That mirrors the impression I came out of the repository and e-framework
sessions at the JISC-CETIS Conference last November.
If anything there we had a similar semantic conflict with the word
"service"
Wearing an e-framework hat - I had in mind "service" in the
technological sense, i.e. a black box component doing a specific tasks
(as in SOAP WebServices etc.). So for me a repository service was the
underlying storage layer with functionality specific to that.
However, in the session when people were asked what were the features of
a repository service, it became apparent that they were talking about
"services" in the sense of a service provider or a packaged solution so
mentioned things (workflow, metadata management) etc. which are
intrinsic to providing a end user "service", but are distinct
technological "services".
Matthew
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Repositories discussion list
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Richard Green
> Sent: 17 January 2006 14:19
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Institutional Repositories: do they need a new name?
>
> ...or might the term 'repository' better have been applied to
> the underlying layer where digital objects are stored and
> managed together with the basic services common to the
> majority of peoples' needs? Additional functionality to
> manage the specific needs of theses, for example, is then at
> a level somewhat above this; beside that the extra
> functionality appropriate to an image collection, beside
> that... and so on. If the repository layer is flexible
> enough, it should be able to support many different types of
> object. Unfortunately 'repository' is now used in many
> (often conflicting) ways! Maybe we need to coin a new term
> for the underlying layer?
>
> Richard Green
> Manager, RepoMMan Project
> e-SIG, Academic Services
> University of Hull
>
> [log in to unmask]
> www.hull.ac.uk/esig/repomman
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Repositories discussion list
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> On Behalf Of Matthew J. Dovey
> Sent: 17 January 2006 13:40
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [JISC-REPOSITORIES] Institutional Repositories:
> do they need a new name?
>
>
> > 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
>
|