217;s research office and reporting system. Some universities have been able to have current papers (including preprints) deposited in their repositories directly from a research system. Murdoch University is engaged in establishing such a workflow between their IRMA research system and VITAL repository. The University of Sydney has a similar arrangement in production between IRMA and their DSpace repository.</p>
<p>Further, Roy&#8217;s allusion to the &#8220;highly popular DSpace&#8221; repositories may be seen as further testimony to the success and sustainability of open-source solutions in a world of highly competitive and highly expensive enterprise products.</p>
<blockquote><p>M<strong>ore on ICE-RS:</strong></p>
<p><a href="http://www.dest.gov.au/Ministers/Media/Bishop/2006/07/B001310706.asp" rel="nofollow">Australian govt archive news release</a></p>
<p><a href="http://adlaustralia.org/idea2006/presentations/ice-presentation/ice.slide.htm" rel="nofollow">Slide presentation</a></p>
<p><a href="http://ice.usq.edu.au/introduction/about.htm" rel="nofollow">ICE: Integrated Content Management</a></p>
<p><a href="http://eprints.usq.edu.au/2653/1/Sefton_etd_2007.pdf" rel="nofollow">Integrated approach to preparing, publishing, presenting and preserving theses</a></p>
<p><a href="http://ask-oss.mq.edu.au/index.php?option=com_content&amp;task=view&amp;id=42&amp;Itemid=69" rel="nofollow">ASK-OSS post &#8212; courseware publishing system</a></p>
<p><a href="http://ptsefton.com/blog/2007/08/10/09-25-10.681066/" rel="nofollow">Why ICE works</a></p>
<p><a href="http://ice.usq.edu.au/blog/" rel="nofollow">ICE developers blog</a></p>
<p>More on Dr Peter Sefton&#8217;s <a href="http://ptsefton.com/" rel="nofollow">blog</a></p>
</blockquote>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: neilgodfrey</title>
		<link>http://metalogger.wordpress.com/2008/10/19/comparing-some-institutional-repository-solutions/#comment-2077</link>
		<dc:creator>neilgodfrey</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 20 Oct 2008 23:55:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://metalogger.wordpress.com/?p=279#comment-2077</guid>
		<description>Updated this post 21st October following further feedback on the statistics function in VITAL.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Updated this post 21st October following further feedback on the statistics function in VITAL.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: neilgodfrey</title>
		<link>http://metalogger.wordpress.com/2008/10/19/comparing-some-institutional-repository-solutions/#comment-2075</link>
		<dc:creator>neilgodfrey</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 19 Oct 2008 23:28:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://metalogger.wordpress.com/?p=279#comment-2075</guid>
		<description>I should add that University of Southern Queensland Repository Services (USQ-RS), mutated from the RUBRIC Project, has contracted with other universities to build and configure a repository of their choice (e.g. EPrints) and arranged to have it hosted off-site (e.g. Southampton) for basic contract and site-rental costs. So even if a repository listed above is not normally a hosted solution, it may be possible for a university with very limited local IT support to still have a conveniently hosted service.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I should add that University of Southern Queensland Repository Services (USQ-RS), mutated from the RUBRIC Project, has contracted with other universities to build and configure a repository of their choice (e.g. EPrints) and arranged to have it hosted off-site (e.g. Southampton) for basic contract and site-rental costs. So even if a repository listed above is not normally a hosted solution, it may be possible for a university with very limited local IT support to still have a conveniently hosted service.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Comparison of functionality and support for institutional repository software &#124; Libraries Interact</title>
		<link>http://metalogger.wordpress.com/2008/10/19/comparing-some-institutional-repository-solutions/#comment-2074</link>
		<dc:creator>Comparison of functionality and support for institutional repository software &#124; Libraries Interact</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 19 Oct 2008 12:59:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://metalogger.wordpress.com/?p=279#comment-2074</guid>
		<description>[...] has made a detailed comparison of support and functionality for institutional repository solutions,INFORMAL comparison of some institutional repository solutions. It is a great starting point for anyone setting up a repository or wondering whether there is a [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] has made a detailed comparison of support and functionality for institutional repository solutions,INFORMAL comparison of some institutional repository solutions. It is a great starting point for anyone setting up a repository or wondering whether there is a [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
