Welcome to our community.

In this community, you can submit ideas, vote on existing ideas, or add comments.

To submit an idea, please click the Submit New Idea button at the top of the navigation sidebar. You will then be asked to add a title and choose a campaign for the new idea. You will also have the option to add tags to the idea. To vote on an idea, simply click the up or down arrows to the right of the idea title/description. And to add a comment, click in the box below the idea.

If you would like to see all ideas created with a specific tag, you can click on the word or phrase via the tagcloud in the navigation sidebar area under "What we're discussing". You can also view ideas sorted by Campaigns from the right navigation area. To return to this page, click the All Ideas link.

Campaign: Consistency

There are feasible and worthwhile approaches which will improve the consistency with which repositories share metadata

As part of our work to "examine the feasibility of approaches to improve the consistency with which repositories share material", we are looking at this in regard to 3 areas: metadata (this idea), the materials themselves and descriptions of repository policies (e.g. on IPR) [materials and policies appear as separate ideas].

Submitted by

Voting

19 votes
Active

Campaign: Definiton rules

Say what we mean: stop using the term repository

When we use the term repository in the context of JISC(and other repository networks) essentially it means making content (in our case produced as part of research, learning and teaching) available over the network so it can be shared and used. But the word doesn’t say that. The word says store. We should be saying what we mean. We should really be talking about making content available on the web? And if concerned with ...more »

Submitted by

Voting

19 votes
Active

Campaign: Putting user at centre of definition

Repositories are dead, long live repositories

The current repository technology is library/cataloger centric: items are uploaded (usually by a cataloger, not the author), and most of the meta-data is added by a subject specialist. In this model, the author-as-depositor is (at best) just an initiator for a deposit process. A better solution would be to move towards a Combined Research Information System [CRIS], where the academic can organise their areas of interest ...more »

Submitted by

Voting

18 votes
Active

Campaign: Consistency

Broad principles not tight prescriptions

The changes in technology, the diversity of cataloguing practice,

the diversity of ownership and legal considerations and the

possibilities for metadata to be created remotely all mean that

acceptable and achievable recommendations for consistency between

repositories are likely to be broad principles with examples of good

practice rather than prescriptive rules or precise recommendations.

Submitted by

Voting

16 votes
Active

Campaign: Broadening definition

7. We shouldn't be thinking of repositories as a place.

With acknowledgement for this idea to Owen Stephens' recent Tweet. My interpretation of this idea is that 'repositories' are best viewed as a 'type' of data store supporting a variety of services, embedded in various workflows. This fits nicely with Paul Walk's concept of a 'source repository' (see http://tiny.cc/FIHwc) being a simple system with complexity moved to specialised services. I suppose this approach isn't ...more »

Submitted by

Voting

14 votes
Active

Campaign: Putting user at centre of definition

Make the repository work for the user, not the other way round

I guess this is the workflow idea again, but stated another way. Don't get too hung up on "workflows", as in the e-science meaning (kepler, taverna et al). This is about making the repository fit in what people are trying to do, eg write the article, keep multiple versions, share with their colleagues in other institutions...

Submitted by

Voting

14 votes
Active