lib-ir: IR Minutes 7/7/03

[Barbara Jenkins <jenkins@OREGON.UOREGON.EDU>]

Institutional Repository Group 
Minutes, 7/7/03

Present: Heather Briston, Barbara Jenkins, JQ Johnson, Andrew
Nicholson

Summary of Responsibilities Listed in Minutes
- JQ drafting IR time line through Dec 2003
- Barbara drafting short document to set IR in context within larger
scholarly publishing issue
- Carol is reviewing RePEC metadata 

JQ indicated that he & Carol wanted to regain some momentum on the IR
initiative, but it is hard in the summer. 

JQ - Technical Update
Things are on-track with the IR technology.  Expects the server
that will be set up by next week can be used through 2004. 
Back-up plan system also figured out

JQ - Update on Meeting with Deb 
JQ and Carol met with Deb last week.  Deb's goal is to have the
IR effort be able to be shared with the University Library 
Committee
in early Fall and get them on board re:  a pilot project moving
forward as a regular library effort.  However it will still be
called a pilot project through December 2004.  Deb agreed with JQ
and Carol that the major issue is getting teaching faculty buy-in for the
IR project.

Scholarly Communication Issues
The relationship between scholarly communication and the IR
development is important to place in context.  There is a strong
perspective in librarianship that the institutional repositories are the
"fix" for the scholarly communication problem.  However,
there is a growing perspective that the institutional repositories will
not be the panacea for scholarly communication.  Rather they
contribute an important effort to facilitating the change in scholarly
communication. 

The IR Group felt it was important to have a short statement that
outlined the role of the IR in scholarly communication and addressed the
IRs in the context of the larger scholarly communication issue.  The
IR Group  should take as part of its current role the continued education
of library faculty and increasingly teaching faculty regarding these
complex interconnected issues.  Barbara agreed to draft a short (1
page document) that will facilitate setting the IR in context within the
larger scholarly communication issue.

Update regarding Bill Harbaugh and the Economics Working Papers
Pre-Pub Effort
JQ has been talking with Bill Harbaugh, UO Econ Professor regarding
the RePEC (Research Papers in Economics) web site.  
RePEC is an internationally developed site for pre-pub economics working
paper submissions. Bill is the coordinator for submitting the 
UO economics papers.  Given the importance of RePEC to the
international economic field, it is doubtful that Bill will want to use
the IR 
for this process.  He doesn't want to compete in any way with the
RePEC effort.  There may be some other opportunities with RePEC in
the future (not at this time).  Carol is reviewing the RePEC
metatdata organization.

Update re: FERPA, Rights & Licensing
Heather reported that Registrar, Herb Chereck, seems to connect IRs
directly with the concerns regarding student directory information. 
Heather 's expectation is that the Library will have the student
submitting the document to the IR sign something indicating that the
Library has the right to make it accessible via the Internet.  JQ
noted that Andrew should be clear regarding the PPPM Department making
the students submitting terminal projects aware of the fact that the
Library would be mounting the terminal projects on the Internet. 
The terminal projects would then be available to anyone using the
Internet (the Group discussed the need for a more formal awareness by
students after the IR pilot).  The IR Group discussed two specific
potential problems:
- FERPA
Heather expects that this is not a major issue given that the history of
students submitting dissertations to the Library and the givens present
in the student and university relationship, the student expects that the
university would typically accept, store, and make available the
dissertation.  

-Copyright Infringement
The understanding here is that we should think of the Library's IR as
being an ISP (internet service provider).  This means the Library
can take advantage of the DMCA copyright protection that says "the
ISP is not responsible for individual submitter's copyright
infringements".

Self-submissions will take care of many copyright and FERPA issues - we
need to move as fast as possible to a self-submission mode.

Retraction Issue - MIT already has a standard for manual retraction and
"tombstone" creation

Issue Needing Clarification
IR Group agreed that we need a clearer sense of the time line for the
IR project.  JQ will send a draft out via email.  

We will continue to meet every 2 weeks, but Heather gone Aug 18-22 and JQ
gone Aug 16 - Sept 1

Submitted by Barbara Jenkins