<div dir="ltr">There have already been efforts to use CKAN in this way, which should be referred to:<div><br></div><div><a href="http://orbital.blogs.lincoln.ac.uk/2012/09/06/choosing-ckan-for-research-data-management/">http://orbital.blogs.lincoln.ac.uk/2012/09/06/choosing-ckan-for-research-data-management/</a><br>
</div><div><br></div><div>Known issues include the metadata quality capability.</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>Regarding the issue of deposit into a repository, it is possible with SWORD 2.0 to build such deposit functionality, and I demonstrated such a "deposit" button at least two years ago at a previous OR conference. However, it has never been implemented on a live repository.</div>
<div><br></div><div>Of particular interest in this regard, during recent work on my phd I have found that one of the reasons this functionality has never been implemented at my university at least is because I am the first Edinburgh academic ever to have requested such capability.</div>
<div><br></div><div>Of course this comes down to an issue of knowing what can be done, knowing how to do it, and the complex of responsibilities involved across communities, and having people come to a consensus on the key requirements. This is all of relevance to my phd study, and so I would ask again that if any of you wish to clarify what these requirements are, that you complete my scholarship survey and share it widely and encourage further feedback:</div>
<div><br></div><div><a href="http://ifthisistheanswer.com/survey">http://ifthisistheanswer.com/survey</a><br></div><div><br></div><div>Next year I (with Cottage Labs) intend to use my work as a basis for developing and running a service to help solve this problem. Any of you wishing to contribute will of course be welcome - and note that as I have said before it is not actually technical capability that is the key (although it is of course important), but community development, support, leadership, advocacy, politics.</div>
<div><br></div><div><br></div><div>Mark</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 9:54 AM, Peter Murray-Rust <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:pm286@cam.ac.uk" target="_blank">pm286@cam.ac.uk</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><br><div class="gmail_extra"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div class="im">On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 9:36 AM, Bjoern Brembs <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:b.brembs@gmail.com" target="_blank">b.brembs@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div><br>
<br></div>
- Repositories must become the first (and eventually only) way to get scientific literature: global search for all scientific literature from 1664 to today.<br></blockquote><div> <br></div></div><div>Yes. I have tried to get this idea across to the conventional repository community with little success. There should be only one (or at best a few) entry points. I have suggested a repository for all UK funded Open output including papers, theses and data. That in itself is technically too limiting but it can catch the political imagination.(Some countries such as NL (SURF) do this much better).<br>
<br></div><div class="im"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<br>
- New (OA) literature needs to be harvested automatically, not deposited by author by hand.<br>
<br></blockquote></div><div>Absolutely. That is why I am starting this week to index the current OA output on a daily basis.<br> <br></div><div class="im"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
This is the future we should have had 10-20 years ago...<br></blockquote><div><br></div></div><div>Yes. 1995 would have been the time to start - 2 years after the WWW took off, when most of the web was open and based on public institutions. It's also the time at which we should have seen innovative approaches to publishing. Now we have to break free of the quagmire of academic aspirations. <br>
<br></div><br clear="all"></div><div class="im"><br>-- <br>Peter Murray-Rust<br>Reader in Molecular Informatics<br>Unilever Centre, Dep. Of Chemistry<br>University of Cambridge<br>CB2 1EW, UK<br><a href="tel:%2B44-1223-763069" value="+441223763069" target="_blank">+44-1223-763069</a>
</div></div></div>
<br>_______________________________________________<br>
open-access mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:open-access@lists.okfn.org">open-access@lists.okfn.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-access" target="_blank">http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-access</a><br>
Unsubscribe: <a href="http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/open-access" target="_blank">http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/open-access</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div>