There has been a previous argument about the use of the terms within
the OA community. At first the term "archive" was used (open access
archive, institutional archive) but digital librarians seemed to
prefer the term "repository".
I supported that change in terminology simply for the small semantc
distinction that "repository" indicates "a place where things may be
put* but an archive is "a place where things are stored". It is that
process of "putting" that is the key for open access self-archiving
(hmm, not self-repositing?) and I would argue that a repository is a
user-targeted service which allows them to deposit material which is
important to them.
This is one of the reasons why I would argue that financial records
and project administration information are bad fits for a repository
- it is often central administrators who want to store and manage
this information, even though it applies to someone else's projects.
---
Les Carr
On 17 Jan 2006, at 14:18, Richard Green wrote:
> ...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:JISC-
> [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
|