1 / 7

Interim Guidelines for Repository Managers: Representation of Metadata Attributes

These guidelines provide repository managers with instructions on representing metadata attributes, including funder, project/grant, DOI, related datasets, and rights of use. The guidelines aim to be easy to implement and are part of an ongoing effort to address longer-term guidelines and measures concerns. Implementation work is expected to be completed by the end of the year.

warrenc
Download Presentation

Interim Guidelines for Repository Managers: Representation of Metadata Attributes

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. RIOXX Guidelines

  2. outline • guidelines for repository managers, building on much previous work, including a report by Sheridan Brown, on how to represent certain metadata attributes • the project is wider than just the guidelines - for example, a certain (modest) amount of software development will be necessary to see the guidelines implementable in deployed repositories • these are interim guidelines - some aspects are expected to be superseded by a CERIF-based approach • this effort will be ongoing beyond these interim guidelines, to address longer-term guidelines and measures

  3. concerns • primary: • how to represent the funder • how to represent the project/grant • secondary: • how to represent the DOI pointing to the item described • provisions of identifier(s) pointing to related dataset(s) • how to represent the rights of use of the item described • this is becoming more of an issue

  4. principles • must be easy to implement, with little/no development required (e.g. a plugin for existing repository platforms) • are interim guidelines, so judgement needed about how future-proof these should be • should respect and even adopt, where viable, existing guidelines • OpenAIRE • EThOS • should seek to avoid being UK-specific, while serving UK goals • should be delivered yesterday.... (guidelines by end of September, implementation work by end of the year).

  5. options for the funder and project/grant • use qualified Dublin Core • dc.relation.projectid for project/grant, containing: • a grant number, or an OpenAIRE compliant string for EU FP7 • dc.contributor.sponsor for the funder name • a string from a controlled vocabulary or an OpenAIRE string • use OpenAIRE 2.0 draft guidelines • either dc.relation.projectid or dc.contributor.sponsor, containing: • Jurisdiction/Funder/FundingProgram/ProjectNumber/ProjectAcronym/ProjectName • use DOIs provide by CrossRef (‘FundRef’): • dc.relation.projectid for project/grant, containing: • a DOI, which resolves to the Funder’s page or possibly GtR, and which offers metadata about funder and grant

  6. how to represent rights • “access level semantics” • which articles are open • what re-use is allowed • embargoes • which articles are OA (flavour) • further study being resourced by the JISC, working with the Publishers and Library Solutions group (PALS) and the JISC’s Open Access Implementation Group.

  7. discussion points (for the breakout?) • can we recommend the OpenAIRE approach? • Jurisdiction/Funder/FundingProgram/ProjectNumber/ProjectAcronym/ProjectName • can we, instead, make this an optional value in a multi-value instance of dc.relation.projectid? • what do people think of the idea of using DOIs (or some other PID) to identify funders and projects? Who maintains the metadata?

More Related