Skip to end of metadata
Go to start of metadata
You are viewing an old version of this page. View the current version.
Compare with Current
View Page History
« Previous
Version 8
Next »
Date
Attendees
David Walker
Alyssa Loera
Andrew Weiss -x
Curt Asher
Dana Ospina -x
Karen Schneider
Kevin Cloud -x
Renaldo Gjoshe -x
Tracy Elliott
Zach Vowell -x
Goals
Any questions or feedback for Dana and the external group
Review single-instance demo system
Reach decision on single vs. separate campus repositories
Discussion items
Time | Item | Who | Notes |
---|
10min | External group report | Dana | Heard back from nine consortia Hard to summarize as each consortia is different The platform is not the critical issue for determining success Governance, funding, staffing were bigger factors
|
40min | Single vs. separate campus repositories | David | Context: The need for multi-tenancy Single instance alternative – see demo. Pros: Simpler set-up, can focus limited resources on this one instance Uniform design, metadata, authentication Improved discovery More easily accommodate systemwide initiatives?
Cons Little flexibility for local metadata Little to no flexibility for branding, institutional identity Unknown scaling issues Unknown issues around third-party integrations if not all campuses participate Requires consensus on most decisions
Group is leaning toward single instance
|
| What to do with desire to use Hyrax for digital archives & collections? | David | |
| Secondary systems: Faculty profiles, open access publishing | David | |
Action items
Decisions