Paul WalkHead of Technology Strategy and Planning, EDINA

p.walk@ed.ac.uk@paulwalk

COAR Next Generation Repositories WG

what is COAR?

what is the Repositories Next Generation Working Group?

...resisting the obvious Star Trek: Next Generation joke here...

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)

this is what we actually look like

To position repositories as the foundation for a distributed, globally networked infrastructure for scholarly communication…

why focus on repositories?

3 cheers for repositories!

https://flic.kr/p/JqESVd

cheer #1:

proven technology, ubiquitous in our institutions

cheer #2:

strong community support

cheer #3:

distributed policy control

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.”

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.”

two of the ideas being discussed

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

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 developmenthttp://www.paulwalk.net/2015/10/19/the-active-repository-pattern/

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

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

thanks for listening!

more info:http://bit.ly/coar-repo-ng

1. Preliminary findings for public review later this year2. Final report in early 2017

I lied.