What's wrong with the well-established and well-understood term 'database'
for the underlying layer? 30yo. Isn't it sexy enough?
Arthur
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Repositories discussion list
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
> Behalf Of Richard Green
> Sent: Wednesday, 18 January 2006 01:19
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Institutional Repositories: do they need a new name?
>
> ...or might the term 'repository' better have been applied to the
underlying
> layer where digital objects are stored and managed together with the basic
> services common to the majority of peoples' needs? Additional
functionality
> to manage the specific needs of theses, for example, is then at a level
> somewhat above this; beside that the extra functionality appropriate to an
> image collection, beside that... and so on. If the repository layer is
> flexible enough, it should be able to support many different types of
> object. Unfortunately 'repository' is now used in many (often
conflicting)
> ways! Maybe we need to coin a new term for the underlying layer?
>
> Richard Green
> Manager, RepoMMan Project
> e-SIG, Academic Services
> University of Hull
>
> [log in to unmask]
> www.hull.ac.uk/esig/repomman
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Repositories discussion list
[mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> On Behalf Of Matthew J. Dovey
> Sent: 17 January 2006 13:40
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [JISC-REPOSITORIES] 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
|