The Proposal

...

1. Be able to accept XML versions of manuscripts from Journal publishers
   

   • "Journal submits XML version of final peer reviewed manuscript to the PI's designated repository

   • General Comments
     
     • Who defines this XML format?  It would need to be defined by a central entity.
     • Is there a reason why XML is chosen as the transmission format instead of a protocol like SWORD (with a common packaging format)? 
       
       • As XML is not human-readable, this implies we'd need a more human-readable format as well (PDF or similar), which is why SWORD may be useful here.
2. Make article available to search engines
   
   • Google, Google Scholar, Yahoo, Bing, etc
3. Must be able to link to publisher's website
   • 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?
4. Support embargo
   
   • link to publisher's website until embargo period expires
     
     • See comments above about how do we obtain the publisher's website link.
   • make full-text of article available post-embargo
5. Certify compliance with agencies
   
   • Automatically notify "both the funding agency and the PI's institutional research office that a deposit has occurred"
   • General Comments 
     • How would repositories know where 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 (where an agency could query repositories for recent deposits)?
       • If the agency just needs to query 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 of repositories for this data. It'd need to be a centralized location that could be queried
         

...

1. Principal Investigator (PI) Identifier (recommended to use either ORCID or ISNI)
   
   • General Comments:
     
     • Is capturing this identifier as a simple metadata field "good enough"?
     • Are researchers expected to just enter their own ORCID?  Or do we need some sort of more complex "lookup" for each author entered?
2. Award Identification Number - assigned by Federal agencies
   • General Comments:
     
     • Unclear if this is a single field or multiple fields. It seems as though we'd need to also store information about the agency who assigned the number (for uniqueness), unless the "identification number" includes a code which identifies the agency.
3. 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 "standard" representation that all repositories can attempt to implement.
4. Repository Designation ID Number - "to identify the repository access location"
   
   • General Comments:
     
     • Who defines this "number"?  Could this simply be the repository URL, or a persistent identifier which resolves to the repository URL?
5. 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 "standard" representation that all repositories can attempt to implement.

...