diff --git a/OCLC.tex b/OCLC.tex
index 5364a69..d156136 100755
--- a/OCLC.tex
+++ b/OCLC.tex
@@ -90,7 +90,7 @@
 \begin{figure}
 	\centering
 	\includegraphics[scale=0.8]{growth_comparison}
-	\caption{Comparison of traffic growth across eight EPrints repositories.}
+	\caption{Comparison of traffic growth across eight EPrints repositories. (The different line styles are used to only to distinguish the lines; they have no other significance.)}
 	\label{fig-growth-comparison}
 \end{figure}
 
@@ -106,7 +106,7 @@
 \end{figure}
 
 
-The pilot implementation was clearly a success. Indeed, it was so successful that the ``pilot'' status was dropped in mid-May, and it is now the official IR for Otago's School of Business. The lessons learned from this experience have since been applied to two other IRs at Otago, with potentially more to come.
+The pilot implementation was clearly a success. Indeed, it was so successful that the ``pilot'' status was dropped in mid-May 2006 (only six months after going live), and it is now the official IR for Otago's School of Business. The lessons learned from this experience have since been applied to two other IRs at Otago, with potentially more to come.
 
 
 \section{The second IR: EPrints Te Tumu}
@@ -118,6 +118,24 @@
 
 \section{Issues that arose}
 
+Several issues were encountered during the implementation of the two repositories already discussed.
+
+
+\begin{description}
+
+	\item[Copyright:] This is a potentially thorny issue for any IR, although many of the concerns raised often turn out to be perceived rather than actual problems (EPrints, 2005). In our case much of the material loaded into the repository comprised departmental working or discussion papers, for which permission to publish online had already been granted. Items with uncertain copyright status had full text access restricted until their status was confirmed. A valuable resource for ascertaining journal copyright agreements is the SHERPA website (2006).
+
+	\item[Data standards:] New Zealand's Digital Strategy proposes the long term goal of linking all New Zealand repositories to share information and avoid isolated ``silos of knowledge'', where each institution has little idea of what is happening elsewhere (New Zealand Government, 2005). It is therefore imperative that open standards such as the Dublin Core Metadata Initiative (2006) be applied for both data and metadata. The EPrints software makes this relatively trivial by natively supporting Dublin Core metadata export as specified by the Open Archives Initiative (2006). The University of Otago Library is upgrading to a new catalogue system that also supports Dublin Core, which means that it is possible to directly integrate the repository metadata into the library catalogue.
+
+	\item[Data entry:] Data entry is likely to be carried out by people who are not specifically trained for the task (for example, document authors), so it is essential to have well-defined and widely publicised processes and standards for data entry. The EPrints software is very helpful in this area, allowing the data entry process to be heavily customised to the needs of an individual repository. In addition, a final verification or editorial step is essential to check the quality of the data entered and to ensure that the item is suitable for inclusion in the repository.
+
+	\item[Content acquisition:] The key issue regarding acquisition of material is whether self-archiving should be compulsory (top-down) or voluntary (bottom-up). Sale (2005b) argues that a compulsory policy is much more effective at increasing the size of a repository, and illustrates this by comparing the growth rates of repositories at the Queensland University of Technology (compulsory, high growth) and the University of Queensland (voluntary, low growth). Compulsory archiving policies are often driven by the need to capture information for research evaluation and funding purposes, but run the risk that authors may react negatively to such a requirement. Swan and Brown (2004) surveyed 157 authors who did not self-archive and found that 69\% of them would willingly deposit their articles in an open repository if required to do so.
+
+	\item[Types of content:] Decisions about the types of material that should be archived (e.g. working papers, theses, lecture material, sound and picture files) are also key, as is the question of what historical material should be included? There is a cost issue relating to non-digitised work, since scanning or conversion to PDF format is necessary. The value of the repository depends on the number of authors contributing (Rankin, 2005). Ready targets for inclusion are outputs that would otherwise have only limited availability, such as departmental working and discussion papers, and theses and dissertations. The latter in particular are often very difficult to obtain from outside the institution that published them. Paradoxically, however, they are often the easiest to obtain for the purposes of populating an IR, because there is a lower likelihood of copyright issues, and departments often have copies of the documents in question.
+
+\end{description}
+
+
 [all of these to be expanded]
 
 \begin{itemize}
@@ -157,7 +175,7 @@
 
 \section{Looking ahead: Community repositories}
 
-An exciting consequence of our work on the School of Business pilot has been an approach from various communities throughout New Zealand to set up repositories of historical material relating to their community. The first of these was Cardrona\footnote{\url{http://cardrona.eprints.otago.ac.nz/}}, a small Central Otago community with a long and varied history. We recently launched the Cardrona Community Repository, which is the first community repository in New Zealand [possibly the world?]. Digital repositories offer communities a wonderful opportunity to preserve their historical and cultural information, and to disseminate it to a much wider audience than would normally be possible.
+An exciting consequence of our work on the School of Business pilot has been an approach from various communities throughout New Zealand to set up repositories of historical material relating to their community. The first of these was Cardrona\footnote{\url{http://cardrona.eprints.otago.ac.nz/}}, a small Central Otago community with a long and varied history. The Cardrona Community Repository was launched on May 17 2006, which is the first community repository in New Zealand [possibly the world?]. Digital repositories offer communities a wonderful opportunity to preserve their historical and cultural information, and to disseminate it to a much wider audience than would normally be possible.
 
 
 \section{Conclusions etc.}