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 want to fill
> > institutional archives---which I agree is the best long-run way
> > to enhance access and preservation to scholarly research---it
> > to institutional archive has to be accompanied by a discipline-based
> > aggregation process.
>
> I strongly agree.
>
> 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.
The 'ePrints UK' project is building 8 discipline-focused eprint discovery
services.
http://www.rdn.ac.uk/projects/eprints-uk/
However, our primary mechanism for partitioning eprints by discipline will
not be based on subject classification descriptors in the metadata.
Instead, we will harvest both the metadata and full-text (where available)
and pass these to an automatic subject-classification Web service being
developed for the project by OCLC as part of its metadata switch activity
http://www.oclc.org/research/projects/mswitch/index.shtm
The Web service will assign one or more Dewey terms to each eprint. These
will then be used to group eprints into one or more subject areas.
Regards,
Andy
--
Distributed Systems, UKOLN, University of Bath, Bath, BA2 7AY, UK
http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/ukoln/staff/a.powell +44 1225 383933
Resource Discovery Network http://www.rdn.ac.uk/
Received on Sun Mar 16 2003 - 12:05:21 GMT