IdeaScale : Repositories are dead, long live repositories

Repositories are dead, long live repositories

Fri, 27 Jun 2008 00:00:00 PDT

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 [AOI]; see the research grants they have (and associate them with their AOI); lodge keep-safe copies of work-in-progress, data-sets, talks, ideas for future work, posters, etc (and associate them with grants or AOIs).

From this corpus of data, the academic can indicate what is visible locally (within the research group/department/organisation) and what is available globablly... and from that "globally available" pool, an "Institutional Repository" can be assembled.

The big advantages of a system like this is that the user only needs to define the meta-data specific to that object (an AOI has a title and a description, and inherits a creator from the CRIS; an article has a title and an abstract, but also inherits data from the associated grant and/or AOIs) - this is a much smaller "keystroke" barrier (or whatever you call that "I don't want to enter lots of metadata" problem)

Comments (14)Category/Tags : Putting user at centre of definition (6) Mark as duplicate

Comment by a.mcgregor

Fri, 27 Jun 2008 00:00:00 PDT

What is the reason that CRIS are not common in the UK? I believe that they are far more common in other European countries.

I agree that deposit into repositories needs to be embedded into other systems where the users do their day to day work but I think that repositories should be flexible enough to hook into whatever systems exist locally rather than focusing on one system like a CRIS.

Comment by stuart.lewis

Wed, 02 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

Whilst I have no proff, my gut instinct is to agree with you. Examples of well populated repositories such as TCD (Dublin) and Imperial College are backed by CRISs.

I think CRISs are and the benefits they bring easier for users to understand, and they are easier to mandate the use of.

Comment by stuart.lewis

Wed, 02 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

Apologies - I shouldn't post so early in the morning!

Here is a version that might make some sense:

Whilst I have no proof, my gut instinct is to agree with you. Examples of well-populated repositories such as TCD (Dublin) and Imperial College are backed by CRISs.

I think CRISs and the benefits they bring easier for users to understand, and they are easier to mandate the use of.

Comment by ianibbo

Mon, 07 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

The vision of a CRIS sounds like a great idea. Does it replace the repository or just provide an environment which better supports the deposit process (IE Repositories still exist, in some form, but the CRIS binds it together with other services)?

Comment by stuart.lewis

Mon, 07 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

No - it doesn't replace the repository, but offers a management tool for research. Inputs to the CRIS can include grant record systems, student record systems, MIS systems etc, and outputs can include publication lists and repositories.

Comment by stuart.lewis

Mon, 07 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

Now we just need an open source CRIS platform...

Comment by c.rusbridge

Mon, 14 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

I think (but am not certain) that a CRIS is more about linking services than an open source platform. There is EuroCRIS (www.eurocris.org), an association that is interested in:

- "Research databases, thematic and according to type of information (expertise, projects, institutions, facilities and products - including publications)
- CRIS related data: scientific datasets, (Open Access) institutional repositories, knowledge-assisted data collection systems and process-based workflow systems
- Maintenance and dissemination of CERIF (Common European Research Information Format) to accommodate implementation and interoperability of CRIS (related) systems
- Data access and exchange mechanisms, standards and guidelines and best practice for CRIS"

Notice CERIF as an interoperability protocol of some kind. I'm not sure if this is useful, but someone has been thinking hard in this area, and maybe we should assess what they are doing!

Comment by stuart.lewis

Mon, 14 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

Yes, but a software platform is required to achieve that.

E.g.:

http://www.symplectic.co.uk/products/publications.html
http://www.atira.dk/en/pure/
htp://www.unicris.com/lenya/uniCRIS/live/rims.html

Comment by lac

Fri, 18 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

A CRIS is simply a kind of repository system painted a different shade of green in an adjacent (admin) field rather than our library field. It doesn't offer a different solution - it offers the same kind of solution - collect metadata and data. The major difference is that a CRIS is more at home with financial information than the full texts of research outputs.

Comment by ian.stuart

Fri, 18 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

@lac : I disagree!

The current repository architecture we have is a full deposit for each item (though some Repositories jump round this with some clever footwork) - which runs straight into the "keystroke" problem various people have identified.

With a CRIS-like architecture, the user enters small amounts of [meta-]data, relevant to the particular thing - be it a research grant; a presentation at a conference; a work-in-progress; a finished article; whatever.... and links them together. It is these links that then allows fuller metadata records to be assembled.

The idea to move away from the idea of "the repository as the final resting place", but a "working store for ongoing research work".

Having said that, both are "stores for objects", hence Repositories are dead, long live repositories.

Comment by c.rusbridge

Fri, 18 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

@lac, I think I disagree too, or at least partly. A CRIS is usually a but more in the admin space. The good thing is that this allows it to take advantage of information that's in the admin databases; things like proposal references and summaries, authoritative funder names, PI names, authoritative staff names. This should allow a repository to fill in much of the metadata for the depositor, do at least a bit of name authority. Might also help the institution and the PI by linking the output back to the grant, for reporting purposes.

The CRIS systems I've seen have tended to be more about the reporting of the articles (ie the metadata) than the content. To be fair, a lot of the repositories we see are also used in that way. But we definitely want the content.

So I think the CRIS idea is helpful, but the implementations may prove too cumbersome, given that they are integrating many local systems that are implemented differently in each institution,

Comment by scott.bradley.wilson

Wed, 06 Aug 2008 00:00:00 PDT

I always assumed a CRIS was more about "doing research" and "managing research projects" than databases or repositories. This is a good thing. However if the implementations of the CRIS are repository-heavy, then they are going to end up in the same place. Either CRIS needs qualifying, or we need to be talking about how research management and researcher collaboration and workflow tools can be tapped for repository data irrespective of the acronym...

Comment by ian.stuart

Wed, 06 Aug 2008 00:00:00 PDT

I'll define CRIS a bit more: "Current Research Information System"

Somewhere where a researcher can lodge ideas, interests, funding grants, data, ancillary files, research outputs, etc.... and link them together.

Comment by t.chaudhri

Thu, 02 Oct 2008 00:00:00 PDT

It has just been pointed out to me that there is a difference between a publications management system that deals with published papers, as Symplectic does by looking for them in Web of Science and other databases, and a CRIS which records the entire research process with grants, funding, staffing information etc from the very start.

Note that Symplectic don't explicitly claim to be a CRIS and I'm not clear that they comply with CERIF or are associated with EuroCRIS in any way. Happy to stand corrected as necessary.

Note that my comments are in no way intended as a criticism of Symplectic, whose system is very impressive. In fact I don't know whether CRIS systems can interface as well as this with online databases such as Web of Science.