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.

Putting user at centre of definition

6, Define repository as part of the user’s (author/researcher/learner) workflow

It is important to take account of user's workflows when defining a repository so it is not considered a system that is removed from the users daily routine.

Submitted by (@andymcgregor)
9 comments

Voting

29 votes
Active

Consistency

Consistency between repositories is not an end in itself; it is only important if it is a requirement of real value-added servic

Interoperability needs to be motivated by service requirements, not fetishized as an end it itself.

Submitted by (@dempseyl)
7 comments

Voting

20 votes
Active

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 (@nf0000)
3 comments

Voting

19 votes
Active

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 (@r.bruce)
12 comments

Voting

19 votes
Active

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 (@ian.stuart)
14 comments

Voting

18 votes
Active

Definiton rules

1, Definition assumptions

Definition should not make assumptions as to implementation architecture i.e. whether deposited collection(s) held at institutional or network level

Submitted by (@andymcgregor)
2 comments

Voting

17 votes
Active

Repository functions

The repository should be more like "part of the web"

This is the Andy Powell worry; we have made the repository too much of a "special thing" operating under "library rules". Make it more like Slideshare. I'm going to express this another way...

Submitted by (@c.rusbridge)
4 comments

Voting

17 votes
Active

Consistency

Service creators will be looking for human-readable specifications

People who might create services from repository-based information

will be looking for simple human-readable information on the policies,

formats and metadata used by repositories. This is as important as

creating machine-readable interfaces.

Submitted by (@nf0000)
Add your comment

Voting

17 votes
Active

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 (@nf0000)
2 comments

Voting

16 votes
Active

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 (@rachel.heery)
1 comment

Voting

14 votes
Active

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 (@c.rusbridge)
4 comments

Voting

14 votes
Active

Repository functions

Allow the user fine-grained disclosure/access control to repository objects

If the repository is to become anything other than a final destination for public objects, then the user needs control over access. This control must be able to ALLOW access to the objects by colleagues, wherever they work, as well as prevent access by others.

Submitted by (@c.rusbridge)
3 comments

Voting

14 votes
Active