lack of clarity about which records are being exposed to a ?verb=ListRecords&metadataPrefix=rioxx OAI-PMH request

[paulwalk]

I'm routinely sampling the outputs of repositories which declare support for RIOXX see results here.

Several repository managers have contacted me to say that I am sampling records which shouldn't be appearing. There is a suggestion that the RIOXX plugin exposes records which the repository managers do not intend to expose via OAI-PMH.

I'm not sure that this is an issue with the plugin, but there is certainly a degree of confusion around this which the plugin developers might be interested in clarifying.

I have written about this in more detail here. A comment there would be very welcome!

[pjwest]

Hi
The EPrints RIOXX2 plugin does not attempt to decide which records are
made available. The plugin provides a mechanism to publication data as a
valid RIOXX v2 XML document. It does not hide items that are not
compliant and it does not have a concept of what the metadata profile is
for i.e. it takes the "wider" view expressed in the comments by Andy
Bussey rather than the "RCUK only" view.
The plugin woks by adding the fields necessary to take a "default"
EPrints repository to the state where it is possible to export XML in
the required format. All EPrint publication records therefore can (and
do) have the ability to be exported in RIOXX v2 XML format. There is a
reporting mechanism that can be used to see which items are compliant
and which are not and mechanisms to add/modify the data to achieve
compliance.

As an aside I noted a mention of the "convenience" licences not being
supported. Actually they are. In fact every possible license is
supported by virtue of the fact that it is possible to override the
"mapped" data to provide the "correct" data. It is true that the plugin
does not automatically map "no licence" to "convenience" licence. My
view would be that it would be better for the convenience licence to be
used by intention rather than by default. However, as with everything
about the plugin, this can, and should, be customised to suit local
needs. So, if a repository manager wishes to map "no licence" to a
convenience licence then they can do so quite easily.
I hope this helps.
B.T.W the plugin was development team was Sheridan Brown, Tim
Miles-Board and Myself

Thanks
Peter

On 02/12/15 09:07, Paul Walk wrote:

I'm routinely sampling the outputs of repositories which declare
support for RIOXX see results here http://rioxx.net/implementation/.

Several repository managers have contacted me to say that I am
sampling records which shouldn't be appearing. There is a suggestion
that the RIOXX plugin exposes records which the repository managers do
not intend to expose via OAI-PMH.

I'm not sure that this is an issue with the plugin, but there is
certainly a degree of confusion around this which the plugin
developers might be interested in clarifying.

I have written about this in more detail here
http://www.rioxx.net/2015/11/25/rioxx-and-oai-pmh/. /A comment there
would be very welcome!/

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#35.

Peter J. West
Digital Repository Services Ltd

[pjwest]

Hi
I posted it there first so that should be done although I had to sign up
for disqus so is it possible my post is blocked?
Thanks
Peter

On 02/12/15 09:57, Paul Walk wrote:

Peter,
thanks for the response. Any chance you could post this to the RIOXX
comments thread so the conversation can continue there?

Thanks,

Paul

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#35 (comment).

Peter J. West
Digital Repository Services Ltd

[paulwalk]

Thanks Peter - I realised it was there and deleted my prev comment here - but too late!

Will respond on the blog comments thread later today.

cheers,

Paul