1 / 17

APARSEN WP22 Identifiers and Citability

APA Conference 7-8 November 2011, London. APARSEN WP22 Identifiers and Citability. Some key results. Fondazione Rinascimento Digitale Emanuele Bellini, Chiara Cirinnà, Maurizio Lunghi, University of Trento Paolo Bouquet, Barbara Bazzanella , Angela Fogarolli. Overview. WP22 Objectives

francesca-key
Download Presentation

APARSEN WP22 Identifiers and Citability

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. APA Conference 7-8 November 2011, London APARSEN WP22 Identifiers and Citability Some key results Fondazione Rinascimento Digitale Emanuele Bellini, Chiara Cirinnà, Maurizio Lunghi, University of Trento Paolo Bouquet, Barbara Bazzanella , Angela Fogarolli

  2. Overview WP22 Objectives Survey on Persistent Identifiers Envisioning scenarios Next steps

  3. WP22 objectives • Current weaknesses: • Standard identifier systems not implemented / local solutions preferred • A global unique technology cannot be expected/imposed • A unique access point to a joint cross-domain service is missing • Added value services tailored on different communities are inadequate • Planned objectives: • Overview of the current PI systems • Interoperability framework and reference model • Community-driven added value services FRAGMENTARY LANDSCAPE and LACK of CONSENSUS!

  4. WP22 objectives Task 10 Survey and benchmarking • State of the art analysis • User requirements, scenarios • Benchmarking model Task 20 Interoperability Framework and Reference Model • Citability and cross-reference • Provenance • Authenticity • Bibliometric statistics • Interoperability Framework: functions, roles and responsibilities Task 30 Citability advanced services

  5. Survey objectives and structure • Objectives: • a) General overview of the PI adoption among different communities • b) Level of awareness about PI services (existence, usefulness, etc.) • c) User requirements • Structure: 5 sections of multiple choice answers : • PI for digital objects • PI for authors/information creators • PI for organizations • Criteria for the adoption of a PI system for digital objects • Digital preservation strategies and practices

  6. Survey results The questionnaire received 103 full responses! Most responses from European institutions Low number of participants from private sectors Important implications for generalizing the results

  7. Digital objects: metadata, access and repository systems Types of digital objects Metadata associated to digital objects 1.Textual doc 98.06% 2.Images 86.41% 3.Video 63.11% 4.Website 62.14 5.Audio 60.19% … 2nd High heterogeneity and interoperability issues! Access systems Repository systems 1st 2nd

  8. PI for digital objects • DOI is the most commonly used by universities, research organizations, archivesandpublishers • Handle is mostly used by librariesandarchives • URN is the most widely used by libraries • Librariesandarchivesuse frequently internal PI systems

  9. Limits experienced in using PI

  10. PI for authors Main Obstacles Lack of awareness!

  11. PI for organizations Lack of awareness! Main Obstacles

  12. Features for PI Analysis of user requirements in 4 domains: 1. technology, 2.organization of the service, 3. scopeand 4. naming rules

  13. Top five requested services for PI Mostly PI Basic services Mostly PI future advanced services

  14. Summarizing the results… • Convergence toward few major systems: DOI, Handle, URN. • Internal solutions mainly adopted for authors and organizations. • High level of heterogeneity in metadata schema, repository systems and access systems. • Need of major requirements for PI for digital objects and authors • Preservation practices quite diffused but…disparity between the need of preservation and the scarce commitment (funding and sustainability)

  15. Envisioning Scenarios • Scenarios on Citability and Metrics services • Access to the appropriate copy (FRD) • Access to fragments and linked resources (DANS) • Association of multiple author PI with a single person (ESSEX) • Author career tracking and evaluation (FRD) • Researcher profiling with a collaborative index (FRD) • 2) Scenarios on Global Resolution services • Finding aggregated information on a digital objects or author using a PI (UNITN) • Finding information about a resource’s authenticity and availability (DNB) • A machine using a GRS to retrieve metadata and information about a resource’s authenticity and availability (DNB) • 3) Digital Object certification • Document Authenticity (UNITN) • Dissertation Authenticity check  (FRD/UNITN) • Provenance: Author information discovery (CERN)

  16. Next steps User requirements come out from the Survey PI Interoperability Framework Design Reference Model Collecting scenarios from Partners (WP22 + others) Envisioning scenarios

  17. Thank you! Emanuele Bellini bellini@rinascimento-digitale.it (Maurizio Lunghi ) lunghi@rinascimento-digitale.it

More Related