1 / 6

A framework for thinking about mechanisms

A framework for thinking about mechanisms. Range of possible implementation mechanisms Some criteria for assessing various mechanisms Holding tank description Applying criteria for assessment to the holding tank (2 slides). Possible Mechanisms for Improving Quality by Resource Lifecycle.

zizi
Download Presentation

A framework for thinking about mechanisms

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. A framework for thinking about mechanisms • Range of possible implementation mechanisms • Some criteria for assessing various mechanisms • Holding tank description • Applying criteria for assessment to the holding tank (2 slides)

  2. Possible Mechanisms for Improving Quality by Resource Lifecycle • More focused selection criteria: from filter to guidelines • Co-development of collections with user communities • Development of thematic collections; responsibility, ownership, persistence • Pre-cataloging review of ‘gray’ cases • Encapsulation of context at design times: wrap questionable in content guiding use • QA of resources in Broad Collection • Review board for marginal cases • Holding Tank • Annotation services / Peer reviewing • De-accessioning request form

  3. Some Criteria for Assessing Mechanisms (in random order) • Technical implementation • Social implementation • Community Participation: opportunities for versus required to be successful • Cataloging and QA Cost • Maintenance Cost • Scalability • Preserving annotations during harvesting • Proactively supports collection development • Helps to create a collection that follows the selection criteria

  4. Holding Tank Description • Post-cataloging • Provisional accessioning (30 days) • What’s new area • Available, but flagged, in discovery • No comments – automatic ingestion • Comments – someone has to review and pass a verdict

  5. Applying Criteria to Holding Tank • Technical Implementation • Basic technical substrate is being implemented to support “what’s new” in CRS • Social Implementation • Issues with asking collections (including NSDL- funded collections) to internalize DLESE rejections to support reharvesting • How are holding tank reviewers mobilized to respond to new resources • Registration • Commenting • How are comments assessed and by whom?

  6. Applying Criteria to Holding Tank (part 2) • Full cataloging and QA efforts invested in resources that are ultimately rejected • Maintenance cost for 30 day holding period (e.g. applying link checking) • Scalability: O(n) depends on applying to all collections vs. community collection • Provisional items unavailable for harvesting • No explicit support for building collections • Depends on the successful implementation of the mechanisms

More Related