I guess this is going off at a tangent from the general discussion, but I would like to pick up on the idea that an archive repository is generally more focussed on long-term preservation than allowing use of the resources that it holds. I'm interested to know more about examples of repositories that have this remit, and how they relate this to access. I am coming from a particular viewpoint, as an archivist who always used to think of a repository as being a local or county record office! We've spent years trying to get away from the idea that archive repositories are about preservation - they are in fact about continuing to provide access to resources and therefore there is a requirement to carry out preservation in order to provide access. If people have the idea that they are primarily about preservation it is much harder to justify their existence (and continued funding).
I suppose there is the concept of a 'dark archive' but still you have the concept of submission and dissemination at either end, so it is more a functional description that defines the role of archival storage and management, but this is still surely for the purpose of dissemination?
Jane Stevenson
MIMAS
University of Manchester
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Repositories discussion list
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of
> Matthew J. Dovey
> Sent: 17 January 2006 13:39
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: 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
>
>
|