mike nason
@unb libraries
@pkp
it is quite possible that i am not known to you! i am the open scholarship & publishing librarian at the university of new brunswick.
i currently serve as chair of the orcid-ca governing committee with crkn. i know all these lovely panelists from our time together on carl's orwg. plus many other things! i'm bad at saying no.
i also work for pkp as a member of their publishing services team, where i am the crossref/metadata liaison.
i am a [white, cis] settler from the unceded (aka, stolen) territory of the mi'kmaq-wolastoquey peoples just a short hop from the wolastoq river, a much cooler name than the settler-crowned “saint john river”, if you ask me.
i started my career as an academic librarian in 2013. at the time, repositories weren't exactly new.
setting aside the obvious activism present in the oa movement, i would categorize this era of repositories as solutions looking for problems.
for us, the utility was evident!
for researchers, maybe less so!
i felt a bit like a wizard getting to talk shop and work on code and learn more about the guts of platforms and metadata.
it felt super cool to ride this cutting edge of repo work in canada while everyone spun up new, sexy websites with neat, sexy projects.
and, i don't think momentum for oa crested higher than "seems nice, but flawed".
on the other hand, it often felt a little like it was my job to change academic publishing and everyone else fit one of four categories:
we were working hard to demonstrate value! this resulted in poor boundaries!
i was relatively confident that i was alone in this
obviously, i don't think of oa as a problem! but, some people definitely saw the policy as one more thing. i could address a practical need!
it wasn't too long after this that i really wanted my job not to be the repository itself, but the work of getting it populated and supported.
running a platform is a lot of work!
maintaining code is an actual commitment!
or, saas costs real money, and might give you an illusion of manufactured flexibility!
it turns out that a lot of cool modules and custom work developed by librarians weren't super likely to be maintained by them, because they are not software developers, and they have a ton of other competing responsibilities!
also, i'm a little jealous that the rdm people get to just skip past all of this and agree that dataverse is good
(╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻
a number of the platforms we've invested significant time and money into are at (or past) the end of the line.
maybe we should sink less costs?
it feels eerily appropriate that i am drafting this deck on groundhog day
unb libraries is currently in the midst of migrating to our 3rd repository platform in 10 years. the difference between 2013 and now is that i know a lot more things and also i am tired, mad, and better at advocating for myself.
this means i have overseen two full repo migrations in the last nine years!
lol
dspace! we investigated a few options and figured, you know... why fight it?
we moved from dspace because it was hard to customize.
we moved back so we could have a great excuse not to.
i am happy to answer any and all questions about this migration and why, specifically, we went with dspace. but, i'd like to talk a bit about what this migration has taught me and it's highly likely i am already over my allotted time
jeez louise have we taken some liberties in the metadata space, hey?
islandora used a schema called mods. mods is, basically, like marc21 xml. it is extensive, granular, and precise.
dspace uses a schema called "dublin core" and it is very old, frustrating, and kind of stupid.
enjoying a classic do more with less scenario for academia, hey? ha ha. lmao.
<mods:name type="personal">
<mods:role>
<mods:roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">author</mods:roleTerm>
</mods:role>
<mods:namePart type="given">Crystal Lynn</mods:namePart>
<mods:namePart type="family">Radtke</mods:namePart>
</mods:name>
<dc.contributor>Radtke, Crystal Lynn</dc.contributor>
<dc.contributor.author>Radtke, Crystal Lynn</dc.contributor.author>
so, i looked around at what everyone else was doing with dublin core.
i'll say this, for a "standard", people have really played fast and loose.
people have made some wildly divergent and incompatible decisions. and, lots of folks have inherited repositories or workflows full of questionable metadata.
¯\_(°⊱,°)_/¯
some schools record this as license information.
some schools record this as access rights information.
<dc.rights>Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International</dc.rights>
<dc.rights.uri>http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/</dc.rights>
<dc.rights>http://purl.org/coar/access_right/c_abf2</dc.rights>
<!-- this is the uri for COAR controlled vocab for access rights -->
<oaire:licenseCondition>http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/</oaire:licenseCondition>
and they put the license in an openaire namespace
you, probably, when you find out that you want to push metadata to crossref, datacite, openaire, library & archives canada, or whatever else and you're neck-deep in custom crosswalks
dublin core adheres to this thing called the "dumb down principle" wherein any qualifiers (custom or otherwise) must also be appropriate for the metadata element you're recording.
there are a lot of custom qualifiers out there, but sometimes this is completely independent of the downstream usability of that metadata.
dc.metadata.example
dc = namespace (dublin core)
metadata = element (from dc schema)
example = qualifier (can be custom)
anything that is recorded as: dc.metadata.example
must also work within:
dc.metadata
and sometimes people just staple stuff to dublin core that doesn't exist at all!
the incredible majority of this stuff is custom metadata to describe our organizational structures or student status and not the actual work. this is as understandable as it is actively bad.
dc.degree.campus
dc.year.graduated
dc.initial
dc.faculty.program
none of this describes a work! it is metadata about schools and students.
we are moving into a space where the ability to distribute/disseminate our repo holdings to open infrastructure is vital
if your metadata is only legible or usable for your institution, you end up having to create workarounds and crosswalks. or, worse, this metadata may go completely unused.
you might as well not be using a standard at all! just use a custom namespace!
i am not convinced that recording irrelevant or illegible metadata is a good use of our finite time!
you can read about my path to madness here
https://www.notion.so/cdsunb/Comparing-Potential-Schema-994df4ef8330408f90d60d2c17921e6c
i probably should have just done a whole talk on metadata, but this stuff makes me feel crazy
the takeaway(s) here is that, in having to migrate, i've learned the following:
people have spent a profound amount of time mangling metadata standards in order to improve the browsability of repositories.
almost no one whose opinion you should care about browses repositories. in open scholarly infrastructure, the metadata is doing the heavy lifting.
boring is fine. no one cares.
probably we'd all be a lot further ahead if the original pitches for repositories weren't so focused on, like, marketing-adjacent rhetoric
i think we're well past the era where we need to say "yes" just to make people happy
if you spend too much time staring at metadata schema, you will start to lose grip on reality