On 29 Jul 2008, at 12:47, Talat Chaudhri [tac] wrote:
> When you say "reduces", doesn't SWORD quite simply eliminate such
> competition if implemented widely enough? That is, one could
> theoretically deposit simultaneously in multiple repositories,
> whether IR or CR or both. With an appropriate service, users could
> already be subscribed to these repositories, making it all seamless.
Perhaps I was just being conservative with my choice of words. There
is a level of complication that comes in the deployment of (wielding
of?) SWORD, and of keeping track of the multiple repositories that any
particular deposit might appear in, but in the end those are just
details rather than substantive problems.
> I know this depends on implementation, but SWORD is already with us,
> so please bear with me: the question that results from this
> inevitably is that this does seem to eliminate Stevan's difficulty
> with the locus of deposit. The requirement to deposit in a CR would
> no longer detract from deposit in an IR (because it would not
> require duplication of effort) or from efforts towards institutional
> mandates that can get us the rest of the content. Could this not at
> least help with Stevan's problem about the locus of deposit in the
> NIH mandate, if and when it is implemented appropriately?
If we can get agreement between the parties, and if we can map the
deposit requirements, then yes, I do see it as a solution to the locus
problem. I would suggest that the IR would then be the best place for
the initial deposit, simply because the library/repository editorial
role can be called into play more effectively.
--
Les
Received on Tue Jul 29 2008 - 15:42:30 BST