Hi Chris,
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1ViOQj5Cj9mlkFCTjCMjtAA6pELEM9s_82IGfSJF5lv0/edit?usp=sharing
Many of the issues are in our spreadsheet above. On hold since Sept 2014 as used for an input to forthcoming CASRAI UK OA profile. Will put on my list to catch a chat with you and to ensure that your more recent review is read as an input to the CASRAI work too.
Valerie McCutcheon
Research Information Manager
Direct Line: +44 (0)141-330-2674
Room 808
University of Glasgow Library
Hillhead Street
Glasgow G12 8QE
http://e2eoa.org/
http://www.gla.ac.uk/services/openaccess/
http://cerif4datasets.wordpress.com/
-----Original Message-----
From: OA Good Practice Project [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Chris L Awre
Sent: 29 June 2015 10:17
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: RIOXX review and queries
All,
The HHuLOA OA Pathfinder project has recently carried out a review of the RIOXX metadata profile to inform how we work with this within our local repositories. A blog post describes this and links to the review report, which also contains proposed practice for each of the profile elements. Feedback is welcome.
https://library3.hud.ac.uk/blogs/hhuloa/2015/06/29/rioxx-review-and-proposed-practice/
Two fields raised more queries than most: ali:licence_ref and rioxxterms:version. The former needs publishers to make licence information more readily available in a persistent manner, and a default approach recording 'all rights reserved' proposed by RIOXX will be mainly used as back-up pending this.
The latter causes some more concern and we welcome discussion on how best to address it. I've reproduced the section of the blog post below that discusses this:
rioxxterms:version - this element is intended to hold an entry from a fixed category list defining the version of the file available through the repository. Whilst having a fixed list clearly has value in helping to structure this information, it is very unclear what versions from publishers fall into which category: most institutions struggle with acquiring an AAM, never mind understanding which type of AAM it is. It is not clear that the category list is understood or being used by publishers. Hence, defaulting to NA for not applicable or unknown (or making a best guess) will be necessary, at least initially. Further definition and common application of the category types is essential if this information is to be collected properly and be of value.
Given that HEFCE has indicated it will be used the same category list, and indicating which entries on it are acceptable (which does not include NA), how can we encourage publishers and funders to make better use of this list so we can effectively apply it?
Regards,
Chris (on behalf of the HHuLOA project)
****************************************
Chris Awre
Head of Information Management
Library and Learning Innovation
University of Hull
Hull, HU6 7RX
www.hull.ac.uk
T: 01482 465441
M: 07545 422674
Skype: clja1967
Twitter: clawre
|