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.
Interoperability needs to be motivated by service requirements, not fetishized as an end it itself.
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].
When we use the term repository in the context of JISC(and other repository networks) essentially it means making content (in our case produced as part of research, learning and teaching) available over the network so it can be shared and used. But the word doesn’t say that. The word says store. We should be saying what we mean. We should really be talking about making content available on the web? And if concerned with ...more »
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 »
Definition should not make assumptions as to implementation architecture i.e. whether deposited collection(s) held at institutional or network level
This is the Andy Powell worry; we have made the repository too much of a "special thing" operating under "library rules". Make it more like Slideshare. I'm going to express this another way...
People who might create services from repository-based information
will be looking for simple human-readable information on the policies,
formats and metadata used by repositories. This is as important as
creating machine-readable interfaces.
The changes in technology, the diversity of cataloguing practice,
the diversity of ownership and legal considerations and the
possibilities for metadata to be created remotely all mean that
acceptable and achievable recommendations for consistency between
repositories are likely to be broad principles with examples of good
practice rather than prescriptive rules or precise recommendations.
With acknowledgement for this idea to Owen Stephens' recent Tweet. My interpretation of this idea is that 'repositories' are best viewed as a 'type' of data store supporting a variety of services, embedded in various workflows. This fits nicely with Paul Walk's concept of a 'source repository' (see http://tiny.cc/FIHwc) being a simple system with complexity moved to specialised services. I suppose this approach isn't ...more »
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...
If the repository is to become anything other than a final destination for public objects, then the user needs control over access. This control must be able to ALLOW access to the objects by colleagues, wherever they work, as well as prevent access by others.