Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2024 07:46:03 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <1701942675.27582.1711626363564@lyrasis1-roc-mp1>
Subject: Exported From Confluence
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/related;
boundary="----=_Part_27581_717737259.1711626363564"
------=_Part_27581_717737259.1711626363564
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Location: file:///C:/exported.html
The Proposal
The full text (PDF) of the proposal is available at: http://www.arl.org/pu=
blications-resources/2772-shared-access-research-ecosystem-share-proposal=
a>
High Level Summary
The SHARE proposal suggests a number of functions and metadata fields th=
at would need to be captured by repositories. We've attempted to brie=
fly summarize them below. But, the full text of the Proposal has additional=
details.
These are the listed minimum SHARE metadata fields as noted near the beg=
inning of the "How SHARE Works" section of the proposal:
- author
- article title
- journal title
- abstract
- award number
- Principal Investigator ID (ORCID or ISNI)
- designated repository number
In Support of Pr=
incipal Investigators
As described in the paragraph about requirements of Principal Investigat=
ors (PIs), repositories may need to be able to "capture" or log the followi=
ng:
- "Sufficient copyright licenses to enable permanent archiving, access, a=
nd reuse of publications"
- General Comments
- Many repository platforms do have an option to require a "deposit l=
icense" which often covers these scenarios. However, the text of the "depos=
it license" is decided by the institution. There may need to be "recommende=
d copyright license language" provided by a central entity, to help ensure =
locally created licenses are "SHARE-compliant".
- Does this need to be machine actionable / verifiable?
General Repository Func=
tions
As described in the "SHARE workflow" paragraphs, a repository would need=
to support the following functions:
- Be able to accept XML versions of manuscripts from Journal publishers
- Make article available to search engines
- Google, Google Scholar, Yahoo, Bing, etc
- Must be able to link to publisher's website=20
- General Comments
- How is the publisher's website link obtained by the repository? Is there a way to "look it up" via a central service, or would it be =
a required metadata field? If it is the latter, what happens=
if the publisher's website changes it's URL?
- Is a link to the DOI acceptable?
- Support embargo
- link to publisher's website until embargo period expires
- See comments above about how do we obtain the publisher's website l=
ink.
- make full-text of article available post-embargo
- Certify compliance with agencies
- Automatically notify "both the funding agency and the PI's institutiona=
l research office that a deposit has occurred"
- General Comments
- How would repositories know wher=
e to send notifications to? What type of notification?
- Is this a "push" notification (e=
.g. automated email to agency), or is it more of a "pull" notification (whe=
re an agency could query repositories for recent deposits)?
- If the agency just needs to quer=
y the repository for recent deposits, perhaps would could use OAI-PMH. But,=
at the same time, the funding agency couldn't be expected to query 100's o=
f repositories for this data. It'd need to be a centralized locati=
on that could be queried
Requisite Conditions
As noted in the proposal, the "following precursors are required immedia=
tely to implement SHARE as a solution to the OSTP memorandum.":
- Principal Investigator (PI) Identifier (recommended to use either ORCID=
or ISNI)
- General Comments:
- Is capturing this identifier as a simple metadata field "good enoug=
h"?
- Are researchers expected to just=
enter their own ORCID? Or do we need some sort of more complex "look=
up" for each author entered?
- Award Identification Number - assigned by Federal agencies=20
- General Comments:
- Unclear if this is a single field or multiple fields. It seems as t=
hough we'd need to also store information about the agency who assigned the=
number (for uniqueness), unless the "identification number" includes a cod=
e which identifies the agency.
- Copyright License Terms - "requires a standardized and coded expression=
... for machine processing"
- General Comments:
- How would this be "coded"? We'd need a centrally defined "sta=
ndard" representation that all repositories can attempt to implement.<=
/li>
- Repository Designation ID Number - "to identify the repository access l=
ocation"
- General Comments:
- Who defines this "number"? Could this simply be the repositor=
y URL, or a persistent identifier which resolves to the repository URL?
- Preservation Rights - "required to be coded into the metadata residing =
with the record"
- General Comments:
- How would this be "coded"? We'd need a centrally defined "sta=
ndard" representation that all repositories can attempt to implement.<=
/li>
Phase ONE (12-18 months)
Additional requirements for Phase One, after which "the SHARE system wil=
l be available for both deposit and access".
- PI Identifier (Also mentioned in "Requisite Conditions")=
- See comments under "Requisite Conditions" above
- Award Number (Also mentioned in "Requisite Conditions")
- Publication ID - "unique, persistent identifier to reference the journa=
l article of the publication"
- General Comments:
- Is this ID assigned by the repository? It's unclear if this i=
s something the repository needs to "lookup" or just assign.
- Data Set ID - "resolvable, persistent identifier to location of stored =
data or data sets that are linked to the published article"
- General Comments:
- Where are these data sets expected to reside? Is the repository cap=
turing the dataset and assigning the identifier, or is it assigned by an ex=
ternal system?
- Copyright License Conditions (Also mentioned in "Requisite Conditio=
ns")
- includes embargo information
- See comments under "Requisite Conditions" above
- Sponsoring/Funding Agency Name - "Link to agency providing funding so t=
hat reports can be automatically returned"
- General Comments:
- If this is primarily used for reporting, it's likely we also need t=
o capture an email address or a URL / identifier. It depends on the d=
ecisions around reporting.
- Reporting - "Creates a feedback loop to the federal agency and the PI's=
research office providing tracking of publications resulting from awards f=
unded by the agency"
- General Comments:
- What type(s) of reports are expected? How would these be made=
available to the agency / research office?
- Is this a "pull" (agency/research office can visit the repository a=
nd view/request necessary reports), or a "push" (reports are automatically =
sent from the repository to the agency / research office by some means)?
- As far as repositories are concerned, obviously a "pull" is easier.=
A "push" would require the repository to know where to send such reports (=
up-to-date email addresses or similar)
- Core Usage Statistics - "Reports to authors (and agencies, if desired) =
include statistical data on usage activity and downloads of their publicati=
ons."
- General Comments:
- What type(s) of statistical reports are expected? Would there need =
to be some "minimal required statistics" to capture/report? How would the r=
eports be made available to the authors and agencies?
- Is this a "pull" (authors/agencies can visit the repository and vie=
w/request necessary reports), or a "push" (reports are automatically sent f=
rom the repository to the author / agency by some means)?
- As far as repositories are concerned, obviously a "pull" is easier.=
A "push" would require the repository to know where to send such reports (=
up-to-date email addresses or similar)
- Metadata Exposed to Search Engines
- SWORD
- General Comments:
- We would need to standardize on a SWORD submission profile / packag=
ing format. As a protocol, SWORD just transmits content and doesn't r=
equire a specific format.
- OpenURL
- Some connections to Digital Preservation Network (DPN)? - "All phases c=
onnect with and take advantage of the Digital Preservation Network (DPN)"=
li>
Phase TWO (6-12 =
months after phase one)
Required in support of phase two. Begun "concurrently with Phase O=
ne activities".
- Submission Workflow - "Development of software to automate and optimize=
article submission from author through repository and to publisher"
- Requires publishers to comply with single, standardized submission mech=
anism
- Usage Metrics
- Reporting
- Incorporate OAI-ORE
- Certification
- Adoption of Best Practices
Phase THREE
Phase Three envisions "more complex interactions with SHARE", and includ=
es:
- Text and Data Mining
- Bulk Harvesting
- Semantic Data
- Relationships among publications
- API Specifications
- In support of interation with repositories
- ResourceSync
- Open Annotation
- Web-centric annotation framework
Phase FOUR
Phase Four involves "development of infrastructure relationships to supp=
ort data requirements of federal agencies"
- Data Curation and Associated Software
- Linked Data
- Shared Distributed Resources in Repositories
------=_Part_27581_717737259.1711626363564--