> The subject header on this email was intended to be
> provocative so that
> everyone would read this email!
However, this is a very good point. At Oxford when we convened a group
of relevant parties (from libraries, archives, museums, e-learning,
e-science etc.) to discuss an Institutional Repository, we had as many
(if not more) definitions of "repository" than people around the table.
I think the only common theme is that a "repository" is defined as much
by its use as by its contents e.g. an e-learning repository primary
objective is typically re-use rather than preservation; an archival
repository on the other hand is often more focused on long term
preservation than allowing the use of the data (indeed may not
necessarily have any delivery component); an experimental data
repository might be focused on enabling validation of experiments; a
pre-prints archive on pre-publication peer review resulting in
improvements to the published article; a post-publication repository in
preserving the article etc. (and this list is by no means exhaustive).
I think a pertinent question is whether there is enough commonality
between all the things which have picked up the "repository"
nomenclature to justify attempting to view these as aspects of the same
thing, or as completely different things with similar names!
Matthew Dovey
Oxford University
|