That's an interesting stab at understanding the history of the idea of
the digital repository (institutional or otherwise). It would be as easy
to argue that the concept of the institutional repository began in the
course of a debate within the Open Archives Community about the relative
merits of creating discipline based or institution-based metadata
repositories. This debate was particularly active in 2001 - see
particularly the closing paragraphs of an article in Ariadne 29
'Developing an agenda for institutional e-print archives'
<http://www.ariadne.ac.uk/issue29/open-archives/> [Marieke Napier,
Philip Hunter & John MacColl, September 2001].
This debate occasionally resurfaces, but since it is perfectly possible
to construct discipline views of material collected and maintained on an
institutional basis, (currently) there isn't much support for the
creation of repositories by discipline. The institutional route is
easier to fund and maintain.
I agree entirely with the view that the repository (and its
functionality) is defined by the customer or user. In that sense it can
be understood as a kind of CMS. The institutional repository, arising
out of the Open Archives world, has however to be understood as a
*minimally specified CMS*, since interoperability is one of its key
characteristics. Where we are going with repositories now might be a
quite different place.
The checklist is interesting. It is worth mentioning that sometimes you
can tell if a person is coming at the IR idea from an Open Archives
perspective, because (according to mood) they might not agree that an
institutional repository has a preservation aspect. Unless the
institution makes it part of the definition.
[Happy Birthday Ariadne! Now you are 10].
Philip
*********************************
Philip Hunter
IRIScotland
Digital Library Division
Edinburgh University Library
George Square, Edinburgh, EH8 9LJ
Tel: +44 (0)131 651 3768
*********************************
<snip>
The Learning Technology world discovers the Digital Library world and
it makes an enormous discovery. That the librarians are storing,
cataloguing and managing research content in one place using FREE
software. Not only is this software FREE but it is being adopted by
almost simultaneously by many Institutions in the UK and around the
world - hey even Google are doing it, ... it must be the next big
thing! And so the 'Institutional Repository' is born.
.......
For me the true definition, and the only distinction, of an
Institutional Repository compared to a content management system for
teaching and learning are the 'customers'. An IR is the 'shop front'
for an Institution's digital assets. It's the stuff that it wants to
show off to the outside world, mainly academic colleagues. It's the
stuff that's worth preserving too - so it has some importance above
the day-to-day outputs of an institution. Compared to this are the
customers of the teaching and learning resources. These are the
'students' and this content is constantly being updated or changed
(well, in an ideal world). Usually, this is the content that the
academics themselves don't want to go beyond the Institutions virtual
walls too!
So, the checklist for content in an IR should be:
- Is it of value to the Institution?
- Is it worth preserving?
- Do we want to be recognised for this content?
If the answer is not 'YES' to these - then it's not appropriate to
put in an IR!
--
Melanie Bates
Learning Technology Co-ordinator
engCETL
http://engcetl.lboro.ac.uk
Loughborough University
|