|
Logo

Comments by Commenter

  • Acar, Senem

  • admin

    • Comment on 8. Other on June 27, 2020

      Good point. I’ll see if I can add something in the next version – Kathleen

  • Fiona Bradley UNSW

    • Comment on 2. Access on July 3, 2020

      this should be essential not desirable as it is a matter of human rights and inaccessible platforms are illegal in many jurisdictions.

    • Comment on 3. Reuse on July 3, 2020

      3.3 The repository provides documentation and support for data citation
      – Wording is vague. Suggest Essential “The repository provides a suggested citation for all records using a standard citation style.” Desirable “The repository provides downloadable citations in standard referencing file formats such as RIF, BibTex etc.”

    • Comment on 3. Reuse on July 3, 2020

      • It seems to me contradictory that machine-readable metadata is ESSENTIAL in this section, but also DESIRED
      • I would think that machine-readable metadata is more relevant to discoverability than re-use (with the exception of machine-readable license metadata)

    • Comment on 8. Other on July 3, 2020

      8.2 The repository responds to queries within a reasonable time
      – “reasonable” is very imprecise. Suggest rewording to “The repository has a stated notice outlining a response time for responding to all queries of no more than 14 days.”

  • Iryna Kuchma

    • Comment on 1. Discoverability on June 26, 2020

      I would remove high and just write quality metadata: 1.1. The repository supports high quality metadata (discipline-based, regional or general metadata schema such as Dublin Core)- high might be difficult to interpret. 
      What does accessible mean here – 1.3 Metadata in the repository are accessible, even in cases when the resource is no longer available – wouldn’t available be a more clear wording? Accessibility might require special settings. And what is meant by no longer available – what would be a use case? Perhaps we could just write when the resource is not available? 
      I don’t think supports PIDs for externally housed versions of related resources in 1.4. is clear enough. Is this about metadata only records of articles where there is a field for DOIs and about relationType metadata field for linking deposited datasets to journal articles or other outputs with PIDs? Would includes be a better wording instead of supports?
      I am not sure I understand or the repository metadata and/or is indexed in 1.5 The repository offers a search facility or the repository metadata and/or is indexed in an external discovery service or aggregation – looks like something is missing here or and/or should be deleted. 
      This is also difficult to understand – 1.7 The repository supports persistent identifiers for data at multiple levels of granularity, where appropriate. – is this about assigning PIDs to deposited content? Could this be rephrased? 
      I am not sure how many repository administrators and managers would understand content negotiations options in – 1.9 HTTP link headers are supported to inform about content negotiation options – is there a way to rephrase this? 
      Would it be helpful to include in the Desired Characteristics that Repositories make metadata available under a Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication (CC 0 1.0) or equivalent?

    • Comment on 1. Discoverability on June 26, 2020

      Repositories make metadata available under Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY International 4.0) licence, except for email addresses could be another addition if CC 0 1.0 isn’t a preferred option.

    • Comment on 3. Reuse on June 26, 2020

      I am not sure this is clear enough – what would be an example of such documentation and support? – 3.3 The repository provides documentation and support for data citation?
      Shouldn’t this be a seperate characteristic and not a part of open APIs – The repository provides a list of preferred, non-proprietary formats?
      I think it would be good to include an example here: 3.6 Resources are stored in a machine-readable community standard formats

    • What would be an example of such practice and how could it be provided – as a section in the repositories policy/about page? 4.1 The repository provides documentation of its practices that prevent unauthorized access/manipulation of resources

  • Isabel Bernal

    • Comment on 1. Discoverability on July 1, 2020

      Maybe 1.1 may be completed with “the repository supports quality controlled vocabualries”, too
       
      1.6 could also be completed with “contents of the repository are havested by one or more Open Science aggregators such as BASE” 

    • Comment on 3. Reuse on July 1, 2020

      In my view 3.5 is too important to be left as a desired feature. Another issue is what formats are supported by a given repository’s software
       
      3.1 could lead to misunderstanding by implying that only CC licenses are essential. Other types of standard open licenses may be valid, too. And also a mention that whenever an open license is not a good fit for a given resource, it is recommended to indicate the copyright status and any access/usage constraints in place in a rights metadata  

    • Maybe 4.2 should state “keeps” instead of “provides”? 
      4.4 may need clarification: such recommendation is at metadata level or policy level?

    • Comment on 5. Quality assurance on July 1, 2020

      5.2 is very important to be left as a desired feature when we are talking about quality data repositories

    • A related essential feature may be a public repository’s policy as regards management of sensitive data together with related access and licenses mechanisms 

    • As to sustainability and for the sake of transparency, it is an esential characteristic to clearly indicate the responsible entity behind the repository
      As to 7.3 at least a summary of the preservation policy should be available on the repository’s site 
       

  • Manuja Karunaratne

    • Recently we developed 25 institutional repositories under National Digitization Project and 90,000 S&T records were enable for online access. But there are some articles and books with IP issues. Currently we have restricted to download by public. But they can request copies for educational purpose.  
      Can we include some policy guide line allowing institutions to publish old publications and publications with author expired for the Bateman of the society.  

  • Marisa R De Giusti

    • Comment on 1. Discoverability on July 7, 2020

      1.1. The meaning of “High quality” is ambiguous and unclear. It mention DC as a valid example of “high quality” despite DC per se does not imply high or low quality. It would be nice to give examples for each case of discipline, regional or other metadata profiles. Some examples could be Darwin Core, Openaire or RIOXX. Type-based metadata could be also mentioned as an option. Eg Datacite for datasets.
      1.4 Perhaps this point should be split in two parts because a) mandatory PID for items is broadly supported and indiscutible, however, b) relation metadata containing PIDs is desirable but may not be always available.
      1.7 Perhaps too general. Does it mean all the files of an item should have a different PID?
      1.9 Unclear. Please point to specific guidelines, protocols, or practice. Is this about signposting?
      1.11 Unclear if it refers to all the item metadata or just its citation.

    • Comment on 2. Access on July 7, 2020

       
      would add a point 2.5 to mention that it is desirable that repositories with restricted or embargoed items should facilitate an indirect way to access the resources. i.e. requesting a copy to the authors. 

    • Comment on 3. Reuse on July 7, 2020

      3.1 Perhaps there should be a requirement for mandatory license metadata.

    • Comment on 3. Reuse on July 7, 2020

      3.1 Perhaps there should be a requirement for mandatory license metadata.
      Please explain or give some examples of open API’s that support full-text exposure.
      3.6 This may be Essential
      3.7 What is the meaning of “resources” ?

    • Comment on 3. Reuse on July 7, 2020

      4.2 Unclear if this means that the repository should keep a public version of every item.

    • Comment on 3. Reuse on July 7, 2020

      3.1 Perhaps there should be a requirement for mandatory license metadata.
      Please explain or give some examples of open API’s that support full text exposure.
      3.6 This may be Essential
      3.7 What is the meaning of “resources” ?

    • 4.2 Unclear if this means that the repository should keep a public version of every item.

    • Comment on 8. Other on July 7, 2020

      8.4 Together with the usage information, it should be useful that the repository explain what kind of bot treatment performs on usage data, if any.

  • Mariya

    • Comment on 1. Discoverability on June 24, 2020

      Many of the desired characteristics on this list depend on platform functionality rather than repository policies and practices. If it hasn’t already, it will be beneficial to share this with the major repository platform providers/creators to solicit their feedback.

    • Comment on 2. Access on June 24, 2020

      This page would benefit from clarified definitions. It talks about accessing “data”, “datasets” and “records”. It is unclear whether “data” refers to “datasets” only or to anything stored in the repository. Similarly, does “records” refer to only metadata or full text items? If the latter then how is it different from “data”?
      Does the repository need a mechanism to transfer large datasets specifically or any large files that may present an issue with direct download (e.g. videos)?

    • Comment on 5. Quality assurance on June 24, 2020

      “The repository supports annotation, commenting or reviewing of resource and metadata” – I think this needs to be broken down.
      Reviewing presumes a process before a resource is made available, akin to editorial review of a journal submission. Some platforms, like DSpace, already support this functionality.
      Now, annotation and commenting presumes functionality for resources after they were made public. Commenting specifically may involve a whole other level of moderation, something university platforms may be sensitive to making available.

  • Washington Segundo

    • Comment on 3. Reuse on June 25, 2020

      Just pointing an small typo in item 3.4: “text and data miningThe repository”.

    • Comment on 8. Other on June 25, 2020

      I would like to suggest the addition of a chapter about governance, policies and infrastructure management.

Source: https://comments.coar-repositories.org/comments-by-commenter/