Difference between revisions of "Peer: Author Deposit"

From MPDLMediaWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 18: Line 18:
===Flow of Events===
===Flow of Events===
*1. A user chooses to deposit his publication to the PEER depot.
*1. A user chooses to deposit his publication to the PEER depot.
*2.    The user can enter basic metadata into a webform  
*2.    The user can enter [[Peer:_Author_Deposit#Metadata|basic metadata]] by using a webform
*3. The user can upload a file
*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.
**3.1.  The system checks the file mimetype and gives an error message when the file is not recognized as application/pdf.

Revision as of 12:34, 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 by using 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 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:

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?
foaf:mbox { 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

In this case: