LIROLEM:Deposit Spec

Bespoke Development

Upload widget

Summary

An upload widget and a browsing widget that takes the style of the web pages within which they are embedded.

Specification

There is a requirement for two widgets.

1. The first will allow anyone to embed a widget object in a web page which allows authenticated users to deposit a file (including zipped files) into their user workspace on eprints.lincoln.ac.uk For example, a member of staff may be using Blackboard and wish to deposit their work in the repository. Rather than going to eprints.lincoln.ac.uk and logging in to deposit their work, they should be able to simply provide their login credentials, select a file from their PC or from a URL, provide a title (mandatory) and description (optional), and post this information to the repository. There should be a checkbox which asserts whether they wish to be 'taken' to their repository workspace to continue the deposit. This would open up a new web page and land them in their workspace (https://eprints.lincoln.ac.uk/cgi/users/home?screen=Items) as an authenticated user. If they choose not to continue with the deposit, the file will then be stored in their workspace for full deposit at a later date. By providing this widget, files can easily be collected from their PC and around the web, and pulled into their repository workspace for eventual deposit. The benefit to the user is a simple way to collect objects in their workspace. The benefit to the institution is that this low barrier to first-stage deposit should encourage staff to start using the repository for their collected work. The widget should have minimal styling or use the CSS stylesheets of the web page it is embedded in.
2. The second will allow anyone to embed a widget in a web page which displays their chosen Division and allows navigation. For example, a webmaster, may wish to embed a widget that only shows the Centre for Educational Research and Development's deposits. Rather than a publications list, the widget allows interactive browsing by year, author, keyword cloud and item type (i.e. http://eprints.lincoln.ac.uk/view/divisions/fac=5Fcer/2009.html this page embedded as widget). Links to EPrints refer to the original abstract page. The benefit to the department is that they can provide a 'personalised' way of displaying and navigating their repository deposits in their departmental web pages. It allows them to take ownership of their 'division' of the repository and isolate the information specific to that department. It benefits the institution, because it allows departments to take ownership of the repository and the public facing benefits of displaying research output within the context of the departments' web pages. The widget should have minimal styling or use the CSS stylesheets of the web page it is embedded in.

Multiple Collections

Provide multiple personal collections. Currently, only one collection is available per logged in user. This would extend the existing feature to allow up to five 'shopping basket' -like collections.

Post to Blog

This would be a plugin that optionally posted a new eprint to a given blog using either XML-RPC or AtomPub. The title, abstract and first multimedia item (if available), would be re-published with a link to the original. Keywords and subject categories would be used as tags. This would allow depositing users to simultaneously post their work to their academic blog and benefit from the ability to comment and discuss the work on their own blog. The post would be a 'draft' so that any changes could be made before publishing it. The given blog address would be stored as part of the user profile and each deposit process would provide the opportunity for depositors to optionally re-post the details of their deposit to a blog of their choice using a 'Post to blog' checkbox. The blog post would be styled by the blog CSS and media such as an image or video would be displayed to make the post more visually interesting.

Embargo

Improvements to the embargo process.

This would clarify and expand on the current embargo process. Some publishers do not allow the full-text to be fully public after the embargo date and some academics may prefer to only make their teaching materials visible for a certain period (teaching materials have a practical shelf-life).

The embargo functionality would appear like this, replacing the current 'Visible To' and 'Embargo Expiry Date':

example:

Visible to: University Staff & Students

until:

Embargo date: 01/01/2011

Following the embargo date:

Visible to: Anyone

There would be the requirement to add a new access level just for users authenticated by LDAP as registered users could include members of the public who have registered.

Maintenance

• Be able to define the category of work by 'Student Level (i.e. UG, PG)'

EPrints Services: we can add an extra field for this (maintenance)

• Parallel titles. We can enter a title for part of a thing by giving the individual PDF a title. What we can't do is give an alternative title for the whole thing, as for example if it has been translated or published in two languages. We can put all the titles in the same box with = between them but we wondered if there was a neater way.

EPrints Services: we can add a alt_title field (maintenance)

• Need to be able to create multiple ISSN/ISBN fields.

EPrint Services: we can make these field multiple (maintenance) Do you also want to differentiate print/online ISSNs? Yes

• On the 'Creator' field, needs text to clearly say that this field is included in the abstract page citation details and indexed for browsing.

EPrints Services: we can look at adding a short note to the right/below the field (maintenance)

• For the Conference item type, a 'Presentation' type needs adding.

EPrints Services: we can add an extra option to the field (maintenance)

• Selecting a Division should be mandatory.

EPrints Services: we can make this mandatory (maintenance)

• Collapse non-mandatory fields in the same way that 'Contact Email Address' and 'Additional Information' are collapsed.

EPrints Services: we can collapse non-mandatory fields (maintenance)

• We wish to change the order of fields on the Details page

EPrints Services: can be done, need specification (maintenance)

• We wish to group fields on the Details page (see below for details of the 'boxes')

EPrints Services: can be done, need specification (maintenance)

• We wish to import a keyword list to provide more suggested keywords for depositors.

EPrints Services: this is a case of augmenting the existing list (maintenance)

• 'Additional information' should really say that it will be visible, 'Comments and suggestions' that it isn't. These are really notes, could we call them notes and put them together in a box, something like this?

'Notes - for public display' 'Notes - for repository staff only'

EPrints Services: can add some advice to the right/below of the field (maintenance)

EPrints Services: Should depositors and cataloguers (ie. editors) see the same workflow, or are some/all of the observations below specifically for editors?

These comments are for any depositor.

• On the 'Editors' and 'Contributors' fields, needs text to clearly say that these fields are not included in the abstract page citation details and not indexed for browsing.

EPrints Services: as before (maintenance). Note that Editors are included in some citations. Note also that search forms, browse views and the information included on abstract pages are all completely configurable.

• 'Funders', 'Projects', 'Course details', 'Relationships' and all those can be as low as you like, AND COLLAPSED.

EPrints Services: we can collapse these at the bottom of the screen (maintenance)

Other

• Be able to upload files initially with only minimal information but be able to return to the upload later and add more details.

This is possible already.

• Following on from the above point, it would also be useful if a tutor who was not the original uploader could post formal reviews of student work, and possibly even add details about the nature of the upload.

This is already possible using the comment form in place. However the comments are public.

• Two views of metadata: one to institutional users and another to the public.

EPrints Services: Needs clarification - what is the intention here? Note that any registered user should be able to view details of an item by clicking on the "item control page" link from the item abstract page (please check and confirm)

Confirmed. I think the point here is that we need to provide guidance saying that more information is available to registered users.

• Comment moderation for the SNEEP plugins?

EPrints Services: Is the ability for admins to edit/remove comments is already built into SNEEP (please check and confirm)

Yes, this is possible.

Comment moderation would need some kind of (email and/or RSS?) notification so that comments are picked up quickly by admins. If this is fairly straightforward to implement, please provide a quote.

I'm inclined to think that we shouldn't go down the route of extending the functionality of the IR in this way but concentrate on developing the IR as an information and storage source/layer and extend with feeds, widgets, SWORD, etc.

• Add a new division: 'Library and Learning Resources'

EPrints Services: can be done by an admin using the Subject Editor tool

Done.

Boxes

We'd like coherent boxes, slightly more emphatic, so that the related groups belong together.

The Creators box should have just the creator expanded. The explanation should be in the name of the field (not in the hidden, expandable explanation), so call the field 'Creators - cited in abstract and indexed for browsing' or some such. 'Editors', 'Creators' and 'Corporate creators' can all be collapsed, directly under 'Creators' and called 'Editors - not cited in abstract or indexed for browsing', etc. Finish the box with the 'Divisions' browse.

EPrints Services: Again you appear to be emphasising whether a field is indexed or not and appears in citations/abstract pages. In fact all fields are indexed, but by default not all fields appear on the search form, in citations or on abstract pages - the defaults can be changed to suit! What is the intention here with these messages - are you informing the depositor or the editors?

The Publication details box is very sprawly, if it can be made smaller or neater it would be good. We'd like to see the 'Identification number' (DOI) actually say 'DOI'. It should be just above the official URL if possible. In book chapters, journal articles and conference items, we'd like to see a division in organisation between the-thing-the-person-wrote and the-thing-it-is-published/was-presented-in, possibly even 2 boxes, so the first box would have the type of presentation (which needs a new field), the article page numbers, the day and place of the presentation, the second would have ISSN, ISBN, number of pages in the whole book, Date range and place of the whole event, name of the book.

EPrints Services: all possible, need specification (maintenance)

The 'Keywords' and 'References' are way too low and should be at least just below the 'Publication details', but possibly even just below the 'Abstract'.

EPrints Services: need specification (maintenance)