• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
Estrategias basadas en la interoperabilidad para la incorporación de contenidos a repositorios: el Grupo SONEX y el Proyecto UK RepositoryNet+. (Part II)
 

Estrategias basadas en la interoperabilidad para la incorporación de contenidos a repositorios: el Grupo SONEX y el Proyecto UK RepositoryNet+. (Part II)

on

  • 477 views

Estrategias basadas en la interoperabilidad para la incorporación de contenidos a repositorios: el Grupo SONEX y el Proyecto UK RepositoryNet+. (Part II) - Pablo de Castro, Peter Burnhill

Estrategias basadas en la interoperabilidad para la incorporación de contenidos a repositorios: el Grupo SONEX y el Proyecto UK RepositoryNet+. (Part II) - Pablo de Castro, Peter Burnhill

Statistics

Views

Total Views
477
Views on SlideShare
477
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
4
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    Estrategias basadas en la interoperabilidad para la incorporación de contenidos a repositorios: el Grupo SONEX y el Proyecto UK RepositoryNet+. (Part II) Estrategias basadas en la interoperabilidad para la incorporación de contenidos a repositorios: el Grupo SONEX y el Proyecto UK RepositoryNet+. (Part II) Presentation Transcript

    • SONEX Workgroup and theUK RepositoryNet+ Project Pablo de Castro, GrandIR – pcastro@grandir.com Peter Burnhill, EDINA National Data Centre – p.burnhill@ed.ac.uk 1
    • Landscape: Actors, Agency & Relationships for Report, Deposit & Access Licensed/ teacher editor monograph Academic Publisher tollgate student referee access to Publisher’s researcher Final Copy journal (PFC) P.I. author(s) Subject Deposit of metadata/text of Repository SWORD Authors’ Final Copy (AFC)Research Digital UKPMC reader metrics Library Award EUreporting Eval Research Outcomes Institutional NORA Repository curation CERIF micro - services UKCoRR EU RCUK Wellcome Trust stewardship budgets ARMA UK Research Library Funder CRIS Research Excellence HEI [OA mandate] Framework Institution [OA mandate] HEFCE, SFC … 2
    • Project to build infrastructure to support operation of repositories in UK 3
    • Stakeholder Engagement• Institutional view – Repository managers – Research administrators (on research reporting) – Researchers??• Research funders – RCUK, Wellcome Trust• Publishers – Green and Gold 4
    • Stakeholder Analysis: what we learned• Validated the Repository Landscape – Proved initial understanding correct – Reassurance that there were no gaps in understanding or landscape mapping• How to take this forward ? – Concentrate on use cases based on functional areas, eg publisher deposits, PIs, IR manager benchmarks, funder requires statistics• Needed to sketch the vision of what can be provided – in order to extract user requirements within and beyond what is done by existing components in the functional areas 5
    • Components for Wave 1Classification and Recommendations 6
    • Summary of Components by Functional Area A: Aggregation, Text mining & Search Aggregated set of metadataREPUK for development D: Deposit Tools Search, aggregation, full-textCORE mining for OA repositories RoMEO Publisher policies Search, aggregation, data- on OA deposit IRS mining for all IRs Juliet Research funders’ policies on OA B: Benchmarking, Statistics Open Redirect facility to OA IRs, and Report and default OA repository Centralised service for collection of OA DepotIRUS- usage statistics M2M direct for multi- UK RJBroke authored works to OA C: Creating Relevant Registries r repository(ies)OpenDOA Authoritative, manually curated registry E: Enhancing Metadata Quality R of OA repositories, combined with Naming Authority for the UK harvested metadata NAMES2 assigning identifiers to Registry of OA repositories compiled with organisations and individuals ROAR statistics in mind engaged in research Organisation based with information ORI on repositories 7
    • Overview (Wave 1)Wave 1 components External/existing systems/services- Reporting and Deposit HEI Finance Systems- Benchmarking and Reporting HEI CRIS Systems R-J Broker KPL Study RoMEO JULIET on Search ORI OpenDOAR ROAR NAMESAggregation Benchmarking Registry of Deposit Metadataand Search and Reporting Repositories tools quality 8
    • Initial Wave 2 – September 2012Wave 2 components External/existing systems/services HEI Finance Systems HEI CRIS Systems RepNet Service Desk RepNet Service Directory R-J Broker KPL OARR RoMEO JULIET Report on Search ORI OpenDOAR ROAR NAMESAggregation Benchmarking Registry of Deposit Metadataand Search and Reporting Repositories tools quality 9
    • Planned Wave 2 Service Components and ActivitiesWave 2 components HEI Finance Systems Services HEI CRIS Systems Supporting activities Data Available through service directory interchange RepNet Service Desk RepNet Service Directory OARR R-J Broker KPL RoMEO JULIET Report on Search Data mining ORI PDF DOI retrieval OpenDOAR – Cross-Ref ROAR NAMES Fund-RefAggregation Benchmarking Registry of Deposit Metadataand Search and Reporting Repositories tools quality 10
    • ObrigadoMore info on UKRepNet: http://www.repositorynet.ac.uk/More info on Sonex: http://sonexworkgroup.blogspot.com/ Pablo de Castro, GrandIR – pcastro@grandir.com Peter Burnhill, EDINA National Data Centre – p.burnhill@ed.ac.uk 11