Hmmm. How about the three laws of repositorics (aka preservation, service
& sustainability).
1. A repository may not injure any research output or, through inaction,
allow any research output to come to harm.
2. A repository must obey any orders given to it by human beings, except
where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
3. A repository must protect its own existence as long as such protection
does not conflict with the First or Second Law.
With apologies to Dr Susan Calvin.
--
Les Carr
On 09/03/2011 14:39, "Dorothea Salo" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>So I've been watching all this with some bemusement and much enjoyment
>(really liked Ed's Five Laws of Repository Science).
>
>Because from where I'm sitting, having run IRs for coming up on six
>years, a good repository is both simple and complex. Simple, because
>my definition is "a repository whose sponsors have clearly articulated
>what they want it to accomplish (presumably having consulted
>appropriate stakeholder groups), and whose staff and software
>successfully accomplish those things."
>
>Complex, because (clearly, from this thread!) this is not the normal
>state of things in many if not most IRs. I have YET to understand what
>concrete, measurable goals many IRs (particularly in the States; I
>think things are a bit clearer in the UK) have been founded to
>accomplish. Believe me, I've asked. Most of the time, sponsors look
>back in bemusement and say "I dunno; what do YOU think it's for? You
>run one, after all; you surely must know!" This abysmal excuse for
>buy-in and support in high places is obviously not ideal! Should I try
>to articulate something, they nod their heads, say "okay, y'all repo
>people just go on and do that, then" and walk away without engaging on
>what would actually be needed to meet whatever goal I have outlined.
>
>My regular depositors (now that I actually have some, which I do) are
>all over the map:
>
>* a vanishingly small percentage -- approaching zero, really -- care
>about open access (sorry, but it's true)
>* a very few want permanent, citable URLs for something (and aren't
>stuck on DOIs)
>* quite a few want decent care taken of born-digital or digitized
>materials they don't have means or brainspace to look after (from
>master's theses to local newsletters to institutional records)
>* quite a few want their stuff to be Googleable (and the IR I run has
>pretty good Googlejuice compared to a random uni website)
>
>And many would-be depositors want things that I can't give them: a
>home for massive files (digital video is my bête noire), usage
>statistics, a bullpen for in-progress work, easy-deposit connections
>to their regular working environments, version control, "reserved"
>permalinks (so that they can put the permalink on the poster or in the
>paper before upload), display environments tailored to different
>content types (such as image and poster galleries, or pageturners, or
>EAD viewers, or something like Sudamih's Database-as-a-Service). So
>all of the blue-skying in this thread is fun and all, but also quite
>frustrating to read, because *the software is not there, people; it's
>just not*. Worse, many of us IR managers, self emphatically included,
>*have completely run out of credibility* to ask for development and
>collection-workflow resources, because for some unimaginable reason we
>haven't thus far managed to meet goals that were never articulated for
>us in the first place!
>
>As for sponsors, especially at the outset of IR planning they seem to
>want the IR to Magically Do Something about the serials crisis or
>records management or effort reporting or gray-literature collection
>or web archiving or the Death of Internet Culture or the Data Deluge
>or whatever. Explaining until blue in the face that IRs are not magic
>pixie dust, collection-building and culture change are *hard* and
>*slow*, and repository staff (especially when that's a single person)
>are not infinitely scalable never seems to register with such folk...
>despite over half a decade of painful IR experience which has been
>plentifully and (by and large) honestly published about.
>
>The sense I get from many IR sponsors is that they're not sure whether
>they want the IR to be a COLLECTION, a SERVICE, or an ADVOCACY TOOL
>(this last on various levels; some want IRs to advocate for the
>institution, some for open access). There's nothing wrong with any of
>those goals. Each of them just has to be policied, staffed, and
>organized rather differently. Lack of clarity on this point means that
>IRs and their managers try to serve as two of these, or perhaps all
>three, and they (we!) don't do particularly well at any of them. Which
>is, I can say with authority, a horrible hole to be in,
>professionally. I like to do things well. I don't know that I ever
>have, in this space -- in fact, I long since concluded I and the
>repositories I've run are dismal failures.
>
>So, perhaps another definition for a good repository: "one that
>doesn't make its manager tear out hanks of hair regularly in pure
>unadulterated frustration." If there's one of those out there, I don't
>think I've found it yet... and I know a fair few repo managers, I do.
>
>Dorothea
|