The Proposal

...

1. "Sufficient copyright licenses to enable permanent archiving, access, and reuse of publications"
   
   • General Comments
     
     • Many repository platforms do have an option to require a "deposit license" which often covers these scenarios. However, the text of the "deposit license" is decided by the institution. There may need to be "recommended copyright license language" provided by a central entity, to help ensure locally created licenses are "SHARE-compliant".
     • Does this need to be machine actionable / verifiable?

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

     "

   • General Comments
     
     • Who defines this XML format?  It would need to be defined by a central entity.
     • Is there a reason why XML is chosen as the transmission format instead of a protocol like SWORD (with a common packaging format)? 
       
       • As XML is not human-readable, this implies we'd need a more human-readable format as well (PDF or similar), which is why SWORD may be useful here.
2. Make article available to search engines
   
   • Google, Google Scholar, Yahoo, Bing, etc
3. Must be able to link to publisher's website
   • General Comments
     
     • How is the publisher's website link obtained by the repository? Is there a way to "look it up" via a central service, or would it be a required metadata field?  If it is the latter, what happens if the publisher's website changes it's URL?
     • Is a link to the DOI acceptable?
4. Support embargo
   
   • link to publisher's website until embargo period expires
     
     • See comments above about how do we obtain the publisher's website link.
   • make full-text of article available post-embargo
5. Certify compliance with agencies
   
   • Automatically notify "both the funding agency and the PI's institutional research office that a deposit has occurred"
   • General Comments 
     • How would repositories know where to send notifications to?  What type of notification?
       
     • Is this a "push" notification (e.g. automated email to agency), or is it more of a "pull" notification (where an agency could query repositories for recent deposits)?
       • If the agency just needs to query the repository for recent deposits, perhaps would could use OAI-PMH. But, at the same time, the funding agency couldn't be expected to query 100's of repositories for this data. It'd need to be a centralized location that could be queried
         

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)
   
   • General Comments:
     
     • Is capturing this identifier as a simple metadata field "good enough"?
     • Are researchers expected to just enter their own ORCID?  Or do we need some sort of more complex "lookup" for each author entered?
2. Award Identification Number - assigned by Federal agencies
   • General Comments:
     
     • Unclear if this is a single field or multiple fields. It seems as though we'd need to also store information about the agency who assigned the number (for uniqueness), unless the "identification number" includes a code which identifies the agency.
3. Copyright License Terms - "requires a standardized and coded expression ... for machine processing"
   
   • General Comments:
     
     • How would this be "coded"?  We'd need a centrally defined "standard" representation that all repositories can attempt to implement.
4. Repository Designation ID Number - "to identify the repository access location"
   
   • General Comments:
     
     • Who defines this "number"?  Could this simply be the repository URL, or a persistent identifier which resolves to the repository URL?
5. Preservation Rights - "required to be coded into the metadata residing with the record"
   
   • General Comments:
     
     • How would this be "coded"?  We'd need a centrally defined "standard" representation that all repositories can attempt to implement.

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 comments under "Requisite Conditions" above
2. Award Number (Also mentioned in "Requisite Conditions")
3. Publication ID - "unique, persistent identifier to reference the journal article of the publication"
   
   • General Comments:
     
     • Is this ID assigned by the repository?  It's unclear if this is something the repository needs to "lookup" or just assign.
4. Data Set ID - "resolvable, persistent identifier to location of stored data or data sets that are linked to the published article"
   
   • General Comments:
     
     • Where are these data sets expected to reside? Is the repository capturing the dataset and assigning the identifier, or is it assigned by an external system?
       
5. Copyright License Conditions - 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"
   
   • General Comments:
     
     • 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"
   
   • General Comments:
     
     • What type(s) of reports are expected?  How would these be made available to the agency / research office?
     • Is this a "pull" (agency/research office can visit the repository and view/request necessary reports), or a "push" (reports are automatically sent from the repository to the agency / research office by some means)?
       
       • As far as repositories are concerned, obviously a "pull" is easier. A "push" would require the repository to know where to send such reports (up-to-date email addresses or similar)
8. Core Usage Statistics - "Reports to authors (and agencies, if desired) include statistical data on usage activity and downloads of their publications."
   
   • General Comments:
     
     • What type(s) of statistical reports are expected? Would there need to be some "minimal required statistics" to capture/report? How would the reports be made available to the authors and agencies?
       
     • Is this a "pull" (authors/agencies can visit the repository and view/request necessary reports), or a "push" (reports are automatically sent from the repository to the author / agency by some means)?
       
       • As far as repositories are concerned, obviously a "pull" is easier. A "push" would require the repository to know where to send such reports (up-to-date email addresses or similar)
9. Metadata Exposed to Search Engines
10. SWORD
    
    • General Comments:
      
      • We would need to standardize on a SWORD submission profile / packaging format.  As a protocol, SWORD just transmits content and doesn't require a specific format.
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)

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

Phase THREE

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
   
   • http://www.niso.org/workrooms/resourcesync/
6. Open Annotation
   
   • Web-centric annotation framework

Phase FOUR

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

...