Hello Harry,
One item should be clarified: the introductory paragraph refers to a "digital library". In paragraph 1. apparently the terminology is changed to an "electronic repository". The equivalence has to be deduced. I see no reason why the term "digital library" cannot be used throughout.
Thank you very much for your comments. My feeling is that by using the term "electronic repository" it was intended to denote a "simplified digital librar". This is expressed in page 3: "The digital library can be developed incrementally, beginning with a simple repository and later adding more capabilities".
Thus we have three things: a. Electronic archive: For the past events. And also as a backup storage in case that there would be unforeseen problems with the digital library. b. Electronic Repository: A first step towards a *real* digital library. First with limited functionality such as paper abstracts and (whenever possible) extended abstracts. c. Digital library: The final step. The intermediate step b. is intended to speed up the process since we cannot wait four more years (until 2009) which is the validity of the actual Springer contract during which a DL has to be established by Springer. In clear text: Springer could theoretically wait for that until the end of the contract period.
Best regards Otto