Dear John, and all,
> Once you start to do this you no longer have a repository, you have a
publications list with associated full text
> (where available). I have no problem with this but let's stop calling
it a 'repository' and call it a 'publication list > with associated full
text (where available)'. [While we are clarifying naming systems lets
get rid of the totally
> misleading 'pre-prints and 'post-prints', I propose 'pre-refereed' and
'post-refereed'.]
I don't want to be pedantic, but there is nothing in the dictionary
definition of "repository" that suggests the actual content of such a
concept, be it metadata or full-text. In our parlance only, "content"
has to be the latter. Stevan has agreed that your model, John, is the
ideal. The practical experience of repository managers is, as I'm sure
many people will agree, that academics want their items to be in there
irrespective of whether full-text can be deposited (or under what
terms). They also want all their work for the institution to be
described. But the software front end and the capability for full text
already defines it as more than a publication list. (I note that we are
evolving the use of the word "repository", as in the dictionary it is
hard to see how it adds much more meaning to "depository", a word that
we have not chosen to use.) I have 170 more items to show to senior
management that I had in December. I guess a third have no full text.
But the management want to see all of the benefits that we can provide
in totality, not an ideal concept, to advance research management. Like
the academics, they value items with or without full text.
The practical truth is that repositories mean what they have already
become: some have no metadata-only records, some do, but words mean what
they are understood to mean. I personally feel that this battle has
already been won some time ago.
Many people have noted the frequent confusion of "pre-prints" and
"post-prints" and are better placed that me to comment on the full range
of possibilities. From a purely practical standpoint, your terms seem
less like to be misunderstood by the depositors, as their meaning is
immediately obvious. On this one I tend to agree, but again on a purely
practical basis. Others can say much more about the theory than I can,
as they have done interestingly on this list before.
Talat
|