RE: lib-ir: statement for Leonardo Garcia Pabon

["JQ Johnson" <jqj@darkwing.uoregon.edu>]

This was an excellent effort.  It points to a lot of areas where we need to
reach a consensus before proceeding.

I'd recommend that in the opening sentence we not quite be in the "proposing
to set up" stage in our public pronouncements.  More like "exploring options
for creating".  And I think the bullet points should be framed as
possiblities rather than agreed policies, even though I do agree with most
of them.  So instead of "The archive would have" how about "The archive is
likely to have"?

I'd start with a bullet that more strongly makes the point that this
repository is for deposit of an author's OWN works, with a goal both of
preservation and of making the works more widely available to the scholarly
community.  I don't think the "authors select which materials" is strong
enough, though "authors select which of their own works" would be ok.

I'd definitely add under the examples a bullet for preprints and one for
supporting materials:
	o preprints and working papers
	o research materials supporting scholarly publications

I'd restructure the last bullet in the examples to re-emphasize publications
BY UO authors.  I don't think we're anticipating this archive as being
general-purpose, though we don't have details set yet.  How about replacing
the "any publication where" bullet with
	o works where copyright has been transferred but the copyright
	  holder permits the author to make the material freely available.

Or eliminate the last example bullet entirely and add a top-level bullet
such as:
   - The submittor is responsible for insuring that deposit does not violate
copyright or other relevant laws.

I don't think we have consensus on formats accepted in the pilot project.
For instance, I don't think I'd commit to archiving Word documents (though I
would probably commit to reformatting the Word as PDF and storing the PDF).
We will need to split format for acceptance from format for
storage/retrieval.

I don't agree that authors should be allowed to remove materials without
limit.  I think it would be adequate to allow removal of materials IF we
reserve the right to maintain a tombstone.

I don't think we're quite ready to commit to the notion of communities.

I think there are actually more than 2 freely available software options.

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-lib-ir@lists.uoregon.edu
[mailto:owner-lib-ir@lists.uoregon.edu]On Behalf Of Carol Hixson
Sent: Monday, April 28, 2003 8:54 AM
To: Institutional Repository Group
Subject: lib-ir: statement for Leonardo Garcia Pabon


I have been working on drafting a brief explanation of
what we're proposing that Garcia Pabon could share
with his colleagues. Attached is what I've come up with.
Before sending it on to him, I'd like to know if you think
this is accurate. I tried to write it in simple terms, avoiding
jargon. If there's anything that isn't clear or that you
think is wrong, please let me know.

Carol