Skip navigation

Tag Archives: repository

I’m in the process of handing over a website to be archived and backing up a large number of related resources by adding them to a repository.

It’s coincidental that I was also in the process of updating many of these resources with Creative Commons (CC) licences. As part of the process, I created a rights register, basically a combination of a spreadsheet recording all the resources and their copyright holders,  and copies of the replies received when the copyright holders were asked for their permission to use a CC licence on their work. This rights register was then passed on to those archiving the website and managing the repository.

As these resources shortly become someone else’s responsibility, it occurred to me that perhaps this sort of information (particularly permissions given) should be routinely held in the repository that stores the resource. This could be useful should there be a challenge to the licensing, particularly since materials can outlive their creators and the ‘depositor’ information that repositories routinely hold can quickly go out of date (job change, retirement, etc.)

Are there any repository managers thinking about storing information from rights registers for the long distant future of their resources?

Phil Barker (CETIS) opened the day, mentioning the ‘dark web’, that part of the web which is inaccessible to search engines (‘The Invisible Web – Sherman and Price, 2001) and not adding your work to it inadvertently by choosing the wrong repository. Different repositories were contrasted, ones that manage resources instead of managing access (eg MIT OpenCourseware) and ones that manage different types of content (eg work in progress, finished work.) Ben Goldacre’s request for information on the content of a homeopathy course, though initially refused by the institution, was eventually granted after a court ruled that this was legally public information. Do we think of course material this way?

David Davis (Warwick) took us through his survey on searching for resources, conducted for the OOER project. This was full of interesting and somewhat counter intuitive insights into how users searched and how they assessed resources when they found them: an excellent read (see link below.)

David Millard (Southampton) compared sharing through repositories and Web 2.0 sites. He pointed out that those that shared did so for a reason (backing up our research in Skills for Scientists) and so it was important that the repository/site fulfilled those needs.

Joss Winn (Lincoln) expressed the view that a repository needed to concentrate on storing resources and nothing more, providing ”food for Google” rather than trying to provide social web functions which other sites already did so well and could be taken advantage of.

Patrick Lockley (Nottingham) spoke about the challenges of harvesting a multitude of RSS feeds; should be easy but it isn’t!

Lisa Rogers (Heriot-Watt) gave details of her work on two Subject OER projects, CORE for Materials and the Engineering Pilot Project. CORE involved experimenting with uploading to JorumOpen using RSS feeds (since manual upload of so many resources was unfeasible) whereas the engineering project had authors upload material themselves to make the process more sustainable.

Roger Greenhalgh (Harper-Adams) took us on a tour of repositories, including the Virtual Carrot Museum (everything you wanted to know about carrots ….and some) and his own OpenFields: a repository for land based studies.

Sarah Currier outlined a repository built by a community of practice based on Diigo and Netvibes.

Links to all the position papers can be found here: http://wiki.cetis.ac.uk/Repositories_and_the_Open_Web

Tweets (tagged #cetisrow) can  be found here: http://www.twapperkeeper.com/hashtag/cetisrow