Quoting "C.J.Smith" <[log in to unmask]>:
> While I can see that there has to be a preservation solution for other
> material, I wouldn't want to see it clogging up our repository here at
> the OU. As far as I'm concerned the day we start diluting our content
> with lecture notes, anniversary photos and corporate publications is the
> day we loose our credibility as a serious alternative to
> subscription-based literature searching. The focus of providing open
> access to peer-reviewed research should not be clouded. Anything else
> that needs preserving should be housed separately.
All the more reason to move from a silo approach to a view approach :)
The current repository technology is like silos: we have stand-alone
applications, which are isolated silos of information, with little
interaction with any other silo of information (be it other
repositories, MIS systems, Publications catalogues, etc...)
There is a growing perception that a more organic "Dark Archive" of
data, where a particular web-space exposes just certain parts of that
archive, could be a better solution.
In this model, the researcher can put into their own "archive area"
the things that they want (or need) to keep: areas of interest; grant
application letters; emails; posters; formal articles; grey
literature; and so forth. The "Institutional Repository" is then just
a view of this "Archive" where the researcher has flagged that the
item(s) can be made publicly available, and the data *types* match
that which the IR manager wishes to include.
From here, the same corpus of data can expose a repository of Grey
Literature, or of DataSets, or of Chemical Formulae, or [yes] even
I understand the idea that an IR may well be focused on "Academic
output in peer-reviewed journals" (ie, what is important in the
RAE/REF), but I question the need for the IR to be an isolated silo
that contains nothing but...
The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
Scotland, with registration number SC005336.