[open-science] [Open-access] OKF at Open Repositories 2014

Emanuil Tolev emanuil at cottagelabs.com
Thu Dec 5 13:32:28 UTC 2013

On 5 December 2013 12:16, Jenny Molloy <jenny.molloy at okfn.org> wrote:

> People seem to be pointing towards:
> 1) Automatic/crowdsourced deposition of OA work into repositories via
> OAButton system or other means (maybe we could persuade a few live
> repositories to implement the deposit button Mark discussed).

Hmm... if the OAButton showed you your own research (e.g. just by name),
showed you how many people hit a paywall trying to get your article(s) and
prompted you to deposit, that seems like a good way of convincing more
people to do it. Would it not be insanely complex in terms of finding WHERE
to deposit to though? (I.e. has to be a local institutional repo because UK
is not Norway, correct me if I'm wrong.)

Also I'm not sure how much metadata they hold about the articles people
report using the OAButton. An integration between the OAButton data and
CrossRef has more chance here, and is a cool idea. There's not enough
integration between OAButton and repos yet, though we do use CORE to look
stuff up automatically for our users. Not enough for a workshop on its own
unless more development happens in this area, but could be included.

> 2) Indexing content for search and discovery.

I think Jorum, the open educational resource system, is built on DSpace,
and that's doing fine with its catalogue: http://find.jorum.ac.uk/
But I guess what the audience will really want to hear about is basically
an open alternative to Google Scholar.

One thing which can attach information to very large amounts of DOI-s is
http://oag.cottagelabs.com/ , a mass license checker - goes directly to
publisher websites and scrapes them (or uses API-s where available). So
this is not precisely discovery just yet, but it does fill the legal gap
(the license of the items we index for discovery and search).

Many have tried to build an open index of scholarship (I've tried with
others too, still trying) but I haven't heard of a big one just yet. While
this is probably the "ultimate" topic of such a workshop, I don't think
we're at the stage where you can base a workshop on that idea. Maybe the
other 2 examples above + other existing projects come together to a greater
whole worthy of a workshop though.


> 3) Bridging between where people publish code and data (e.g.
> GitHub/BitBucket) and then how that's incorporated and referenced in the
> literature (thanks Arfon for this suggestion!) How do repositories fit in?
> I copy in Imma who is from the Open Repositories organising committee to
> see if she has any feedback on the ideas so far and we can decide which one
> might best make for a coherent workshop. From last year's programme these
> are typically 3-4 hours. This document should also give a feel for the
> kinds of sessions that were being run
> http://or2013.net/program/session-schedule.
> Jenny
> On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 11:31 AM, Mark MacGillivray <mark at cottagelabs.com>wrote:
>> On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 11:30 AM, Mike Taylor <mike at indexdata.com> wrote:
>>> SWORD is a technically superior solution, because it's a single
>>> protocol that can be implemented by multiple clients and multiple
>>> servers in an interoperable way. A client developed to use any given
>>> repo's own API will be be re-usable elsewhere.
>> Also true.
>> Mark
>>> -- Mike.
>>> On 5 December 2013 11:28, Peter Murray-Rust <pm286 at cam.ac.uk> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 10:35 AM, Mark MacGillivray <
>>> mark at cottagelabs.com>
>>> > wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> Does this mean that CKAN groks SWORD? If so this is good news.
>>> >>
>>> >> Unfortunately no - repo systems like dpsace and eprints do, but not
>>> CKAN
>>> >> yet. We have looked at it and it would not be hard, but it has not
>>> been done
>>> >> yet, mainly because CKAN has never focussed on being an academic repo
>>> before
>>> >> so has not needed to grok SWORD.
>>> >>
>>> >
>>> > CKAN has its  own API so if there is a Java client I'll use that - I
>>> don't
>>> > think SWORD gives a technical advantage - it might give a political
>>> one.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > --
>>> > Peter Murray-Rust
>>> > Reader in Molecular Informatics
>>> > Unilever Centre, Dep. Of Chemistry
>>> > University of Cambridge
>>> > CB2 1EW, UK
>>> > +44-1223-763069
>>> >
>>> > _______________________________________________
>>> > open-access mailing list
>>> > open-access at lists.okfn.org
>>> > http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-access
>>> > Unsubscribe: http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/open-access
>>> >
>> _______________________________________________
>> open-access mailing list
>> open-access at lists.okfn.org
>> http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-access
>> Unsubscribe: http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/open-access
> _______________________________________________
> open-science mailing list
> open-science at lists.okfn.org
> http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-science
> Unsubscribe: http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/open-science
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/open-science/attachments/20131205/4e7f64cf/attachment.html>

More information about the open-science mailing list