Listing of Engineering Repository Sources
Version 1.0 (10/11/05)

Contents

3.1.1 Via Content Type;
Research Data, Research Outputs, e-thesis, Learning Materials, Multimedia, Assessment materials, Technical Reports

3.1.2 Via Coverage;
Personal/Informal, Journal, Institutional/Departmental, Inter- Institutional, National, Geospatial

3.1.3 Via Primary Functionality;
Subject Access to Resources.

3.2. Available/potential Engineering Metadata Repository Sources

3.2.1 Via Content Type;
Research Data, e-thesis, Learning Materials, Technical Reports, Patents, Standards.

3.2.2 Via Coverage;
Journal, National

3.2.3 Via Primary Functionality;
Subject Access to Resources.

3.2.4 Miscellaneous;
Miscellaneous

1.Introduction

The following document aims to identify repository sources of relevance to the UK Higher Education Engineering community. Currently available and potential repository sources and their means of interoperability (e.g. OAI-PMH, Z39.50, SRW) are identified. The purpose of the listing is not to provide a comprehensive list of all worldwide repositories, but is rather an attempt to identify the most significant repositories of relevance to engineering and to provide examples of repositories via type and coverage. Ultimately the listing will be used to to identify sources that can be included in a pilot subject based engineering repository cross search service and to identify potential sources which may be approached and encouraged to expose their repository collections.

The document firstly addresses background issues such as the broad repository landscape, repository definitions and typologies, the methodology employed in the study before presenting a listing of repository sources relevant to engineering. The listing itself comprises of two major sections: available/potential engineering repository sources and available/potential engineering metadata repository sources (see section 2.2 for definitions of these). The implications of the findings resulting from this work are discussed in a separate document entitled Engineering Digital Repositories Landscape Analysis and Implications for Perx.

The listing is dynamic in nature and suggestions of further sources are welcomed.

2. Background

2.1. Digital Repositories - The broad landscape

The importance of digital repositories for the academic community is increasingly being recognised. Heery and Anderson (2005) has provided a selective review of current activity which shows steady, if patchy, growth. In the UK, the Joint Information Systems Committee (JISC) Digital Repositories Programme has initiated a programme of work to assist deployment of digital repositories within the learning and research communities. Elsewhere, a recent OECD Report (OECD, 2005) recognises open access archives and repositories as being a major recent development in scholarly communication. In the USA, the case for institutional repositories was made some time ago (Crow, 2002), and significant advances are being made. A more recent report from the National Library of New Zealand makes the case for New Zealand research institutions joining the global research community through the establishment of Institutional Repositories (Rankin, 2005).

2.2. Defining 'Repository' Sources

‘Digital repositories like digital libraries, mean many things to many people’ (Peters 2002). For some a repository is simply “a central place where data is stored and maintained” (Wikipedia). Heery and Anderson (2005) suggests that a repository is differentiated from other digital collections (e.g. directories, catalogues, databases) by the following characteristics;

It is important to note that repositories may or may not support ‘open access’ i.e. they may, or may not, be freely available.

Open access repositories have the following characteristics;

For the purposes of this review it is useful to distinguish between a repository as defined above and a ‘metadata repository’. A metadata repository being defined as “a database of data about data (metadata)” (Wikipedia August 2005) i.e. without the actual content itself.

These definitions are of course not entirely clear cut. For example, institutional repositories are often hybrids between true repositories (with actual content) and metadata repositories (with only metadata). Equally, one could pose the question as to whether commercial publishers who offer full text of articles to subscribers, and abstracts only to non subscribers, have ‘closed access repositories' or 'metadata repositories'.

In this review, for purposes of clarity, we have elected to attempt to separate ‘repository’ and ‘metadata repository’ sources.

Heery and Anderson (2005) suggest a simple typology of repositories; by content type, by coverage, by primary functionality and by target user group. This typology is represented in Table 1 in a slightly modified form [Modifications - addition of 'Multimedia' and 'Assessment Materials' categories, combination of preprints, postprints and full text original publications in 'Research Outputs' category, and combination of raw and derived research data into 'Research Data' Category].

A modified/expanded version of this typology is used for the purposes of this listing. Categories of specific relevance to engineering such as Technical Reports, Standards and Patents have been added where appropriate.

Note that many of the above categories are not necessarily mutually exclusive and repositories could potentially be placed in a number of categories. For clarity, sources are listed only once in what is deemed to be the most appropriate category and cross references are provided.

2.3. Issues Relating to Identification of Repository Sources

A number of issues prove to be relevant to the identification of repository sources. Including:

2.3.1. Differing views as to what constitutes a ‘Repository’?
There are varying opinions as to exactly what constitutes a repository (as alluded to above) which clearly have effects on the scope of any listing. In this study we have taken a broad view of repository sources and have included both ‘repositories’ and ‘metadata repositories’, and have attempted to present these as separate categories within the listing.

2.3.2. Limitations of Currently Available OAI Registries.
As discussed by Shreeves et al (2005) nearly all currently available OAI registries suffer from a number of shortcomings. “Probably foremost is that the registries typically maintain very sparse records about the individual repositories, usually nothing other than flat lists of base URLs and possibly the repository name.” There is usually no means to determine the relevance and coverage of repositories without resorting to time-consuming analysis via use of tools such as the OAI repository explorer. Clearly there is a need for better collection level descriptions, as is being proposed and developed by projects such as OpenDoar.

A second serious shortcoming of currently available registries is that of completeness. They are typically populated by self-registration or via community based efforts, and as a result are not complete authoritative lists.

2.3.3. Lack of subject classification/categorisation.
Many potential repository sources cover a range of subject areas yet have no form of subject classification or categorisation. Determining the relevance of such sources from a subject perspective therefore becomes difficult.

The experimental OAI Registry at UIUC offers some potential solutions to these issues by automating OAI repository discovery (using the Google SOAP-based web toolkit) and automating the repository cataloguing processes (using a specialised harvest).

2.4. Methodology

The primary means of identifying currently available repository sources employed in this study has been via an analysis of online directories of OAI Repositories including;

The initial means of identifying metadata repository sources involved the revisiting and updating of work previously undertaken as part of the Subject Portals Project (SPP). Part of the work of SPP involved identifying a number of possible target collections of relevance to engineers for the purpose of setting up a subject based cross search service.

Additional means include soliciting input from engineering information professionals and members of the engineering academic community (via the LIS-Scitech, Engineering-ALL and ELDNET-L e-mail mailing lists) as well as reviewing authoritative printed materials (e.g. MacLeod and Corlett (2005)).

3. Engineering Repository Sources

3.1. Available/potential Engineering Repository sources

3.1.1 Via Content Type

3.1.2 Via Coverage

3.1.3 Via Primary Functionality

3.2. Available/potential Engineering Metadata Repository sources

Important Note: With respect to engineering metadata repository sources, there is clearly a huge number of potential sources offering a wide variety of different types of content, some of which are freely available and others which are available only on a commercial/subscription basis (i.e. closed access metadata repositories). For the purposes of this list we have elected not to include closed access commercially produced repositories which do not currently allow free searching (such as various commercially available full-text and Abstract & Indexing services).  Many of these, such as ScienceDirect, Ei Compendex, Inspec, Technology Research Index, Web of Science, etc., are recognised as being extremely important, in terms of information provision, for the engineering community.  However, the primary purpose of this list is to help inform the development of a Pilot Engineering Repository Xsearch service which does not require authentication (i.e. which cross-searches only freely available data or metadata).  For information about such commercially available services, see:  MacLeod and Corlett (2005).

3.2.1 Via Content Type