Point well made, perhaps then a good repository gives me (as a user) what I
want, invisibly, via a mechanism that I choose to use and that accepts
deposits from me as part of MY work processes invisibly without any
additional work, or even having to think about it.

Perhaps the above is perfect rather than good, but its what I want.

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 16:40
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: What makes a good repository?

Well, sort of. To be honest, I rarely look in any specific repository for
stuff. I usually search (eg Google Scholar). Any particular repository has
such a small proportion of an institution's output (in most cases) that it's
not usual as a destination per se.

My feeling on Les' point though was stronger than being successful on
deposit and use; I think he was suggesting a good repository is the basis
for other services of use to its own community. This is certainly something
the Southampton and ePrints have been acting on. I'm not sure if it's as
easy to embed DSpace (for example) into institutional processes in similar
ways. That might of course tempt one towards the conclusion that
DSpace-based repositories are intrinsically less useful, but I don't know
nearly enough to go that far!

--
Chris Rusbridge
Mobile: +44 791 7423828
Email: [log in to unmask]




On 7 Mar 2011, at 16:19, Tom Franklin wrote:

> 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]
>