Powered By IdeaScale - try it free Login/Signup

Repositories - communicating the idea

« Back To JISC Repositories

p.burnhill

p.burnhill
Member since : Jul-19-2008 (Verified)
IdeaScale™ Stats
Votes Cast 5
Comments Posted 2
Topics/Ideas Posted 1
Topics/Ideas Tracking 2

Ideas/Topics Posted

Posted by p.burnhill 07/19/2008 07:00 AM GMT+00:00
Should we regard Repository as yet another noun of uncertain parentage that is searching for meaning. R is for Repository in the same way that P was for Portal, O was for Ontology and M was for Metadata. N? Nothing just yet, or maybe N is for Network. Fortunately, the other nouns have had some prior usage. Repository has less common usage except as a place to store furniture.

Personally I've always preferred verbs, as these almost automatically put the focus on actions (or states of being), on tasks of actors, as essential links in the subject/verb/object triple.

It is not self-evident to me whether Repository is a new label to describe something(s) that have existed for a while or something(s) that have come into existence to justify the term. In the early 1980s I worked with the Scottish Education Data Archive which was a collection of survey datasets (on related topics, and generated by a research centre in a university over time), then in the mid to late 1980s and 1990s I worked with Edinburgh University Data Library which was both a collection of user-contributed datasets and a collection of third-party published datasets. In both instances the purpose of the 'data archive' and 'data library' was to provide access to those datasets to them that wants them. For both, there was some forward thinking, in that we collected and curated ahead of demand: for example we took in user-contributed digitised boundaries of a particular geography before we knew anyone would re-use them. In the late 1990s and since I have worked on a variety of online services which depend upon the management of databases of data objects, datasets and datastreams that others (not me) have created, although these are mostly not 'user- or community-generated'. We did not call them repositories at the time - or not until quite recently.

Jorum is a national repository of learning materials, devised and developed by staff at EDINA and Mimas in response to expressed requirements to keep stuff safe, and to enable and facilitate sharing. What makes it a repository? Its a database that we call a repository. Why? Because that was the term of the moment and was and is understood within a certain 'designated community', but not much beyond. When thinking about Jorum, about the repository built for GRADE, and for the store of datasets used for eMapScholar, and then for the Depot (in the Prospero project) we thought that Cliff Lynch's statement that "a university-based institutional repository is a set of services" needed re-phrasing: a repository is a managed database that supported three (or more) services, necessarily including deposit (ingest), keep-safe, access (download). But any decently managed database does that surely?

M2M access, by API (and OAI-PMH) has been put up as a necessary characteristic of a repository, but that m2m access has been commonplace for many services from EDINA and Mimas, and again is that not just what we would want from any managed network-accessible database?

Digimap is built upon a range of databases, some populated by data from the Ordnance Survey, some by derived data (value added, curated by EDINA) and now also some contributed by users.

I confess I am at a loss to understand what is distinctive about a repository. Except perhaps, that the attention should focus on the quality and nature of the service that is delivered to the (potential) depositor. Understanding why someone wants to deposit (share) something, and what would constitute reward (in terms of happiness not just lack of pain) for the act of depositing is hard, elusive and novel. We are examining how to make the Depot into a service for happy putting, so too with Jorum. The motives for sharing differ, as does the nature of the workflow during which 'deposit' could be considered natural.

Now B is for Bucket: must it hold objects as well as liquid, must it provide means by which things can be poured into it, as well as out? Is there a hole in the bucket, does it have to have a handle, what if there was a spout?

Comments Posted

p.burnhill
07/21/2008
I was thinking of voting this one up, as services ti uses and users is very very important, but I must agree that services to depositors is the crucial issue that repository advocates/managers must confront.

The Depot operates as more than a repository but we view potential depositors as the main use community. For Jorum, securing materials for sharing means a focus on depositors. For the former (Depot), we are exploring how to reward as well as make easier the act of deposit through the EM-LOADER project, the reward being a bibliography and deposit made easier by extraction of metadata from external/extant sources combined with batch (and not just item) loading - and we envisage that we may start to get bulk loads by research groups/PIs. For the latter (Jorum) most deposit happens by groups - usuallly project teams involved in making online learning objects/materials.

p.burnhill
07/20/2008
As stated elsewhere, repository is a noun; I agree it is a store. It doesnt do anything, except store, unless someone runs a service based on it: an ingest (deposit) service; an access (search/download) service; a transfer service; etc.

If someone wants to keep something safe, or share something with another, then they lodge/deposit or publish it - in the hope/expectation that them that wants it can find and download it (to read/play/use). So offering a deposit/ingest service directly might meet that need. If the need is a mandated requirement, then someone better offer that.

An access service (m2m or web) meets a need for them thats looking, and provides some reassurance to the depositor (the author or the agent) that what s/he puts in can be found.

imho, the best was to regard preservation is the prospect of continuing access. Archival responsibility is an obligation for any steward of content, and therefore on a manager of a repository/store. It is not what a repository is, its what a repository must address. Doesn;t mean it must keep stuff forever, but that it (the steward) should acquit the responsibility.

So, I agree.

Activity Stream

Date Description
Aug-21-2008 Received Postive Feedback on Topic : nouns are for numpties
Aug-21-2008 Received Postive Feedback on Topic : nouns are for numpties
Aug-21-2008 Received Postive Feedback on Topic : nouns are for numpties
Aug-20-2008 Received Postive Feedback on Topic : nouns are for numpties
Jul-21-2008 Voted On Topic/Idea : We should embrace inconsistency
Jul-21-2008 Voted On Topic/Idea : 5, Focus on services to users enabled by digital collections in repositories
Jul-21-2008 Comments Posted : 5, Focus on services to users enabled by digital collections in repositories
Jul-20-2008 Voted On Topic/Idea : Allow the user fine-grained disclosure/access control to repository objects
Jul-20-2008 Voted On Topic/Idea : Repository is associated with a persistent storage system
Jul-20-2008 Voted On Topic/Idea : Say what we mean: stop using the term repository
Privacy Policy   |   Terms of Use
Idea Management