 |
 |
Dorothea Salo wrote: "...from where I'm sitting, having run IRs for coming up on six years, a good repository is both simple and complex. Simple, because my definition is "a repository whose sponsors have clearly articulated what they want it to accomplish (presumably having consulted appropriate stakeholder groups), and whose staff and software successfully accomplish those things." That's it in a nutshell. If you have those two things, then you have a potential business process worthy of the name. Libraries aren't about publishing. They are about giving access, curation, and preservation, plus provision of some research facilities. No wonder the sponsors can't clearly articulate what they want the repository to accomplish, since the repository ought to be part of a move to replace the existing (and broken) publication process, and not just about making it possible to access to a few more papers than would otherwise be the case. So I agree. We need to clearly articulate what the repository is to accomplish. Great! So we've got a whole spectrum of opinion on this list about what a good repository is, and just a garnish of consensus... Philip ********************************* Philip Hunter Digital Library Grants & Project Coordinator Digital Library Section Edinburgh University Library George Square, Edinburgh EH8 9LJ Tel +44 (0)131 651 3768 ********************************* -- The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in Scotland, with registration number SC005336. -----Original Message----- From: Repositories discussion list [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Dorothea Salo Sent: Wednesday, March 09, 2011 2:39 PM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: What makes a good repository? So I've been watching all this with some bemusement and much enjoyment (really liked Ed's Five Laws of Repository Science). Because from where I'm sitting, having run IRs for coming up on six years, a good repository is both simple and complex. Simple, because my definition is "a repository whose sponsors have clearly articulated what they want it to accomplish (presumably having consulted appropriate stakeholder groups), and whose staff and software successfully accomplish those things." Complex, because (clearly, from this thread!) this is not the normal state of things in many if not most IRs. I have YET to understand what concrete, measurable goals many IRs (particularly in the States; I think things are a bit clearer in the UK) have been founded to accomplish. Believe me, I've asked. Most of the time, sponsors look back in bemusement and say "I dunno; what do YOU think it's for? You run one, after all; you surely must know!" This abysmal excuse for buy-in and support in high places is obviously not ideal! Should I try to articulate something, they nod their heads, say "okay, y'all repo people just go on and do that, then" and walk away without engaging on what would actually be needed to meet whatever goal I have outlined. My regular depositors (now that I actually have some, which I do) are all over the map: * a vanishingly small percentage -- approaching zero, really -- care about open access (sorry, but it's true) * a very few want permanent, citable URLs for something (and aren't stuck on DOIs) * quite a few want decent care taken of born-digital or digitized materials they don't have means or brainspace to look after (from master's theses to local newsletters to institutional records) * quite a few want their stuff to be Googleable (and the IR I run has pretty good Googlejuice compared to a random uni website) And many would-be depositors want things that I can't give them: a home for massive files (digital video is my bête noire), usage statistics, a bullpen for in-progress work, easy-deposit connections to their regular working environments, version control, "reserved" permalinks (so that they can put the permalink on the poster or in the paper before upload), display environments tailored to different content types (such as image and poster galleries, or pageturners, or EAD viewers, or something like Sudamih's Database-as-a-Service). So all of the blue-skying in this thread is fun and all, but also quite frustrating to read, because *the software is not there, people; it's just not*. Worse, many of us IR managers, self emphatically included, *have completely run out of credibility* to ask for development and collection-workflow resources, because for some unimaginable reason we haven't thus far managed to meet goals that were never articulated for us in the first place! As for sponsors, especially at the outset of IR planning they seem to want the IR to Magically Do Something about the serials crisis or records management or effort reporting or gray-literature collection or web archiving or the Death of Internet Culture or the Data Deluge or whatever. Explaining until blue in the face that IRs are not magic pixie dust, collection-building and culture change are *hard* and *slow*, and repository staff (especially when that's a single person) are not infinitely scalable never seems to register with such folk... despite over half a decade of painful IR experience which has been plentifully and (by and large) honestly published about. The sense I get from many IR sponsors is that they're not sure whether they want the IR to be a COLLECTION, a SERVICE, or an ADVOCACY TOOL (this last on various levels; some want IRs to advocate for the institution, some for open access). There's nothing wrong with any of those goals. Each of them just has to be policied, staffed, and organized rather differently. Lack of clarity on this point means that IRs and their managers try to serve as two of these, or perhaps all three, and they (we!) don't do particularly well at any of them. Which is, I can say with authority, a horrible hole to be in, professionally. I like to do things well. I don't know that I ever have, in this space -- in fact, I long since concluded I and the repositories I've run are dismal failures. So, perhaps another definition for a good repository: "one that doesn't make its manager tear out hanks of hair regularly in pure unadulterated frustration." If there's one of those out there, I don't think I've found it yet... and I know a fair few repo managers, I do. Dorothea