Say what we mean: stop using the term repository

r.bruce

Revise

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 preserving content talk about doing that etc. The term repository has almost become meaningless because so many uses and functions are bundled up together under that term.

Idea # 24Definiton rules

Comments

ade.stevenson 1 year ago

Yep always figured the term is dodgy and quite offputting. Too late though?

c.rusbridge 1 year ago

It's not a bad thought, but I think it would only confuse further, unless we find a really good substitute. As the author of a number of unfortunate neologisms - think "virtual clumps" - I know how awkward it is to be saddled with something awkwrd. They do die in time, though.

It would be good if we could start using the repository in that sort of way, though. I think we have now won the battle over the "repository must offer OAI-PMH", and that's a good thing.

If we say "a repository is a managed, persistent way of making R, L and T content with continuing value discoverable and accessible", does that manage to combine the two senses? The discoverable bit is critical for data that are not self-indexed. (Mind you, it doesn't quite cover the non-disclosed content angle, that I think is important.)

Paul Walk 1 year ago

I tend to agree with Rachel's proposition.

Regarding Chris's definition:
"a repository is a managed, persistent way of making R, L and T content with continuing value discoverable and accessible"

I think I could live with this.... :-)

o.stephens 1 year ago

I don't have a problem with Chris's definition, but we then can't expect to talk to 'end users' about 'repositories' - and this is the key thing. See my anecdote on the '2 Different definitions' idea.

Talking about 'repositories' is no more meaningful than talking about 'databases' - they are just underlying systems. It is what we are trying to do with the system in any particular circumstance that we need to focus on, especially when communicating with academics, publishers, students etc.

rachel.heery 1 year ago

I agree that in any communication we need to emphasise what repositories do, rather than 'the system'. I would still maintain that even at the most basic level a repository benefits the institution and authors through 'managing resources' (safe-keeping of institutional assets, integration with research information systems, supporting personal profiles) as well as making them discoverable and accessible. I think we need to have some focus on these benefits to the hosting institution that funds the repository and to the authors that deposit. I am not sure improved impact due to open access (i.e. making resources accessible and discoverable) is sufficient motivation for institutions to fund repositories, and for researchers to deposit.

o.stephens 1 year ago

You'll have to excuse me - it is Friday. Imagine the scenario:

A new university is being planned. I go along to a planning meeting and start banging on about how important it is we have a 'depository'. Everyone is very interested, what does a depository do they ask? I explain that it will help us store and make accessible books, and all the other universities have one - everyone agrees this a great idea. So, they build one - they use a warehouse as a template as this seems like the most efficient way of storing stuff, and they put me in charge (I make sure there is a big loading bay at the back of the building so we can easily get things in and out). I go to another planning meeting and say 'we need to put some books in the depository' - and they all ask why? I explain that people can share the books and it will add real value to the academic community. Unfortunately at this point there isn't a lot of money so they give me just a few books and say they can't afford any more.

So, I've now got this building, which users can't come into without a hard hat, and that hardly has anything in it. I go to loads of meetings, and keep saying 'the depository is really important - look not only can it keep books, but it can keep other stuff as well - whatever you want really'. I make sure the subject of the depository comes up at every meeting I go to. People seem unclear of what the depository does, or how it works, they keep saying 'but I thought it was just for books' or 'but I've got books in my office'. I persuade one academic to put some of their teaching material in the depository - however, this leads to further confusion about what the depository is for.

Eventually they decide that the depository isn't fulfilling a useful purpose and they may aswell tear it down and build something else instead.

My unsubtle point being that to have a depository without persuading people of the value of a library service is not going to work.

dorothea.salo 1 year ago

+1 to o.stephens's comment above. It is exactly the trajectory Stateside repositories have been through.

a.dunning 1 year ago

Repository is okay as a term for the information professional who understand (roughly) what it is there to do - Chris' definition seems fair enough.

It's not such a good term for the scholarly community, who really don't have a great idea to what a repository is.

Therefore when dealing with that community do we want to use other terminology which is more precisely related to their everyday work, and which allows them to get a better picture of what they are doing when they are creatind, depositing, exploiting or re-using digital content?

bakewell 1 year ago

But then I'd never have to hear the hilarious "suppository" remark ever again...

r.bruce 1 year ago

I'm glad to see some discussion! I think the term repository is fine if we use it when it is appropriate and say what we mean.
For example a repository might be for dissemination only or its primary focus might be as a preservation environment or it can be both. But What has ended up happening is all types of conversations and developments centre around the word and the system. It has been a useful term (and movement) to get issues to fore. I suppose in some ways supporting that view of Cliff Lynch's in 2003 that repositories are a nexus point. But in terms of policy and funding I think it can be argued that there is too much focus on the term, and that there are many assumptions made when it is used but these assumptions can just be plain wrong. For example if you talk about repositories some would assume that means Open Access - however perhaps a repository is being used to share resources between a particular group. Or often we talk about repositories when really we're talking about managing research data and making it available - repositories have a role in this but so do other services. So I suppose what I'm really proposing is more careful and thoughtful use of the term. As Adrian says, and Chris indicates - the horse has already bolted and perhaps it is too late...however I'd hope we can improve our understanding and use of term.

p.burnhill 1 year ago

As stated elsewhere, repository is a noun; I agree it is a store. It doesnt do anything, except store, unless someone runs a service based on it: an ingest (deposit) service; an access (search/download) service; a transfer service; etc.

If someone wants to keep something safe, or share something with another, then they lodge/deposit or publish it - in the hope/expectation that them that wants it can find and download it (to read/play/use). So offering a deposit/ingest service directly might meet that need. If the need is a mandated requirement, then someone better offer that.

An access service (m2m or web) meets a need for them thats looking, and provides some reassurance to the depositor (the author or the agent) that what s/he puts in can be found.

imho, the best was to regard preservation is the prospect of continuing access. Archival responsibility is an obligation for any steward of content, and therefore on a manager of a repository/store. It is not what a repository is, its what a repository must address. Doesn;t mean it must keep stuff forever, but that it (the steward) should acquit the responsibility.

So, I agree.

ian.stuart 1 year ago

It was interesting to hear Ben O'Steen mention (at RepoFringe08) that when he started talking about "Repositories" at the GRIG Roadshows in the USofA, he had to first spend 5 minutes explaining what "Repository" meant.

There wasn't a problem with the Open-Access/deposit/catalogue concept, just the word.

Post New Comment

Activity Chart

Controversy Meter

Repositories - communicating the idea

Categories