Can I push this even further? From a users perspective a good repository (or services linked to it) is invisible (because I don’t actually care where the stuff is stored), but will tell me when there is something new that I want / need to know (and it has to have a very good strike rate, at least in terms of not sending me stuff I don’t want). Ideally it should give me an abstract of these and why it thinks that I would be interested. However - just to make this hard - I wont have registered with the repository (it is invisible) so it will have to gather that information from what I do elsewhere, without breaking the law.
If I wanted to go further it would know what I am working on at the moment and only send me stuff related to that (repositories now, assessment after lunch......)
From a providers perspective a good repository should be one that meets users needs at an affordable cost. How it does that is second order.
regards
Tom.
Tom Franklin
Tom Franklin Consulting Ltd
4 Frazer Court
York
YO30 5FH
email: [log in to unmask]
phone: 0161 408 4401
mobile: 07989 948 221
skype: tomnfranklin
web: http://www.franklin-consulting.co.uk/
Registered in England and Wales: 6948162
-----Original Message-----
From: Repositories discussion list [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Brace, Kevin
Sent: 09 March 2011 13:09
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: What makes a good repository?
My two penneth to the above question would be, it must be accessible (spidered) easily by google / another search engine. The Googleability of anything net based seems to be at the top of anyone's priority list in the 21st century. This echoes Franks comments below; if "we" need to go somewhere else to use something web based it immediately becomes a barrier.
Therefore a logical next step would be ensuring all repositories can plug into existing popular websites/platforms by means of a lightweight toolbar kind of application/widget.
Regards.
Kevin Brace. Bsc(Hons), MSc, Ieng, CMALT, PDF-ELT Associate Head of Technology Enhanced Learning Centre for Learning Innovation & Professional Practice http://www1.aston.ac.uk/clipp/. Please read our CLIPP Blog for all latest news Aston University Birmingham B4 7ET
T: 0121 204 4230
M: 0787 2421741
Do you have a "bright idea"? This spring term we are focussing on Improving the Student Experience here at Aston. Log on to the Aston First/Bright Ideas website to submit your idea.
-----Original Message-----
From: Repositories discussion list [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of JISC-REPOSITORIES automatic digest system
Sent: 09 March 2011 00:00
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: JISC-REPOSITORIES Digest - 7 Mar 2011 to 8 Mar 2011 (#2011-46)
There are 10 messages totaling 1333 lines in this issue.
Topics of the day:
1. What makes a good repository? (9)
2. ISKO UK Event: Public Access to Information, London 14 April
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2011 00:10:20 -0000
From: Tom Franklin <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: What makes a good repository?
Point well made, perhaps then a good repository gives me (as a user) what I want, invisibly, via a mechanism that I choose to use and that accepts deposits from me as part of MY work processes invisibly without any additional work, or even having to think about it.
Perhaps the above is perfect rather than good, but its what I want.
regards
Tom.
Tom Franklin
Tom Franklin Consulting Ltd
4 Frazer Court
York
YO30 5FH
email: [log in to unmask]
phone: 0161 408 4401
mobile: 07989 948 221
skype: tomnfranklin
web: http://www.franklin-consulting.co.uk/
Registered in England and Wales: 6948162
-----Original Message-----
From: Repositories discussion list [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
On Behalf Of Chris Rusbridge
Sent: 07 March 2011 16:40
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: What makes a good repository?
Well, sort of. To be honest, I rarely look in any specific repository for stuff. I usually search (eg Google Scholar). Any particular repository has such a small proportion of an institution's output (in most cases) that it's not usual as a destination per se.
My feeling on Les' point though was stronger than being successful on deposit and use; I think he was suggesting a good repository is the basis for other services of use to its own community. This is certainly something the Southampton and ePrints have been acting on. I'm not sure if it's as easy to embed DSpace (for example) into institutional processes in similar ways. That might of course tempt one towards the conclusion that DSpace-based repositories are intrinsically less useful, but I don't know nearly enough to go that far!
--
Chris Rusbridge
Mobile: +44 791 7423828
Email: [log in to unmask]
On 7 Mar 2011, at 16:19, Tom Franklin wrote:
> It’s a good repository if its got what I want in it and I can find it
> without any effort. More seriously a repository is only any good if
> users use it (depositors deposit and users use). This may then lead
> to the type of benefit that Les mentioned, but that is a consequence
> of it being a good repository.
>
> regards
> Tom.
> Tom Franklin
> Tom Franklin Consulting Ltd
> 4 Frazer Court
> York
> YO30 5FH
> email: [log in to unmask]
> phone: 0161 408 4401
> mobile: 07989 948 221
> skype: tomnfranklin
> web: http://www.franklin-consulting.co.uk/
> Registered in England and Wales: 6948162
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Repositories discussion list
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> On Behalf Of Chris Rusbridge
> Sent: 07 March 2011 11:08
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: What makes a good repository?
>
> 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]
>
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2011 06:40:24 +0000
From: Paul Walk <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: What makes a good repository?
What Graham said!
To measure a repository's usefulness by direct user-consumption seems a poor metric to me - although I appreciate that repository managers are or feel compelled to measure this nonetheless.
Can we define a repository's usefulness to end-users (consumers) by how well the repository serves the wider goal of ensuring open access - however indirectly?
Paul
Paul Walk
(sent from phone)
On 7 Mar 2011, at 22:50, Graham Triggs <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> On 7 March 2011 21:18, Stuart Lewis <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Currently 95%+ of our deposits come in either via customised SWORD interfaces, or from our CRIS (Symplectic) using its excellent Repository Tools functionality. Our CRIS then feeds other research-related systems such as staff pages etc, and provides links back to the repository. There is also the question as to whether our repository is the best end-user discovery interface for the content it holds, or if that role should be combined with other discovery interfaces.
>
>
> I completely agree with this. For most institutions, having a repository across the entire institution means dealing with different disciplines, that have different metadata requirements. Although it's relatively easy to see how that can be handled on ingest if you happen to be able to have different submission forms / processes for different areas or types of deposit to your repository (and assuming you organise it suitably to be able to support such configuration), what about item discovery? You may want to be able to search for different things, browse in different ways, show different data and in different ways.
>
> It's hard to provide all that specialism in a single, cross-discipline repository. But it's not [so hard] to collect that data centrally, and make it available to other services that can take just the data that they are interested in, and provide specialist discovery services that ultimately point back to [or tunnel] the content from the repository.
>
> Similar is true for customised SWORD and/or CRIS deposit interfaces - placing deposit closer to the 'users' normal workflow, and potentially allowing for faster and more dramatic innovation in the submission process than if it is all handled by and built into one generic implementation.
>
> All of which can have a dramatic effect on how you might define - and certainly how you would measure - what makes a good repository, as stated in the original post. Because a good repository may not have any direct user interaction (aside from administrators) as described originally. And beyond that, there may well be plurality for the ingestion and discovery interfaces on top of the repository targeting different audiences. Plurality in the discovery may present a particular problem for measurement, as large amounts of user interaction may only touch that interface. (Ingestion would ultimately always show up as an item in the repository).
>
> Ultimately, a good repository is one that provides a useful service as part of the library/institution software ecosystem. Which basically boils down to preservation of and [open] access to material. And to compliment that, the ingestion mechanism needs to be effective, although not necessarily 'part' of the repository in the traditional sense. Arguably, functionality like browse and search are almost entirely redundant - looking at the selection of content within a single repository is not [necessarily] the natural starting place for discovering information about a subject. It may be better to measure the connections it has to other discovery services (eg. visbility in Google / Scholar, link out from PubMed, etc).
>
> Although disciplinary repositories may well have different user stories and different indicators of usefulness to the IR-centric view above.
>
> G
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2011 08:50:01 -0000
From: Brian Kelly <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: What makes a good repository?
Hi Chris
As you know I recently discussed the question of 'measures' in a post entitled "How Do We Measure the Effectiveness of Institutional Repositories?" - see http://ukwebfocus.wordpress.com/2011/02/24/how-do-we-measure-the-effectivene
ss-of-institutional-repositories/
I first suggested some key purposes of an IR: "(1) maximising access to research publications and (2) ensuring long-term preservation of research publications" and then looked at metrics which may provide either a direct or a proxy indication of the success of achieving these goals.
I agree with the comment you made that there is a need for "detailed individual data, showing referrals etc, rather than just totals".
No0te that a comment from Steve Hitchcock also indicated the need for a better understanding of the stats provided by the IR Stats module.
Comments on these approaches are welcomed.
Brian
-----Original Message-----
From: Chris Rusbridge [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 07 March 2011 17:08
Subject: Re: What makes a good repository?
Andy, you may be the only one so far to directly address "measures". I think I might agree with making the distinction between the general public and the academic community, except it's very blurred... I'm not confident which side I sit in! And I definitely agree with the idea of the "proportion of the total scholarly output within the target community of depositors", other than the inconvenient fact that the divisor is unknown (which I guess is why we mostly opt for uninteresting totals rather than the interesting unknowns, or estimates).
Your point about (c1, deposit by the academics themselves) being a good proxy for usefulness may be a good one. Apart from another inconvenient fact that in most cases it's very low (estimates of proportions of self-deposited stuff without mandates being in the low single digit percentages of total output).
I definitely wasn't aiming to conclude that most repositories are not very useful (as I think that most are, or will be). (Biased research? Moi?)
But I AM keen to see more suggestions for measure of usefulness.
Sorry for the blitz of replies, I'm just back from a pleasant sunny walk along the Stratford Canal (yes, I'm on THAT side of the academic/general public divide!).
--
Chris Rusbridge
Mobile: +44 791 7423828
Email: [log in to unmask]
On 7 Mar 2011, at 15:15, Andy Powell wrote:
> Citation strikes me as primarily being an indicator of reading (i.e.
> use)
rather than re-use? (OK, you/I need to define 're-use' here! :-) ).
>
> Under d I think you need to separate out usefulness to the academic
community (i.e. to other researchers?) from usefulness to the general public (which surely is of secondary importance?).
>
> I'm probably stating the obvious here... but counts of 'deposits',
'downloads' and 'citations' (roughly your c1, c2, and c3) are indicative of usefulness to depositors, readers and other researchers (roughly your d1, d2 and d3(ish - see above). In other words, c is the measure for d ??
>
> I think that c1 can only be measured as a proportion of the total
scholarly output within the target community of depositors (i.e. an absolute number of deposits isn't all that interesting). It would be nice to measure
c2 in a similar way (downloads from repository as a proportion of total downloads including paid-for accesses or somesuch) but I can't really see how that might be done. As you indicate, c3 is problematic to measure given current citation practice.
>
> I think one could make the argument that c1 (as undertaken by
> researchers
themselves) is a good single metric for overall usefulness (on the basis that no-one would willingly take time to deposit something in a repository unless they were confident of it leading to increased downloads and citation). Mandates completely skew that unfortunately... and, in any case, it is/was presumably hard to determine real researcher-initiated deposits from those down by intermediaries (which, again, skews the picture)?
>
> Sorry... just thinking out loud. No real help at all!
>
> Andy
>
> --
> Andy Powell
> Research Programme Director
> Eduserv
> t: 01225 474319
> m: 07989 476710
> twitter: @andypowe11
> blog: efoundations.typepad.com
>
> www.eduserv.org.uk
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Repositories discussion list
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Chris Rusbridge
> Sent: 07 March 2011 11:08
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: What makes a good repository?
>
> 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]
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2011 08:57:55 +0000
From: Ian Stuart <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: What makes a good repository?
On 07/03/11 11:08, Chris Rusbridge 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?
Can one even say what "a good repository" is, let alone asses some criteria for measuring it?
As an analogy, can one say what "a good car" is?
- how many people it can carry?
- how often one needs to service it?
- how expensive the maintenance is?
- how reliable it is?
- how fast it can go?
- whether it can cope with rough roads as well as smooth roads?
- .....
What you may consider a "good car", other probably won't (For me, a "good car" is one that can tow 2+ tonnes, traverse rough ground, and cope with half-a-tonne of rally stage stakes'n'arrows being flung in the back.... oh, and one that I can service & repair myself)
--
Ian Stuart.
Developer: Open Access Repository Junction and OpenDepot.org Bibliographics and Multimedia Service Delivery team, EDINA, The University of Edinburgh.
http://edina.ac.uk/
This email was sent via the University of Edinburgh.
The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in Scotland, with registration number SC005336.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2011 09:33:51 +0000
From: Angus Whyte <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: What makes a good repository?
The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in Scotland, with registration number SC005336.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2011 10:50:17 -0000
From: Paul Needham <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: What makes a good repository?
> It would be
> nice to measure c2 in a similar way (downloads from repository as a
> proportion of total downloads including paid-for accesses or somesuch)
> but I can't really see how that might be done.
Measuring c2 is theoretically possible.
The JISC-funded PIRUS2 Project
(http://www.jisc.ac.uk/whatwedo/programmes/inf11/pirus2.aspx) has worked on "developing a prototype service (including technical, organizational and economic models for a Central Clearing House) that will enable publishers, repositories and other organizations to generate and share authoritative, trustworthy usage statistics for the individual articles that they host".
PIRUS2 has demonstrated that it is *technically* feasible to consolidate usage (downloads) of articles from repositories and publishers. The project has also worked on the development of business/organization/economic models to support the proposed service - but this area still needs further investigation.
Paul
___________________________
Paul A S Needham
Research & Innovation Manager
Kings Norton Library
Cranfield University
Cranfield
MK43 0AL
This communication is sent in confidence to the named recipient only. If you are not the named recipient, any use, disclosure or copying of this communication is prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by telephone or email. The opinions expressed do not necessarily represent the corporate views of Cranfield University. Cranfield University accepts no liability for the content of this email or the consequences of any actions taken on the basis of the information provided.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Repositories discussion list [mailto:JISC-
> [log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Andy Powell
> Sent: 07 March 2011 15:16
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: What makes a good repository?
>
> Citation strikes me as primarily being an indicator of reading (i.e.
> use) rather than re-use? (OK, you/I need to define 're-use' here! :-)
> ).
>
> Under d I think you need to separate out usefulness to the academic
> community (i.e. to other researchers?) from usefulness to the general
> public (which surely is of secondary importance?).
>
> I'm probably stating the obvious here... but counts of 'deposits',
> 'downloads' and 'citations' (roughly your c1, c2, and c3) are
> indicative of usefulness to depositors, readers and other researchers
> (roughly your d1, d2 and d3(ish - see above). In other words, c is the
> measure for d ??
>
> I think that c1 can only be measured as a proportion of the total
> scholarly output within the target community of depositors (i.e. an
> absolute number of deposits isn't all that interesting). It would be
> nice to measure c2 in a similar way (downloads from repository as a
> proportion of total downloads including paid-for accesses or somesuch)
> but I can't really see how that might be done. As you indicate, c3 is
> problematic to measure given current citation practice.
>
> I think one could make the argument that c1 (as undertaken by
> researchers themselves) is a good single metric for overall usefulness
> (on the basis that no-one would willingly take time to deposit
> something in a repository unless they were confident of it leading to
> increased downloads and citation). Mandates completely skew that
> unfortunately... and, in any case, it is/was presumably hard to
> determine real researcher-initiated deposits from those down by
> intermediaries (which, again, skews the picture)?
>
> Sorry... just thinking out loud. No real help at all!
>
> Andy
>
> --
> Andy Powell
> Research Programme Director
> Eduserv
> t: 01225 474319
> m: 07989 476710
> twitter: @andypowe11
> blog: efoundations.typepad.com
>
> www.eduserv.org.uk
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Repositories discussion list [mailto:JISC-
> [log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Chris Rusbridge
> Sent: 07 March 2011 11:08
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: What makes a good repository?
>
> 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]
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2011 14:28:31 +0100
From: Dirk Pieper <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: What makes a good repository?
Hi,
from a service provider point of view a good repository
- should really give open access to documents (not only to metadata)
- should be really OAI-PMH-compliant
- the form of entries (personal names, subject headings, ...) should follow some basic resource description standards
- language description should follow a standard (e.g ISO 639-1)
- document typ description should follow a standard (e.g. according to DRIVER
guidelines)
- should provide sufficient subject information (keywords, classification,
abstract)
From my point of view the quality of content and metadata is the preconditon for everthing that follows - like visibilty, usage, standing of repositories within institutions, citation rates, ... - and is the key in the competition with publishers and Google Scholar.
Best
Dirk
------------------------------------------
Dirk Pieper
Bielefeld UL - BASE
Universitätsstr. 25, D-33615 Bielefeld
E-mail: [log in to unmask] | Tel.: +49 521 106-4010
Fax: +49 521 106-4052
www.ub.uni-bielefeld.de
www.base-search.net
------------------------------------------
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2011 13:43:15 +0000
From: Aida Slavic <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: ISKO UK Event: Public Access to Information, London 14 April
*** Apologies for cross-posting ***
You are cordially invited to the next ISKO UK afternoon event:
PUBLIC ACCESS TO INFORMATION? CHALLENGES TO INFORMATION GATEKEEPERS
14 April 2011
15.00-19.00 (registration starts 14.30)
VENUE: University College London, Christopher Ingold Building
FEE: £20.00 (ISKO/TiPS members and students FREE)
This meeting is organized in collaboration with Taxonomies in the Public Sector
(TiPS) and UCL Department for Information Studies.
Speakers are:
Christopher Graham (UK Information Commissioner) Carol Tullo (The National Archives) Charles Oppenheim Paul Davidson (Public Sector Information Domain Team)
To read more about the programme and to book your place go to the event's website at http://www.iskouk.org/events/public_information_Apr_2011.htm
The meeting will be preceded by the 4th ISKO UK AGM
We look forward to seeing you in April
==========================================
Dr Aida Slavic
Hon. Secretary ISKO UK
Email: [log in to unmask]
URL: http://www.iskouk.org
twitter: http://twitter.com/ISKOUK
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2011 14:17:25 +0000
From: HUNTER Philip <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: What makes a good repository?
Dirk,
As you say, this is a definition from the service provider point of view. And to be a good repository, it should be able to deliver all those things.
But a repository is more than just an application which can provide services and meet this or that standard. I know that what Chris is looking for is ways of measuring the value of repositories, but we could ensure that we meet all sorts of standards and requirements, and still fall by the wayside in the end, since it is all too easy to lose sight of the main business.
And the main business is? Open Access and repositories were, in the beginning, a response to the scholarly communications crisis. The expense of academic publishing is now even greater than it was, and we are not addressing the problem with the clarity we once did. For some of us, making materials available as open access items via repositories is not just a sticking plaster measure to ameliorate the shortcomings of the existing publishing and dissemination routes for academia, but part of a set of attitudes and technologies which require to be in place to alter those dissemination routes, in favour of routes which *entirely* meet the requirements of academia.
My tuppence worth for Tuesday.
Philip
*********************************
Philip Hunter
Digital Library Grants &
Project Coordinator
Digital Library Section
Edinburgh University Library
George Square, Edinburgh EH8 9LJ
Tel +44 (0)131 651 3768
*********************************
--
The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in Scotland, with registration number SC005336.
-----Original Message-----
From: Repositories discussion list [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Dirk Pieper
Sent: Tuesday, March 08, 2011 1:29 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: What makes a good repository?
Hi,
from a service provider point of view a good repository
- should really give open access to documents (not only to metadata)
- should be really OAI-PMH-compliant
- the form of entries (personal names, subject headings, ...) should follow some basic resource description standards
- language description should follow a standard (e.g ISO 639-1)
- document typ description should follow a standard (e.g. according to DRIVER
guidelines)
- should provide sufficient subject information (keywords, classification,
abstract)
From my point of view the quality of content and metadata is the preconditon for everthing that follows - like visibilty, usage, standing of repositories within institutions, citation rates, ... - and is the key in the competition with publishers and Google Scholar.
Best
Dirk
------------------------------------------
Dirk Pieper
Bielefeld UL - BASE
Universitätsstr. 25, D-33615 Bielefeld
E-mail: [log in to unmask] | Tel.: +49 521 106-4010
Fax: +49 521 106-4052
www.ub.uni-bielefeld.de
www.base-search.net
------------------------------------------
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2011 14:25:40 -0500
From: Ed Summers <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: What makes a good repository?
Thanks for a great thread. Personally I like the idea of citation (and
specifically linking) as a metric for repository "goodness" -- much
like classical PageRank [1], and Garfield's Impact Factor before it
[2]. If you are curious, I wrote up some other semi-related thoughts
you all inspired on my blog [3].
//Ed
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PageRank
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impact_factor
[3] http://inkdroid.org/journal/2011/03/08/on-good-repositories/
------------------------------
End of JISC-REPOSITORIES Digest - 7 Mar 2011 to 8 Mar 2011 (#2011-46)
*********************************************************************
|
