Skip to content

5 Comments

  1. Speaking from the trenches… institutional-repository deposits are OFTEN done on behalf of other people. In fact, that’s the substantial majority of ‘em to date, at least in the States. So, yes, mediated deposit is a big win.

    SWORD is amazing. I want it yesterday!

    Monday, July 16, 2007 at 9:42 am | Permalink
  2. Jonathan Rochkind wrote:

    “Perhaps there are cases (as the doc suggests) where a deposit is done for another user?”

    Where a mediating application is doing the deposit, and the mediating application does not have access to the user’s credentials (and should not for security purposes)?

    Tuesday, July 17, 2007 at 12:31 pm | Permalink
  3. Hi Ed, thanks for the positive comments about our project – good to see growing interest in APP, and SWORD, from the repositories community. To comment on your questions – there was a pretty strong use case for including mediated deposit – it does happen in practice. This could support either an authenticated ‘person’ depositing on behalf of someone else (say a repository manager on behalf of an author) or an authenticated or non-authenticated machine doing the same. Regarding collection lists, we don’t want to mandate against repositories doing this (or, indeed, against them supporting update and delete if they wish to) we just don’t have time to implement this in the context of our very small project. Your comments makes me wonder whether we should find time, though. If you get chance to do any implementation of the profile, I’d be really interested to hear how you got on.

    Friday, July 20, 2007 at 4:46 am | Permalink
  4. Yes, the main use-case for mediated deposit, is when a user is working in another environment, such as a Learning Management System (LMS), and chooses to make their materials available to others through a shared repository. The LMS system would make the deposit into the repository on behalf of the user, but it is important that the actual owner of the material is identified at the repository end. The user would either already have an account in the repository system itself, or it would be able to pull their details out of a shared directory of users, such as an LDAP server.

    Friday, July 20, 2007 at 6:43 am | Permalink
  5. Jim Downing wrote:

    Jonathan; that’s exactly the case we’re thinking of.

    Ed; the lack of collection listing basically comes down to the fact that there is no consensus between repo softwares on what a “collection” is. APP defines it in a way which is subtly different to each of the current repo platform implementations.

    Personally I’m hoping SWORD will encourage a move to more RESTful, web oriented interfaces in repository softwares that will mean a future SWORD spec can be closer to APP.

    Friday, July 20, 2007 at 9:23 am | Permalink

One Trackback/Pingback

  1. [...] APP and Repositories, Inkdroid, July 16, 2007. (Thanks to Charles Bailey.) Excerpt: Pete Johnston blogged recently about a very nice use of the Atom Publishing Protocol (APP) to provide digital library repository functionality. The project is supported by UKOLN at the University of Bath and is called Simple Web-service Offering Repository Deposit (SWORD). [...]

Post a Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.