 |
 |
...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