News from 2016

Schema correction: rioxxterms:version_of_record

Pierre Lasou from Bibliothèque de l'Université Laval reported a 'bug' in RIOXX 2.0. While the documentation consistently refers to a property called 'rioxxterms:version_of_record', the schema XSD incorrectly includes a property called 'rioxxterms:version-of-record'.

I have updated the schema XSD to use the correct form - rioxxterms:version_of_record. This for two reasons:

  1. underscores, rather than hyphens, are used consistently elsewhere in the RIOXX profile
  2. the only examples of this property I can find 'in the wild' have used this version

So, for the avoidance of any doubt, the correct version to use is:


RIOXX adoption reaches a half-century

I'm pleased to announce that the number of repositories which declare support for RIOXX has reached 50 (a half-century in cricket parlance). See the full list here

This number has grown steadily since January 2015 - quite an impressive rate of adoption. The repository systems which have implemented RIOXX are nearly all ePrints systems - but we expect the number of repositories to increase with support for DSpace coming soon.

RIOXX and metadata only records

I received the following query from Emma Sansby, Head of Library Services at Bishop Grosseteste University:

I am currently leading a project to implement Eprints (hosted and supported by ULCC) at my institution. We have the RIOXX plugin installed and I have a question about the licence_ref attribute.

I am creating a metadata-only journal article record into our repository which includes a DOI link to the publisher’s website. When I get to the RIOXX page I am forced to enter something under licence_ref as the attribute is mandatory, even though it’s a metadata-only record. What I’m not sure about is whether, with a metadata-only record, the licence information I enter needs to relate to the terms of use for the metadata itself, or to the terms of use for article out on the publisher’s website.

Can you provide any guidance?

A good question, and an interesting one!

My initial response to this would be to say that RIOXX is designed to allow reporting on the status of open access papers, and that without such a paper to describe, the RIOXX record is effectively meaningless. If the published version of a paper (the 'version of record') is itself open access, then the RIOXX record could describe that (the rioxxterms:version_of_record and the dc:identifier properties would contain the same value - a URL pointing to the open access paper.)

Is this sufficient answer to Emma's question? I'd be interested to hear what others think - especially if you have encountered this issue. Please feel free to leave a comment below - even if it is simply to say that this is also a concern for you.

more posts (archive)