Transcript Electronic Institute Publications

IATUL 2003, Ankara Turkey
3 June 2003
The Open Archives Initiative
& its Impact on Universities
& Scholarly Publishing
Diann Rusch-Feja
International Unviersity Bremen, Germany
Overview
• Development of the Open Archives
Initiative (OAI)
• Characteristics of the Metadata
Harvesting Protocol (OAI MHP)
• Impact on Universities
• Impact on Scholarly Publications
• Closing Remarks & Hypothesis ...
Open Archives Initiative
Is an Initiative –
• grown out of academic need,
• response to indirect pressures from publishers,
• has created something new within an old
structure
• and hence is changing the structure from
within
Open Archives Initiative
More precisely –
• It connects scientific Pre- and E-print Servers &
Navigation Tools (Interoperability)
• Enables New Scientific Freedom for Researchers,
Writers, Faculty, Students, etc. to Self-publish/archive
• Legitimates new Methods of Scientific Communication
• Has grown out of major Digital Library Research
• Is based on the Dublin Core Initiative and Philosophy
OAI – Outgrowth of Solving a Problem
• Roots in the Scholarly Community
• Researchers dissatisfied with publishing delays
• 1991 Paul Ginsparg‘s Preprint Server LANL
• Preprint Servers: submitted papers documented most
recent research results and contributed to knowledge
base of scientists
less delay
• Primarily Subject-Oriented (RePec, CogPrints, etc.)
• Downloadable, but not Approved for Citation, Indexing
• No Peer Review, but rather Public, Community
Review
• After Publication, Article Removed from Preprint Server
Universal Preprint Server (UPS)
• www.arXiv.org linked several Preprint Servers
• Ginsparg, Luce & van de Sompel invited computer
scientists, librarians, and DL researchers to Santa Fe
1999 to initiate solutions for integrating PrePrint Servers
• Santa Fe Convention for Cross-Server Search & Retrieval
Interoperability
• Standard, simple Metadata & Search Protocol
• Decision to work on technological solution, leaving out
discussion on political, socio-economic implications
Birth of the OAI - 1999
• Universal shifted to Open – which referred to Protocol
Metadata & Searching Open = freely available
Technical Openness as opposed to free content
• Preprint – and all implications
transiency
Move to Archives – commitment for long-term availability,
permanence, a collective resource for scientific validation,
Hence, Repositories – indirectly, a substantiation of Preprint
Servers in scholarship
• Initiative – not a project, but more – growth and
acceptance involved commitment from the community
(authors had to submit, communities had to maintain the
servers and the appropriate metadata, accept citations)
• To be effective, the entire scientific community had to be
involved.
Organization of the OAI
• Funding Support from the U.S. Council on Library and
Information Resources (CLIR), Digital Library Federation
(DFL), CNI, NSF (USA), JISC
• Steering Committee (12 members, 2 EU)
• Technical Committee and Implementers’ Group
• OAI Executive - Cornell University, USA - Carl Lagoze,
Herbert van de Sompel
• Europe: DINI & DFG (D), JISC (UK), OAI Forum (EU)
OAI Organigram
Open Archives Initiative
Steering Committee
12 Persons (US, UK, D)
CLIR / DLF / CNI
Various Digital Libraries
Executive "Arm"
Cornell University
Carl Lagoze
Herbert van de Sompel
OAI Tech / Implementers
former Technical Committee
2001-2003
10 US, 7 EU
Areas of Responsibility
Steering Committee
• Political & Strategic
Decisions, Promotion &
P.R. etc.
Executive
• Coordination of Technical
Development
• FAQs & Website,
Mailinglists
• Registry & Implementation
• Coordination of Official
Events
Technical Committee
• Testing of Protocol &
Modification (internationally)
• Assistance for Projects
• Testing of Navigation Tools,
MD Standards
• Support for OAI Executive
• Support for Individual
Communities
Additional Events in Europe
through OAI Forum (EU) and
by Implementers Group
OAI Metadata Harvesting
Protocol (MHP)
Metadata Harvestor
MD
Rep A
MD
Rep B
MD
Rep F
MD
Rep
Q
Characteristics of the Metadata
Harvesting Protocol (OAI MHP)
• Reduced Set of DC Metadata (10 elements)
• XML
• Registration & Checking through Registry
• Collections can be defined
• Withdrawn items can be identified
• Compatible with Local Metadata Sets
• Limited to Scientific Publications
• Version 1.0 January 2001, Version 2.0 April 2003
Major Applications
• arXiv Cornell University
• Old Dominion University,
ARC
• NASA & NACA
• Virginia Tech/ NDTLD
• MIT
• CalTech
• U of Illinois at
Urbana/Champaign
• OCLC (CORC)
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
UKOLN (UK)
CERN (CH)
U of Southhampton (UK)
RePEc (UK)
Tilburg University (NL)
EuroPhysNet (D)
Humboldt Univ. Diss (D)
CYCLADES (UK, US, IT)
DTV (DK)
Library of Congress (US)
Projects - Coordination
• Mellon Foundation Projects - Juni 2001• Open Archives Forum & EU-Projects
• NSF-EU gemeinsame Projekte (Cyclades…)
• SIGIR, ECDL, UK / JISC, Communities
• German Initiative for Networked Information
• Heinz Nixdorf Center for Information Management of
the Max Planck Society
• MIT DSpace with Hewlett Packard
• DARE and ARNO in the Netherlands
• Dissertations, Institutional Servers …
OAI Service Providers
• Virginia Tech - Navigation Tool (Diss) +
• Old Dominion University (USA) – ARC (“Cross
Archive Searching Service”)
• Kepler – Tool for Development and Integration of
“Small” Archives (Archives of Individuals, smaller
Institutions, etc.)
• …
Development of
Institutional Repositories
• Supported by SPARC, JISC, DINI, DFG, ARL, CNI
• Brings Electronic Archiving back to Library
• Places Focus & Control with University
• (Breaks down the Monopoly of Publishers)
• Consolidate Assets (both Financial & Prestige)
• Can be integrated into University Information
Management Workflow
• Policy of the Institution can make or break the
Success of the Institutional Repository
Institutional Repositories
• Universities (and other Institutions) can capture, preserve
and influence dissemination of collective intellectual efforts
= increased visibility of authors and institution
• Permanent “Repository” (“Archive”) of the research results
of a specific institution – or Consortium of Institutions with
common interests – Continuation of Archival Function
• Types of Items included: Publications (Preprints, E-Prints),
Technical Reports, Images, Data Sets & Data Visualisation,
Videos, Educational Materials & Supporting Materials, etc.
• Copyright, Author’s Rights, Distribution Rights Still Unclear
• Different submission, publication, and maintenance policies
determined by University
Workflow Procedure: Authors
• Agreement of all authors for
publication and archiving on
institutional server
• Input by authors, File
submitted at same time
• Uploading Metadata & File
into library system
• Author responsible for the
Metadata, Library enhances
• Build in active links on the
home page of the paper
• Open Peer Review, Comment
Procedure – Repository
Administrator / Library
• Import / Export to / from Library
Catalog
• Full Text markup, add disclaimer,
possibly versioning information
• Metadata from Library Catalog
Supplement & connect to full text
file(s)
• Add citation information, if
necessary, relationship details
• Automate according to DTD
including automated addition
Disclaimer / Copyright through
DTD-determined export options
• Maintain Server, OAI MHP
Institutional Repositories
• Exploit possibilities for adding more features far
beyond traditional library catalog (MD + Text)
• Self-registration: Metadata can be not only
submitted but also maintained by author(s)
• Standards can improve interoperability – not only
on the technical level
• Archiving concept can be part of national
bibliographic archival plan (i.e., Netherlands) –
parallel to subject focus of learned society servers
Impact on Scholarly Publication
• Institutional Repositories can serve as meaningful
Indicators of an Insitution‘s academic and scholarship
quality (Johnson)
• Metadata will be Exchanged & Enhanced by other
Institutions – possibly becoming a commodity
• Guaranteed Archiving & Permanent Access
Impact on Scholarly Publication (2)
• Authors have new choices where to publish
• Standard citation formats may change
• Evaluation of quality based on citation frequency or
journal impact factors will have to include institutional
repositories & subject-oriented servers
• Invisible networks may break down
• Open Access Initiatives will chip at the edges of
current publisher strategies and force changes in
evaluation methods for scientific quality
Further Impact
on Scholarly Publications
• Authors have new choices where to publish
• Students can publish
• Standard citation formats may change
• Evaluation of quality based on citation will have to
take institutional repositories & subject-oriented
servers into consideration
• Invisible networks may break down
• Open Access Initiatives will chip at the edges of
current publisher strategies and force changes in
evaluation methods for scientific quality
Key Issues Still Open
• Authors‘ Rights and Returning Science to Scientists
• Challenges traditional Peer Review to evolve into
new forms
• Citation Frequencies may take on new Criteria as yet
not well-known or even conceived of at this time!
• Challenges the Pricing Policies of Publishers
• Archiving no longer just a task of the Publisher, but
rather between Consortia of Universities – possibly
in partnership with the publisher (e.g. Springer,
SuUB Götingen, US, China)
Areas of Research
for the OAI Communities
• Increased Awareness Building & Support for Implementers
• Simple Template with XML Conversion to Facilitate Higher
Acceptance and Implementation (Possibly with
configurable uploading tool)
• Develop Methods of achieving Metadata Consistency
• Better automatic Metadata Extraction Tools from Text
• Multilinguality, Solving the Problems of Interdisciplinarity
• Integration with other Services, Interfaces (Library Cats)
• Improve Standard Descriptions for Non-Text Ressourcen
• Visualizatıon Opportunities for Search results, or cross
section of institutional server
Closing Remarks & Hypothesis
...
• New Methods of Quality Evaluation within Scientific
Disciplines
• New Means of incorporating Public (Open) and Blind
Peer Review System
• More Domain-specific Requirements for both Subject
Servers (Learned societies) & Institutional
Repositories
• OAI Compatibility with Access Control and linking
into Servers with Access Rights Metadata (terms and
conditions)
• Global Community Building including greater
contribution to the Semantic Web
Dr. Diann Rusch-Feja
Director, Information Resource Center
)
B
International University Bremen IU
[email protected]
IATUL 2003
“Libraries & Education in the Networked Information
Environment” 3 June 2003, Ankara, Turkey