 |
 |
Les, I simply took advice from the ePrints Team (and from experienced DSpace developers) on this. I was advised that the ePrints system commonly deployed could not support 'option 3'. It seems that there continues to be interest in RIOXX (discussions with RCUK & HEFCE are ongoing). I'd be very happy to come & visit the EPrints Team (as I did before) to revisit this issue. Paul ------------------------------------------- Paul Walk http://www.paulwalk.net ------------------------------------------- > On 22 Mar 2014, at 14:36, Leslie Carr <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > > You're going to have to help me out here. EPrints has certainly supported Option1 (separate fields for funder and projects) since 2007 and could easily accommodate option 3 (multivalue fields for each). If there's any problem with option 3 it is that it would stomp all over the repositories that already implement option 1. > > What am I missing here? > > Prof Les Carr > Web Science Institute > University of Southampton > > On 20 Mar 2014, at 12:27, Paul Walk <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote: > > Having worked on the RIOXX profile in recent times, I noted how the repository systems themselves were sometimes a barrier to doing something more sensible. By way of example, I wrote up some of the thinking here: > > http://www.rioxx.net/2013/01/29/approaches-to-handling-funders-and-projectids-in-a-rioxx-record/ > > I was advised by repository developers that option 3 (described in this post) which, all things being equal would have been my preferred approach to this particular issue, was not supportable in the currently deployed repository systems. > > Note that OAI-PMH was not the issue here, and although we departed from the Dublin Core standard, it wasn't Dublin Core which presented the major challenge. > > This doesn't quite address Chris's main point, but I figured it ought to be mentioned! > > Paul > > On 20 Mar 2014, at 12:16, Leslie Carr <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > > The translation of repository data into OAI_DC is horribly lossy and terribly non-standard in almost all important ways (ways that are important to me as someone trying to analyse global OA holdings). However, at the time it seemed better to the community than the alternative. > > One can also raise the question why define OAI-PMH in the first place? And more importantly, why still use it? Fifteen years on the Web-native linked data model seems much more appealing and practical, but to be fair it has taken this long for "linked data" to reach that state. > > Les Carr > Web Science Institute > University of Southampton > > On 20 Mar 2014, at 11:54, John Salter <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote: > > Hi Chris, > I wasn’t involved with repositories when these things were being put in place, but have come across similar issues. > In my mind, DC is good, as it’s a low barrier, but OAI-PMH is designed to allow other metadata formats to be used when the need arises (e.g. UKETD_DC (EThOS) metadata schema). > > If Primo can harvest other metadata formats, you could create one that provides the information that you want – but I’m not sure what the capabilities of Primo are. > I’ve had some conversations with Sheffield (who also use Primo) in this area, as they didn’t want to present links to content that wasn’t open access. > I’m waiting to find out what options there are in Primo for either harvesting specific sets, or using other metadata formats – which may well help solve your problems too. > > This also provides some good comments on some other issues – based on interpretations of the guidelines: http://core-project.kmi.open.ac.uk/node/31 > > Cheers, > John > > > From: Repositories discussion list [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Chris Keene > Sent: 20 March 2014 11:30 > To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> > Subject: DC OAI-PMH > > 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 > > ------------------------------------------- > Paul Walk > http://www.paulwalk.net > ------------------------------------------- > > > > > >