Matthew's view of the lack of commonality in the definition of the idea
of the repository has a lot of clarity. Beyond the notion that a
repository is a place 'where stuff is', there is no shared definition.
It's a blank sheet.
In practice this means that the nature of a repository, its
functionality, and its architecture, and its use, are determined by what
it is understood to be *for*. We don't have to define what a repository
itself is (beyond the minimal definition above), only the nature of the
specific instances of repository which are being created. What a
repository is for is contained in the determinative attached to it -
learning object,digital object, eprint, geospatial data, etc.
It's worth noting that in the antidiluvia of the Open Archives universe,
repositories did not contain objects *at all*, only metadata. But they
did nevertheless contain 'stuff', and could be understood in terms of
what they were for.
Trying to come up with an agreed definition for the term repository
might turn out to be counterproductive. We should learn to be
comfortable with its pliability.
[tuppence worth]
Philip
*********************************
Philip Hunter
IRIScotland
Digital Library Division
Edinburgh University Library
George Square, Edinburgh, EH8 9LJ
Tel: +44 (0)131 651 3768
*********************************
.
.....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
|