Hello Phil,
My main reason for suggesting this type of definition is that it is very
difficult to assign use to function, especially when we are talking about a
large 'system'. Okay, the main use of a hammer is banging in nails but there
are lots of other things that can be done with one and practice with even
this very carefully crafted and refined tool is probably diverse. Even
though the hammer maker may give instructions on a defined set of uses...
Okay enough of that...
Perhaps our best efforts would be spent defining what constitute each of the
services I listed from the e-framework. e.g. how do we need to manage
version control, what constitutes an effective unique identifier system,
what do we want to do with cross-institutional group management.
When we've got services defined we can tie them together then let new
practice emerge. We can produce marketing, advertising, and training
documentation to suggest or even mandate practice too. But, the internet and
web technologies tend to propogate unexpected/ emergent practices that is
difficult to constrain.
Regards, Howard
----- Original Message -----
From: "Phil Barker" <[log in to unmask]>
To: "Howard Noble" <[log in to unmask]>
Cc: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2006 10:38 AM
Subject: Re: Institutional Repositories: do they need a new name?
> Hello Howard, everyone
> I think that Howard's "repository" might be a third sense of the word,
> which you might expand as "repository system"
> (where a system is "A collection of components organized to accomplish a
> specific function or set of functions"[1]). This would sit in between
> the "repository service" as a putative component in the system (though I
> guess Howard has called it Content management -- though it wouldn't be a
> content management system) and "repository service" as the service you
> provide to users once you have your "repository system" and agreed on a
> whole load of explicit and implicit policies.
>
> As I understand it, work on reference models will help us understand
> what the components of a "repository system" might be, and the work done
> by other projects represented on this list (WM-Share, CD-LOR etc) along
> with more general work on "repository ecologies" (Blinco and McLean's
> Wheel of Fortune [2]) will help us understand the policies required to
> shape these services. (NB, I'm not suggesting a decoupling of the two
> areas of work, it's necessary that they feed into each other!)
>
> Phil
>
> [1] IEEE Std 610 : IEEE standard computer dictionary (1990)
> [2] here's another version of the Wheel of Fortune:
> http://www.rubric.edu.au/extrafiles/wheel/index.html
>
> Howard Noble wrote:
> > Hello, like the postings on this subject.
> >
> > How about: a repository is an integrated set of software components that
> > provide discrete services, examples of which are:
> > a.. 2.1 Alert
> > b.. 2.2 Archiving
> > c.. 2.3 Authentication
> > d.. 2.4 Authorisation
> > e.. 2.5 Content management
> > f.. 2.6 DRM
> > g.. 2.7 Federated search
> > h.. 2.8 Filing
> > i.. 2.9 Group
> > j.. 2.10 Harvesting
> > k.. 2.11 Identifier
> > l.. 2.12 Member
> > m.. 2.13 Metadata management
> > n.. 2.14 Packaging
> > o.. 2.15 Person
> > p.. 2.16 Rating/ annotation
> > q.. 2.17 Resolver
> > r.. 2.18 Role
> > s.. 2.19 Search
> > t.. 2.20 Service registry
> > u.. 2.21 Workflow
> > v.. 2.22 Accounting
> > w.. 2.23 Version control
> >
> >
> >
>
> --
> Phil Barker Learning Technology Adviser
> ICBL, School of Mathematical and Computer Sciences
> Mountbatten Building, Heriot-Watt University,
> Edinburgh, EH14 4AS
> Tel: 0131 451 3278 Fax: 0131 451 3327
> Web: http://www.icbl.hw.ac.uk/~philb/
>
>
|