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

Definiton rules

2, Different definitions are required for different audiences

Repository does not mean much to a researcher but it has a very specific meaning to a librarian. Therefore we need to make sure that there are definitions that can be tailored to specific audiences to ensure that messages are understood.

Submitted by (@andymcgregor)
4 comments

Voting

2 votes
Active

Broadening definition

4, Definition should encompass likely evolution in software solutions

Examples include content management systems, virtual research environments, CRIS etc

Submitted by (@andymcgregor)
Add your comment

Voting

4 votes
Active

Putting user at centre of definition

5, Focus on services to users enabled by digital collections in repositories

(i.e. emphasise benefits)

Submitted by (@andymcgregor)
12 comments

Voting

13 votes
Active

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

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

Consistency

There are feasible and worthwhile approaches to improve the consistency with which repositories share their policies

Part of our work to examine the feasibility of approaches to improve the consistency with which repositories share descriptions of repository policies (e.g. on IPR) - this idea -, metadata and the materials themselves.

Submitted by (@nf0000)
2 comments

Voting

3 votes
Active

Consistency

There are feasible and worthwhile approaches to improve the consistency with which repositories share the materials they hold

Part of our work to examine the feasibility of approaches to improve the consistency with which repositories share the materials they hold (this idea), the metadata and descriptions of repository policies

Submitted by (@nf0000)
Add your comment

Voting

10 votes
Active

Consistency

A series of 20 key interviews to assess the feasibility of approaches to improve consistency

In particular we want to ask these key interviewees the questions to which you would like to hear the answers. So if you have an interesting or useful question (or more than one), particularly concerning the creation of user-facing services using repository content, then please use the comment facility to suggest it. Or even better put it here as a new idea (go to the home page and choose New Idea, then choose category ...more »

Submitted by (@nf0000)
1 comment

Voting

-5 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

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

Consistency

We should embrace inconsistency

We cannot achieve consistency, so if it is important then we are doomed to failure. Why can't we achieve consistency? There are (say) 200 universities in the UK, and perhaps 20,000 worldwide, then there are subject repositories, project repositories, library and archive repositories and commercial repositories (which may be free or charged for or a mixture). There are data repositories, image repositories, paper ...more »

Submitted by (@tom000)
3 comments

Voting

-5 votes
Active