From Francis.Brouns at ou.nl Tue Dec 2 08:54:29 2003 From: Francis.Brouns at ou.nl (Francis Brouns) Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2003 14:54:29 +0100 Subject: [Dspace-general] Dspace bitstream formats Message-ID: Hello, we recently installed Dspace and are exploring its' features. The documentation describes that there are 3 types of bitstream formats in Dspace: supported, known and unknown. So are PDF, text and XML supported formats. However, in our Dspace application all these formats are listed as known, not as supported. Is this something we should worry about or correct? The admin tool for the Bitstream Format Registry allows the 'supported' option. Kind regards, Francis Brouns From Francis.Brouns at ou.nl Tue Dec 2 09:01:40 2003 From: Francis.Brouns at ou.nl (Francis Brouns) Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2003 15:01:40 +0100 Subject: [Dspace-general] hiding communities or collections Message-ID: Hello, we plan to use Dspace for our organisation. The intention is to create communities and collections that are publicly available, but also several that are restricted to internal use. This is a mixed model. For example we have a community for which most collections are available to the public but one or two are intended for internal use. We can prevent unregistered users from submitting items to these collections. However, we would like to hide them at all from unregistered users. Is this possible? Kind regards, Francis Brouns From Francis.Brouns at ou.nl Tue Dec 2 09:47:43 2003 From: Francis.Brouns at ou.nl (Francis Brouns) Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2003 15:47:43 +0100 Subject: [Dspace-general] servlet.jar Message-ID: Hello, we recently installed DSpace and see the following message in catalina.out: Starting service Tomcat-Standalone Apache Tomcat/4.1.24 WebappClassLoader: validateJarFile(/opt/jakarta/tomcat/webapps/dspace-oai/WEB-INF/lib/servl et.jar) - jar not loaded. See Servlet Spec 2.3, section 9.7.2. Offending class: javax/servlet/Servlet.class WebappClassLoader: validateJarFile(/opt/jakarta/tomcat/webapps/ROOT/WEB-INF/lib/servlet.jar ) - jar not loaded. See Servlet Spec 2.3, section 9.7.2. Offending class: javax/servlet/Servlet.class Apparently servlet.jar is not loaded. We installed Dspace 1.1.1. on Suse 8, following the guidelines for a Tomcat Standalone installation. Tomcat version is 4.1.24. servlet.jar is present in the Dspace WEB-INF directory. How can we correct this? Kind regards, Francis Brouns From robert.tansley at hp.com Tue Dec 2 17:10:42 2003 From: robert.tansley at hp.com (Tansley, Robert) Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2003 14:10:42 -0800 Subject: [Dspace-general] hiding communities or collections Message-ID: <40700B4C02ABD5119F00009027876644084DF331@hplex1.hpl.hp.com> > we plan to use Dspace for our organisation. The intention is > to create communities and collections that are publicly > available, but also several that are restricted to internal > use. This is a mixed model. For example we have a community > for which most collections are available to the public but > one or two are intended for internal use. We can prevent > unregistered users from submitting items to these > collections. However, we would like to hide them at all from > unregistered users. Is this possible? Hello, This isn't possible at present. The authorisation system in DSpace does let you specify READ permission for communities and collections but at the moment the UI will display all communities and collections regardless. However, the code changes to hide communities and collections wouldn't be that great. Robert Tansley / Hewlett-Packard Laboratories / (+1) 617 551 7624 From robert.tansley at hp.com Tue Dec 2 17:16:19 2003 From: robert.tansley at hp.com (Tansley, Robert) Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2003 14:16:19 -0800 Subject: [Dspace-general] Dspace bitstream formats Message-ID: <40700B4C02ABD5119F00009027876644084DF332@hplex1.hpl.hp.com> > Hello, > > we recently installed Dspace and are exploring its' features. > The documentation describes that there are 3 types of > bitstream formats in > Dspace: supported, known and unknown. So are PDF, text and > XML supported formats. However, in our Dspace application all > these formats are listed as known, not as supported. > > Is this something we should worry about or correct? The admin > tool for the Bitstream Format Registry allows the 'supported' option. The 'support level' for a Bitstream Format is intended to show your users what level of support *you* (the institution running DSpace) will give Bitstreams in that format. This is explained in the functional overview section of the documentation: http://dspace.org/technology/system-docs/functional.html#data_model The DSpace code ships with all of the levels as 'known'; that's because we don't want to presume what level of support and commitment your institution will give your users for each format. You should review the registry yourself and set the support levels as you feel is appropriate. Robert Tansley / Hewlett-Packard Laboratories / (+1) 617 551 7624 From kenzie at MIT.EDU Fri Dec 5 18:37:07 2003 From: kenzie at MIT.EDU (MacKenzie Smith) Date: Fri, 05 Dec 2003 18:37:07 -0500 Subject: [Dspace-general] DSpace user group meeting in March 2004 Message-ID: <5.2.1.1.2.20031205183240.01e6af78@hesiod> Greetings all, This is an advance notice that on March 10 and 11th, 2004, the MIT Libraries will host an open invitation DSpace user group meeting on the MIT campus. In early January we will set up a registration page on the DSpace Federation website at http://dspace.org/ with the logistics, and send out a call for presentations. The DSpace software has just turned 1, and its use by institutions world-wide continues to grow, and to move from experimental and pilot projects into production institutional repository services. Users of the software have asked us for an opportunity to get together and hear about what's going on at MIT and HP, and at other institutions that are using and improving the system. We would also like to use this opportunity to get input from the greater community of DSpace users about the Federation and how they would like it to be shaped to meet their needs. The format will be two days, including presentations from other projects and organizations who want to communicate or collaborate with the DSpace Federation, as well as DSpace users who have interesting ideas to communicate to their peers about the system and its uses. We will reserve the last half day for discussion of the future of the DSpace Federation. Note that this will *not* be a how-to workshop on DSpace -- there will be other opportunities for that in the coming year. Stay tuned for more information in the near future, and we hope to see you in March! MacKenzie Smith Associate Director for Technology MIT Libraries Building 14S-208 77 Massachusetts Avenue Cambridge, MA 02139 (617)253-8184 kenzie at mit.edu From harnad at ecs.soton.ac.uk Mon Dec 8 12:06:52 2003 From: harnad at ecs.soton.ac.uk (Stevan Harnad) Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2003 17:06:52 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [Dspace-general] Re: Estimates on data and cost per department for institutional archives? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Mon, 8 Dec 2003, JQ Johnson wrote: > At most institutions the average annual peer-reviewed production [per > author is]... minuscule, even if you are successful in getting widespread > adoption by your faculty... > Let's say you got total buy-in... > [A]lthough the cost of storage and server is minimal, the cost of archival > is potentially very large. > If you agree with Stevan you don't care much about long-term access. > We don't agree... There is a deep misunderstanding here, and its elements are all there in the foregoing paragraph. The critical phrase is: "if you are successful in getting widespread adoption by your faculty... Let's say you got total buy-in..." This assumption is the logical equivalent of: "Let's say you win the lottery..." [and then going on to describe how you will spend the prize-money]! There is also an element of embalming Peter in order to preserve Paul! (1) Today, as we speak, the canonical digital texts of the articles we are talking here about preserving are being sold by publishers and bought by libraries and inaccessible to most because of the access-toll-barriers. (2) The *contents* of these texts are the ones to which we seek to provide free access for those researchers whose institutions cannot afford the access-tolls. (3) So we (the authors and their institutions) provide a *supplementary* text, a home-brewed version of the canonical one that is still being bought and sold by the publishers and libraries, and we self-archive it in our institutional archives. (4) Or rather, we *could* self-archive it, and we *should* self-archive it, but alas most of us still do not self-archive it. (5) In other words, we are still far from having met the "widespread adoption/total buy-in" precondition that is blithely being assumed in the above passage! (6) More important, one of the reasons we have not met those preconditions is that faculty think they have enough burdens already; and libraries certainly have enough burdens too. (7) So it looks quite unlikely that what will get faculty to just go ahead and do it will be to add or even mention any further burdens (viz. the putative "preservation" burden). (8) What we need to do is lighten up and focus on the task. (9) And that task is getting more faculty (*all* faculty) to provide open-access *now* (by self-archiving a supplementary version of each of their peer-reviewed publications in their institutional archives). (10) Are we sloughing off a substantive responsibility in focusing solely on immediate open-access provision? Is the long-term fate of these (mostly non-existent) supplementary versions a real issue? (11) No, the real issue is not the long-term fate of non-existent supplements to the canonical versions (the real ones with the real preservation burden); the real issue is the non-existence of the immediate open access to all peer-reviewed publications that those supplements would have provided. (12) if they were not being held back by (among other things) spurious preservation worries! http://www.eprints.org/self-faq/#1.Preservation (13) Spurious not just because self-archived supplements are merely the copies and not the originals -- those self-same originals that would have their (real) preservation burdens regardless of whether or not the non-existent supplements about whose preservation we are worrying, existed. (14) But spurious also because what little supplementary self-archiving has been done across the past 12 years (e.g., the 250,000 papers growing in the Physics ArXiv since 1991) is all alive and well and fully as openly-accessible today as it was when it was first self-archived 12 years ago, thank you very much! (15) So it does not look as if even the immediate open-access windfall, supplementing the toll-access canon (with its preservation burden) is at any imminent risk of being snatched back from us, in those few cases where we have actually troubled to provide the open access. (16) What will follow from successfully winning the lottery is a matter for pure speculation. (17) But should it turn out that once the supplementary corpus -- and hence open access to the entire refereed literature -- is complete, it forces the providers of the toll-access corpus to cut costs and downsize in such a way that they are no longer providing the digital texts of the primary corpus (but only the peer-review and certification), offloading it instead, from that day onward, onto the network of institutional open-access archives. (18) Starting then, and only then, on that happy day, do we need to begin worrying about the long-term preservation of what until then was merely a supplementary corpus, but, from that day forward, also takes over the burden of being the primary, canonical corpus. (19) Before that, though, we need to win the lottery. (20) And the lottery will not be one by fretting or fantasizing about how you will will either preserve or spend your non-existent winnings. Of course, the library community is in the profession of assuming responsibility for the preservation of contents, whether analog or digital. And their perennity horizons are far, far vaster than just the annual 2.5 million articles that appear in the planet's 24,000 journals. But it is important that they not let their ex officio responsibility for preservation Writ Large get in the way of the winning of the lottery here: that they not subsume the non-existent preservation burden for this non-existent supplementary open-access corpus under their preservation efforts on behalf of many other kinds of contents, including: > [The] natural extension... to collect[ing] supporting materials > for... preprints [such as] multi-TB dataset[s] in some fields such > as astronomy or biology. It only takes one such large dataset to > completely blow away any space calculations based only on collecting > the paper-publishable text. May I make a suggestion? Reckon the space separately, and don't burden the empty open-access-article shelves with the altogether distinct preservation and capacity demands of supporting datasets: "Refereed Research Archiving and Data Archiving" http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/1582.html http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/data-archiving.htm Or, to put it another way, don't make the purchase of an open-access lottery ticket contingent on buying into a data-archiving lottery ticket too! > Even if you are collecting just > preprints and theses, the size estimates depend on how you are handling > acquisition of multimedia materials; if you collect theses in dance you > might have videos of performances, each of which is several GB. Preprints and theses are extras, freebies. Our primary, secondary, and tertiary target here is the peer-reviewed journal literature, 24,000 journals-full, 2,500,000 articles annually. A few new journals may be multimedia. Don't worry about them. Keep the goal in focus: It's those 24,000 journals, almost all of which have both a paper edition and an online version of it, identical except for the medium. Don't handicap the self-archiving of the 2,499,000 yearly non-multimedia articles that are also non-open-access with the newfound extras of the few yearly multimedia articles in peer-reviewed journals. > [aside: we believe that if we DON'T > collect such unprintable items we'll never get faculty buy-in for > Stevan's laudable goal of collecting the printable peer-reviewed works] But *why* do you feel that? Is there any evidence for a correlation between making an archive capable of storing uprintable items and successfully opening the sluice-gates of self-archiving? I can only echo the sentiments of: "Re: EPrints, DSpace or ESpace?" http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/2837.html As long as our institutional archiving efforts keep running off in all directions, they will get nowhere. A fence should be built around our focussed open-access provision efforts for our refereed article output, separating them for all spurious distractions and burdens. http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/archpolnew.html Stevan Harnad NOTE: A complete archive of the ongoing discussion of providing open access to the peer-reviewed research literature online is available at the American Scientist Open Access Forum (98 & 99 & 00 & 01 & 02 & 03): http://amsci-forum.amsci.org/archives/september98-forum.html http://www.cogsci.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/index.html Post discussion to: september98-forum at amsci-forum.amsci.org Dual Open-Access-Provision Policy: BOAI-2 ("gold"): Publish your article in a suitable open-access journal whenever one exists. BOAI-1 ("green"): Otherwise, publish your article in a suitable toll-access journal and also self-archive it. http://www.soros.org/openaccess/read.shtml http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/berlin.htm http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/self-archiving_files/Slide0026.gif http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/self-archiving_files/Slide0021.gif http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/self-archiving_files/Slide0024.gif http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/self-archiving_files/Slide0028.gif From harnad at ecs.soton.ac.uk Mon Dec 8 17:48:41 2003 From: harnad at ecs.soton.ac.uk (Stevan Harnad) Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2003 22:48:41 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [Dspace-general] Re: Estimates on data and cost per department for institutional archives? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: JQ Johnson wrote: > please note that I have replied only to one of the lists > you CCed. Subscribers to the other lists may like me get multiple > copies of your posts. If not, they don't have the context of Kan's > original question. This entire thread is archived and accessible at: "Estimates on data and cost per department for institutional archives?" http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/3247.html > The "total buyin" scenario puts an upper bound on the size of > the archive. That upper bound is quite small, so the reductio > argument leads one to conclude that disk space is not an issue for > [p]reprints. I think that's a conclusion you would agree with. Agreed. But I am talking about eprints, which means (optionally) unrefereed preprints and (essentially) refereed postprints. http://www.eprints.org/self-faq/#What-is-Eprint The 1st, 2nd, and 3rd purpose of the open access movement is to provide free, full-text online access to all of the articles (2.5 million annually) published in the planet's 24,000 refereed journals. That means the refereed version of the article is the essential target; providing access to that is the essential function of the archive; and the rest are just bonuses, which must not be allowed to get in the way of the essentials. > You also seem to miss the point that many of us disagree > with you about the goals/conceptualizaion of an institutional > repository. Slightly different conceptualizations from yours, for > instance the decision that the repository should hold, in addition > to surrogates for published papers, the canonical copies of working > papers or supplementary materials, can lead to very big differences > in one's sizing expectations and budget for the repository. No, I think I fully understand that point. But it is in the interests of at last providing access to the essentials -- the peer-reviewed research literature, which is what the open-access movement is about -- that I strongly urge those who have other objectives for their institutional archives to pursue them separately. The point is that these other agendas should not be allowed to get in the way of the essentials (for the open access movement), which consists of the "surrogates for published papers" (as you aptly put it) and not other things. It is not that other things should not be archived! Nor even that they should not be archived in the same archive, if that is possible. But the constraints on the archiving of the other things should not be allowed to hamper the archiving of the essentials in any way. That includes capacity and preservation burdens. If the other things have those burdens, they should be carried separately not imposed needlessly on the essentials. > Re preservation: I also disagree with your claim that having a > library mention preservation is likely to dissuade faculty from > contributing their work. Quite the contrary, a committment to a > reasonable degree of preservation is one way to sell the service, > and in fact is a piece that we've found to be fairly appealing > to faculty, even if it does have institutional costs that need to > be considered. Anything that actually generates the self-archiving of the essentials -- reminder: refereed articles! -- is welcome. But the fact is that there is not yet faintly enough self-archiving of refereed articles. So if the preservation promises have served as an inducement, they haven't yet helped much! http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/self-archiving_files/Slide0024.gif http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/self-archiving_files/Slide0043.gif Far, far more likely is that preservation promises have simply compounded the still prevalent misunderstanding about what is to be self-archived, how, and why. The author of an article in Nature, for example, has no worries about preservation. If you want to induce him to self-archive, you have to demonstrate to him the advantages -- in terms of research impact -- of providing open access to his Nature article. You will not induce him to self-archive by telling him that if he does, you promise to provide long-term preservation for that surrogate of the article! He is not concerned about long-term preservation. (Why should he be any more concerned about the long-term preservation of his Nature articles today than 10, 20, or 30 years ago?) But I am always open to new inducements for open-access provision. If -- mirabile dictu -- preservation promises start to serve as the successful inducement (instead of the red herring they have been till now), I will immediately stop preaching impact and start preaching preservation! (But I would only keep preaching at all because in reality open-access *is* for the sake of impact, even if, for some reason, preservation should prove to be the only language researchers understand.) I profoundly doubt, however, that the promise of preservation will do the trick. It's more likely to distract from the real goal, as it has done so often in the past: http://www.eprints.org/self-faq/#1.Preservation > Similarly, we find that there is demand for a convenient way to make > supplmentary materials available to colleagues. Many journals these > days realize there is demand for this and are offering this service > themselves (so it's ALREADY part of the publication process), but > not all. Again, offering support for the deposit of these materials > is something a library can do to make it MORE likely that faculty > will contribute the paper itself to an institutional repository, > and hence provide the open access we both agree is important. I agree that if an author troubles to self-archive the supplementary materials for his article, he is more likely to self-archive the article too. But (1) the vast majority of the yearly 2,500,000 articles do not have any supplementary materials and (2) chances are that for the minority of articles that do have supplementary materials that the author wants to self-archive (*and* the journal cannot archive them) the authors are already self-archiving their articles too. So I don't think this tail can or should wag the dog. >JQJ> The key issue here may be: > >JQJ> [aside: we believe that if we DON'T collect such unprintable >JQJ> items we'll never get faculty buy-in for Stevan's laudable >JQJ> goal of collecting the printable peer-reviewed works] > >SH> But *why* do you feel that? > > We need more data, but anecdotally, our experience has been that > those faculty who are hot to self-archive their preprints are > already doing so, and that arXiv and RePEc are meeting most of the > demand. That's probably true, though it leaves out an anarchic multi-disciplinary body of articles self-archived by authors on their own websites (as discovered by harvesters such as citeseer in computer science, already twice as big as the Physics ArXiv several years ago). http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/self-archiving_files/Slide0038.gif But I agree that it is those who are *not* yet self-archiving (i.e., nearly 90%) who are the targets. I just doubt that the lure of either preservation or data-archiving is going to draw that 90% on board! (Whereas I do think that powerful objective demonstrations of the impact-enhancing power of open-access provision will: for the researchers, and, even more important, for their institutions and funders, who wield the publish-or-perish carrot and stick that already protects researchers from any natural tendency to just put their papers into a desk-drawer rather than maximizing their impact by publishing them: http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/self-archiving.htm .) > There are very few examples of institutional repositories > that are proving successful in collecting the types of items you > insist on focusing on. That is true. But there are some. And more than there used to be recently. And we are still working on formulating that offer that researchers won't be able to refuse! http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/self-archiving_files/Slide0006.gif http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/self-archiving_files/Slide0025.gif "Measuring cumulating research impact loss across fields and time" http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/3212.html > Even MIT's DSpace is getting very little > true faculty self-archiving, with most of its growth seeming to > come from departmental grey literature (and soon from OCI course > materials). I can only re-echo the sentiments of: "EPrints, DSpace or ESpace?" http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/2670.html http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/2837.html The reason institutional archives are not getting filled is because they are heading off in all directions: 1. (MAN) digital collection management (all kinds of digital content) 2. (PRES) digital preservation (all kinds of digital content) 3. (TEACH) online teaching materials 4. (EPUB) electronic publication (journals and books) 5. (RES) self-archiving institutional research output (preprints, postprints and theses) Instead of focussing on 5 (RES). http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/3210.html > Meanwhile, though, many faculty express the desire > to have better tools for managing large data sets as part of the > publication process. Meanwhile, while the archives are *not* filling, and open access is *not* being provided, and cumulating research impact loss continues to grow, there are many other desires being expressed (and perhaps even being fulfilled). But they have nothing to do with open access (to the refereed journal literature)! And those sectors of the archives continue to yawn empty. > We had a dean's retreat last month, and our > deanlet for the social sciences made the point that her new hires > in the social sciences are starting to imitate their physical > science colleagues and demand more startup money; when asked what > they say they need the money for, she reported that it is mostly > for management and archival of their data sets. Well, that is certainly interesting, and good news for data-archiving in the social sciences. But what further conclusion is to be drawn from it? > Similarly, there > is pressure in the U.S. from the granting agencies to make the > data that accompanies a submitted paper publicly accessible. That pressure is very welcome, but it seems absurd for the granting agencies to pressure for archiving the data without also pressuring for archiving the data! (And are you sure this is all for *open-access* data-archiving, rather than merely data-archiving?) http://www.ariadne.ac.uk/issue35/harnad > And I frequently hear from faculty that they want to increase the > impact of their work by making available supplmentary materials > that go along with the peer reviewed paper -- data sets, survey > instruments, supplementary statistical analyses, maps and images, > etc. There's real unmet demand here. A useful thing to say to faculty who have expressed the desire to increase the impact of their peer-reviewed papers by providing open access to supplementary materials is: Wouldn't it be a good idea to increase the impact of your peer-reviewed papers by providing open access to your peer-reviewed papers? But I am not disagreeing that data-archiving is a splendid idea and will help hasten article-archiving too! http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/data-archiving.htm I'm just suggesting that we shouldn't focus on trying to make the tail wag the dog. > I think you make a very good point that it is a large problem that > institutional archiving efforts keep running off in all directions. > However, although I think there is definitely room for institutional > strategies that are monomaniacal in their focus, there's also room > for strategies that take a very different direction. For instance, > consider MIT's DSpace, or Ohio State's KnowledgeBank. The important > thing is that any given institution be clear in its goals, and that > we recognize that the precise statement of those goals will imply > particular implementation strategies and hardware/technology/budget > requirements (the question that Min-Yen Kan originally raised). There are many digital things institutions can and should archive. One particularly important thing is their refereed research output. The self-archiving of that particularly important thing is going particularly slowly (relative to its importance), mainly (I believe) because the research community has not yet grasped what a strong direct causal connection there is between research access and research impact. Their grasp of that connection will not be hastened by mixing it up with the archiving of all kinds of other digital things -- and especially if the archiving of those other digital things has further constraints and liabilities (such as preservation, large-scale data-archiving, and multimedia) that spill over onto the archiving of refereed research output, which does not have those further constraints and liabilities, and needs more momentum rather than dead weight. Stevan Harnad From harnad at ecs.soton.ac.uk Mon Dec 8 06:36:56 2003 From: harnad at ecs.soton.ac.uk (Stevan Harnad) Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2003 11:36:56 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [Dspace-general] Estimates on data and cost per department for institutionalarchives? (fwd) Message-ID: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Sun, 7 Dec 2003 23:10:10 -0500 From: Min-Yen Kan To: SEPTEMBER98-FORUM at LISTSERVER.SIGMAXI.ORG Subject: Estimates on data and cost per department for institutional archives? Hello all: At the National University of Singapore, a task force has assembled to examine the possibility of setting up an open-access institutional repository to address some of the goals brought up by Stevan Harnad, but most importantly: > 5. (RES) self-archiving institutional research output (preprints, > postprints and theses) > > "Re: Central versus institutional self-archiving" > http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/3210.html > > "Re: EPrints, DSpace or ESpace?" > http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/2837.html The reason why I'm writing the list is because we are currently trying to estimate the amount of data that will eventually flow into the institutional archive. It's hoped that it will give us a way to estimate the cost of the budget for the project. Many of the parameters in the project are under discussion, so I can't give many informative details, but I'm interested in finding out whether any studies tabulating the size (and/or cost) of data going into institutional repositories have been done. I know this query is a bit underspecified, but I'm hoping that any leads that readers of this list might be able to offer will be able to help our group come up with an approximate figure. We feel it is good to consult expertise earlier rather than later. Of course, there are numerous other issues that need to be examined (e.g., copyright policy), and our group is checking these out in parallel. I've done some searching on the list archives, D-Ligband Ariadne, and as of now, I'm only aware of Theo Andrew's recent Ariadne article on repository postings at the Univ. of Edinburgh (http://www.ariadne.ac.uk/issue37/andrew/) and Michael Day's article on ePrints UK (http://www.rdn.ac.uk/projects/eprints-uk/docs/studies/impact/). I would be very happy to hear from you if you have any past or present lessons to share. I would be happy to post a summary of responses if there's interest. Regards, Min-Yen KAN Assistant Professor Department of Computer Science, School of Computing National University of Singapore, Singapore 117543 http://www.comp.nus.edu.sg/~kanmy From harnad at ecs.soton.ac.uk Mon Dec 8 07:05:06 2003 From: harnad at ecs.soton.ac.uk (Stevan Harnad) Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2003 12:05:06 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [Dspace-general] Re: Estimates on data and cost per department for institutional archives? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Mon, 8 Dec 2003, Min-Yen Kan wrote: > At the National University of Singapore, a task force has assembled > to examine the possibility of setting up an open-access institutional > repository [for] > > 5. (RES) self-archiving institutional research output (preprints, > > postprints and theses) > > http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/3210.html > > http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/2837.html > > we are currently trying to estimate the amount of data that will > eventually flow into the institutional archive. It's hoped that it will > give us a way to estimate the cost of the budget for the project. I leave it to the administrators of the existing institutional archives for RES (e.g., the larger ones among the 113 in http://software.eprints.org/archives.php or the 243 in http://oaister.umdl.umich.edu/o/oaister/ ) to reply about costs. I just wish to point out one crucial omission in the question: Cost is very low, and the cost per-paper will obviously be lower the more papers are archived. But how many papers are archived in turn depends on something completely different from the question of archive cost, namely, whether or not the institution has a successful and effective policy for ensuring that the RES archive is filled! http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/archpolnew.html http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/self-archiving_files/Slide0022.gif There are many institutional archives intended for RES that are sitting out there still near-empty for lack of an institutional archive-filling policy. There is not much to be learned from finding out what that costs to do! If I were planning to set up institutional archives for RES I would devote far more effort to finding out how to fill them (and then to filling them). If nothing else, that would give a far better idea of the per-paper cost to expect. The cost-data from some of the larger existing archives will help estimate this figure. Reckon into it also the cost per-paper of implementing an effective institutional archive-filling policy! http://eprints.st-andrews.ac.uk/proxy_archive.html Stevan Harnad NOTE: A complete archive of the ongoing discussion of providing open access to the peer-reviewed research literature online is available at the American Scientist Open Access Forum (98 & 99 & 00 & 01 & 02 & 03): http://amsci-forum.amsci.org/archives/september98-forum.html http://www.cogsci.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/index.html Post discussion to: september98-forum at amsci-forum.amsci.org Dual Open-Access-Provision Policy: BOAI-2 ("gold"): Publish your article in a suitable open-access journal whenever one exists. BOAI-1 ("green"): Otherwise, publish your article in a suitable toll-access journal and also self-archive it. http://www.soros.org/openaccess/read.shtml http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/berlin.htm http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/self-archiving_files/Slide0026.gif http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/self-archiving_files/Slide0021.gif http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/self-archiving_files/Slide0024.gif http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/self-archiving_files/Slide0028.gif From r.d.jones at ed.ac.uk Thu Dec 11 11:59:40 2003 From: r.d.jones at ed.ac.uk (Richard Jones) Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2003 16:59:40 -0000 Subject: [Dspace-general] EUL-DSpace Add-On v0.2 Message-ID: <004e01c3c008$2afe8320$5192d781@lib.ed.ac.uk> Hi All, Quick Xmas prezzie for anyone that wants it: EUL-DSpace v0.2 is now available for download from http://www.thesesalive.ac.uk/dsp_download.shtml. I am now away on holiday for the whole of the xmas period but will be available to answer questions as of the beginning of next year. Have a good holiday everyone. Cheers Richard ============================== Richard Jones Systems Developer Theses Alive! - www.thesesalive.ac.uk Edinburgh University Library r.d.jones at ed.ac.uk 0131 651 1611 From sbell at library.rochester.edu Mon Dec 15 10:45:27 2003 From: sbell at library.rochester.edu (Suzanne Bell) Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2003 10:45:27 -0500 Subject: [Dspace-general] Experiences with policy making, quotas? Message-ID: Hello folks - A couple questions for those with more material up and more experience generally: - has anyone been in on their departments/communities' establishment of policies for DSpace? e.g., what have depts at other places done - given everyone rights to deposit, and trust they will "self-filter"? given everyone rights, but then used the workflow capability to have someone check all the deposits? what kind of "someone" - a faculty person? a dept. administrator? - have any of you established storage quotas for your communities? can you say anything about that - how much, how you decided? Thanks for any experiences you want to share! cheers from the snowy northeast... :) -Suzanne ******************************************* Suzanne Bell, Economics/Data Librarian DSpace Projects Coordinator University of Rochester 585/275-9317 sbell at library.rochester.edu From mcneillh at MIT.EDU Mon Dec 15 11:10:33 2003 From: mcneillh at MIT.EDU (Katherine McNeill-Harman) Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2003 11:10:33 -0500 Subject: [Dspace-general] Experiences with policy making, quotas? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5.2.1.1.2.20031215105753.02003338@po11.mit.edu> Suzanne, Hi there and good to hear from you Others from MIT can weigh in with more details, but here's a starting answer for us. Regarding the first question, we've worked with our communities to set their own policies in these areas, so that they can determine a workflow that works best in their department. From my understanding, communities therefore have set up a variety of arrangements, giving different levels of permission for submission and involving different kinds of personnel. This flexibility is illustrated in our community start-up procedures http://libraries.mit.edu/dspace-mit/mit/policies/startup.html. Regarding storage quotas, we do have some, based on the size of the community, but I'm not sure where they're written. Communities might have the option to pay a fee for more storage space, however. Good luck, Kate McNeill-Harman At 10:45 AM 12/15/2003 -0500, Suzanne Bell wrote: >Hello folks - > > A couple questions for those with more material up and more experience >generally: > > - has anyone been in on their departments/communities' establishment >of policies for DSpace? e.g., what have depts at other places done - >given everyone rights to deposit, and trust they will "self-filter"? >given everyone rights, but then used the workflow capability to have >someone check all the deposits? what kind of "someone" - a faculty >person? a dept. administrator? > > - have any of you established storage quotas for your communities? can >you say anything about that - how much, how you decided? > > Thanks for any experiences you want to share! > > cheers from the snowy northeast... :) > > -Suzanne > >******************************************* >Suzanne Bell, Economics/Data Librarian >DSpace Projects Coordinator >University of Rochester >585/275-9317 >sbell at library.rochester.edu >_______________________________________________ >Dspace-general mailing list >Dspace-general at mit.edu >http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/dspace-general ___________________________________________ Katherine McNeill-Harman Data Services Reference Librarian Dewey Library for Management and Social Sciences Massachusetts Institute of Technology 77 Massachusetts Avenue, E53-100 Cambridge, MA 02139 mcneillh at mit.edu 617-253-0787 From gabriela.mircea at utoronto.ca Mon Dec 15 15:03:06 2003 From: gabriela.mircea at utoronto.ca (Gabriela Mircea) Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2003 15:03:06 -0500 Subject: [Dspace-general] Experiences with policy making, quotas? References: Message-ID: <3FDE137A.1030001@utoronto.ca> Hello Suzanne, Below is what we have posted on our website in regards to storage space, but it doesn't apply to early adopters. For early adopters we have a special treatment, since space is not an issue yet, we give them unlimited storage space until we officially launch our service. "Storage Space: The quotas listed below are proposed levels that will be reviewed and set prior to the full T-Space release. Thereafter, the quotas for new input will be reviewed on an annual basis at which time UofT Libraries reserve the right to alter the quotas as dictated by demand and resource availability. Communities with greater storage needs will be dealt with on a case by case basis. Annual Quotas for New Input (Guideline only) Community Size Small Medium Large Number of items per year 300 600 1000 Number of submitters < 50 51 - 149 150 Average file size 1 MB 1 MB 1 MB Annual storage limit approx. 3 GB 6 GB 10 GB " About policies .. We let the users decide the policies. We just explain them their choices, and they decide. Most of our communities do not use the workflow, and each community has just a few people allowed to submit. I hope this helps. Gabriela Suzanne Bell wrote: >Hello folks - > > A couple questions for those with more material up and more experience >generally: > > - has anyone been in on their departments/communities' establishment >of policies for DSpace? e.g., what have depts at other places done - >given everyone rights to deposit, and trust they will "self-filter"? >given everyone rights, but then used the workflow capability to have >someone check all the deposits? what kind of "someone" - a faculty >person? a dept. administrator? > > - have any of you established storage quotas for your communities? can >you say anything about that - how much, how you decided? > > Thanks for any experiences you want to share! > > cheers from the snowy northeast... :) > > -Suzanne > >******************************************* >Suzanne Bell, Economics/Data Librarian >DSpace Projects Coordinator >University of Rochester >585/275-9317 >sbell at library.rochester.edu >_______________________________________________ >Dspace-general mailing list >Dspace-general at mit.edu >http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/dspace-general > > -- Gabriela Mircea Information Technology Services Robarts Library, 130 St. George St. Toronto, ON, Canada, M5S 1A5 416 946 0114 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.mit.edu/pipermail/dspace-general/attachments/20031215/57a6ddbc/attachment.htm From rrodgers at MIT.EDU Tue Dec 23 16:18:31 2003 From: rrodgers at MIT.EDU (Richard Rodgers) Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2003 16:18:31 -0500 Subject: [Dspace-general] DSpace 1.2 Release Schedule Message-ID: <1072214310.18829.20.camel@dspace-03.mit.edu> A Word on DSpace 1.2 I wanted to bring the community up to date on the 1.2 release schedule. Although work on feature definition and implementation is proceeding, the target date has receded from our optimistic early projections of the end of this year. We want this release to be worth the wait, and also understand the increased importance of thorough testing, since a larger group of adopters is depending upon a smooth upgrade experience. With these issues in mind, we are looking at an early March 2004 'preview' release, to be demonstrated at the DSpace user group meeting, which will then be subjected to intensive evaluation and testing. DSpace adopter community participation in this process will be vital, and can assume several forms. First, we will set up a server at MIT with 1.2 code and solicit testers to exercise it. This was done for the 1.1.1 release, but we hope both to expand the number of participants and improve its effectiveness by documenting the changes more fully. Second, we would like volunteers to test the installation process, to catch unforeseen dependencies. I strongly recommend installers use a separate server on which to perform the test upgrade, but one that shares the characteristics of their production server(s) (such as customized UI, etc). Third, we will also try to make documentation (including install docs) available in preview, to expose any deficiencies before they are officially published. If you are willing to act in any of these capacities, let me know after the new year, and as the release nears completion, we will contact you with further details. Have a happy holiday season, Richard Rodgers DSpace Federation Systems Manager From jonesa01 at newschool.edu Wed Dec 24 16:07:25 2003 From: jonesa01 at newschool.edu (Allen Jones) Date: Wed, 24 Dec 2003 16:07:25 -0500 Subject: [Dspace-general] Re: Dspace-general Digest, Vol 5, Issue 9 Message-ID: I would be happy to run a test server of 1.2 code as it becomes available. Allen Jones Director Center for Education and Technology University Library/New School University 55 W.13th Street, New York, NY 10011 (voice)212.229.5188 (fax)212.647.8202 >>> dspace-general-request at mit.edu 12/24/03 12:02PM >>> Send Dspace-general mailing list submissions to dspace-general at mit.edu To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/dspace-general or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to dspace-general-request at mit.edu You can reach the person managing the list at dspace-general-owner at mit.edu When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of Dspace-general digest..." Today's Topics: 1. DSpace 1.2 Release Schedule (Richard Rodgers) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2003 16:18:31 -0500 From: Richard Rodgers To: dspace-general at MIT.EDU Subject: [Dspace-general] DSpace 1.2 Release Schedule Message-ID: <1072214310.18829.20.camel at dspace-03.mit.edu> Content-Type: text/plain MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: list Message: 1 A Word on DSpace 1.2 I wanted to bring the community up to date on the 1.2 release schedule. Although work on feature definition and implementation is proceeding, the target date has receded from our optimistic early projections of the end of this year. We want this release to be worth the wait, and also understand the increased importance of thorough testing, since a larger group of adopters is depending upon a smooth upgrade experience. With these issues in mind, we are looking at an early March 2004 'preview' release, to be demonstrated at the DSpace user group meeting, which will then be subjected to intensive evaluation and testing. DSpace adopter community participation in this process will be vital, and can assume several forms. First, we will set up a server at MIT with 1.2 code and solicit testers to exercise it. This was done for the 1.1.1 release, but we hope both to expand the number of participants and improve its effectiveness by documenting the changes more fully. Second, we would like volunteers to test the installation process, to catch unforeseen dependencies. I strongly recommend installers use a separate server on which to perform the test upgrade, but one that shares the characteristics of their production server(s) (such as customized UI, etc). Third, we will also try to make documentation (including install docs) available in preview, to expose any deficiencies before they are officially published. If you are willing to act in any of these capacities, let me know after the new year, and as the release nears completion, we will contact you with further details. Have a happy holiday season, Richard Rodgers DSpace Federation Systems Manager ------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Dspace-general mailing list Dspace-general at mit.edu http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/dspace-general End of Dspace-general Digest, Vol 5, Issue 9 ******************************************** -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: Allen Jones.vcf Url: http://mailman.mit.edu/pipermail/dspace-general/attachments/20031224/51705d1f/attachment.bat From vsaxena at MIT.EDU Fri Dec 26 17:28:28 2003 From: vsaxena at MIT.EDU (vsaxena@MIT.EDU) Date: Fri, 26 Dec 2003 17:28:28 -0500 Subject: [Dspace-general] Problem with DSpace | while using ant fresh_install | Linux Env | MIT Student Message-ID: <1072477708.3fecb60c6b50e@webmail.mit.edu> Hi, I am a MIT Graduate Student, working on J2EE application (dSpace) in linux environment. I am trying to solve this problem since last 4 weeks. I have arrived at the conclusion that there is some problem with gcc or may be with gij in the context of its compatability with linux. I am compliling dspace (a J2EE based MIT owned product) using ant at Linux system. I am getting following errors................ -------------------------------------------------------------------- [dspace at sloandb dspace]$ ant fresh_install Buildfile: build.xml update: [jar] Building jar: /home/dspace/lib/dspace.jar install_code: setup_database: [java] gij: unrecognized option -- `-classpath' [java] Try `gij --help' for more information. BUILD FAILED file:/home/dspace/dspace/build.xml:220: Java returned: 1 Total time: 2 seconds -------------------------------------------------------------------- I will appreciate if you can suggest me some wokaround, may be some patch or can let me know what should be a better way for me to approach. Thanks and Regards ~Vishal Saxena VISHAL SAXENA -Student, M.I.T. Cambridge -Graduate Research Assistant, Sloan Business School, MIT -CELL:1-617-308-1003 "In a race, it does not matter where you are, what matters is how much distance you have covered" From tsf at cogeco.ca Sat Dec 27 11:48:32 2003 From: tsf at cogeco.ca (M. Dale Rodger) Date: Sat, 27 Dec 2003 11:48:32 -0500 Subject: [Dspace-general] unsuscribe Message-ID: <000901c3cc99$720ca600$d898eb18@pego2.on.cogeco.ca> please unsubscribe From kenzie at MIT.EDU Tue Dec 30 18:27:48 2003 From: kenzie at MIT.EDU (MacKenzie Smith) Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2003 18:27:48 -0500 Subject: [Dspace-general] [Dspace-tech] License agreement for each item In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5.2.1.1.2.20031230175751.01c6afb8@hesiod> Hi Mao, MIT is about to implement something like this for our own use. We will split the current submission license into two parts: a "DSpace license" that governs what we (the Libraries managing DSpace) can do with the item as its steward, and a separate "use license" to govern what the author/submitter wants to allow the public (or whoever can access the item) to do with it. For the former we'll use a fixed license that looks pretty much like the one in DSpace now, and for the latter we'll offer some of the Creative Commons licenses. I've attached a draft of what our UI screen might look like, and we're hoping to do the necessary programming in the next two months. If this is something of general interest we'd be happy to think about adding it to the open source system later on... just let us know. And on a related note, a Creative Commons representative will be coming to the DSpace user group meeting on March 10-11 to answer questions about their status and plans for the coming year -- for example, I know they've been tweaking their base license to address institutional concerns about liability and so on. Should be interesting! As for enforcement by DSpace -- the system administrator can set access control for items as necessary (at the bitstream, item, or collection level) and these are enforced using whatever authentication/authorization method you've implemented (logon/password, digital certificates, LDAP, etc.). But *use* licenses -- those that govern what a particular user is allowed to do with an item once they have it -- aren't really enforceable without implementing nasty encryption techniques which get in the way of fair use. At MIT we've decided to rely on copyright law and licenses like the Creative Commons for use of our material, and to let the courts enforce them if that ever proves necessary. I hope this answers your question! MacKenzie >Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2003 16:00:48 -0500 >From: mao ni >To: DSpace >Subject: [Dspace-tech] License agreement for each item > >Dear All, > >Happy Holidays! > >Our E-thesis collection wants to apply flexible rights administration for >each item, that is, every submitter could choose one from a set of license >agreements like Creative Commons. For example, an author might limit his >item to non-commercial use only. >In this case, it is convenient for authors to pick up the license they >want instead of the same license agreement for the whole collection. >I have done this by storing the DC copyrights metadata with each item. >My question is that if DSpace has implemented the rights limitation or not >when the bitstream of the item is going to be viewed? For example, if the >license of the item is not allowed to be viewed yet, will DSpace disallow >the bitstream to be accessed? > >Thanks, > >Mao > >School of Information and Library Science >University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill >Email: maoni at ils.unc.edu >Tel: (919) 962 - 0184 MacKenzie Smith Associate Director for Technology MIT Libraries Building 14S-208 77 Massachusetts Avenue Cambridge, MA 02139 (617)253-8184 kenzie at mit.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.mit.edu/pipermail/dspace-general/attachments/20031230/8039f47b/attachment.htm