1.
SWAP FOR DUMMIES

2.
Scholarly Works Application Profile <ul><li>a Dublin Core Application Profile for describing scholarly works (eprints) held in institutional repositories </li></ul><ul><li>also known as eprints application profile – name changed due to confusion with EPrints </li></ul><ul><li>By ‘eprints’ or ‘scholarly works’, we mean </li></ul><ul><ul><li>''scientific or scholarly research text'‘ </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>(as defined by the Budapest Open Access Initiative http:// www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/boaifaq.htm#literature ) </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>including peer-reviewed journal articles, preprints, working papers, theses (just), book chapters, reports, etc. </li></ul></ul>

3.
Application Profiles?

4.
Application profiles according to Dublin Core

5.
Application Profile components <ul><li>A set of Requirements help us to understand what we need our metadata to do </li></ul><ul><li>A Domain model (also known as a data, application or entity-relationship model) to define the entities we need to describe, the relationships between them and the properties needed </li></ul><ul><ul><li>existing community domain models include FRBR, CIDOC CRM, CERIF </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>domain models are not tied to any specific metadata vocabulary </li></ul></ul><ul><li>A Description Set Profile defines our metadata properties, identifies which metadata vocabularies they are from and constrains how they are used … description set profiles are relatively new in Dublin Core and can be machine-readable </li></ul><ul><ul><li>metadata vocabularies examples: MODS, LOM, Dublin Core, FOAF </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Usage guidelines provide guidance and examples for users on how to construct descriptions – they annotate the description set profile with human-readable information </li></ul><ul><li>For exchange, we also need machine-readable syntax guidelines and formats </li></ul><ul><ul><li>e.g. the SWAP epdcx format, Dublin Core XML encoding guidelines </li></ul></ul>

6.
It’s all about interoperability <ul><li>This is important, because it means metadata vocabularies and application profiles don’t provide a blueprint for internal database design </li></ul><ul><li>Rather, they offer a way of encoding and sharing metadata between systems </li></ul><ul><li>And a good place to start! </li></ul>

7.
SWAP?

8.
And so to SWAP <ul><li>SWAP has all of the application profile building blocks </li></ul><ul><ul><li>requirements specification </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>domain model </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>usage guidelines / description set profile </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>XML format </li></ul></ul><ul><li>It is based on the Dublin Core Abstract Model – this allows us to group together descriptions of the different entities in our model into a description set for sharing as a metadata record </li></ul>

9.
DCAM summary record (encoded as HTML, XML or RDF/XML) Slide courtesy of Andy Powell, Eduserv Foundation http://www.slideshare.net/eduservfoundation/the-dublin-core-abstract-model-a-packaging-standard description set description (about a resource (URI)) statement property (URI) value (URI) value string

10.
SWAP Model <ul><li>Based on FRBR </li></ul><ul><li>Defines entities and relationships </li></ul><ul><li>and ‘attributes’ </li></ul><ul><li>these appear as metadata properties in the application profile </li></ul>

11.
the model in pictures ScholarlyWork Expression 0..∞ isExpressedAs Manifestation isManifestedAs 0..∞ Copy isAvailableAs 0..∞ isPublishedBy 0..∞ 0..∞ isEditedBy 0..∞ isCreatedBy 0..∞ isFundedBy isSupervisedBy AffiliatedInstitution Agent

12.
Enough theory : a worked example <ul><li>An example of a Scholarly Work, containing two expressions. </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Expression one has two manifestations, each with one copy. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Expression two has one manifestation with two copies. </li></ul></ul><ul><li>The Scholarly Work </li></ul><ul><ul><li>SWAP for Dummies by Beccy Shipman, University of Leeds; Julie Allinson, University of York; and Rachel Proudfoot, University of Botswana. A paper given at Open repositories 2008, 3rd April 2008 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Expression one - published in the conference proceedings </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Published online in the conference repository as a PDF [a manifestation with one copy ] </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>A word document of the same content is available in White Rose Research Online [a manifestation with one copy ] </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Expression two - revised version published in a peer-reviewed journal </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>publishers PDF [a manifestation ] </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>available by restricted access from the publishers web site [a copy ] </li></ul></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>a copy of the same, deposited in WRRO [a copy ] </li></ul></ul></ul></ul></ul>

13.
Example, in pictures SWAP for Dummies ScholarlyWork 1 Publisher’s PDF Manifestation 2 Word Document Manifestation PDF Manifestation 2 Conference paper Expression Journal article Expression 1 PDF from Conference repository Copy 1 DOC in WRRO Copy 2 PDF from Publisher’s site Copy PDF in WRRO Copy

14.
The Practical Bit

15.
Exercise <ul><li>Each of these entities is described with a defined set of metadata properties </li></ul><ul><li>Look at the SWAP application profile documentation </li></ul><ul><li>and the worked example provided </li></ul><ul><li>then, use the templates provided to ‘assemble’ a SWAP record </li></ul>

16.
Why?

17.
functional requirements <ul><li>a richer metadata set – more properties, fit-for-purpose </li></ul><ul><li>consistent, good quality metadata – less ambiguity and divergence </li></ul><ul><li>unambiguous method of identifying full-text(s) </li></ul><ul><li>distinguish open access materials from restricted </li></ul><ul><li>support OpenURL link servers and support citation analysis </li></ul><ul><li>identify the research funder and project code </li></ul><ul><li>identify the repository or other service making available the copy </li></ul><ul><li>say when a copy of a scholarly work will be made available </li></ul><ul><li>better search and browse options </li></ul><ul><li>some suggestions towards version identification </li></ul><ul><li>Identifying duplicates and finding the most appropriate copy of a version </li></ul><ul><li>support for added-value services </li></ul>

18.
Why Simple DC isn’t enough <ul><li><dc:title> multiple titles, what language? </li></ul><ul><li><dc:creator> normalised form? person or org? </li></ul><ul><li><dc:publisher> normalised form? person or org? </li></ul><ul><li><dc:identifier> full-text or metadata? is it a uri? </li></ul><ul><li><dc:date> of what? modification? publication? </li></ul><ul><li><dc:format> is this a MIME type? </li></ul><ul><li><dc:subject> local keyword or controlled scheme? </li></ul><ul><li><dc:contributor> what did they contribute? </li></ul><ul><li><dc:language> is this an RFC 3066 value? </li></ul><ul><li><dc:relation> what relationship? is this a uri? </li></ul><ul><li><dc:rights> what does this tell me? </li></ul><ul><li><dc:source> is this a citation? or something else? </li></ul><metadata> <dc:title> <dc:creator> <dc:publisher> <dc:identifier> <dc:date> <dc:format> <dc:subject> <dc:contributor> <dc:language> <dc:relation> <dc:rights> <dc:source> </metadata>

19.
What does this tell us? SWAP for Dummies ScholarlyWork 1 Publisher’s PDF Manifestation 2 Word Document Manifestation PDF Manifestation 2 Conference paper Expression Journal article Expression 1 PDF from Conference Repository Copy 1 DOC in WRRO Copy 2 PDF from Publisher’s site Copy PDF in WRRO Copy These two are intellectually different ‘versions’ These two are the same, just in different formats These two are exact copies of each other, just in different places The identifier for this is a URI and will give me information about the work as a whole This one is restricted access This one is closed for two years The URI for this will get me directly to the copy

20.
What this means ‘back home’ <ul><li>this relatively complex underlying model may be manifest in relatively simple metadata and/or end-user interfaces </li></ul><ul><li>existing systems probably capture much of this detail already but lack a data model and a mechanism for sharing their richer metadata </li></ul>

21.
Back home in the repository <ul><li>How can a repository manager make amendments to their metadata to become compliant with SWAP? </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Know your own data model – what entities do you want to describe, what information do you need to describe them? Does that map to SWAP? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>remember that SWAP can be used in a relatively ‘flat’ way </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Check that your internal metadata maps to SWAP metadata properties; create additional elements if necessary </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Configure your repository to expose epdcx (SWAP) records over OAI-PMH, or get your technical gurus to </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Put pressure on EPrints and DSpace developers do the above, so that you don’t have to </li></ul></ul>

22.
More information <ul><li>Documentation: </li></ul><ul><li>www.ukoln.ac.uk/repositories/digirep/index/SWAP </li></ul><ul><li>Dublin Core Scholarly Communications Community - for discussion, advice and suggestions for the future </li></ul><ul><ul><li>[email_address] </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Repository Support Project </li></ul><ul><li>www.rsp.ac.uk </li></ul><ul><li>Repositories Research Team </li></ul><ul><li>www.ukoln.ac.uk/repositories/digirep/ </li></ul>