A pattern registry?

[Paul Walk]

I'm very encouraged by this - I think this is exactly the right approach.

The patterns are clearly useful to allow people to both understand the concepts and to recognise their applicability to their own contexts or use-cases. For this reason I suggest that another way of categorising these is by 'application' or 'use-case' or some such. This is so that the visitor who is more interested in *implementing* a pattern, rather than understanding the concepts in detail, can quickly get to a resource which helps them implement the appropriate pattern in their context. For example, I definitely want the [Next Generation Repositories](https://www.coar-repositories.org/activities/advocacy-leadership/working-group-next-generation-repositories/) working group to pay attention  to this: one way to encourage that would be to have patterns which are suggested for use in, for example, an institutional repository of open access publications. Essentially, make it very easy for a software developer to simply adopt a scheme of link headers in their application.

I'm not sure what CMS you're using for the Signposting website, but perhaps a simple tagging approach could be used for the patterns, so that one could pull up a list according to a common context?

Paul

[Herbert Van de Sompel]

hi Paul,

Thanks a lot for your encouraging words!

Something along the lines of what you describe actually came up in our discussions about the site. The idea that "Patterns" would be one access point to information but "Use Cases" another. And, in each use case, one would describe which of the various  "patterns" one would need to implement to meet the requirements of that use case. 

For example, in order to fuel an application that would allow finding all annotations (made to HTML, PDF articles) on the basis of the DOI of the annotated article, a portal would need to implement the Identifier pattern and the annotation client would need to include the DOI linked via the "identifier" rel from the HTML/PDF article in the annotation. 

I think this use case approach would bring much added value to the site as it would make the information also more accessible to less technical people. What we have now is largely directed towards implementers, indeed. A challenge might be to find short/crisp/ terms to refer to each use case. Describing them would not be too hard but finding a meaningful term might be harder.

Anyhow, I totally agree with your suggestion. I wonder whether you have ideas re how we could solicit input for use cases. We have a few in mind, clearly, but we also think that many more people should be involved in determining what this all ends up looking like.

I did send info to the COAR group, yesterday, but have not heard back. Except for this much encouraging note from you!

Cheers

Herbert

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "signposting" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to signposting...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to signp...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/signposting/e55b2778-ef76-4e86-b688-02ec52472cfd%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

Herbert Van de Sompel
Digital Library Research & Prototyping
Los Alamos National Laboratory, Research Library
http://public.lanl.gov/herbertv/
http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0715-6126

==