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.
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 »
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 »
(i.e. emphasise benefits)
Interoperability needs to be motivated by service requirements, not fetishized as an end it itself.
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...
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].
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...
Another from the Research repository System (RRS) blog posts: Publisher liaison is maybe controversial. But why shouldn’t the RRS staff (or your library) support you in dealing with publishers? The RRS wants your articles and your data, and should help you negotiate and reserve the rights so that they can get them. So publisher liaison would include rights negotiation, submission to the publisher on your behalf of a ...more »
Definition should not make assumptions as to implementation architecture i.e. whether deposited collection(s) held at institutional or network level
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.
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.