UKOLN International Repository Workshop: Repository Handshake

First Report:

• An attempt to rationalise the service requirements: working on PUT, not GET or KEEP
  
• The aim is to populate repositories; support authors & friends (funders or institutions) making their research material available through open access
  
• Have ingest support services that repositories will use downstream.
  
• Focus on research papers, although that may scope more widely.
  
• Balance of priorities between improving existing workflows vs. recruiting content from new depositors.
  
• What information to be collected at point of ingest? —question unresolved. The group is scoping potential conflicts.
  
• Machine-to-machine interoperability vs. computer-assisted human-mediated deposit: these form a continuum.
  
• Workflow agreed on as the target of the group's work; the reification of "workflow" took three directions: e-research workflow; e-publication workflow; repository management.
  

Second Report:

• Over the past ten years people's expectations have not been realised.
  
• People have had stabs at different services.
  
• Need to identify what is the sweet spot between useful services for the community [lots of metadata on ingest], and not imposing difficult requirements on author [little metadata on ingest].
  
• [I lost track here I'm afraid.]
  

Third Report:

• Deposit is the focus of this activity.
  
• Handshake has two parts: PUT from the client, and BEG from the server. [i.e. recruit content].
  
• Use cases: these are deposit opportunities, and range outside the boundary of the repository. Repositories communicating with each other is only one such use case.
  
• Key words: more, better quality [of metadata], easier [remove obstacles to deposit], rewarding [for depositor]. Handshake must involve social contract of reward.
  
• Plan, multiphase.
  
  
  
  • Phase 1: rapid engagement internationally. Some nations have national leverage, but not all do. A international framework is still needed.
    
  • Eight deposit opportunities have been identiified; 2-3 to focus on in workplan Phase 1, over 6 months. For example:
    
    • Multi authored paper, several institutions and countries—what does deposit look like, and how does it become once-only? (Will not be rich but minimally sufficient)
    • Use institutionally motivated deposit;
    • Communication between institutional and discipline repositories;
    • Publisher of journal offers open access service to author.
    
    
  • Seek real life description of those focus use cases, and exemplars already in use on the ground.
    
  • Output of this focussed activity is descriptions of what practice is, not code or prototypes.
    
  • Then gap analysis.
    
  • Overall 2-3 year time horizon, but not planning out so far yet.