Quite right. I apologise for my I-centric behaviour!
If we can describe a disciplinary community as a virtual community, then
similar comments apply. I think we can all agree that arXiv makes the
Physics community has a beneficial effect on the Physics community.
--
Les
On 07/03/2011 16:16, "Simeon Warner" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>Les - yours is a rather IR centric definition. Perhaps one could
>generalize along the lines of "a good repository is one that makes its
>user community better". For me, the ability to do things better and to
>do new things is the key motivation for open and interoperable
>repositories (disciplinary or institutional).
>
>Cheers,
>Simeon
>
>
>On Mon, Mar 07, 2011 at 04:05:22PM +0000, Les A Carr wrote:
>> A good repository is one that makes a good university better. No,
>> seriously. It improves the business processes of its host institution,
>> because it is knowledge management technology and its institution is in
>> the knowledge creation business. I think that is Philip's point as well.
>> --
>> Les
>>
>> On 07/03/2011 11:08, "Chris Rusbridge" <[log in to unmask]>
>>wrote:
>>
>> >I'm interested in the question "what makes a good repository?". Or
>> >perhaps, given a particular repository, how could we assess whether it
>>is
>> >doing its job well? Or, well enough... to be sustainable?
>> >
>> >I've been given various answers starting from
>> >
>> >a) the repository meets its (defined) goals.
>> >
>> >OK, sounds reasonable, but the goals were probably defined in the past,
>> >perhaps even before the repository existed. That was then; this is a
>> >different world. How about...
>> >
>> >b) the repository meets real needs.
>> >
>> >Yes, I like that. But what are those real needs? I can think of two
>> >groups that sound similar but are subtly different...
>> >
>> >c) the repository is (well) used
>> >c1) by depositors
>> >c2) by readers
>> >c3) by re-users.
>> >
>> >(There are probably more important subtypes of users.) This is the set
>>we
>> >often measure: c1 by total deposited items or by rates of deposit, c2
>>by
>> >accesses and downloads. We less often measure c3, but citations and
>> >in-links could be reasonable proxies. Both are slightly muddy as many
>> >repositories contain substitutes for the version of record, and good
>> >practice is to cite the latter (but perhaps more often link to the
>> >substitute). But how about...
>> >
>> >d) the repository is useful
>> >d1) to depositors
>> >d2) to its owner
>> >d3) to the public in general
>> >
>> >(Again this might not be the right set of subtypes.) The first of
>>these,
>> >d1 is not the same as c1; repositories might be used without being
>>useful
>> >to depositors. This might be because of mandates, perhaps, or by being
>> >"used" by librarians acting for the depositors without much motivation
>>by
>> >the depositors. Much better where the repository is useful to the
>> >depositor. This (I think) is what the various "Negative Click
>>Repository"
>> >posts were about (see posts in
>> >http://digitalcuration.blogspot.com/search/label/Negative%20click),
>>and I
>> >think it's part of the thrust of Steve Hitchcock's DepositMO project
>> >(http://blogs.ecs.soton.ac.uk/depositmo/).
>> >
>> >Sustainability is in part about continuing to convince decision makers
>>to
>> >keep paying the costs, so being demonstrably useful to the owner (d2)
>> >seems pretty important.
>> >
>> >The last subtype (d3) I've made as general as possible, believing that
>> >there is a real public-spirit, philanthropic nature to most
>>institutions
>> >that run repositories, as well as a belief that good deeds can come
>>back
>> >to reward us (casting our bread upon the waters?).
>> >
>> >I'm interested in any comments on these ideas, and particularly
>> >interested in any suggestions for measures of the (d) group. Does this
>> >make sense?
>> >
>> >--
>> >Chris Rusbridge
>> >Mobile: +44 791 7423828
>> >Email: [log in to unmask]
|