The umbrella term "repository" conflates two very different kinds of services - services whose primary purpose is to preserve a type of media, and services whose primary purpose is to enable media to be shared and used by people. They don't look the same, they have different kinds of users and roles, they don't share the same concerns, and you use different language to talk about their features. Maybe we would get further ...more »
Putting user at centre of definition
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...
Managing data can be a big problem. Any data that might, for example, become supplementary data in an article, needs curating. Help the user by providing facilities to capture and hold intermediate versions of the data, ad the final public version.
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 »
(i.e. emphasise benefits)
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.