Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

COAR Next Generation Repositories Working Group

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 (

  • Login to see the comments

COAR Next Generation Repositories Working Group

  1. 1. Paul Walk Head of Technology Strategy and Planning, EDINA @paulwalk COAR Next Generation Repositories WG
  2. 2. what is COAR?
  3. 3. what is the Repositories Next Generation Working Group?
  4. 4. ...resisting the obvious Star Trek: Next Generation joke here...
  5. 5. 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)
  6. 6. this is what we actually look like
  7. 7. To position repositories as the foundation for a distributed, globally networked infrastructure for scholarly communication…
  8. 8. why focus on repositories?
  9. 9. 3 cheers for repositories!
  10. 10. cheer #1: proven technology, ubiquitous in our institutions
  11. 11. cheer #2: strong community support
  12. 12. cheer #3: distributed policy control
  13. 13. 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.”
  14. 14. 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.”
  15. 15. two of the ideas being discussed
  16. 16. 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 • • RDFa, bib extensions • would involve very little or no effort by repository administrators • a small amount of software development in repository systems
  17. 17. 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
  18. 18. 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
  19. 19. 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
  20. 20. thanks for listening! more info: 1. Preliminary findings for public review later this year 2. Final report in early 2017
  21. 21. I lied.