AGAIN: sharing the data
Fri Sep 22 18:37:37 CEST 2006
Chris Puttick wrote:
> I would add some possibel controversy to that - the main repository for grant-funded work is at ADS (which is a chargeable service)- contracting units hold far more data, hence our intention to make our own holdings open and others in the UK market seem to be heading in a similar direction.
I should probably know the answer to this, but to what extent are
you obliged to produce the data on demand, if the work is
funded by government money?
> files are now best in ISO 26300 (Open Document Format)
one might disagree. holding text in what is simply standardized
format is not as useful as it might be.
> Metadata is in reality an open question. Dublin core plus some real basics (site location (name/lat,long), relevant historical periods, ?). After that, well, that's a long, heated discussion.
it is indeed :-} "relevant historical periods" is a nice wrapper for a
can of worms.
> I think it's important to remember that we preserve for social reasons, not for the specialists now. Bu then I'm not a specialist.
by "social", you mean "political" there?
but why do you collect data if _not_ to preserve? to
simply draw inferences from?
Information Manager, Oxford University Computing Services
13 Banbury Road, Oxford OX2 6NN. Phone +44 1865 283431
OSS Watch: JISC Open Source Advisory Service
More information about the Archaeology