Page History

...

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
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.

...

1. PI Identifier  (Also mentioned in "Requisite Conditions")
   
   • See comments under "Requisite Conditions" above
2. Award Number (Also mentioned in "Requisite Conditions")
3. Publication ID - "unique, persistent identifier to reference the journal article of the publication"
   
   • General Comments:
     
     • Is this ID assigned by the repository?  It's unclear if this is something the repository needs to "lookup" or just assign.
4. 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 capturing the dataset and assigning the identifier, or is it assigned by an external system?
       
5. Copyright License Conditions (Also mentioned in "Requisite Conditions")
   
   • includes embargo information
   • See comments under "Requisite Conditions" above
6. Sponsoring/Funding Agency Name - "Link to agency providing funding so that reports can be automatically returned"
   
   • General Comments:
     
     • If this is primarily used for reporting, it's likely we also need to capture an email address or a URL / identifier.  It depends on the decisions around reporting.
7. Reporting - "Creates a feedback loop to the federal agency and the PI's research office providing tracking of publications resulting from awards funded 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 and 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)
8. Core Usage Statistics - "Reports to authors (and agencies, if desired) include statistical data on usage activity and downloads of their publications."
   
   • 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 reports be made available to the authors and agencies?
       
     • Is this a "pull" (authors/agencies can visit the repository and view/request necessary reports), or a "push" (reports are automatically sent from 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)
9. Metadata Exposed to Search Engines
10. SWORD
    
    • General Comments:
      
      • We would need to standardize on a SWORD submission profile / packaging format.  As a protocol, SWORD just transmits content and doesn't require a specific format.
11. OpenURL
12. Some connections to Digital Preservation Network (DPN)? - "All phases connect with and take advantage of the Digital Preservation Network (DPN)"

Phase TWO (6-12 months after phase one)

Required in support of phase two.  Begun "concurrently with Phase One activities".

1. 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 mechanism
2. Usage Metrics
3. Reporting
4. Incorporate OAI-ORE
5. Certification
6. Adoption of Best Practices

Phase THREE

Phase Three envisions "more complex interactions with SHARE", and includes:

1. Text and Data Mining
2. Bulk Harvesting
3. Semantic Data
   
   • Relationships among publications
4. API Specifications
   
   • In support of interation with repositories
5. ResourceSync
   
   • http://www.niso.org/workrooms/resourcesync/
6. Open Annotation
   
   • Web-centric annotation framework

Phase FOUR

Phase Four involves "development of infrastructure relationships to support data requirements of federal agencies"

...