On 11 Mar 2008, at 15:13, Ian Stuart wrote:
> If people are interested, I'm sure we can have a get-together
> sometime at OR08, and we can ruminate about this ;-)
A BOF! Why not organise one when you get there? There are rooms set
aside.
> I've moved to liking the SWAP model: Research Grant => piece of work
> => version of that work => copy of that version.
I'm not sure that this is an entirely accurate representation of the
SWAP model. I think that would be
Piece of work
=>
expression of that work in journal or conference
=>
manifestation of that work in preprint/postprint form
=>
copy of that manifestation from a particular service provider/
aggregator/repository/website.
This looks very similar to your description, except that I believe
that the difference is that in your model you might have two
independent journal articles because they express two separate, but
related, arguments. In SWAP there can only be workshop / conference /
journal / book expressions of the same set of ideas in more or less
detail with more or less exposition and evaluation. But if you tried
to have TWO journal article expressions, the reviewers would reject
the second one for already having been published, or not adding any
novel ideas to an already published work. In my circle of researchers,
we might talk about different "outings" for the same work, or we might
talk about "working up" a "conference paper" into a "journal article".
There is a direct genetic heritage that links them. I think of the
SWAP/FRBR model as describing a single "family" of documents in
various revisions developed through various publication channels.
This is an important distinction that we are making. I think there
needs an extra layer in the SWAP/FRBR model which I would express as
follows: a piece of funded work yields many bibliographic families of
publication. When SWAP describes a "Scholarly Work" it is (ironically)
not describing "work" from the scholar's perspective, but from the
bibliographer's perspective.
> eg: Grant: "Investigate how different engines affect performance in
> land Rovers"
>
> From this, I produce two articles: "How to fit a V8 in place of a
> diesel engine" and "Electric engines Off Road". I also have a
> poster-presentation at the "Environmentanlists Conference".
> ... this is three pieces of work from one grant
>
> The "Electric Engines" article has 3 versions: my submitted draft
> (ie, pre peer-review); the "authors final version" (post peer-
> review); and the "publishers final copy".
> .... this is three instances of the same piece of work
>
> Finally, my "authors final version" has three file copies: my
> OpenOffice file, the PDF sent in, and an unformatted ASCII-text
> version.
>
> In the ideal world, all [3 x 3 x 3 =]27 items will be deposited, and
> (most of them?) made available through OA.
>
> My argument is not with this at all... this is fine.
> My argument is how these items are deposited: 27 separate deposits
> is not the way to do it.
I'm seeing your point and I'm liking it.
> I would contend that one should define one research grant (with its
> associated metadata). From that single grant, one links to the three
> pieces of work (each with their own specific items of metadata).
> From each of these entries, you create three sub-records: the
> instances. The instances have very little data specific to
> themselves (a date, peer-reviewed/published status', etc [we know
> the journal the piece of work was written for already]).
> Finally, from each instance we hang three files, along with some
> preservative metadata (size, format, MD5 checksum, date deposited,
> etc)
> In *this* system, the researchers interaction with the system is
> limited to half-a-dozen fields, all blindingly obvious, and all
> obviously relevant.
This hypothesis is worth some investigation (that's *funded
investigation* for any JISC lurkers). It might allow self-deposit or
mediated deposit to be made more effective, and it might allow the
results to be more useful.
> (but until someone can make a system like this, I'll keep my current
> repository running, thank you for asking :) )
In EPrints I would (off the top of my head) create a new deposit type
(call it Project) and choose appropriate metadata and workflow for it.
This would be a template for any spawned publications, and would act
as a collection object to bind them all together (a complex object).
The individual bibliographic works would then be individual eprints,
with the different manifestations as different documents within the
one eprint. Some of this will be made easier in EPrints 3.1
--
Les Carr
|