Progress has been made since the original Roadmap. However the plethora of repository related activity means that higher level objectives can easily get lost in detail. This is an issue at the policy level but perhaps more so for the individual institutional repository manager trying to reconcile the needs of their particular institution with wider activity.
The repositories landscape is complex. A network of repositories is emerging made up of various repository types and multiple stakeholder groups are involved in this repository activity. Achieving good communication between these various groups becomes increasingly important. Various actions might be taken to achieve more clarity in communicating repository roles and objectives.
The first step of the Review addressed ongoing concerns expressed within the repository programmes about use of the word ‘repository’. The IdeaScale Web tool1 was used to initiate discussion and this was followed up by further consideration of the definition at the Roadmap workshop.
Within the JISC repository development community many have been critical of over-use of the ‘repository word’. Such on-going debate over terminology is not unusual within the context of development programmes, however a number of themes emerged in these discussions revealing that uneasiness about use of terminology around ‘repositories’ is symptomatic of uncertainties about the role of repositories, and how repositories fit with higher level objectives.
It is worth noting that terminology has been an issue since the early stages of the ‘open archive movement’. The differences between repositories, archives and digital libraries are unclear. The underlying technology is similar, the purposes overlap. As ‘digital stores’ repositories can fulfil a number of diverse roles, sharing the same technological characteristics as archives and digital libraries, leading to ambiguity as to what is the primary aim of implementing repositories. ‘Repository’ as a term in itself has not carried much distinctive meaning about purpose nor motivation.
Discussion about terminology went wider than mere definition into questioning the role of repository in relation to high level objectives.2 Various themes emerged:
- use of the word itself is unhelpful to most audiences as it has the wrong implications, is imprecise, and is disconnected from higher level objectives
- the term always needs qualification
Use of the term ‘repository’ to audiences of researchers and teachers is unhelpful. The term is unfamiliar and has negative implications of inactive, inert storage. A repository is intended to support higher level objectives (open access, asset management, sharing and re-use), so the emphasis needs to be on these aims not on the technical means to achieve them. Repositories do not stand alone in being criticised in this way. At the recent iPres 2008 conference the Chief Executive of the British Library, Lynne Brindley, argued for a new strap line for digital preservation to emphasise its purpose: ‘Preservation for Access’.3 It is important for communication with stakeholders to stress the objective a repository fulfils e.g. making content available on the Web; sharing research data; improving digital information management.
Often assumptions are made about repositories that lead to misunderstanding. There needs to be acknowledgement of the diversity of repositories e.g. it cannot be assumed that repositories are open access as a repository can be used to share resources amongst a closed group; repository content is frequently a hybrid of metadata only items and full text items rather than completely full text; content is varied and does not consist only of peer-reviewed journal articles; depositors are often intermediaries rather than authors.
Discussion within the Web forum concluded that while a focus on objectives rather than on repositories would be helpful to wider audiences, within the development community use of the term is inevitable, providing a focus for widespread existing activity as well as providing some indication of shared experience. Though even amongst repository managers and developers the word ‘repository’ needs qualification as there are so many different types of repository.
On a pragmatic basis, the definition of ‘repository’ used by the Repository Support Project4 was recommended, with minor modification. This definition refers to the objectives of a repository, it indicates the various organisational types of repository, and acknowledges diverse content:
A digital repository is a managed, persistent way of making research, learning and teaching content with continuing value discoverable and accessible. Repositories can be subject or institutional in their focus. Putting content into an institutional repository enables staff and institutions to manage and preserve it, and therefore derive maximum value from it. A repository can support research, learning, and administrative processes.
- Repositories: communicating the idea. IdeaScale web discussion available at http://jiscrepository.ideascale.com/ []
- Chris Rusbridge, Digital Curation blog. Summary of IdeaScale discussion. http://digitalcuration.blogspot.com/2008/08/comments-on-negative-click-research.html []
- IPres 2008. JISC Information Environment team blog. http://infteam.jiscinvolve.org/2008/10/02/ipres-2008/ []
- RSP Web site. http://www.rsp.ac.uk/repos/definitions. Accessed June 2008. []