Thanks Anna, 

I guess an issue in terms of 'service to the users' is who are the users - 
Researchers at this institution?
Researchers of the world?
Research admin staff who have to collect the information for REF?

Probably all three.   As discovery of its research is beneficial to an institution,  this means that though it's not a REF metric, it needs to be considered, even though 'researchers of the world' don't have a voice within an institution as such.

Rachel

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Anna Clements [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
>Sent: Friday, June 20, 2014 9:46 AM
>To: Rachel Henderson (LIB); [log in to unmask]
>Subject: RE: CRIS integration with Repositories
>
>Rachel, all
>
>There are several institutions that use Pure only .... Edinburgh, Dundee, KCL,
>Bristol are the ones I can remember of the top of my head.  I'm sure you will
>come across others at the Pure User Group.
>But I think it's down to what infrastructure you already have and can sustain
>going forward.  I wouldn't want to get bogged down in the whether we use a
>CRIS, and IR or a combination of both. It's the service to the users that
>matter. Incidentally the 'current' in CRIS indicates that the
>information/material is currently relevant . not necessarily recently created ...
>although to be fair I struggle with this definition!
>
>We have Pure connected to dSpace and collect all metadata and workflow in
>Pure, passing the full-text through to dSpace when it can be made open
>access.  When we took Pure in 2009 the repository functionality was
>definitely not sufficient for our needs but this has improved ... hence the
>decision of more recent Users to either dispense with their IR or not bother
>implementing one.  Like you we also keep theses in dSpace as we don't have
>the Pure Theses module.
>
>With data I'm not yet convinced that dSpace offers anything that Pure
>doesn't ... certainly not long-term preservation as far as I can tell ..and it has
>the same issue with uploading of multiple or large files  ... although I know
>some have done work on this (Exeter?).
>
>Linking Pure to Arkivum or some other similar long-term storage solution
>(with additional preservation functionality by Archivematica) may be the
>way to go ... so we will keep this under review and welcome the continued
>dialogue in the community as this is a rapidly changing area.
>
>All the best
>
>Anna
>
>______________________________________________________
>Anna Clements | Head of Research Data and Information Services
>
>University of St Andrews Library | North Street | St Andrews | KY16 9TR|
>T:01334 462761 | @AnnaKClements
>
>________________________________________
>From: Repositories discussion list [[log in to unmask]] on
>behalf of Rachel Henderson [[log in to unmask]]
>Sent: 20 June 2014 08:55
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Re: CRIS integration with Repositories
>
>Any gathering of information would be very useful.
>
>At UEA we have Pure, which currently feeds records through to Eprints.
>We add etheses directly into Eprints as we didn't originally have the student
>module within Pure.
>At the moment there are administrators who check all the material before
>it's added in Pure.  There is a process of training researchers, but I don't
>know how many have actively engaged with updating their records yet.
>
>
>There is a desire to remove Eprints & use Pure only - via the enhanced portal.
>
>I have been trying to find institutions that just use Pure, and no longer have
>a repository.  I've struggled to do this as many have the information  in Pure
>but also retain a repository.
>
>I struggle with the idea that a "current research" Inf system will act as a
>repository of historical material. But perhaps it's evolving.  At the moment
>useful services such as Irus don't work with Pure.
>
>Best wishes
>
>Rachel Henderson