at the risk of really putting the proverbial feline amongst the winged
rats...
for sometime Ive felt that what the 'repositories' world needs is a clear
glossary of terms and meanings (and Ill not mention ontologies : ) ). When
we use the term repository it seems to have some contextual dependency based
on the assumptions of the speaker. Surely we can clear this up and tighten
our definitions so that we are unambiguosuly referencing the same thing -
apples is apples and oranges are entirely different!!!
so.. a plea - how about this list devotes some time to establishing a
lexicon with the functional scope of the various 'repositories' clealry
defined?
*************************************************
James S Reid
EDINA
Geoservices - GRADE project
University of Edinburgh
Main Library
George Square
EH8 9LJ
tel: +44 (0) 131 651 1383
fax: +44 (0) 131 650 3308
email: [log in to unmask]
"sapiento post eventum"
----- Original Message -----
From: "Sarah Currier" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2006 3:11 PM
Subject: Re: Institutional Repositories: do they need a new name?
> Thanks for this Amber and to the others who have been contributing to this
> discussion.
>
> To return to what I've realised was my actual point:
>
> This email list is for discussion of repository issues across the range of
> repository types or domains or whatever: research output repositories (be
> they
> institutional or wider); learning materials repositories; scientific data
> repositories; imagebanks; assessment itembanks; eportfolio repositories,
> etc.
> (all of which may be "institutional" or not). Therefore, when we are
> discussing
> things on this list it's important to keep in mind the range of
> communities
> members come from and be clear that not everyone uses the same terms as
> everyone
> else. Different communities have their own terminologies as well as their
> own
> drivers and their own standards and their own separate history and their
> own
> priorities (and, dare I say, prejudices?).
>
> The term "institutional repository" has a very clear meaning in one
> domain.
> This doesn't mean that others understand that meaning. It is also a term
> that
> may be too vague for those outside the "IR" domain- there isn't anything
> in it
> that implies "research outputs" or "research papers" to an outsider. It
> looks
> very general.
>
> I've noticed that since sending the initial email, I've started (on-list
> and
> off-list) saying "repositories of research outputs" to distinguish this
> type of
> repository in my own communications. I'll continue to do that where I
> think it's
> needed in my own communications as long as I find it useful (and add
> "institutional" where that is useful).
>
> Just so the IR people don't feel picked on- I was asked last week why on
> earth "data repositories" was listed as a separate type on the DigiRep
> wiki when
> surely ALL the repository types hold data. I explained that this is
> shorthand
> for "repositories of scientific data from experiments" (at least I think
> that's
> what it is- I'll probably cause another avalanche of emails just with that
> statement). And don't get me started on how the term "learning object
> repository" looks to the uninitiated (check out the name of my DigiRep
> project
> below in my signature!).
>
> This list could be said to be forming a broader community of practice
> encompassing a number of established communities of practice. I don't know
> but I
> strongly suspect that the "IR" contingent is in the majority. That can
> affect
> dynamics in any group.
>
> I do strongly believe we can all learn from each other.
>
> Apart from that, in terms of defining "repository" I can't really add much
> to
> what Phil and Amber have said- they said it well (although I do think the
> discussion there is useful too, e.g. Richard Green's comments).
>
> Best
> Sarah
>
>
>
> Quoting Amber Thomas <[log in to unmask]>:
>
>>
>> Hi All,
>>
>> Fascinating discussion, and very reassuring that we're identifying the
>> same
>> kinds of issues. I agree that "repository" is a pliable notion,
>> especially
>> when we move beyond the e-prints model into learning and teaching,
>> research
>> data, e-admin content.
>>
>> Firstly, are we mixing up "the Institutional X" and "an institutional x"?
>> I'm
>> sure it makes a big difference to JORUM whether its seen as "the National
>> Service" or "a national service". The capital letters have big
>> connotations!
>> And as Phillip Hunter said, some services end up institutionally managed
>> because of funding as much as anything else.
>>
>> My tuppenceworth is that there are indeed different ways of viewing "a
>> repository" ...
>>
>> Repository as software
>> define it by its functionality for getting, putting, discovering and
>> retrieving
>> illustration: the whole VLE/MLE/LearningPlatform debate. We know you can
>> provide VLE functionality without a particular piece of "VLE software".
>> Maybe
>> this is the same. The E-framework allows us to discuss functionality
>> neutral
>> from any particular piece of software, hence reference models etc.
>>
>> Repository as filestore
>> define it as a collection of digital content stored/managed in a
>> particular
>> way
>> illustration: lots of FE colleges are using a repository mainly to access
>> their NLN materials because a repository is good for managing a big set
>> of
>> content packages. That seems to be looked down on as undeveloped
>> repository
>> use, but why? There's a storage issue, and the repository solves it. Why
>> should it do more than that?
>>
>> Repository as a set of practices
>> define it as a set of processes and policies around copyright clearance,
>> metatagging, submission, reviewing etc
>> illustration: archiving
>> There's archiving activity, and there are archives. You can undertake
>> archiving practices without focusing on any particular archive. One
>> person
>> might manage their C:drive more carefully than a whole institution might
>> manage its repository!
>>
>>
>> Personally, I think it's the practices that are the starting point. If a
>> repository is a suitable solution then people will see the need for it.
>> If
>> they've already got a service mix (intranet, a VLE, a network drive) that
>> supports those practices then in a sense they've already got repository
>> functionality.
>>
>>
>>
>> Do definitions matter? They do to us, but not to many others. If I could
>> have
>> a pint for everyone that's told me google is a repository ... :-)
>>
>>
>>
>> Amber
>>
>>
>>
>> Amber Thomas
>> Project Leader
>> JISC DEL: Promoting Use of Shared Content in the West Midlands
>> Bredon 76
>> University of Worcester
>> Henwick Grove
>> Worcester
>> WR2 6AJ
>>
>> email: [log in to unmask]
>> mobile: 07913 842421
>> http://www2.worc.ac.uk/wm-share/
>>
>>
|