[GOAL] Re: New Year's challenge for repository developers and managers: awesome cross-search

2013-01-11 Thread Thomas Krichel 
  Lisa Schiff writes

> Actually ORCID has a public API, though there is a request to use throttling 
> so as not to overwhelm the servers.  I believe some guidance around this is 
> being developed, but you can use the API now:
> 
> http://support.orcid.org/knowledgebase/articles/132354-searching-with-the-public-api

  An API is not the same thing as a stock of data that is freely
  available. For example CrossRef also has an API, you can conduct
  searches but you will never know if/when you have the complete data.

  Neither ORCID nor CrossRef are open access. 

  Cheers,

  Thomas Krichelhttp://openlib.org/home/krichel
  http://authorprofile.org/pkr1
   skype: thomaskrichel
___
GOAL mailing list
GOAL@eprints.org
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal

[GOAL] Re: New Year's challenge for repository developers and managers: awesome cross-search

2013-01-11 Thread Lisa Schiff 
Actually ORCID has a public API, though there is a request to use throttling so 
as not to overwhelm the servers.  I believe some guidance around this is being 
developed, but you can use the API now:

http://support.orcid.org/knowledgebase/articles/132354-searching-with-the-public-api

Lisa
---
Lisa Schiff, Ph.D.
Technical Lead
Access & Publishing Group
California Digital Library
University of California
Office of the President
415 20th Street, 4th Floor
Oakland, CA 94612-2901 
510-987-0881 (t) 510-893-5212 (f)
http://orcid.org/-0002-3572-2981

Follow eScholarship on Facebook and Twitter



-Original Message-
From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of 
Thomas Krichel
Sent: Friday, January 04, 2013 1:44 PM
To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
Subject: [GOAL] Re: New Year's challenge for repository developers and 
managers: awesome cross-search

  Beall, Jeffrey writes

> Could you please explain why you think ORCID is a step backwards? 

  I am not saying it's a step backwards, but it is step backwards
  for open access. 

  The data is ORCID will not be open access data. Access to ORCID
  data will essentially be limited to ORCID members. ORCID say
  there will be some dump of some data made available on an annual
  basis. That's not enough to build a service on the data that
  require bulk instantaneous access to the data.


  Cheers,

  Thomas Krichelhttp://openlib.org/home/krichel
  http://authorprofile.org/pkr1
   skype: thomaskrichel 
___
GOAL mailing list
GOAL@eprints.org
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal

___
GOAL mailing list
GOAL@eprints.org
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal

[GOAL] Re: New Year's challenge for repository developers and managers: awesome cross-search

2013-01-07 Thread Wilhelmina Randtke 
Something to consider with open access is open access of the search, not
just the content.  You can have an open field, like government information,
where the paid search becomes necessary, like Lexis, and even though the
content is free of restrictions someone must pay to access the search and
effectively must pay to access free content.  With something like a
federated search that requires content providers to pay to have their
material indexed (this is what Digital Commons Network is doing), you have
a different issue.  If a search like that catches on, then the institutions
with repositories must pay to have their content included and not be
invisible.  It may be just as expensive, especially given how scare good
technology skills are.

Google Scholar chooses what to index partly by when they get around to it,
partly arbitrary, and without transparency.  I don't necessarily like that.

However, I vastly prefer arbitrary inclusion criteria for the Google
Scholar search to the expensive paid inclusion in something like the
Digital Commons Network.  There each archive with included content has
shelled out upwards of 15K per year to buy the Digital Commons platform,
and that's ball park pricing for a tiny institution with minimal content.
Most pay much more.  There is some administrative reason for not including
content on other platforms in that the management at Digital Commons always
has access to an up-to-date list of repositories on that platform, but
doesn't have an already maintained in-house list of other repositories.
Significantly, there is no clear technological reason for not including
content from other platforms. There are two types of metadata in play in a
Digital Commons repository:  Dublin Core, and some Digital Commons specific
metadata which seems to be organizing serials (Dublin Core doesn't account
for serials).  The Dublin Core metadata is fairly easy to harvest from a
repository.  To get a pull of Dublin Core records from a Digital Commons
site, you go to the OAI-PMH feed at (base URL)/do/oai , for example,
http://lib.dr.iastate.edu/do/oai/ lets you query and get the indexing info.
Then to get full text, you hook any attached file, and extract full text
from it.  Using that, I could build a clunky cross repository search as a
weekend project.  Every repository platform will let you do this:  get
indexing information and see any attached (publicly available) files.

I would be much more comfortable with something like Digital Commons
Network, if they pulled records from repositories in other platforms, for
example, by looking at http://www.openarchives.org/Register/BrowseSites and
harvesting those records.  They could have done that, but didn't.

That makes institutions invisible unless the institution pays up.

-Wilhelmina Randtke


On Fri, Jan 4, 2013 at 4:03 PM, Gerritsma, Wouter
wrote:

>  Hi Stevan,
>
> ** **
>
> Google Scholar is a very good fulltext scholarly search engine, no doubt
> about it. But it doesn’t find all the ftxt available on the web, albeit it
> does a good job. 
>
> Take e.g. one of my articles
> http://scholar.google.com/scholar?cluster=17014920805021872143&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5GS
>  found two PDF version’s but not the one on our universities repository.
> That is still not fully indexed. Although it gets close
> http://library.wur.nl/WebQuery/wurpubs/lang/380005 it found our metadata
> reocrd, but not the ftxt.
>
> I guess this is still the case with many repositories. Earlier this year
> it was even reported in the literature:
>
> ** **
>
> Arlitsch, K. & P.S. O'Brien (2012). Invisible institutional repositories:
> addressing the low indexing ratios of IRs in Google. Library Hi Tech,
> 30(1): 60-81 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/07378831211213210
>
> ** **
>
> So Google Scholar is still not the cure all for all OA available in the
> world. Interestingly our repository is better indexed in the standard
> Google search engine rather than the Scholar version.
>
> ** **
>
> So my point is, doing a search on GS, and finding a lot of hits still
> doesn’t guarantee to find all the ftxt of those papers. 
>
> ** **
>
> Al the best Wouter 
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] *On
> Behalf Of *Stevan Harnad
> *Sent:* donderdag 3 januari 2013 2:09
>
> *To:* Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
> *Cc:* SPARC Open Access Forum; scholc...@ala.org T.F.; LibLicense-L
> Discussion Forum
> *Subject:* [GOAL] Re: New Year's challenge for repository developers and
> managers: awesome cross-search
>
> ** **
>
> CHEER-LEADING, CHALLENGES AND REALITY
>
> ** **
>
> What is missing and needed is not "awesome repositories cross-search
> tools." 
>
> ** *

[GOAL] Re: New Year's challenge for repository developers and managers: awesome cross-search

2013-01-07 Thread Bram Luyten 
Hi Wouter,

does your repository comply with Google Scholar's inclusion guidelines?
http://scholar.google.com/intl/en/scholar/inclusion.html#overview

In case it does not comply to all guidelines, can you highlight to which
extent you are deviating from the guidelines and what the reason is?
This can be very valuable feedback for those repositories still configuring
or customising to achieve compliance.

Bram Luyten

-- 
[image: logo]
*Bram Luyten* *@mire*
*2888 Loker Avenue East, Suite 315, Carlsbad, CA. 92010*
*Esperantolaan 4, Heverlee 3001, Belgium*
  
<http://www.atmire.com/>www.atmire.com<http://atmire.com/website/?q=services&utm_source=emailfooter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=braml>


On Fri, Jan 4, 2013 at 11:03 PM, Gerritsma, Wouter
wrote:

>  Hi Stevan,
>
> ** **
>
> Google Scholar is a very good fulltext scholarly search engine, no doubt
> about it. But it doesn’t find all the ftxt available on the web, albeit it
> does a good job. 
>
> Take e.g. one of my articles
> http://scholar.google.com/scholar?cluster=17014920805021872143&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5GS
>  found two PDF version’s but not the one on our universities repository.
> That is still not fully indexed. Although it gets close
> http://library.wur.nl/WebQuery/wurpubs/lang/380005 it found our metadata
> reocrd, but not the ftxt.
>
> I guess this is still the case with many repositories. Earlier this year
> it was even reported in the literature:
>
> ** **
>
> Arlitsch, K. & P.S. O'Brien (2012). Invisible institutional repositories:
> addressing the low indexing ratios of IRs in Google. Library Hi Tech,
> 30(1): 60-81 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/07378831211213210
>
> ** **
>
> So Google Scholar is still not the cure all for all OA available in the
> world. Interestingly our repository is better indexed in the standard
> Google search engine rather than the Scholar version.
>
> ** **
>
> So my point is, doing a search on GS, and finding a lot of hits still
> doesn’t guarantee to find all the ftxt of those papers. 
>
> ** **
>
> Al the best Wouter 
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] *On
> Behalf Of *Stevan Harnad
> *Sent:* donderdag 3 januari 2013 2:09
>
> *To:* Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
> *Cc:* SPARC Open Access Forum; scholc...@ala.org T.F.; LibLicense-L
> Discussion Forum
> *Subject:* [GOAL] Re: New Year's challenge for repository developers and
> managers: awesome cross-search
>
> ** **
>
> CHEER-LEADING, CHALLENGES AND REALITY
>
> ** **
>
> What is missing and needed is not "awesome repositories cross-search
> tools." 
>
> ** **
>
> What is missing and needed is OA repository deposits, and OA deposit
> mandates. 
>
> ** **
>
> The repositories are mostly empty. 
>
> ** **
>
> And Google Scholar finds what OA content there is -- wherever it is on the
> web -- incomparably better than "awesome repositories cross-search tools."
> 
>
> ** **
>
> Here is just a sample vanity search on a relatively uncommon name (try
> your own):
>
> ** **
>
> *Awesome repositories cross-search tool:* Harnad 140 
> hits<http://network.bepress.com/explore/?q=Harnad>
> 
>
> *Google Scholar:* Harnad 15,900 
> hits<http://scholar.google.ca/scholar?q=Harnad&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5>
>  (author:Harnad: 
> 1,010<http://scholar.google.ca/scholar?q=author%3AHarnad&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5>
>  hits)
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> ___
> GOAL mailing list
> GOAL@eprints.org
> http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
>
>
___
GOAL mailing list
GOAL@eprints.org
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal

[GOAL] Re: New Year's challenge for repository developers and managers: awesome cross-search

2013-01-04 Thread Gerritsma, Wouter 
Hi Stevan,

Google Scholar is a very good fulltext scholarly search engine, no doubt about 
it. But it doesn't find all the ftxt available on the web, albeit it does a 
good job.
Take e.g. one of my articles 
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?cluster=17014920805021872143&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5 
GS found two PDF version's but not the one on our universities repository. That 
is still not fully indexed. Although it gets close 
http://library.wur.nl/WebQuery/wurpubs/lang/380005 it found our metadata 
reocrd, but not the ftxt.
I guess this is still the case with many repositories. Earlier this year it was 
even reported in the literature:

Arlitsch, K. & P.S. O'Brien (2012). Invisible institutional repositories: 
addressing the low indexing ratios of IRs in Google. Library Hi Tech, 30(1): 
60-81 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/07378831211213210

So Google Scholar is still not the cure all for all OA available in the world. 
Interestingly our repository is better indexed in the standard Google search 
engine rather than the Scholar version.

So my point is, doing a search on GS, and finding a lot of hits still doesn't 
guarantee to find all the ftxt of those papers.

Al the best Wouter

From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of 
Stevan Harnad
Sent: donderdag 3 januari 2013 2:09
To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
Cc: SPARC Open Access Forum; scholc...@ala.org T.F.; LibLicense-L Discussion 
Forum
Subject: [GOAL] Re: New Year's challenge for repository developers and 
managers: awesome cross-search

CHEER-LEADING, CHALLENGES AND REALITY

What is missing and needed is not "awesome repositories cross-search tools."

What is missing and needed is OA repository deposits, and OA deposit mandates.

The repositories are mostly empty.

And Google Scholar finds what OA content there is -- wherever it is on the web 
-- incomparably better than "awesome repositories cross-search tools."

Here is just a sample vanity search on a relatively uncommon name (try your 
own):

Awesome repositories cross-search tool: Harnad 140 
hits<http://network.bepress.com/explore/?q=Harnad>
Google Scholar: Harnad 15,900 
hits<http://scholar.google.ca/scholar?q=Harnad&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5> 
(author:Harnad: 
1,010<http://scholar.google.ca/scholar?q=author%3AHarnad&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5>
 hits)



___
GOAL mailing list
GOAL@eprints.org
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal

[GOAL] Re: New Year's challenge for repository developers and managers: awesome cross-search

2013-01-04 Thread Thomas Krichel 
  Beall, Jeffrey writes

> Could you please explain why you think ORCID is a step backwards? 

  I am not saying it's a step backwards, but it is step backwards
  for open access. 

  The data is ORCID will not be open access data. Access to ORCID
  data will essentially be limited to ORCID members. ORCID say
  there will be some dump of some data made available on an annual
  basis. That's not enough to build a service on the data that
  require bulk instantaneous access to the data.


  Cheers,

  Thomas Krichelhttp://openlib.org/home/krichel
  http://authorprofile.org/pkr1
   skype: thomaskrichel
___
GOAL mailing list
GOAL@eprints.org
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal

[GOAL] Re: New Year's challenge for repository developers and managers: awesome cross-search

2013-01-04 Thread Beall, Jeffrey 
Thomas,

Could you please explain why you think ORCID is a step backwards? Yours is the 
first negative comment I've heard about it. 

Thank you,

Jeffrey Beall


Jeffrey Beall, MA, MSLS, Associate Professor
Scholarly Initiatives Librarian
Auraria Library
University of Colorado Denver
1100 Lawrence St.
Denver, Colo.  80204 USA
(303) 556-5936
jeffrey.be...@ucdenver.edu






-Original Message-
From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of 
Thomas Krichel
Sent: Friday, January 04, 2013 1:33 PM
To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
Subject: [GOAL] Re: New Year's challenge for repository developers and 
managers: awesome cross-search

  Robert Hilliker writes

> Further, as initiatives like ORCID (Open Researcher and Contributor
> ID) begin to get off the ground, there are opportunities for 
> repositories to play a key role in ensuring that these consortial 
> efforts help us to further the goals of the OA movement by enhancing 
> the accessibility of OA content and not just that of commercial 
> publishers and content providers.

  ORCID itself is not an open access initiative. It's a step backwards.


  Cheers,

  Thomas Krichelhttp://openlib.org/home/krichel
  http://authorprofile.org/pkr1
   skype: thomaskrichel 
___
GOAL mailing list
GOAL@eprints.org
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal

___
GOAL mailing list
GOAL@eprints.org
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal

[GOAL] Re: New Year's challenge for repository developers and managers: awesome cross-search

2013-01-04 Thread Thomas Krichel 
  Robert Hilliker writes

> Further, as initiatives like ORCID (Open Researcher and Contributor
> ID) begin to get off the ground, there are opportunities for
> repositories to play a key role in ensuring that these consortial
> efforts help us to further the goals of the OA movement by enhancing
> the accessibility of OA content and not just that of commercial
> publishers and content providers. 

  ORCID itself is not an open access initiative. It's a step backwards.


  Cheers,

  Thomas Krichelhttp://openlib.org/home/krichel
  http://authorprofile.org/pkr1
   skype: thomaskrichel
___
GOAL mailing list
GOAL@eprints.org
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal

[GOAL] Re: New Year's challenge for repository developers and managers: awesome cross-search

2013-01-03 Thread Steve Hitchcock 
The search graphic linked by Heather is interesting, as is the service 
developed by Digital Commons. Unlike Stevan, I believe repository content 
building and mandates will do better if developed in parallel with useful 
repository services, and we should not forget that was the objective of OAI 
that inspired the first generation of repositories and services.

However, this search service is novel rather than 'awesome'. Adopting Stevan's 
search term gives the following top four results:

Causal Constructs And Conceptual Confusions, Linda J. Hayes, Mark A. Adams, 
Mark R. Dixon Dec 2012

"The Governance Of Science In An Age Of Knowledge Management", Steve Fuller Dec 
2012

"The Roquade Project: Towards New Models In Scientific Communication", Bas 
Savenije Dec 2012

Consortia Licensing, Information As Infrastructure, Andy Crowther Dec 2012

Some of these might look like new papers that students of this field will want 
to catch up with, but they are from 1998, 2001, 2001 and 1998, respectively.

Looking at the classification in the left-hand column, this could be useful if 
it is more reliable than the by-year example above - and surely we can do dates 
better than by year? There are some categories - 'Lee C. Van Orsdel', 'Series', 
'Selected Works' - that look specific to Digital Commons.

In other words, from a content pov this is interesting and it highlights a wide 
range of repository content; from a search perspective it lacks focus and 
precision. In this respect it is like most other native repository search.

We can't naysay Google/Scholar, obviously, and that was the reason OAI services 
fell into decline, but repository services could benefit from a more focussed 
approach than Google provides currently, time-based search across selected 
repositories, for example, perhaps even some of the features highlighted by 
Digital Commons. Quality will be the ultimate determinant of usage of these 
services.

In a post-Finch OA world it might look like policy is the front line, but you 
can be sure the OA providers encouraged by Finch will be putting as much into 
service development as content development. That is now the real front line for 
repository services, not Google.

Steve

On 3 Jan 2013, at 01:09, Stevan Harnad wrote:

> CHEER-LEADING, CHALLENGES AND REALITY
> 
> What is missing and needed is not "awesome repositories cross-search tools." 
> 
> What is missing and needed is OA repository deposits, and OA deposit 
> mandates. 
> 
> The repositories are mostly empty. 
> 
> And Google Scholar finds what OA content there is -- wherever it is on the 
> web -- incomparably better than "awesome repositories cross-search tools."
> 
> Here is just a sample vanity search on a relatively uncommon name (try your 
> own):
> 
> Awesome repositories cross-search tool: Harnad 140 hits
> Google Scholar: Harnad 15,900 hits (author:Harnad: 1,010 hits)
> 
> _
> GOAL mailing list
> GOAL@eprints.org
> http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal

On 2 Jan 2013, at 23:07, Heather Morrison wrote:

> The Digital Commons Network has created an awesome repositories cross-search 
> tool - with a signficant limitation, that this is limited to the Digital 
> Commons platform.
> 
> My challenge for repository developers and managers: are you developing your 
> platforms and repositories to facilitate development of search services like 
> this that would work across platforms? If not, why not?
> 
> Here is the link to the Digital Commons tool (thanks to Isaac Gilman):
> http://network.bepress.com/
> 
> best,
> 
> Heather G. Morrison
> http://poeticeconomics.blogspot.com
> ___
> GOAL mailing list
> GOAL@eprints.org
> http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal


___
GOAL mailing list
GOAL@eprints.org
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal

[GOAL] Re: New Year's challenge for repository developers and managers: awesome cross-search

2013-01-02 Thread Stevan Harnad 
CHEER-LEADING, CHALLENGES AND REALITY

What is missing and needed is not "awesome repositories cross-search
tools."

What is missing and needed is OA repository deposits, and OA deposit
mandates.

The repositories are mostly empty.

And Google Scholar finds what OA content there is -- wherever it is on the
web -- incomparably better than "awesome repositories cross-search tools."

Here is just a sample vanity search on a relatively uncommon name (try your
own):

*Awesome repositories cross-search tool:* Harnad 140
hits
*Google Scholar:* Harnad 15,900
hits
 (author:Harnad:
1,010
 hits)
___
GOAL mailing list
GOAL@eprints.org
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal