Hello, like the postings on this subject.
How about: a repository is an integrated set of software components that
provide discrete services, examples of which are:
a.. 2.1 Alert
b.. 2.2 Archiving
c.. 2.3 Authentication
d.. 2.4 Authorisation
e.. 2.5 Content management
f.. 2.6 DRM
g.. 2.7 Federated search
h.. 2.8 Filing
i.. 2.9 Group
j.. 2.10 Harvesting
k.. 2.11 Identifier
l.. 2.12 Member
m.. 2.13 Metadata management
n.. 2.14 Packaging
o.. 2.15 Person
p.. 2.16 Rating/ annotation
q.. 2.17 Resolver
r.. 2.18 Role
s.. 2.19 Search
t.. 2.20 Service registry
u.. 2.21 Workflow
v.. 2.22 Accounting
w.. 2.23 Version control
----- Original Message -----
From: "Arthur Sale" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2006 5:04 AM
Subject: Re: Institutional Repositories: do they need a new name?
> 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
>
>
|