Les - yours is a rather IR centric definition. Perhaps one could
generalize along the lines of "a good repository is one that makes its
user community better". For me, the ability to do things better and to
do new things is the key motivation for open and interoperable
repositories (disciplinary or institutional).
Cheers,
Simeon
On Mon, Mar 07, 2011 at 04:05:22PM +0000, Les A Carr wrote:
> A good repository is one that makes a good university better. No,
> seriously. It improves the business processes of its host institution,
> because it is knowledge management technology and its institution is in
> the knowledge creation business. I think that is Philip's point as well.
> --
> Les
>
> On 07/03/2011 11:08, "Chris Rusbridge" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> >I'm interested in the question "what makes a good repository?". Or
> >perhaps, given a particular repository, how could we assess whether it is
> >doing its job well? Or, well enough... to be sustainable?
> >
> >I've been given various answers starting from
> >
> >a) the repository meets its (defined) goals.
> >
> >OK, sounds reasonable, but the goals were probably defined in the past,
> >perhaps even before the repository existed. That was then; this is a
> >different world. How about...
> >
> >b) the repository meets real needs.
> >
> >Yes, I like that. But what are those real needs? I can think of two
> >groups that sound similar but are subtly different...
> >
> >c) the repository is (well) used
> >c1) by depositors
> >c2) by readers
> >c3) by re-users.
> >
> >(There are probably more important subtypes of users.) This is the set we
> >often measure: c1 by total deposited items or by rates of deposit, c2 by
> >accesses and downloads. We less often measure c3, but citations and
> >in-links could be reasonable proxies. Both are slightly muddy as many
> >repositories contain substitutes for the version of record, and good
> >practice is to cite the latter (but perhaps more often link to the
> >substitute). But how about...
> >
> >d) the repository is useful
> >d1) to depositors
> >d2) to its owner
> >d3) to the public in general
> >
> >(Again this might not be the right set of subtypes.) The first of these,
> >d1 is not the same as c1; repositories might be used without being useful
> >to depositors. This might be because of mandates, perhaps, or by being
> >"used" by librarians acting for the depositors without much motivation by
> >the depositors. Much better where the repository is useful to the
> >depositor. This (I think) is what the various "Negative Click Repository"
> >posts were about (see posts in
> >http://digitalcuration.blogspot.com/search/label/Negative%20click), and I
> >think it's part of the thrust of Steve Hitchcock's DepositMO project
> >(http://blogs.ecs.soton.ac.uk/depositmo/).
> >
> >Sustainability is in part about continuing to convince decision makers to
> >keep paying the costs, so being demonstrably useful to the owner (d2)
> >seems pretty important.
> >
> >The last subtype (d3) I've made as general as possible, believing that
> >there is a real public-spirit, philanthropic nature to most institutions
> >that run repositories, as well as a belief that good deeds can come back
> >to reward us (casting our bread upon the waters?).
> >
> >I'm interested in any comments on these ideas, and particularly
> >interested in any suggestions for measures of the (d) group. Does this
> >make sense?
> >
> >--
> >Chris Rusbridge
> >Mobile: +44 791 7423828
> >Email: [log in to unmask]
|