 |
 |
> They could be a re-statement of (d2) (repository is useful to its owners). Not really... the 'community' is not the 'owner' of the repository (at least in the case of an IR where there is a disjoint between the 'depositor' community and the 'reader' community). In the case of arXiv, I guess one could come closer to saying that the community and the owner are one and the same? > How would I measure making a user community better? In the absence of mandates, it is measurable by proxy... through the proportion of the community that chooses to make use of the repository (particularly w.r.t. deposit). (The converse is that one could have a 'good' repository that no-one choses to use - which feels a little unlikely to me). It's a bit like saying that Flickr and Picasa are 'good' (i.e. they 'make the community better') because lots of people choose to use them to store/share their images - the level of usage isn't necessarily what makes them good, but it is indicative that lots of people think they are good according to their own interpretation of how best to undertake the task of storing/sharing their images. Note that mandates skew this measure because the community is being told to do something irrespective of whether it is 'good' or not. Andy -- Andy Powell Research Programme Director Eduserv t: 01225 474319 m: 07989 476710 twitter: @andypowe11 blog: efoundations.typepad.com www.eduserv.org.uk -----Original Message----- From: Repositories discussion list [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Chris Rusbridge Sent: 07 March 2011 16:34 To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: What makes a good repository? Yes, I buy both your and Les' definitions, but in a vague and perhaps qualitative sense. They could be a re-statement of (d2) (repository is useful to its owners). How would I measure making a user community better? -- Chris Rusbridge Mobile: +44 791 7423828 Email: [log in to unmask] On 7 Mar 2011, at 16:16, Simeon Warner wrote: > Les - yours is a rather IR centric definition. Perhaps one could > generalize along the lines of "a good repository is one that makes its > user community better". For me, the ability to do things better and to > do new things is the key motivation for open and interoperable > repositories (disciplinary or institutional). > > Cheers, > Simeon > > > On Mon, Mar 07, 2011 at 04:05:22PM +0000, Les A Carr wrote: >> 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]