I'm quoting from this thread, but my point is more to do with the naming
thread.
In Heery and Anderson's 2005 Digital Repositories Review (for JISC), they
differentiate a digital repository from other digital collections, partly in
that content is deposited (whether by the content creator, owner or third
party).
I am more comfortable with that as a distinction than I am with the notion
that digital repository is an updated term for digital library, because
surely a characteristic of a library is that the content is selected, not
deposited.
The second point below (originally numbered 4) seems to be within that
spirit, whereas Joanne's suggestion brings selection back into the frame.
But if people believe it is necessary for their repositories to have lots of
records in order to attract use then I guess it is logical to go fill it up
with other things, or with metadata records without objects.
So is deposit a purist attribute of digital repositories, or are we back to
repositories being anything that stores stuff?
Robin Rice
----- Original Message -----
From: "Joanne Yeomans" <[log in to unmask]>
>
> Point 4 (or a new point) I would also add needs to be someone or some
> people who can also look out for sources (eg authors web sites, other
> repositories, even hard copy archives of older papers) that contain
> papers that are relevant to your institution and look at ways to add
> those either manually or automatically.
>
>>
>> (4) Activist librarian support for approaching authors to elicit
>> the final draft for depositing, and even doing the
>> deposit for them
>> if necessary (needed for initial start-up years only)
>> Steven Harnard
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Robin Rice
Data Librarian
EDINA and University Data Library
http://datalib.ed.ac.uk/
0131 651 1431
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|