Posted by: Theo | April 1, 2010

Multiple Deposit Meeting

Time and Date 11am – 3pm 8th April

Location HEFCE Offices Central London

The meeting will be held at Centre Point, HEFCE’s office in Central London. The nearest tube station is Tottenham Court Road.


JISC Executive

c/o HEFCE 12th floor

Centre Point

103 New Oxford Street

London WC1A 1DD

What we want this meeting to achieve:

  • raise awareness of current issues with multiple deposit
  • identify some quick-win workable solutions
  • inform the forthcoming #jiscDEPO call
  • assist the OA-RJ project to develop fit for purpose tools

Draft Agenda (flexible)

11.00 Introduction, scenarios for multiple deposit, and assumptions.

12.00 Discussion of deposit, responsibilities, notification and metadata related issues.

12.30 LUNCH

13.00 Discussion continued.

15.00 Wrap up.

Discussion Topics

We have grouped discussion topics into four broadly related themes – some of the questions that we think are important are raised below. If you would like to discuss other areas it would be useful to add a comment below.

Deposit-related issues Metadata-related questions
How do we ensure that deposit tools can deposit into any repository (ideally with minimal effort on behalf of the non-tech managers)?Should deposit tools register with target repositories, or vice versa, or allow individual IDs?

What happens when the full text is not available?

When does the deposit tool delete its copy/ or record of transaction?

What is best to transfer to multiple targets – do they all get full text, or should just one get the full record and the other just get metadata and a reference to the binary object(s)?

What happens when any of the repositories claim to be “100% full text”? Do they have a priority for the binary object? What happens when multiple repositories claim to be “100% full text”?

What to do if the deposit is passed to repositories but none wants it?

What to do if the deposit tool can’t identify an appropriate repository?

Cross subject complications.If a repository subsequently makes changes to metadata (how) do they get passed on?Which packaging is best to use? The DSpace/METS package could suit as a basic package (usable by DSpace 1.3+ or Eprints 3.2+).

Do repositories want the full text of the article, or will they be happy with the metadata and a link to the full text in another repository?

Responsibilities Notification
How best to identify the author-organisation relationship, and thus a responsible repository to recieve content?For deposit in multiple places – who takes responsibility for the full record? Particularly important if other repositories are linking to that deposited item.

How does that information get passed back where it is needed?

Should deposit tools make a value judgement of where to deposit?

What happens when a repository moves/deletes an item?

Should there be some form of “ping back” notification to tell the deposit tools when a site accepts a deposit for an item?What information should/could be passed back?

When should this pass back happen?

How often?

Does the deposit tool maintain a reference to where the item has gone?

Does this list get updated if a repository moves/ or deletes the item?


  1. Theo,

    I appreciate that learning materials or OERs are not within the scope of the outlined meeting but wanted to mention that there have been a number of projects in the UKOER programme which have grappled with the issue of multiple deposit (their envisioned/ hypothetical scenario is deposit to a combination of institutional repository, subject repositories, and potentially Jorum).

    We’ll be very interested in the meeting’s outcomes, though appreciate that some of the outcomes will be specific to the deposit of Scholarly Works.

    John Robertson (JISC CETIS)

  2. Hi John,

    Thanks for flagging this up with us – we’d love to compare and contrast experiences of multiple deposit with the UKOER programme. I know its short notice but are you able to attend the meeting? If not we should arrange to pop over to Strathclyde for a wee chat.

    Cheers, T

  3. Hi Theo,

    not going to be able to make the meeting but happy to talk another time. Hopefully as part of the programme technical synthesis we’ll be able to set out the actual use cases somewhat more clearly.

    We had an initial stab at requirements as part of the DePoST meeting ( but to be honest I think we ended up outlining something that was much more than required by the use case of multiple deposit for learning materials. Though it did touch on some of the ongoing connectivity issues you’re raising.

    My comment for the meeting is perhaps just to flag that there will be situations (outside of your development) were multiple copies is a desired feature, and where the types of packaging and metadata standard vary.


  4. John,

    The focus for Repository Junction does need to widen to include more than research papers, as we have discussed internally (at EDINA) before for the Depot as well as OA-RJ. The ‘peer-reviewed journal article’ is rich in metadata and as object, and has its own driver, so we are learning much that we may be able to adapt for the use cases involving OER (and other learning materials) and research data. But as you observe, a key advance for OA-RJ is tackling the ‘SONEX’ real-world use case of multiple authors, which provokes multiple institutions and IRs. The ‘scholarly output, notification and exchange’ group has had 2-way interaction with OA-RJ, with intention to invite widening of the use cases. Are you up for doing this for OERs?


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: