Skip navigation

Q6. Were there any topics not covered by Open Repositories which you expected to hear about? If so, what were they?

• We didn't hear what University of Queensland has been doing
• Anything technical.
• The position of public policy in regard to open repositores and openness.
• I would like to hear about how small universities (that have a little money and human resources, for exapmle, engineers or managers ...) should do to adopt and manage institutional repositories.
• I'd have liked to have heard more about policy formulation, promotion and feedback on end-user behaviour
• Development of Repositories work in other countries and its impact on current work (Asian perspective)
• The many speakers spoke the topic with intention of making this topic relevant to intenational standards /work, however presentation of the topic on repositories (in forum and symposium) did not cover the domain of Asian users and Asian perpectives since much of the technology developed / code written / million of users will certainly have an impact/ influence the current work of repositories. Concept of mobile, wireless, portable tools handling these repositiores, access, legal, privacy issues are some topic that may need to expored further.
• I presume most things I can think of would have been covered in the various user group meetings (which I didn't attend).
• Preservation strategies 
• More demonstrations - like live displays of what is happening. Similar to the ANU workstation
• It was comprehensiveIt was very well put together and covered in a very balanced way
• Issues about obtaining copyright status of individual items prior to deposit
• Open AccessI had hoped that there would be discussion time for discussing aims and aspirations of digital repositories, especially in respect of targets and progress made towards them. Discussion time was too limited; the panel was just getting into stride when it finished. Even that was limited in its ability to discuss critical issues.
• more about management of scientific dataMarkus' presentation was a good intro, but didn't go into detail; more on the unique issues these data sets present.
• Would have liked more out of the Fedora group than presentations that have been given elswhere.
• The event was a waste of time for anyone looking for more than hot air, with which many of the participants seemed to be well endowed. Having said that, the speakers were by and large quite good.

Q7. Are there any comments you would like to make about Open Repositories 2006?

• It was a very useful forum, especially in bringing key initiatives together in one place. The quality of speakers was excellent and the structure of the conference - specific user group meetings followed up by the wider view of repositories - worked out well.
• The event was very comprehensive and I enjoyed all the different presentations. Well done.
• please consider the advantage of running multiple topic streams for such a long event, or at the very least let technically-minded people know not to bother attending.
• Excellent gathering of minds and laying out the state of the repository space
• Well-chosen speakers, well allocated topics, addressed all the major issues around repositories, well done!Afternoon-tea muffins way too big!
• Very well selected speakers
• Good, tight program; could have been more time for lunch to discuss stuff in more detail
• The questions and discussion were especially useful - next time it would be good to allocate more time for these
• overall, it was very productive, informative, helpful. Acoustics for the Q&A sessions were not always good. for next time, organisers should attempt to improve the audibility of both questions from the floor and the responses fromthe speakers. A minor matter but catering should provide for food that is easy to eat with one free hand. balancing a plastic tray, a drink, etc. is hard.Congratulations to the organisers for a successful 4 days!
• Further opportunities for the various projects (outcomes/progress) to be reported on and shared throughout the year
• A good attempt to cover the topic. WELL DONE!
• Enjoyed the speakers, especially Mackenzie and Sandy very much.Thought it was a very well managed Forum, there was a good mix of people that enabled successful networking, and the speakers were very knowledable
• Very well organised, thank you. A good range of topics, with little duplication, by some excellent speakers. Half an hour per speaker was just right.
• Loved it, please do it againbut perhaps give Margaret some time to recover :-)
• Thanks for a very well organised and integrated range of activities, with a good international perspective.
• Very, very good meeting!
• very succesful, congratulations
• Well run. Good opportunity to learn more about where others are up to in this field
• The DSpace user group meeting highlighted some longer term needs and issues for archiving in an Australian Academic Context. We need to engage in a dialogue across the sector to address the sustainability of the movement towards a viable and complete eresearch framework.
• I commend you, its been one of the better things I attended. I think hand picking the presentations has been the key to achieving a sort of balance. Also one comment I think the DSpace dinner may have been better on Wednesday, I detected a sheer level of tiredness from attendees
• For a newcomer to the area I think I would have preferred the order of days reversed. Starting off with more general/philosophical topics, drilling down into specifics and then User Group meeting. Thanks for a well run conference that has given me a much better feel for the whole digital repository area and plenty to chew over and digest.
• Some presentations in Well Integrated Repository were so esoteric they were incomprehensible
• Worth attending: yes. Focused: no. Opportunity for networking: excellent
  1. Some of the speakers were simply too far away in the clouds of research to be of any use. The 30-minutes limit ensured that they could say nothing much constructive.
  2. I became very irritated at speaker after speaker writing on their slides or saying 'DSpace, Fedora and other repository software' or similar. Fedora is not a complete repository system as was made clear, and to dismiss the other two major current players in Australia this way is quite foolish. As was also made clear in the Symposium, diversity is good, and uniformity undesirable.
  3. the purpose of the event was not clear. Was it mainly an opportunity to network (which it seemed to be) or did it have a purpose, if only to go home and have a look at 'X' (behaviour modification)?
• In all respects, an intellectually stimulating and challenging series of talks. Excellent work, organisers, and presenters. thank you
• A well-compiled and well-organised conference. Do it again.
• It was a very well organised event with an excellent program. All involved are to be congratulated on a most successful event.
• A very successful program - papers presented by the leaders in OR, a good balance in technical and practical knowledge.
• I was especially impressed with the DSpace user group meeting - bouquets to all involved!
• Restricting speakers to 30mins ensured focussed presentations - excellent concept.
• Great work! Hopefully The OAK Law Project will achieve the same success when we have a conference.
• The DSpace meeting was well organised. I liked the fact that the presentations were limited to 30 mins ea. It made for a lively and interesting meeting.