Arguably, because database is even more misleading than repository, and
inaccurate. For example DSpace uses a conventional relational database
for the metadata <tongue-in-cheek>a sort of
metadatabase</tongue-in-cheek> but keeps the items themselves
separately. Therefore referring to the whole shebang as a database seems
misleading. Why not use repository as the underlying layer and be more
careful qualifying that term?
It seems that the problem isn't with "repository", which has a fairly
clear definition. According to the Oxford Reference Dictionary that
happens to be the one I have handy, a repsoitory is "a place where
things are stored". If we add the riders that we are concerned with
digital "things" and that we expect these stored items to sufficiently
well described and organised so as to be recoverable and usable in
future that seems a not unreasonable definition. The difficulty is with
the "institutional" part. Obviously different institutions will have
different approaches to using a repository, so their requirements will
differ. Indeed, an institution might have several different uses for a
repository (or repositories) - a research repository, a learning object
repository, a management information repository etc... All these have
the same underlying use - storage and retrieval of digital materials,
but all might have different patterns of use. To tie in with comments on
the "content" thread, it does perhaps remain to be seen whether a single
institutional repository can optimally fulfil all these functions.
Sorry for this lengthy three ha'porth
Jon
-----Original Message-----
From: Repositories discussion list
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Arthur Sale
Sent: 19 January 2006 05:05
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Institutional Repositories: do they need a new name?
What's wrong with the well-established and well-understood term
'database'
for the underlying layer? 30yo. Isn't it sexy enough?
Arthur
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Repositories discussion list
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
> Behalf Of Richard Green
> Sent: Wednesday, 18 January 2006 01:19
> 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
|