JiscMail Logo
Email discussion lists for the UK Education and Research communities

Help for JISC-REPOSITORIES Archives


JISC-REPOSITORIES Archives

JISC-REPOSITORIES Archives


JISC-REPOSITORIES@JISCMAIL.AC.UK


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

JISC-REPOSITORIES Home

JISC-REPOSITORIES Home

JISC-REPOSITORIES  March 2008

JISC-REPOSITORIES March 2008

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

Re: Required and Desirable metadata in a repository

From:

Stevan Harnad <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Stevan Harnad <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Sat, 1 Mar 2008 17:48:58 +0000

Content-Type:

TEXT/PLAIN

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

TEXT/PLAIN (289 lines)

I am posting this at Prof. Wigan's request, but appending comments to
avoid generating misunderstandings.

(My replies refer to capabilities of the EPrints software. DSpace has most
of these capabilities too, and other softwares can easily implement
them.

On Sat, 1 Mar 2008, Marcus Wigan wrote:

> Steven, could you please forward to the list?
> There are several points Id like to make:
> 1) peer reviewed flag: YES please
>
> but there are several variants here
>
> a) a preprint held in an internal repository, which has subsequently been 
> published in a peer reviewed journal, but at the time has not been nor has 
> the journal been selected.. its still an invaluable tag, but implies a double 
> entry and update process. Not desirable from a management point of view 
> (unless the authors do it.. and not many will)

(i) For documents deposited as unrefereed preprints, their metadata can be
updated to add that they have been peer-reviewed (including journal
name, date, etc.) once those data are available; and if the paper itself
has revised in response to the refereeing, an updated full-text can be
added too.

(ii) The versions are linked; the latest version is tagged as such.

> b) a postprint (easy)

Yes.

> 2) invaluable metadata fields.
>
> a) I use [abstracts and] keywords heavily (which is of course why I 
> implemented an automated keyword populator matching against specialist 
> Thesauri [pdf available if anyone is interested])

(i) Not a repository-level function, because searching is not done at the
repository level but at the harvester level:

(ii) The repository software has abstract and keyword fields, but they
are unlikely to be more useful or usable than inverted full-text
boolean search, again at the harvester level, particularly when search
is restricted to OA content (or even peer-reviewed content).

(iii) Thesauri can be grafted on (again by harvesters/indexers)
if/when the OA content is complete or near-complete (but, again, I'll bet
they won't improve much on boolean full-text search).

> b) long ago when abstracting services were new, the IRRD inputs from Australia 
> were created using expert researchers in the fields involved to write the 
> abstracts and create the keywords (both IRRD Thesaurus based and additional 
> new keywords suggested- most of which were of course methodological, where 
> specialist thesauri are generally very poor). I wrote several hundred of 
> these...

Those days are happily over: Provide the OA full-texts and the software
will take care of the rest. (Again, certainly not a repository-level
function, though repositories need to configure themselves to provide
optimal output for harvesters/indexers.)

> so an ideal field in document metadata would be something like
>
> - what are the key items you the author of the document rate as the major 
> contribution in this document?

Can't hurt, but certainly not essential for search.

> Ive had far far greater success in getting authors to add this than to add 
> abstracts of keywords or or.. almost anything else .. and they are 
> invaluable.

Those were in the days when the full-text itself was not OA, harvested,
inverted, and indexed.

Stevan Harnad

> Im posting this as the latter point was endorsed b other off list
>
> marcus wigan
>
>
>
> At 6:39 PM +0000 29/2/2008, Stevan Harnad wrote:
>> Bill Hubbard is spot-on on the utility of am explicitly  searchable
>> field indicating whether or not an item has been peer reviewed. The
>> EPrints software has such a tag.
>> 
>> (It is only likely to be useful at a harvester level, as individual
>> repositories (IR) are only likely to be searched for
>> institution-internal purposes. So this is a metadatum worth displaying
>> for harvesters, and harvesters should set up in such a way as to make
>> it possible to search on only the peer-reviewed items, if the user
>> wishes.)
>> 
>> I am not certain, however, about the usefulness or urgency of a
>> "copyright" tag at this time, for either author or user: This might
>> possibly be useful institution-internally (e.g., for IP vigilantes --
>> though one wonders whether they would trust an author's
>> self-assessment!) but I doubt they would be useful at the webwide user
>> level.
>> 
>> Individual users certainly don't need to see or know the copyright
>> information, in order to view the item on-screen, download it, print it
>> off, and store it locally. (Users certainly don't worry about that in
>> accessing the billions (trillions?) of other kinds of items that are
>> web-readable!)
>> 
>> It would only be relevant if the individual user wished to re-post or
>> republish the journal article -- and I'd be inclined to treat that rare
>> and non-fundamental usage-need as a special case, one not requiring a
>> universal tag to facilitate it at this time -- especially because as OA
>> content will grow, the copyright picture will change, and these extra
>> re-use rights will eventually become part of the default conditions for
>> OA content.
>> 
>> I'd be inclined to say the same about the utility of an explicit
>> copyright status tag for the sake of harvesters who wish to put the
>> article in a database or to data-mine it: Again, harvesters like Google
>> do this already, without further ado, for the billions (trillions) of
>> items on the web already. It is hard to imagine that the minuscule
>> portion of all that web content that OA content represents (c. 2.5
>> million articles per year) warrants or necessitates explicit copyright
>> tagging at this time.
>> 
>> Stevan Harnad
>> 
>> On 08-02-29, at 12:10, Hubbard Bill wrote:
>>
>>>   Dear Colleagues,
>>>
>>>  Just picking up on Ian Stuart's question as to opinion on "Required"
>>>  and
>>>  "Desired" metadata fields for eprints records.
>>>
>>>  Could I ask colleagues how they view a "peer-reviewed" field?
>>  >
>>>  In terms of what users want, my own experience from talking to
>>>  academics
>>>  is that when faced with a mass of Open Access eprints the great
>>>  majority
>>>  have asked unprompted about how to search only within peer-reviewed
>>>  material.
>>>
>>>  And for this facility we need to give services a peer-review field,
>>>  unless they start interpolating from other metadata features like
>>>  journal-title or somesuch.
>>>
>>>  Copyright and peer-review (p-r) are the two topics that can be
>>>  guaranteed to come up in academic discussions in relation to
>>>  repositories: the first from their perspective as an author, the second
>>>  from their perspective as researcher/user.
>>>
>>>  My strong suspicion is that most of those academics that haven't asked
>>>  about a p-r filter would want the feature before they used OA material
>>>  as a habitual source for research. Again, it may be that they didn't
>>>  ask
>>>  because they assumed that it was all p-r, or, that it was all non-p-r.
>>>  (I have found repositories have a slighted reputation in some quarters
>>>  (often BioMedical) as being all referred to as "pre-print servers").
>>>
>>>  In terms of ingest, I think that the author is the best person to know
>>>  if their eprint has been p-r'd and that a peer-review tick-box would be
>>>  an acceptable additional task. Authors are generally pleased that their
>>>  article has passed p-r and would probably be happy about noting that.
>>>  As
>>>  to how that information is recorded, that is another matter.
>>>
>>>  Does this agree with other colleagues' experience? Is a p-r field
>>>  required to facilitate future use of the material?
>>>
>>>  Regards,
>>>
>>>  Bill
>>> 
>>> 
>>>
>>>>  -----Original Message-----
>>>>  From: Repositories discussion list
>>>> 
>>>> [<mailto:JISC-REPOSITORIES -- JISCMAIL.AC.UK>mailto:JISC-REPOSITORIES -- JISCMAIL.AC.UK] 
>>>> On Behalf Of Ian Stuart
>>>>  Sent: 21 February 2008 14:41
>>>>  To: JISC-REPOSITORIES -- JISCMAIL.AC.UK
>>>>  Subject: Required and Desirable metadata in a repository
>>>>
>>>>  [This is primarily a question for those involved in repositories for
>>>>  e-prints, but others may have interesting views]
>>>>
>>>>  Within your own Repository, what [primarily metadata] fields are
>>>>  *Required* and what are *Desired*?
>>>>
>>>>  If you were advising a fellow Institution about setting up a
>>>>  repository,
>>>>  what fields would you advise as *Required* and what are *Recommended*?
>>>>
>>>>  If you were to harvest[1] from a repository, what fields would you
>>>>  consider essential, and what would you consider helpful?
>>>>
>>>>  Following on from that: if you were to harvest the Depot (or even the
>>>>  Intute Repository Search), how would you hope to identify[2] deposits
>>>>  that could be imported into your own Institutional Repository
>>>>
>>>>  [1] This is where I come in: The depot will have a transfer
>>>>  service, but
>>>>  what to transfer?
>>>>  [2] I've had loads of thoughts on this one, and they all seem
>>>>  to spiral
>>>>  and knit and knot and hide their threads, and not actually
>>>>  conclude in
>>>>  any meaningful way.... for me.
>>>> 
>>>>
>>>>  --
>>>>
>>>>  Ian Stuart.
>>>>  Developer for The Depot,
>>>>  EDINA,
>>>>  The University of Edinburgh.
>>>>
>>>>  <http://edina.ac.uk/>http://edina.ac.uk/
>>>> 
>>>
>>>  --
>>>
>>>  Bill Hubbard
>>>  SHERPA Manager
>>>
>>>  SHERPA - www.sherpa.ac.uk
>>>  RSP - www.rsp.ac.uk
>>>  RoMEO - www.sherpa.ac.uk/romeo
>>>  JULIET - www.sherpa.ac.uk/juliet
>>>  OpenDOAR - www.opendoar.org
>>>
>>>  SHERPA
>>>  Greenfield Medical Library
>>>  University of Nottingham
>>>  Queens Medical Centre
>>>  Nottingham
>>>  NG7 2UH
>>>  UK
>>>
>>>  Tel  +44(0)  115  846 7657
>>>  Fax  +44(0)  115  846 8244
>>>
>>>    *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *
>>> 
>>>
>>>  This message has been checked for viruses but the contents of an
>>>  attachment
>>>  may still contain software viruses, which could damage your computer
>>>  system:
>>>  you are advised to perform your own checks. Email communications with
>>>  the
>>>  University of Nottingham may be monitored as permitted by UK
>>>  legislation.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> This message is intended for the addressee(s) only and should not be read, 
>> copied or disclosed to anyone else outwith the University without the 
>> permission of the sender.
>> It is your responsibility to ensure that this message and any attachments 
>> are scanned for viruses or other defects. Napier University does not accept 
>> liability for any loss
>> or damage which may result from this email or any attachment, or for errors 
>> or omissions arising after it was sent. Email is not a secure medium. Email 
>> entering the
>> University's system is subject to routine monitoring and filtering by the 
>> University.
>
>
> -- 
> ==============================================================================
> Dr Marcus Wigan,    Personal website http://go.to/mwigan    Personal email 
> m.wigan -- hertford.oxon.org
> * Principal Oxford Systematics, Box 126 Heidelberg 3084 Australia
> * Senior Consultant Demis BV, delft, The Netherlands
> * Professorial Fellow, GAMUT, Faculty of Architecture and Planning, 
> University of Melbourne
> * Emeritus Professor  of Computing  and  of Transport Systems, Napier 
> University Edinburgh Scotland   * Professorial Fellow, Civil and 
> Environmental Engineering, University of Melbourne
> * Visiting Professor, CTS, Civil and Environmental Engineering, Imperial 
> College London
> ==============================================================================

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

JiscMail Tools


RSS Feeds and Sharing


Advanced Options


Archives

April 2024
March 2024
February 2024
January 2024
December 2023
November 2023
October 2023
September 2023
August 2023
July 2023
June 2023
May 2023
April 2023
March 2023
February 2023
January 2023
December 2022
November 2022
October 2022
September 2022
August 2022
July 2022
June 2022
May 2022
April 2022
March 2022
February 2022
January 2022
December 2021
November 2021
October 2021
September 2021
August 2021
July 2021
June 2021
May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
November 2005
October 2005


JiscMail is a Jisc service.

View our service policies at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/policyandsecurity/ and Jisc's privacy policy at https://www.jisc.ac.uk/website/privacy-notice

For help and support help@jisc.ac.uk

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager