I had a similar experience for the exceptionally simple use case of
trying to map DOIs onto repository records, in naive hope of allowing
users to look up a green OA copy of a paper from its DOI.
I picked two repositories at random to try and do this with and found
two completely different ways of reporting the DOI: one in dc:relation
and one in dc:identifier.
I suspect the problem is that for things like this, DC is too generic
and therefore too open to interpretation.
If anyone's interested, the code is here:
https://github.com/jezcope/doi2oa
Of course, coming up with a new standard does put me in mind of this
cautionary tale:
https://xkcd.com/927/
Jez
Chris Keene <[log in to unmask]> writes:
> In the early days of repositories I know a lot of work went in to defining standards for making them inter-operable and to expose their data, notable the OAI initiative. I'm hoping some who were involved in (or who followed) those developments could help enlighten me.
>
> For a number of years I've been curious around the reasoning behind adopting Dublin Core via OAI-PMH as the de facto way to harvest and obtain metadata from a repository. (DC isn't the only format, but it is by far the most common used).
>
> To use data exposed by a system - such as a repository - the first thing I would have thought you need to do is interpret the incoming information.
>
> When reading information from an IR, the system/script that is importing it needs to establish a number of things:
> - common bibliographic fields; title, authors, date, publisher, vol/issue, issn/isbn, publication title etc.
> - DOI
> - link to IR record
> - is full text available? if so where, and in what format.
> - what type of item is it.
> - Description, citation, subjects etc.
>
> While using a common standard (DC) is clearly a good thing. Processing the above can be a challenge, especially as different repository software platforms and versions can present key pieces of information in different ways. This is perhaps made a little harder as there is no field to specify the software/version in the metadata output
>
> I'll give a couple examples:
> To extract the vol/issue/publication title involves looking at all the "dc:identifier" fields, identifying which identifier contains a citation, and then deconstruction the citation to extract the data (and parsing citations is no easy process in itself).
>
> To obtain if a record has the full text openly available, ie OA (with an Eprints system): Check to see if there is a dc:format - if it exists there is a file associated with the record.
> But to check it is OA, and not locked down (which is quite common) find the dc:identifier which starts with the same domain name as the OAI interface, presume it is a link to the full text, try and access it, if you succeed (http status code 200) then it is OA. Though if you only have the metadata to work with and can't try and retrieve the URL while processing the record, you obviously can't do this.
> Dspace provides quite different data via OAI-PMH so this method would not work.
>
> The reason I bring this up now is that I'm currently trying to improve how our repository records are displayed in our discovery system (Primo, from Ex Libris), the metadata is currently so poor we have hidden them.
> A key concept of these systems is that they know which items the user has access to (across all the library's collections and subscriptions), and by default only returns those which the user can access. While Primo has quite a complex system for configuring how records are imported, it doesn't extend to the sort of logic described above.
>
> So from my specific use case (and other dabbling in this area) the data provided by OAI-PMH DC seems difficult to work with.
>
> I'd be interesting to learn a bit of the history of the thinking of how this approach cam about, and whether there are better approaches in processing the data than those I have described here.
>
> Regards, and thanks in advance to any insights
> Chris
>
> For reference here are two examples (you may find using Firefox, view source, works best)
> Eprints (record with a file attached, but not OA)
> http://sro.sussex.ac.uk/47853/
> oai http://sro.sussex.ac.uk/cgi/oai2?verb=GetRecord&metadataPrefix=oai_dc&identifier=oai:sro.sussex.ac.uk:47853
>
> Dspace
> https://www.era.lib.ed.ac.uk/handle/1842/164
> http://www.era.lib.ed.ac.uk/dspace-oai/request?verb=GetRecord&metadataPrefix=oai_dc&identifier=oai:www.era.lib.ed.ac.uk:1842/164
>
>
> Chris Keene - Technical Development Manager, University of Sussex Library
> Contact: http://www.sussex.ac.uk/profiles/150000
--
Jez Cope, Academic Digital Technologist
Centre for Sustainable Chemical Technologies, University of Bath
http://people.bath.ac.uk/jc619
Please note: I check email at fixed intervals and aim to respond
within 24 hours of receiving your message. If you need a response
sooner, please use the following (in order of decreasing preference):
IM (Jabber/XMPP): [log in to unmask]
Skype: jezcope
Twitter: @jezcope
Tel: +44(0)1225 38 5827
|
