A good repository is one that makes a good university better. No,
seriously. It improves the business processes of its host institution,
because it is knowledge management technology and its institution is in
the knowledge creation business. I think that is Philip's point as well.
--
Les
On 07/03/2011 11:08, "Chris Rusbridge" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>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]
|