A very brief (7 minute!) presentation to the Repository Fringe 2016, giving an overview of the work of the work of the COAR Next Generation Repositories Working Group (http://bit.ly/coar-repo-ng)
6. Repositories Next Generation Working Group
• Eloy Rodrigues, chair (COAR,
Portugal)
• Andrea Bollini (CINECA, Italy)
• Alberto Cabezas (LA Referencia,
Chile)
• Donatella Castelli (OpenAIRE/CNR,
Italy)
• Les Carr (Southampton University,
UK)
• Leslie Chan (University of Toronto
at Scarborough, Canada)
• Rick Johnson (SHARE/University of
Notre Dame, US)
• Petr Knoth (Jisc and Open
University, UK)
• Paolo Manghi (CNR, Italy)
• Lazarus Matizirofa (NRF, South
Africa)
• Pandelis Perakakis (Open Scholar,
Spain)
• Oya Rieger (Cornell University, US)
• Jochen Schirrwagen (University of
Bielefeld, Germany)
• Daisy Selematsela (NRF, South
Africa)
• Kathleen Shearer (COAR, Canada)
• Tim Smith (CERN, Switzerland)
• Herbert Van de Sompel (Los
Alamos National Laboratory, US)
• Paul Walk (EDINA, UK)
• David Wilcox (Duraspace/Fedora,
Canada)
• ▪ Kazu Yamaji (National
Institute of Informatics, Japan)
14. The working group asserts that:
“The nearly ubiquitous deployment of
repository systems in higher education
and research institutions provides the
foundation for a distributed, globally
networked infrastructure for scholarly
communication.”
15. However, the working group also
recognises that:
“…repository platforms are still using
technologies and protocols designed
almost twenty years ago, before the
boom of the Web and the dominance of
Google, social networking, semantic web
and ubiquitous mobile devices.”
17. 1. Being of, not just on The Web
• obvious…but not really done yet
• the ‘splash page’ requiring human
mediation is a real problem
• “signposting the scholarly web”
• link HTTP headers
• http://signposting.org
• RDFa, schema.org bib extensions
• would involve very little or no effort
by repository administrators
• a small amount of software
development in repository systems
18. 2. Pro-active repositories
• repositories could become pro-active
components in an event-driven
scholarly system
• publishing ‘events’ such as the addition
of a new resource
(paper/dataset/whatever) to one or
more notification hubs
• third-party systems ‘subscribing’ to
these notifications - many potential
applications
• would involve very little or no effort by
repository administrators
• modest software development
http://www.paulwalk.net/2015/10/19/the-active-repository-pattern/
19. imagine if:
your repository could immediately notify a
funder that a compliant open-access
paper had been made available, and the
funder's system could then easily and
automatically retrieve a copy
depositing a dataset into an institutional
repository automatically notified a set of
data-processing & preservation services
20. many other ideas being discussed
• Discovery
• web-friendly repository technologies and architectures
• (quasi)peer-to-peer and/or notification pub-sub architectures
• Assessment
• overlay services on top of repositories using standardised registration,
open peer-review and quality assessment services
• Workflows
• support the full lifecycle of research
• cross-repository workflows
• automated and continuous publishing of research artefacts
• Impact
• reliable and interoperable impact metrics for repository content
21. thanks for listening!
more info:
http://bit.ly/coar-repo-ng
1. Preliminary findings for public review later this year
2. Final report in early 2017
Confederation of Open Access Repositories
international association with >100 members from 35 countries - 5 continents represented
libraries, universities, research institutions, government funding agencies etc.
University of Edinburgh is a long-standing member
quite proud of myself for resisting that :-)
the WG includes some luminaries from the world of repositories. And I'm in there too.
yes, earnest looking people with laptops, in a back-room
The vision
“…on top of which layers of value added services will be deployed, thereby transforming the system, making it more research-centric, open to and supportive of innovation, while also collectively managed by the scholarly community.”
aren’t they old hat?
I’d like to propose 3 cheers for repositories
I think this is the Portugal fans celebrating Euro 2016. I wanted to use a picture of Portsmouth fans cheering, but nothing came up on Flickr for some reason....
most of our repository systems are built from technology which has been in near-continuous development for more than a decade.
the community support for repository systems is considerable - look around you for the evidence of that! :-)
the resources within our repositories are under the control of our institutions, not under the control of a handful of publishers
monopoly avoidance startegy
the most important aspect from my point of view
so that’s good
a real opportunity!
so, there’s some work to do…
looking at functional requirements
Herbert Van de Sompel & Michael Nelson
make the webpage itself both human and machine readable
This blog post is why I was invited to join the COAR working group
some interesting musing about peer-to-peer distributed control!
alternatives to high-latency aggregation
some quick wins
focus areas
that was a very shallow overview - please talk to me afterwards if you want to know more.
more information - follow that link!