Digital Repositories Committee : 2020-08-26 Meeting notes

15 minutes

Feature development prioritization

David Walker and Carmen Mitchell (Unlicensed)

• Review the list that the Project Mangers came up with and prioritize the items.

  • Carmen: OJS to Samvera crosswalk is of high importance, top priority

    • How would we define the OJS crosswalk? That will determine the complexity; If OJS is minting DOIs that will impact the direction of crosswalks, etc.

    • All of these are good questions, need to converse with Publishing group on this too

    • Might be good to have an exploratory meeting with PKP developers

    • What role do Schol Comm and Pub Interest group play in this development? Potentially a joint task

  • Batch projects (uploads, edits, etc.) would be useful, moved to higher category

  • Some of these priorities (on the linked list) need to be further defined, and need to be broken into smaller tasks (e.g. more information gathering)

  • Decided to group priorities by high, medium, lower priorities

  • We should add notes about feasibility and complexity; OJS for example would need development on the OJS side

  • Proposed: ask Project Managers to rank priorities via Google Form, Carmen and Dave will chat offline on how to approach poll

10 minutes

Datacite Integration

User 73137

From the 12-17-2019 meeting notes: There was a previously a STIM report on Handles & DOIs

• A rationale for Handles (mandatory) + DOIs (optional)

• Some are very interested in DOIs

  • Pricing for DataCite Membership

    • Light use: 2000E + 500E (1 repository) + 500E (1-10k DOIs) = 3000E

      • Heavy use: 2000E + 1000E (2 repositories; OJS + Hyrax) + 2000E (10k-100k DOIs) = 5000E

      • Also discussed at our Feb and March meetings. Time to vote to move this to COLD.

• Would COLD want one linked open data membership to consider when determining funding possibilities? Or pieced apart by service?

• Arguments for keeping it pieced apart: offers the ability to prioritize pieces and pay by piece, rather than one large cost

• Some campuses are already using CrossRef; We have a centralized CrossRef membership at the CO level; Dave would consider integrating into Samvera but needs to review what the integration looks like (CrossRef seems more complex than DataCite)

• Need plan or guidelines for what gets a DOI and what doesn’t (some faculty works already have them); This is also dependent on the integration, might need to customize to not mint DOIs for every item

• Do we have a sense of other IRs and if they are minting DOIs for ETDs? As opposed to pulling in existing DOIs for things like faculty articles; ETDs likely don’t live anywhere else and we do want to point to them, in perpetuity. We have reliable stats on ETDs and could use that data to predict yearly costs for DOI minting; At times DOIs are not minted in order to keep metadata proprietary (behind paywalled databases)

• Need more understanding of integration, will work out possibilities with Dave over email

• Will vote to move forward over email, as well

10 minutes

ORCID integration

User 73137

Vote to move forward to COLD for funding?

Was discussed/will continue to be discussed at Schol Comm meeting

10 minutes

• Shareyourpaper.org integration

User 73137

Vote to move forward to COLD for funding?

• Free service, could work to build out further customization with Montana State

• Does automatic checking of versions, author rights, journal archiving policies; Expedites pre-print archiving process for authors

• At Montana State goal is for authors to submit at Shareyourpaper.org which then pushes to local IR

• Reliant on OAI-PMH enhancement

• Before implementing, should be discussed with project managers

10 minutes

Working group updates

Alyssa Loera (Unlicensed)

Lia Ryland (Unlicensed)

• DAWG: Completed a lot of open tasks. Self-evaluation toolkit is being filled out by members. Sending to other campuses by mid-fall.

  • Digital preservation research going on. Using archivematica. Using NDSA tiered approach.

  • Finished up the DAMS performance evaluation tool. Will share it soon.

  • Looking at the DAMS development plan.

  • Joint meeting with MWG soon.

• MWG: thanks for the feedback on item types! Coming to a decision soon.

  • We like ORCID!

  • Title capitalization - different practices on each campus.

  • Still issues with degree names. Writing up documentation on standards.

  • Working on rights information.

5 minutes

Announcements

Of possible interest: Accessibility in Institutional Repositories https://digital.library.txstate.edu/handle/10877/12389

• Carmen asked about proposing a reading group to go over this article, potentially to go over at either a project manager or open forum meeting

• Votes lean towards talking it over at an open forum meeting (in September); Dave is going to cancel the September meeting and ask open forum attendees to read the article before the October meeting

If time permits

Carmen

• Other documentation needs for sustainability

  • History of the working groups, how they came to be - CM and DW to do

  • History of repositories at the CSU - CM and DW to work on

  • Retro-digitization projects - CM and DD to work on

  • Open Access evolution within the CSU - MS and MB to work on

  • Checklist for new CSU ScholComm librarians - all play