Difference between revisions of "Peer: Author Deposit"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
| Line 55: | Line 55: | ||
! DC Label !! Occurence {min, max} !! Description !!Comment | ! DC Label !! Occurence {min, max} !! Description !!Comment | ||
|- | |- | ||
| dc:title || {1,1} || Article title | | dc:title || {1,1} || Article title|| | ||
|- | |- | ||
|- | |- | ||
| Line 73: | Line 73: | ||
|- | |- | ||
|- | |- | ||
| dc:source || {1,1} || Journal name||Selected from list of journals during | | dc:source || {1,1} || Journal name||Selected from list of journals during depositing | ||
|- | |- | ||
|} | |} | ||
Revision as of 12:27, 9 September 2009
This page contains the specification of author deposits in the PEER project.
---- Work in progress ----
The Author Deposit Scenario[edit]
Schema will follow
Submission of Publications[edit]
Authors are invited to self deposit publications to the PEER repositories.
Status/Schedule[edit]
- Status: in design
Actors[edit]
- Depositor
Flow of Events[edit]
- 1. A user chooses to deposit his publication to the PEER depot.
- 2. The user can enter basic metadata into a webform
- 3. The user can upload a file
- 3.1. The system checks the file mimetype and gives an error message when the file is not recognized as application/pdf.
- 4. The user can select a journal name from a provided list
- 5. The user can send the metadata and the file to the peer depot.
- 5.1. The user needs to fill out a captcha to avoid spamming
- 6 The webform performs a simple validation
- 6.1. The webform content is validated successfully
- 6.2. The webform content is validated unsuccessfully and the user gets a feedback that the content was not sent (he can change the content and try again).
- 7. The content is send to the PEER depot via FTP
- 7.1. The content can successfully be deposited to the peer depot - the use case ends successful.
- 7.2. The PEER depot is unavailable, the user gets a message, that the content could not be transferred to the PEER depot - the use case ends unsuccessful.
Constraints[edit]
- No deposits will be stored, if the PEER Depot is not available the author attempt will be unsuccessful.
- The user can not decide to which repository his publication is deposited to, the publication will be deposited to all participating reps.
Open Questions[edit]
- What metadata can the user enter?
- What are the minimal requirements of metadata (validation)?
- In what format do we send the metadata to the PEER depot?
- How do we talk to the FTP server? which host? which account credentials?
Additional Information[edit]
- The basic deposit webform will be hosted at the MPDL (same server as track system).
Processing and Deposit of Publications[edit]
All further steps (including duplicate check) will be developed by INRIA.
Metadata[edit]
Authors need to provide the following metadata from the deposit form:
| DC Label | Occurence {min, max} | Description | Comment |
|---|---|---|---|
| dc:title | {1,1} | Article title | |
| dc:creator | {1,1} | Corresponding Author's name: Last Name, First Name | Should there be other authors as well? |
| { 0,1} | Corresponding Author's email | ||
| dc:description | {0, 1} | Abstract | |
| dc:date | {0,1} | Date of publication | Should not this be date of acceptance? |
| dc:type | {0,1} | Type of publication | Mapped to info:eu-repo/semantics/article, info:eu-repo/semantics/acceptedVersion |
| dc:source | {1,1} | Journal name | Selected from list of journals during depositing |