Talk:Information repository

Add new lead defining "information repository"

The lead of the Backup article says "An information repository model may be used to provide structure to the storage." That article used the term "data repository" since Austinmurphy introduced it throughout in 2004, but JakobVoss made that a a synonym for data library—apparently around 4 July 2017. As a consequence I needed a link to the term "information repository", but not to any automated system—since that article says "An unstructured repository may simply be a stack of tapes or CD-Rs or DVD-Rs with minimal information about what was backed up and when."

Therefore I converted the existing article into a "Federated information repository" section, with non-dead and added references. I would advise SoleraTec not to revert what I've done. If they do, I'll recommend that this article as reverted [my later emphasis] be deleted on the grounds of being a pure commercial for SoleraTec LLC, whose founder and current CEO Mark Armstrong was the instructor for the referenced 2007 conference session. With the fixed and added references, IMHO they're better off than they were before. DovidBenAvraham (talk) 13:41, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Re-establishment of article

I inserted the obfuscatory cruft added to "Data library" 22 May 2019 by User:Pi314m, per my comments 00:26, 20 June 2019 (UTC) and 02:34, 20 June 2019 (UTC) here. As I said in the first of those comments, "On 22 May, when the specific other editor started his merge-ins to the 'Backup' article, he also did something rather sneaky to the 'Data repository' article." I didn't want to be accused of sneaky deletions when I was accusing the specific other editor of sneaky insertions, so I added those insertions as the "Universal digital library" section in this article. But I don't think that section adds much value, so IMHO we can delete it when the whole controversy about the specific other editor's actions blows over. DovidBenAvraham (talk) 10:57, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]