It’s a good repository if its got what I want in it and I can find it
without any effort. More seriously a repository is only any good if users
use it (depositors deposit and users use). This may then lead to the type
of benefit that Les mentioned, but that is a consequence of it being a good
repository.
regards
Tom.
Tom Franklin
Tom Franklin Consulting Ltd
4 Frazer Court
York
YO30 5FH
email: [log in to unmask]
phone: 0161 408 4401
mobile: 07989 948 221
skype: tomnfranklin
web: http://www.franklin-consulting.co.uk/
Registered in England and Wales: 6948162
-----Original Message-----
From: Repositories discussion list [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
On Behalf Of Chris Rusbridge
Sent: 07 March 2011 11:08
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: What makes a good repository?
I'm interested in the question "what makes a good repository?". Or perhaps,
given a particular repository, how could we assess whether it is doing its
job well? Or, well enough... to be sustainable?
I've been given various answers starting from
a) the repository meets its (defined) goals.
OK, sounds reasonable, but the goals were probably defined in the past,
perhaps even before the repository existed. That was then; this is a
different world. How about...
b) the repository meets real needs.
Yes, I like that. But what are those real needs? I can think of two groups
that sound similar but are subtly different...
c) the repository is (well) used
c1) by depositors
c2) by readers
c3) by re-users.
(There are probably more important subtypes of users.) This is the set we
often measure: c1 by total deposited items or by rates of deposit, c2 by
accesses and downloads. We less often measure c3, but citations and in-links
could be reasonable proxies. Both are slightly muddy as many repositories
contain substitutes for the version of record, and good practice is to cite
the latter (but perhaps more often link to the substitute). But how about...
d) the repository is useful
d1) to depositors
d2) to its owner
d3) to the public in general
(Again this might not be the right set of subtypes.) The first of these, d1
is not the same as c1; repositories might be used without being useful to
depositors. This might be because of mandates, perhaps, or by being "used"
by librarians acting for the depositors without much motivation by the
depositors. Much better where the repository is useful to the depositor.
This (I think) is what the various "Negative Click Repository" posts were
about (see posts in
http://digitalcuration.blogspot.com/search/label/Negative%20click), and I
think it's part of the thrust of Steve Hitchcock's DepositMO project
(http://blogs.ecs.soton.ac.uk/depositmo/).
Sustainability is in part about continuing to convince decision makers to
keep paying the costs, so being demonstrably useful to the owner (d2) seems
pretty important.
The last subtype (d3) I've made as general as possible, believing that there
is a real public-spirit, philanthropic nature to most institutions that run
repositories, as well as a belief that good deeds can come back to reward us
(casting our bread upon the waters?).
I'm interested in any comments on these ideas, and particularly interested
in any suggestions for measures of the (d) group. Does this make sense?
--
Chris Rusbridge
Mobile: +44 791 7423828
Email: [log in to unmask]
|