Search interface, URLs, taxonomy, policies and content…

It is now established that we will be using the SRU interface developed by IRISS as the public search interface for the repository. I hope to install the current incarnation of the interface on a Leeds Met server very soon and two of my more technically adept colleagues are looking at the recently released code in order to scope the extent of the development work that will be required to incorporate advanced search and browse functionality. As this page will effectively be the repository by proxy (the URL that I have requested is repository.leedsmet.ac.uk – intraLibrary itself will require a different URL) we also need to think about what other elements it might need to comprise; authenticated log-in to intraLibrary itself (yet to be determined if this will be the appropriate route for self-archiving; it will certainly be one route but we may also need an authenticated link to a SWORD interface for example); About this repository; FAQs; Operational policies; Contact etc. It is also likely that this page will form the basis of – or at least link to – the PERSoNA web-tool(s).

What about learning objects which will require their own taxonomy and a different workflow for deposit (via SWORD perhaps)? Should they be incorporated into the search interface at all or will users need to authenticate into intraLibrary to browse? This would seem to make sense given intraLibrary is a specialised LO repository and access to this type of content is more likely to be restricted to Leeds Met staff.

I’ve adapted my schematic recently posted on PERSoNA News to try to represent what the repository might now look like:

The customisation of the search interface is one of the issues that I am taking to the steering group meeting tomorrow afternoon.

Other decision that needs to be ratified by that group are:

  • The URL for the search interface
  • The URL for intraLibrary
  • The taxonomy system that we shall use within intraLibrary and that the search interface (SRU) will map directly on to (at least for research)

Other items on the agenda are:

  • Development of operational policies for the repository

I have so far drafted the following:

  1. Metadata policy
  2. Data policy
  3. Takedown policy
  4. Content policy
  5. Submission policy
  6. Preservation policy

These are all fairly standard in terms of Open Access repositories and, with the exception of 3. Takedown policy, were all generated using the OpenDOAR Policies Tool, nevertheless, it may be necessary to identify specialised sub-groups to review these drafts to ensure they are appropriate for the Leeds Met repository; the issue is more complex of course due to our repository incorporating Learning Objects as well as research.

  • Content for the repository

There needs to be a discussion about how best to contact researchers and research ac tive staff to ask them for appropriate material for the repository. In the first instance, in line with the project plan, this will be their own versions of published research articles that are allowed to be self-archived into an OA repository. I have begun to identify such material and have drafted correspondence for review at the meeting.

  • Authentication

With the implementation of the search interface (SRU) it will not be necessary to authenticate in order to browse for research content (essential for OA). It will, however, be necessary to generate authenticated accounts for Leeds Met staff that require access to intraLibrary itself and these will need to be integrated with LDAP. Though much will depend on the precise configuration of our integrated repository systems it is likely that, in time, all staff will require an authenticated account whether to deposit material, search for learning objects or access their internal workspace. There are also authentication issues pertaining to the potential use of SWORD/other external interfaces such that only authorised Leeds Met staff/students can deposit material/access federated content. I am still unsure of some of the issues involved and require input from Intrallect and IMTS.

  • Integration with other Leeds Met systems

This is an area where it is perhaps still too early to think much beyond priorities and broad timescales. Given that there is already a plug-in for X-stream and that this is functionality that can be used as a selling point to the university community it makes sense to focus on this integration first. Also, perhaps, library online and the portal.

Advertisements

2 Responses to Search interface, URLs, taxonomy, policies and content…

  1. Nick says:

    Content: a decision also needs to be taken whether research content should comprise full text only or should also include citation of material that we do not have copyright permission to make available as full text (i.e. bibliographic reference only).

    This would have obvious benefits as a tool for the RAE and it should also be possible to integrate with SFX such that, where we carry appropriate subscriptions, citations link through to published material.

  2. Pingback: Updating the overall architecture « Streamline News

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: