Fri, 15 Jun 2007
Institutional and Subject Archives
I've been looking at options for storing papers from
bio-ontologies. All I want is a place to lodge PDFs, with some
standardised Dublic Core metadata, and get a DOI out. It's turning out
to be surprisingly hard.
In the process, I have found that JISC has been funding a
repositories programme. If you look at their architecture you see a
depressing thing. They have actually got terrible idea that
"institutional" and "subject" repositories should be built into their
architecture. The point is that institution and subject should be just
a part of the data model that are used to store papers; by making it
explicit in the architecture, it becomes fixed, unchangable.
Why do I care? Well, first as a cross-disciplinary scientist, I am
also scared of anything organised by subject — I always tend to fall
between the cracks. As for institution, why would anyone thing that
100 year old, bureaucratic, administrative orgaisation of the
employers of the paper authors are a good basis for organising modern
science?
The best I could find is Depot, but this describes itself as a
stop-gap till the authors get a proper institutional repository. Also
no one is using it. It's got one biological paper, and that's under
the subject heading of "Biology not elsewhere classified" — a sin
against good classification if ever I saw one.
The subject classification comes from JACS. From their documentation,
C190 Biology not elsewhere classified
Miscellaneous grouping which do not fit into the other Biology categories. To be used sparingly.
Entertainingly, this has a subclass (!!)
C191 Biometry
Concerned with the quantitative techniques and measurement in the biological Sciences.
Which as well as being a contradiction, is a definition that is
wrong.
Perhaps I should just give up and go home.