>>e.g. number of resources, number of registered users, edu level focus, "rigorous quality control", "ocw-like", >>"wiki-approach", etc. - so it is not really an attempt to "rate" or compare, just a little more than the >>description.
I'm going to experiment with type of repository e.g. "wiki-approach" "OCW-like" etc. I'll have to see how it goes.
>>Perhaps keep the column flexible and provide any available info that might help characterise the site.
Aesthetically the variable columns looked mismatched, so there's a tension between the two needs.
>>For this edition, the fact we have listed it means it is worth looking at.
I agree, that was the baseline for inclusion and part of the reason the All Rights Reserved/restricted access/traditional copyright repositories were included.