 |
 |
Does some of this probably depend on what you want your repository to do, or what you see its role to be? Here at Auckland, our repository is slowly taking a bigger role in research management, but performing fewer functions. Currently 95%+ of our deposits come in either via customised SWORD interfaces, or from our CRIS (Symplectic) using its excellent Repository Tools functionality. Our CRIS then feeds other research-related systems such as staff pages etc, and provides links back to the repository. There is also the question as to whether our repository is the best end-user discovery interface for the content it holds, or if that role should be combined with other discovery interfaces. None of this is anything to do with the usefulness of DSpace / A. N. Other Repository - we're just choosing to use it as a central repository that serves other systems. So the repository in the middle is becoming a more critical and important part of our infrastructure, and is thus gaining importance. With integration points such as SWORD, Solr, OAI-PMH, we're able to let the repository do its core repository stuff, while sometimes using more specialized systems to perform other roles. Stuart Lewis Digital Development Manager Te Tumu Herenga The University of Auckland Library Auckland Mail Centre, Private Bag 92019, Auckland 1142, New Zealand Ph: +64 (0)9 373 7599 x81928 On 8/03/2011, at 5:40 AM, Chris Rusbridge wrote: > 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] >>