[ckan-discuss] [open-bibliography] comprehensive bibliographic database of "open" resources?

[Jonathan Gray]

On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 6:08 PM, Christopher Gutteridge
<cjg at ecs.soton.ac.uk> wrote:
> I find CKAN pretty impenetrable. I have no idea what I am expected to do to
> contribute to that page or how to put it to use.
>

[slightly off topic -- but cc'ing to list for posterity!]

Uh oh! Sounds like we aren't doing something right! Thanks for letting
us know! ;-)

Chris: I know its a pain, but would you mind sitting down with someone
on our end and going through some of the things you find problematic /
difficult to understand with CKAN, so we can try to address them and
make it more usable?

Can either contact me or Friedrich (in cc) or ping our public CKAN discuss list:

http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/ckan-discuss

We've also just discussed having better feedback mechanism so its
easier for people to say what they find difficult / non-obvious
(anticipate that some of this could be addressed in FAQ, linked to
from relevant places...).

J.

> On 16/08/10 16:33, Jonathan Gray wrote:
>>
>> If I'm understanding you correctly, this is *exactly* what CKAN is for:
>>
>>   http://ckan.net/
>>   http://ckan.net/group/bibliographic
>>
>> CKAN is an open source registry of open data/open content 'packages'
>> (as in software packages). Medium to long term idea is something like
>> apt-get for open data, with support for automating lots of stuff.
>>
>> Focus is on material that is open as in opendefinition.org (of which
>> PD material and *some* CC licensed content is a subset).
>>
>> Does that help? Would love to have any feedback on how we can improve
>> CKAN for bibliographic material.
>>
>> All the best,
>>
>> Jonathan
>>
>> On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 4:52 PM, John Wilkin<jpwilkin at umich.edu>  wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> All,
>>> Of course I can think of a bucket-load of reasons why this would be
>>> impossibly hard to assemble and maintain, but I'm still curious:  has any
>>> organization tried to create a database of essentially "open" bibliographic
>>> resources?  In this case, I'm interested in something broad enough to
>>> include CC, PD, etc.--i.e., resources that can be used (at least in
>>> scholarship and teaching) without fees paid to the maintainer of the
>>> resource?
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> open-bibliography mailing list
>>> open-bibliography at lists.okfn.org
>>> http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-bibliography
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> --
> Christopher Gutteridge -- http://id.ecs.soton.ac.uk/person/1248
>
> / Lead Developer, EPrints Project, http://eprints.org/
> / Web Projects Manager, ECS, University of Southampton,
> http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/
> / Webmaster, Web Science Trust, http://www.webscience.org/
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> open-bibliography mailing list
> open-bibliography at lists.okfn.org
> http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-bibliography
>



-- 
Jonathan Gray

Community Coordinator
The Open Knowledge Foundation
http://blog.okfn.org

http://twitter.com/jwyg
http://identi.ca/jwyg