Page tree
Skip to end of metadata
Go to start of metadata

DSpace Notes on SHARE Proposal from ARL/AAU/APLU

This page contains DSpace-software specific notes in relation to the SHARE Proposal.  More general questions/comments on the SHARE Proposal are also available on the page: SHARE Proposal

Some of these notes are also borrowed from the OR13 DSpace Developers Meeting, where the SHARE proposal was discussed briefly:

DSpace-specific comments/questions are made throughout the below summary (in italics) and are marked as such.

High Level Summary

This High Level Summary is copied from the SHARE Proposal parent page.

The SHARE proposal suggests a number of functions and metadata fields that would need to be captured by repositories.  We've attempted to briefly summarize them below. But, the full text of the Proposal has additional details.

Minimum SHARE metadata fields

These are the listed minimum SHARE metadata fields as noted near the beginning of the "How SHARE Works" section of the proposal:

General DSpace Note: DSpace lets you add new metadata schemas or fields (must be of a general format: [schema].[element].[qualifier]).  So, it would be possible to add necessary new metadata fields related to SHARE.  More details below

  1. author
    • DSpace stores in '' or 'dc.creator'
  2. article title
    • DSpace tends to capture article titles as the 'dc.title'
  3. journal title
    • Currently, DSpace only captures a Journal title as a part of the "dc.identifier.citation" field (which is a human-readable citation)
    • This likely would need to be a new metadata field added to DSpace
  4. abstract
    • DSpace captures in 'dc.description.abstract'
  5. award number
    • Would need to be a new metadata field in DSpaceUnclear whether this is a single field, or if we'd also need to store the Agency information (the agency who assigned this number)
  6. Principal Investigator ID (ORCID or ISNI)
    • Would need to be a new metadata field in DSpace.
      • Possible issue: currently, it's not possible to associate related metadata fields in DSpace. So, simply storing an ORCID as metadata may be problematic, as it may not be associated with the proper author entry.
    • Some additional notes on ORCID + DSpace are at: ORCID Integration
    • Unclear if this is just storage of an ORCID, or something beyond that?
  7. designated repository number
    • Perhaps this is just the "site" handle for a DSpace repository?  e.g. [handle-prefix]/0 is the Handle / Presistent Identifier for a site (although currently it does not "resolve" via

In Support of Principal Investigators

As described in the paragraph about requirements of Principal Investigators (PIs), repositories may need to be able to "capture" or log the following:

  1. "Sufficient copyright licenses to enable permanent archiving, access, and reuse of publications"
    • DSpace supports/recommends deposit licenses.  The sample license provided with DSpace (based on MIT deposit license) seems like it may cover all these use cases.

General Repository Functions

As described in the "SHARE workflow" paragraphs, a repository would need to support the following functions:

  1. Be able to accept XML versions of manuscripts from Journal publishers
    • "Journal submits XML version of final peer reviewed manuscript to the PI's designated repository

    • Unclear what this means for DSpace. May need more clarification around use cases.
    • DSpace does support SWORD (v1 & v2) which could be used for this. But, it just treats XML documents like a digital document (and cannot do anything special with them by default)
  2. Make article available to search engines
    • Google, Google Scholar, Yahoo, Bing, etc
    • DSpace tries to keep up with SEO (Search Engine Optimization).  We've worked directly with Google Scholar folks to make ourselves more easily indexable.
  3. Must be able to link to publisher's website
    • Unclear how we obtain this link. Would it be actually "stored" in DSpace, or would it be a "lookup" against an external service?  Either way there is likely some work to be done in DSpace to support this.
  4. Support embargo
    • link to publisher's website until embargo period expires
    • make full-text of article available post-embargo
    • DSpace has embargo functionality that should meet these needs, provided we can determine the link to the publisher's website.
  5. Certify compliance with agencies
    • Automatically notify "both the funding agency and the PI's institutional research office that a deposit has occurred"
    • Unclear how this would work. 
      • If this is a "pull" (agency can query repositories), then DSpace could already support this via OAI-PMH. 
      • If it's a "push" (repository needs to notify agency), then it might be possible to add a new email notification feature (though we'd need to know who to notify via email).

Requisite Conditions

As noted in the proposal, the "following precursors are required immediately to implement SHARE as a solution to the OSTP memorandum.":

  1. Principal Investigator (PI) Identifier (recommended to use either ORCID or ISNI)
    • See notes above under "Minimum SHARE metadata fields"
  2. Award Identification Number - assigned by Federal agencies
    • See notes above under "Minimum SHARE metadata fields"
  3. Copyright License Terms - "requires a standardized and coded expression ... for machine processing"
    • How would this be "coded"?  We'd need a centrally defined "standard" representation that all repositories can attempt to implement.
    • DSpace currently only stores licenses as plain text.
    • DSpace stores embargo information in the database, so that part is "machine actionable"
    • Present, but may need cleanup
      • Creative commons is possible, on the item level

      • Embargos are possible, even on the level of individual bitstreams

      • There are collection & community license text

      • There’s the item license text that is accepted at the end of submission.

  4. Repository Designation ID Number - "to identify the repository access location"
    • See notes above under "Minimum SHARE metadata fields"
  5. Preservation Rights - "required to be coded into the metadata residing with the record"
    • How would this be "coded" (PREMIS?)?  We'd need a centrally defined "standard" representation that all repositories can attempt to implement.
    • DSpace doesn’t make it entirely clear what the difference is between copyright license and preservation rights. Depends on how the institution fills out the different license texts.

Phase ONE (12-18 months)

Additional requirements for Phase One, after which "the SHARE system will be available for both deposit and access".

  1. PI Identifier  (Also mentioned in "Requisite Conditions")
    • See notes above under "Minimum SHARE metadata fields"
  2. Award Number (Also mentioned in "Requisite Conditions")
    • See notes above under "Minimum SHARE metadata fields"
  3. Publication ID - "unique, persistent identifier to reference the journal article of the publication"
    • For DSpace, this could be the item handle assigned by the repository
  4. Data Set ID - "resolvable, persistent identifier to location of stored data or data sets that are linked to the published article"
    • For DSpace, this could be the item handle assigned by the repository.
    • However, it might be tricky to link a data set to the associated article.
    • If the data set resides outside of the repository, this could be captured by a metadata field on the journal article which stores the location (URL) of the data set
  5. Copyright License Conditions (Also mentioned in "Requisite Conditions")
    • includes embargo information
    • See comments under "Requisite Conditions" above
  6. Sponsoring/Funding Agency Name - "Link to agency providing funding so that reports can be automatically returned"
    • Could just be a new metadata field in DSpace
    • If this is primarily used for reporting, it's likely we also need to capture an email address or a URL / identifier.  It depends on the decisions around reporting.
  7. Reporting - "Creates a feedback loop to the federal agency and the PI's research office providing tracking of publications resulting from awards funded by the agency"
    • For DSpace, this could be supported via OAI-PMH, if the agencies regularly harvest this information from repositories. 
    • But, it's unclear if the repository is expected to push this information to the agencies (currently not supported by DSpace)
  8. Core Usage Statistics - "Reports to authors (and agencies, if desired) include statistical data on usage activity and downloads of their publications."
    • DSpace currently captures usage statistics (views/downloads) on all items in the repository
    • However, statistics are just displayed in the User Interface. There are not any statistical reports (e.g. emailed reports) generated at this time
  9. Metadata Exposed to Search Engines
    • DSpace exposes all its metadata (for public items) to search engines and tries to keep up with latest SEO best practices.
  10. SWORD
    • DSpace already supports both SWORD v1 and v2 (servers).  It also has a SWORD v1 client which can submit content to another system via SWORD.
  11. OpenURL
  12. Some connections to Digital Preservation Network (DPN)? - "All phases connect with and take advantage of the Digital Preservation Network (DPN)"

Phase TWO (6-12 months after phase one)

We have not added any comments on Phase TWO yet, as its vision is still vague. Much of the Phase TWO listed features refer to requirements that are yet to be determined. Others refer to possible enhancements to Phase ONE features, based on usage needs.

Required in support of phase two.  Begun "concurrently with Phase One activities".

  1. Submission Workflow - "Development of software to automate and optimize article submission from author through repository and to publisher"
    • Requires publishers to comply with single, standardized submission mechanism
  2. Usage Metrics
  3. Reporting
  4. Incorporate OAI-ORE
  5. Certification
  6. Adoption of Best Practices


We have not added any comments on Phase THREE yet, as its vision is still vague. Phase THREE features don't have very specific use cases defined, and seem to be almost "brainstorms" of possible future interactions with SHARE.

Phase Three envisions "more complex interactions with SHARE", and includes:

  1. Text and Data Mining
  2. Bulk Harvesting
  3. Semantic Data
    • Relationships among publications
  4. API Specifications
    • In support of interation with repositories
  5. ResourceSync
  6. Open Annotation
    • Web-centric annotation framework

Phase FOUR

We have not added any comments on Phase FOUR yet, as is vision is still vague. Phase FOUR features refer to the yet-to-be defined "data requirements of federal agencies". They seem to almost be "brainstorms" of possible options based on those unknown requirements.

Phase Four involves "development of infrastructure relationships to support data requirements of federal agencies"

  1. Data Curation and Associated Software
  2. Linked Data
  3. Shared Distributed Resources in Repositories
  • No labels


  1. We need to keep in mind DSpace's distinction between the deposit license and the end-user license.

    Yet another reason why authors (and publishers, and submitters, and...) need metadata.  ("Metadata for All")  Then we can label them properly and supply all those identity metadata to items by reference.

    Granting agency probably should not be directly recorded on the item.  It should be another form of identity, like author, and attached by reference.

    1. This is exactly what DSpace-CRIS actually does.

      DSpace item metadata actually are able to store link to external entity (using the Authority Control of Metadata Values ), what is actually lacking in dspace is the support for additional entities (authors != eperson/user account, publishers, journals, etc.) - provided by DSpace-CRIS - and the ability to store additional metadata about the linkage. For example the relation between a publication and an author need additional data as what is the affiliation of the author used to sign the paper (!= the affiliations listed in the author profile), is the author the corresponding author? actually we can only store the name used to sign the paper as text_value (on the author profile we can have several form of the name but we are not able to say without additional information which is used to sign which paper). DSpace-CRIS limited to its managed entities (authors, publishers, etc.) is also able to store additional information about linkage or better structured metadata (DSpace-CRIS call this nested object)


  2. For "Journal title" I want to suggest the use of dc.relation.ispartof

    the text_value should contains the Journal title and the authority should have a local resolvable UID (like the persistent identifier of DSpace-CRIS "Journal" entity) or at least the ISSN

  3. Metadata field mapping: one to many, many to one.

    Just making a new recurring metadata field in a publication item for new attributes will not work.  As Andrea wrote, DSpace-CRIS solves this – by making new entities/records on authors, grants/projects, as well as publications –  rather than jumbled up metadata fields in only a publication record.  To illustrate:

    1. (co) Authors
      1. One author can have 2 more identifiers; ORCID, ISNI, ResearcherID, Scopus AU-ID, etc.  He can have 2 or more URLs pointing to more data on himself. etc.
      2. One publication can have 2 or more co-authors, editors, illustrators, etc.
      3. ==> So, when there are 2 authors, and each has one ORCID, one ISNI, and one Scopus AU-ID in separate metadata fields, how to match which author has which ORCID, etc?
      4. ==> Or, If you put all of this data into only the one AUTHOR field, how do you search on it, and retrieve a hit list, with exact results?  Format display, etc?
    2. Grant information
      1. One publication can be funded by 2 or more grants from different funders
      2. One publication can be funded by 2 or more grants from different schemes from the same funder
      3. One grant would presumably have a) name of grant scheme, b) name of funder, c) grant number/identifier d) Statement or declaration of funding, and whether the funder was involved with the design or conduct of study, collection, analysis & interpretation of the data, approval of manuscript for publication, etc.  WoS now collects this when possible.
      4. ==> So, if you make new recurring fields for each of these elements, how to show which grant belongs to which number, etc.?
      5. ==> Or, put it all into one jumbled field?
      6. And, if you are going to store all this information, wouldn't separate records on each grant be more logical?  Separate records on each funder as well?
      7. Perhaps also, there is a need to show how the "Project" is involved.  Multiple funding to one project, that produced multiple publications.  Or, several Projects collaborating to produce one publication.