diglib: IR and selection

[Carol Hixson <chixson@OREGON.UOREGON.EDU>]

I get the sense that there's some unease about the IR
because the library is not actively selecting the content.
And, if we're not selecting the content, then it shouldn't
really be considered part of our collection.

Well, I think we're selecting the content for the IR as
actively as we select the content of our UO dissertations,
or as actively as we select the content of manuscript
and archival collections. By this I mean, there are
selection parameters in place, even if every piece
of content in a collection has not been reviewed
by a librarian for its individual appropriateness.

Whether we continue with the IR or not remains to
be seen. But I don't think we should discount it
because of what I consider misconceptions
about the nature of the content. In our statements
about the nature of the IR, we have stated that
our intention is for it be "a digital archive for
scholarly output of the University of Oregon
community"  and that submissions should
"meet the standards of the University of Oregon
academic community." One aspect of the MIT
model of an IR (whose software we're using)
is that there can be communities that do provide
active, title-by-title review of the content.

It's a fledgling effort. The way we implement
it, if we implement it,  will affect the nature
of its content. I don't think there's much danger
of it becoming a vanity press. I wouldn't judge
it right now from the content in the Test Collection
- that content was largely stuff that we grabbed just to
test out the software. Much of that will go away as
we get real content from the UO academic community.

Carol