Powered By IdeaScale
Login / Signup

Repositories - communicating the idea

« Back To JISC Repositories

jesshey

User Profile Image jesshey
Member since : Jul-20-2008 (Verified)
1 Ideas, 2 Comments, 5 Votes

User Activity Stream

Ideas Posted

Most early Institutional Repositories were research repositories. Some are purely repositories housing digital objects as in "Repositories are "collections of digital objects"". However, since one of the primary aims is to showcase the intellectual assets of the institutions (as compared to providing Open Access to peer reviewed journal articles) another model was 'hybrid'. The use as a bibliography (suggested both by previous practice and by senior academics) required the metadata to be deposited even if it was not possible to deposit the 'publication'. This is particularly important if you want to showcase well the whole institution, including the Humanities, where outputs are not so easily deposited eg a book or exhibition.
Therefore one model is 'hybrid' including both digital objects and their metadata and sometimes just metadata or metadata plus links to trusted repositories elsewhere. This latter aspect may become more important as the number of these trusted (eg funder) repositories grow. Of course, you can also make a subset of this repository which includes 'full text only' as in the alternative " digital object repository" model but this does not then give a full picture of the institution.

Hey, Jessie M.N., Simpson, Pauline and Carr, Leslie A. (2005) The TARDis Route Map to Open Access: developing an Institutional Repository Model. In, Dobreva, Milena and Engelen, Jan (eds.) ELPUB2005 From Author to Reader: Challenges for the Digital Content Chain: Proceedings of the 9th ICCC International Conference on Electronic Publishing, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Leuven-Heverlee, Belgium, 8-10 June 2005. Leuven, Belgium, Peeters Publishing, 179-182.
http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/16262/
Displaying 1 - 25 of 42 Ideas

Comments Posted

jesshey 1 year ago
We have found it difficult, in practice, to classify (from time and effort and consistency) at the depositor/administrator end, even against an agreed subject taxonomy. I would dream of a consistent service eg auto classification to be overlaid at a higher level, eg national, to enable the valuable 'virtual subject repositories'.
jesshey 1 year ago
Repository and Institutional Repository and further qualifications of those are useful definitions in our development community at present - we need some words we understand and that are in current usage . However, it would be great to evolve other words that were friendly to our depositors. We resort to 'EdShare - a resource for sharing' in our discussions with academics in our current project because 'repository' is unfriendly. 'Database' is also problematic but its hard not to be so vague that others don't understand. Then its difficult to be persuasive! Or perhaps it just takes time - we were talking about making esoteric knowledge visible before we had the words 'Open Access' to help us.