John
As Les has pointed out the SWAP model is actually ScholarlyWork ->
Expression -> Manifestation -> Copy.
Grant is therefore an attribute of ScholarlyWork.
Rosemary
John Smith wrote:
> Ian,
>
> How does this SWAP model deal with papers not associated with any grant? This seems based on the STM research model but many areas of academia do not operate this way.
>
> John.
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Repositories discussion list [mailto:JISC-
>> [log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Ian Stuart
>> Sent: 11 March 2008 15:14
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: Re: Central versus institutional self-archiving
>>
>> John Smith wrote:
>>
>>> Matthew,
>>>
>>> You may be correct that we are still focussed too closely on the
>>> article as the basis of communication (as in the past we were
>>>
>> too
>>
>>> focussed on the journal as the carrier and quality controller).
>>> However, I still feel that any new system still needs to play
>>>
>> the
>>
>>> same roles as the old, e.g., quality control, recognition of
>>>
>> work
>>
>>> done, etc. However do you feel that even these (what I see as)
>>> fundamental requirements are in fact artefacts of the old system
>>>
>> that
>>
>>> do not need to be carried over to the system you envisage?
>>>
>>> You did say you wanted to 'up the level of abstraction' :-).
>>>
>> If people are interested, I'm sure we can have a get-together
>> sometime
>> at OR08, and we can ruminate about this ;-)
>>
>> I've moved to liking the SWAP model: Research Grant => piece of
>> work =>
>> version of that work => copy of that version.
>>
>> 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 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.
>>
>> (but until someone can make a system like this, I'll keep my
>> current
>> repository running, thank you for asking :) )
>> --
>>
>> Ian Stuart.
>> Devloper, the Depot
>> EDINA,
>> The University of Edinburgh.
>>
>> http://edina.ac.uk/
>>
--
Rosemary Russell
UKOLN, University of Bath
Bath BA2 7AY
http://www.ukoln.ac.uk
+44 1483 560342
|