Re: Cliff Lynch on Institutional Archives

From: Thomas Krichel <>
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 19:53:19 +0000

  Stevan Harnad writes

> Thomas gives exactly the correct answer to Chris!

  I didn't know this was a quiz :-)

> What is needed is institutional self-archiving, distributed across its
> departments interoperably, but customized to the different needs of the
> different disciplines.

  That is a tall order.

> (1) Institutions can mandate self-archiving, disciplines cannot.

  Cliff imagines that they can, but in practice, it will be tough.
  You can not put a KGB officer in every academic's office!

> (2) Most disciplines do not have disciplinary OAI Archives at all.

  Sure, but all have some ways to communicate informally, and many
  have innovative channels. Sure, many of them stay small, but
  there is not technical obstacle to a meaningful aggergation.

> (4) There are many other potential uses for institutional research
> archives (apart from open access).

  I agree. If I would run an institution's archive I would back
  up all the web sites each year. In 20 years time, you would get
  a fascinating picture of the development of the institution.

> (5) OAI-interoperability guarantees that institutional and disciplinary
> self-archiving are equivalent from the open-access point of view, but
> aggregating institutional packages out of distributed disciplinary
> OAI archives is harder (though it is not clear how much harder) than
> aggregating disciplinary packages out of distributed institutional
> OAI archives.

  no, it is easier to construct feature-rich datasets out of
  disciplinary archives, because some of them will be prepared
  with the specifics of an aggregator in mind.

  With greetings from Minsk, Belarus,

  Thomas Krichel
Received on Tue Mar 18 2003 - 19:53:19 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Dec 10 2010 - 19:46:55 GMT