Establishing an Eprint Repository at the University of Melbourne Implementation Aspects

Eve Young and Shirley Sullivan

University of Melbourne Melbourne, Victoria 3010 AUSTRALIA E-mail: [email protected]

In 2002, the University of Melbourne Information Division established a repository for research output of University of Melbourne staff. The repository is one of a growing number, both nationally and internationally, using open source software compliant with the protocols and standards of the Open Archives Initiative. The paper discusses these and also outlines the authors’ experiences in establishing the repository. The paper complements EPRINTS@MELBOURNE by Jane Garner, Lynne Horwood and Shirley Sullivan and which outlines the means used to populate and publicise the repository to academic staff.

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to thank Andrew Gfrerer from Teaching, Learning and Research Support for his advice on technical issues.

Introduction

While there is more and more freely accessible academic content on the Internet, finding it can be difficult. Much relevant information is “hidden” within databases and repositories, as it is not picked up through popular search engines. Other hidden information is housed on academics' computers that hold a wealth of original content, such as research articles, field notes, images, etc., not all of which will appear in journals or books (Young 2002).

Many academic institutions are creating "institutional repositories" for staff to upload copies of their research papers, data sets, and other work. The idea is to gather as much of the intellectual output of an institution as possible in an easy-to- search online collection (Young 2002). The Open1 Archives2 Initiative (OAI) is an international movement that encourages data sharing by developing and promoting technical standards and supporting organisational aspects so that distributed repositories become interoperable and cross searchable, increasing the visibility, accessibility and impact of scholarly repositories. As Krichel points out, the OAI “created the opportunity for the library community to enter as providers of freely available scholarly literature in institution-based digital archives” (Krichel 2002).

The repository established at the University of Melbourne was named UMER (University of Melbourne Eprint Repository). The eprint working group comprised staff from the Teaching, Learning and Research Support and Information Resources

1 Open here means “open” from the architectural perspective – defining and promoting machine interfaces that facilitate the availability of content from a variety of providers. Openness does not mean “free” or “unlimited” access to the information repositories that conform to the OAI technical framework (http://www.openarchives.org/documents/FAQ.html). 2 The term "archive" in the name Open Archives Initiative reflects the origins of the OAI in the eprints community where the term archive is generally accepted as a synonym for repository of scholarly papers. (http://www.openarchives.org/documents/FAQ.html). In this paper, however, the authors are using the term repository to avoid confusion between the archivist and IT use of the word “archive”. Access departments of the Information Division. Their skills covered information technology, intellectual property, metadata and academic support services.

Historical background

The initiative had its origins in a desire for enhanced access to already existing eprint repositories. A forum was established in October 1999 and named the Universal Preprint Service (UPS) initiative. The forum was set up to “discuss and solve matters of interoperability between author self-archiving solutions, as a way to promote their global acceptance.” (http://vole.lanl.gov/ups.htm - accessed 30th October 19993)

Sponsors of the forum were the Council on Library and Information Resources (CLIR), the Digital Library Federation (DLF), the Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources Coalition (SPARC), the Association of Research Libraries (ARL) and the Research Library of the Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL). The participants in the meeting were academic librarians and computer scientists specialising in archiving, metadata, and interoperability. (The list of invitees is at Appendix 1; the list of institutions represented is in Appendix 2.) Such was the enthusiasm to achieve results that by the time of the first meeting, a prototype for the UPS multidisciplinary digital library service was created for the main existing eprint repositories. By the end of October the initiative had changed its name to the Open Archives Initiative. This change of name reflected the wider utility expected of the software, which was no longer seen as restricted to eprint repositories.

Open Archives Initiative

The OAI is based at Cornell University and is supported by the Coalition for Networked Information (CNI) and the Digital Library Federation (DLF). A steering committee4 sets policy and a technical committee5 advises on the infrastructure. OAI provides a mechanism that allows OAI compliant participants to register themselves as data and/or service providers (Needleman 2002, p.156), although registration is not required in order to use the protocols. OAI compliance means using unqualified Dublin Core metadata tags, which ensures that distributed documents in OAI compliant documents can be searched as though they are one large database.

3 This document is still accessible at http://www.openarchives.org/news/ups1-press.htm, but has changed its title to the name it now goes by. 4 Members of the OAi steering committee include the following: • Caroline Arms (Library of Congress) • Lorcan Dempsey (Joint Information Systems Committee, UK) • Dale Flecker (Harvard University) • Ed Fox (Virginia Tech) • Paul Ginsparg (Los Alamos National Laboratory) • Daniel Greenstein (DLF) • Carl Lagoze (Cornell University) • Clifford Lynch (CNI) • John Ober (California Digital Library) • Diann Rusch-Feja (Max Planck Institute for Human Development) • Herbert van de Sompel (Cornell University) • Don Waters (The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation) 5 The interoperability infrastructure was developed by a technical committee, which continues to advise on the infrastructure as experience with it develops. Herbert Van de Sompel and Carl Lagoze are responsible for coordination of OAI activities, which are centered at Cornell University. These are two of the original group who met at Sante Fe in October 1999. (http://www.openarchives.org/documents/FAQ.html#Who manages the Open Archives Initiative) The Open Archive Interoperability6 Framework

Interoperability is the ability of two or more systems or components to exchange information and use the exchanged information without special effort on either system.7

In other words, systems that comply with the interoperability standards are able to ‘talk” to each other in such a way that data found in one system is comprehensible and usable by another (Fietzer 2002 p. 82). The OAI model distinguishes between data providers and service providers, although it is possible to be both. An organisation can make its metadata available to service providers and at the same time harvest metadata from other data providers, using the harvested metadata, either alone or in conjunction with its own metadata, to provide value-added services (Needleman 2002 p.156). (Gathering of metadata about a digital resource by a service provider is called metadata harvesting.)

The Open Archives website maintains a growing list of tools implemented by members of the OAI community. These cover the needs of both data providers and service providers and can be found at http://www.openarchives.org/tools/tools.html.

Data providers8

By implementing the OAI technical framework, data providers (such as institutional repositories and discipline-specific repositories) provide a submission mechanism, a long-term storage system and a means of exposing metadata for harvesting by the service providers.

Service providers9

Service providers search and harvest metadata from OAI compliant data providers and use it as a basis for creating value- added services such as indexes, catalogues and portals to materials that are distributed across multiple libraries, museums, archives, and other repositories (Digital Library Federation 2001).

The search engines available from UMER’s website are Arc (http://arc.cs.odu.edu), MyOAI (http://www.myoai.com/), and OAISTER (http://oaister.umdl.umich.edu/o/oaister/). The eprint working group also investigated DP9 (http://arc.cs.odu.edu:8080/dp9/index.jsp), but making use of this required a lot of preliminary work, so this will be revisited in 2003.

Citebase (http://citebase.eprints.org/) is another tool to watch. Citebase is a citation-ranked and impact discovery service. It presently only enables searches across arXiv, CogPrints and BioMed Central repositories but will expand beyond these. “The most immediate plans are to include coverage of RePEc and eprints.org repositories, the latter targeting citation indexing at institutional archives for the first time” (Hitchcock 2002a). Citebase harvests the OAI metadata records for papers in these repositories, but also extracts references from each of the papers and ranks search results based on references to papers (Hitchcock 2002a).

6 Interoperability is a broad term, touching many diverse aspects of archive initiatives, including their metadata formats, their underlying architecture, their openness to the creation of third-party digital library services, their integration with the established mechanism of scholarly communication, their usability in a cross-disciplinary context, the metrics for usage of eprints and for evaluation of their scholarly impact. Interoperability has numerous facets, including uniform naming, metadata formats, document models, and access protocols. 7 Association for Library Collections and Technical Services, Cataloging and Classification Section, Committee on Cataloging: Description and Access, Task Force on Metadata. Summary Report June 1999, http://www.ala.org/alcts/organization/ccs/ccda/tf- meta3.html 8 The list of OAI registered data providers is available at URL http://www.openarchives.org/Register/BrowseSites.pl. 9 The list of OAI registered service providers is available at URL http://www.openarchives.org/service/listproviders.html Metadata

Metadata is the information about your publication which you store. This is used for searching the records and for rendering descriptions of the records. It is also what makes your institutional archive’s contents interoperable with the contents of other OAI- compliant institutional archives.10

The OAI protocol specifies that, to promote interoperability, data providers must offer unqualified Dublin Core, as a lowest common denominator 11 (Shearer 2002). As Roy Tennant says, “Dublin Core has been in development for several years and is meant to be a common meeting ground among richer metadata standards” (Tennant 2002). (For details on the development of Dublin Core, see http://www.dublincore.org.)

Unqualified Dublin Core metadata elements represent a broad, interdisciplinary consensus about the core set of elements that are likely to be widely useful to support resources discovery. They relate to content, intellectual property and instantiation. Each group contains elements that indicate the scope or type of information stored in them: 1. Content: Title, Subject, Description, Source, Language, Relation, Coverage 2. Intellectual Property: Creator, Publisher, Contributor, Rights 3. Instantiation: Date, Type, Format, Identifier.

Unqualified Dublin Core, however, will not usually be detailed enough to meet the needs of data providers, so the protocol supports multiple parallel metadata formats. Use of additional, richer schemata within particular communities or for special purposes is encouraged. Examples include MARC (Machine Readable Catalog), EAD (Encoded Archival Description), and IMS (Instructional Management System (used in educational environments) (Breeding 2002b).

It is important to have some kind of metadata quality threshold to ensure that it is accurate and sufficiently detailed. One of the problems of academic self-loading is self-created metadata, with all of the inaccuracies that this implies. In implementing an eprint repository at the University of Melbourne, the authors have encountered a number of problems associated with populating metadata fields. Examples include spelling and typographical errors and punctuation errors. Another difficulty encountered has been where copying of an abstract from a pre-existing document to the field in the database has required reformatting to correct erratic spacing.

The Open Archives Initiative Protocol for Metadata Harvesting (OAI-PMH)12 http://www.openarchives.org/OAI_protocol/openarchivesprotocol.html

The protocol operates behind the scenes between data providers and service providers. No special software is needed to search an OAI-based service. The user is not even aware that OAI is being used to collect the metadata.13

OAI-PMH is a simple protocol that supports the regular gathering of metadata records from one service by another. It is based on common underlying web standards – http, xml and xml schemata. This makes it very easy to implement. To form a record, the DC is encoded with Extensible Markup Language (XML). Each record is a piece of xml that stores xml

10 Gutteridge, Christopher and Harnad, Stevan (2002) Applications, Potential Problems and a Suggested Policy for Institutional E-Print Archives .http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/archive/00006768/ 11 The Open Archives Initiative (OAI) and the Dublin Core Metadata Initiative (DMCI) have announced an XML schema for unqualified Dublin Core metadata. The new schema was developed to use with the OAI Protocol, and will facilitate the declaration of modular metadata components.http://dublincore.org/schemas/xmls/simpledc20020312.xsd http://dublincore.org/schemas/ from FOS newsletter 29th march 2002 12 Metadata harvesting is an interoperability solution allowing data providers to expose their metadata via an open interface, with the intent that this metadata be used as the basis for value-added service development. 13 Breeding, M (2002a) The emergence of the Open Archives Initiative: This protocol could become a key part of the digital library infrastructure. Information Today, April 2002 v19 i4 p46 metadata. The xml schema specifies the structure. Each record must be uniquely addressable. Each record contains 3 parts: 1. the mandatory header -OAI 2. the OAI identifier syntax divides the identifier into three parts separated by colons (:), e.g. where `oai' is the scheme, `unimelb.edu.au' identifies the repository, and `137' is the identifier within the particular repository 3. this is a unique identifier oai:unimelb.edu.au:137. The last number is that which is automatically generated by the creation of the record.

The initial protocol was launched in early 2000 for the eprint community, but almost immediately it also attracted considerable interest from libraries, publishers, museums, associations, and other bodies, which were quick to see its potential benefits (Digital Library Federation 2001). Since that time there has been a couple of iterations, the aim being to create simple, easy-to-implement technical specifications and metadata standards to ensure interoperability. Version 2.0 was released in June 2002. This is expected to be the stable, final version (Cole 2002)14. “The major changes introduced in Version 2 of the protocol are of the nature of clarifications to ambiguities or better means of expressing existing functionality.” (Van de Sompel 2002) The protocol supports the interoperability of OAI compliant digital repositories irrespective of type (institutional, discipline-specific, commercial, etc.) or content (Crow 2002a). Thus, articles in OAI compliant repositories will form a global library that facilitates searching, data retrieval, and cross-linking (Chan 2001).

Eprints.org

The University of Melbourne decided to use the eprints.org open source software (http://eprints.org). This software was developed in 2000 by some of the earliest implementers of the OAI at the University of Southampton. It provides a free web interface for managing, submitting, discovering, and downloading documents. It is designed to be as flexible and adaptable as possible so that universities and other institutions can adopt and configure it quickly and easily. An installation script automates most of the installation process. The major advantage of the software is that it comes already OAI-compliant. Once it is installed, it is automatically ready to generate metadata in a form that can be picked up by OAI harvesters (Pinfield 2001). Version 2.0, version 2.1, version.2.1.1 and version 2.2 were all released in 2002. See http://software.eprints.org/newfeatures.php for details of changes in specifications.15

The installation of an OAI-compliant eprints server is not expensive in financial terms as only a server needs to be purchased. The University of Melbourne purchased an Intel based machine with 1 Gig of RAM and 2 CPU, running REDHAT 7.2, which comes with most of the software that eprints relies on, MySQL, Perl and perl/apache (so the technician did not have to install these). It took the technician roughly an hour to install. (For those institutions not willing to install and maintain the software themselves, as of July 2002 Ingenta is developing an enhanced, commercially supported version of the eprints.org software. A share of the proceeds will be channeled back into supporting Southampton's research and development efforts in continuing to evolve eprints, which will also remain available as open source software16 )

Initial testing

The University of Melbourne eprint working group initially set up a demonstration version of the repository, with the eprints software loaded on the technician’s PC, prior to the purchase of the server. This presented an opportunity to load dummy records to test how easy it was to create records, and to see how they displayed in the repository.

14 See http://www.openarchives.org/news/oaiv2press020614.html for the press release detailing the major changes from version 1 to 2 and the migration strategy for institutions. 15 On 3 July 2002 it was announced that eprints.org is now part of the GNU http://www.gnu.org/ project. This means it has to conform to some code and distribution standards, and has to be free (http://www.eprints.org/gnu.php). By special agreement with GNU, the homepage for eprints will remain at eprints.org. The University of Southampton will retain copyright (Harnad 2002a) 16. See the press release on the ingenta website at http://www.ingenta.com/ . The eprint working group also examined the possibility of bulk loading records by testing bulk loading processes with 60 working papers from a departmental website. An Excel spreadsheet was created, and the metadata captured from the departmental working papers website inserted into designated eprints fields in the spreadsheet. All the information available from the departmental website was captured successfully, such as the faculty/department name in the subject field, authors, title and date. But not all information was accessible from the website, so metadata in some fields had to be inserted manually by typing or cutting and pasting from individual working papers on the departmental website. Examples include keywords, abstracts and references fields. Even simple cutting and pasting proved problematic in some fields. For example, the abstracts field inserted an unwanted space at the end of each sentence after pasting into the repository. NoteTab was used to help strip the spaces but the time taken, along with the unwieldiness of the Excel spreadsheet, convinced the eprint working group that loading of individual records would be the most efficient way to populate the repository. The eprint working group may make another attempt at automatic loading during 2003. Customisation

It is possible to customise appearance of the institutional repository by adapting scripts that control the presentation. These scripts are well separated from the core eprints code that deals with archiving, database management, and internal workflow so that future upgrades will leave the customised scripts largely unaffected17 (eprints.org website). See http://eprints.unimelb.edu.au/ for the customisation of University of Melbourne’s eprints repository. The customisation was undertaken by a member of the Web Publishing Team in consultation with the eprint working group and took only a few hours (after lengthy discussions on the appropriate “look and feel”). User registration

The default is that anyone may search the repository and view documents; however, to submit documents or create an alert, one needs to register. Each author has the opportunity to limit views of his/her documents to registered users only, or to members of the home institution, though this flies in the face of the raison d’etre of the Open Archives movement. The entire repository can be made accessible only to institutional members or registered users should one so wish. Commentary on a document can also be excluded by the repository administrator, and sent only to the author. Document formats

Submission of eprints is via a simple web-based interface. Papers can be uploaded from files or copied from an existing web address. Each eprint can be stored in more than one document format. The software can support a range of document formats, including HTML, PDF, and PostScript, and can be customised to include new formats, such as PowerPoint. Subjects

It is simple to design a subject hierarchy which suits the needs of the institution and to load this into the database. It is far more complex to alter this once documents are loaded, so it is important to get this right before too many papers are loaded (Pinfield 2001). UMER uses the University’s faculty and departmental structure. This seemed the most suitable for the purposes of academic self-loading. The authors concur with Stevan Harnad’s comment that

University Eprint Archives that have been created exclusively, or primarily, to provide open access to university research output …hav[e] no need whatsoever to adopt or use any classification system (Harnad 2002b).

17 Examples of customization can be seen at http://eprints.anu.edu.au;http://eprints.lib.gla.ac.uk/;http://eprints.bath.ac.uk/;http://eprints.cdlr.strath.ac.uk/;http://www- db.library.nottingham.ac.uk/ep1 As this paper is being written (January 2003) there is an interesting email discussion relating to use of structured classification schemes in the subject field. The most commonly adopted subject hierarchies in OAI compliant eprint repositories appear to be either the academic departmental structure or Library of Congress Classification. Discussions among Australian eprint data providers reveal that there has been some interest in creating a thesaurus that would be useful for all. But that would have a negative impact on academic self-loading, and a consequent increase in workload on eprint administrators. Classification schemes considered include: ™Library of Congess (LC) ™Dewey Decimal Classification (DDC) ™Australian Educational Thesaurus (AET) ™ASCEd (Australian Standard Classification Education for Learning Objects) ™Research Fields, Courses and Disciplines (RFCD), one of the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) Australian Standard Research Classification). This was picked as the most appropriate one for research materials.

Controlled vocabulary is important in helping to encourage consistency across all eprints. Since the academic structure rather than a thesaurus is used in the subject field in UMER, it was decided that discipline specific thesauri would be used along with natural language keywords in the keywords field. For example, the Journal of Economic Literature Classification System (http://www.aeaweb.org/journal/elclasjn.html) is used for records from the Faculty of Economics and Commerce. UMER relies on title, keywords and words in abstracts for retrieval of relevant eprints. Alerting service (aka Subscription service.)

Registered users may set up an alerting service in their subject areas whereby they will be emailed regularly to alert them to any new or changed records that match their searches. This feature was available in version 1.0, unavailable in version 2.0 but re-instated in version 2.1. Processes

The software allows for a review process by placing submitted papers into a buffer, so that an administrator can conduct a number of checks on the items before they are moved to the public repository. These checks include ™ensuring that the submitter is authorised to contribute to the repository. (The software allows anyone to register and upload to the buffer). The check involves looking the author’s name up in the University staff list online ™ensuring that the item meets the guidelines of the collection policy18 ™verification of the supplied metadata, and enhancement if necessary, in the interests of improving discoverability ™proof reading for typographical errors and erratic layout ™making sure that the supplied document format was loaded successfully.

If the document does not meet the required criteria, it can be returned to the submitter by email. If it does meet the criteria, it is accepted into the public repository. Once the item is accepted, it is automatically assigned a unique document identifier and a persistent URL to ensure its perpetual availability.

It is possible to establish an alerting service so that the administrator is emailed whenever new eprints are deposited. The administrator can choose the frequency of this alerting service.

18 The University of Melbourne has produced a collection policy as a guide to authors and administrators. This can be viewed at http://www.lib.unimelb.edu.au/eprints/home.htm Depositing eprints

The depositing process is so simple that the depositor is creating metadata as an automatic process rather than as a self- conscious metadata creation activity. The authors found that the help screens available on eprints.org required some elucidation, so loading instructions were written. These were first tested with cataloguing staff and then extended to other staff in the Information Division before being placed on the website at http://www.lib.unimelb.edu.au/eprints/loading.html. The instructions have also been successfully used by other Victorian academic libraries establishing eprint repositories.

Conclusion

The eprint working group was enthusiastic about the potential of the software. While UMER has been established as a repository for the research output of University of Melbourne staff, the eprint working group will be investigating using the eprints.org software to create other OAI compliant databases, such as one containing images from the University Archives. References M. Breeding (2002a), “The emergence of the Open Archives Initiative: this protocol could become a key part of the digital library infrastructure”, Information Today 19(4), pp46-47 M. Breeding (2002b), “Understanding the protocol for metadata harvesting of the open archives initiative”, Computers in Libraries 22 (8), pp 24-29 L. Chan and B. Kirsop (2001), “Open archiving opportunities for developing countries: towards equitable distribution of global knowledge”, Ariadne, 30 http://www.ariadne.ac.uk/issue30/oai-chan/ T.W. Cole et al (2002), “Now that we’ve found the ‘hidden web,’ what can we do with it? The Illinois Open Archives Initiative metadata harvesting experience”, Proceedings of Museums and the Web 2002 Conference, Boston, USA. http://www.archimuse.com/mw2002/papers/cole/cole.html R. Crow (2002a), “The Case for Institutional Repositories: SPARC Position Paper”, http://www.arl.org/sparc/IR/ir.html Digital Library Federation (2001) “The Open Archives Initiative and digital libraries”, http://www.diglib.org/architectures/mdharvestpv.htm W. Fietzer (2002), “Integrating metadata frameworks into library description”, Libraries, the Internet, and Scholarship: Tools and Trends Converging; edited by Charles F. Thomas. New York, Dekker, pp 77-102. C. Gutteridge (2002), “GNU Eprints 2 overview”, Proceedings 11th Panhellenic Academic Libraries Conference, http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/archive/00006840/ S. Harnad (2002a), “Eprints.org is part of GNU free software project as of 1 July”, Post to SEPTEMBER98- [email protected], 3 July 2002. S. Harnad (2002b), “Interoperability - subject classification/terminology”, Post to American Scientist September Forum http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/2385.html, 22 November 2002 S. Hitchcock et al (2002a), “Evaluating Citebase, an open access web-based citation ranked search and impact discovery service”, http://opcit.eprints.org/evaluation/Citebase-evaluation/evaluation-report.html S. Hitchcock et al (2002b), “Open citation linking: the way forward”, D-Lib Magazine 8 (10), http://www.dlib.org/dlib/october02/hitchcock/10hitchcock.html T. Krichel and S. M. Warner (2002), “Open Archives and free online scholarship”, Joint Conference on Digital Libraries 2002 Portland, Oregon, USA http://openlib.org/home/krichel/papers/koganei.html M. Needleman (2002), “The Open Archives Initiative”, Serials Review 28 (2), pp 156-158 S. Pinfield (2001), “How do physicists use an e-print archive? Implications for institutional e-print services”, D-Lib Magazine 7 (12) http://www.dlib.org/dlib/december01/pinfield/12pinfield.html D Rusch-Feja (2002), “The Open Archives Initiative and the OAI Protocol for Metadata Harvesting: rapidly forming a new tier in the scholarly communication infrastructure”, Learned Publishing 15 (3) pp. 179-186 K. Shearer (2002), “The Open Archives Initiative: developing an interoperability framework for scholarly publishing”, Canadian Association of Research Libraries www.carl-abrc.ca/projects/institutional_repositories/index.htm R. Tennant (2002), “Metadata as if libraries depended on it”, Library Journal 127 (7), pp.32-33 H. Van de Sompel and C. Lagoze (2002), “Notes from the interoperability front: a progress report on the Open Archives Initiative”, Proceedings of the 6th European Conference on Research and Advanced Technology for Digital Libraries, Rome. [draft at http://www.openarchives.org/documents/ecdl-oai.pdf] S. Warner (2001), “Exposing and harvesting metadata using the OAI Metadata Harvesting Protocol: a tutorial”, HEP Libraries Webzine 4, http://library.cern.ch/HEPLW/4/papers/3/ K. Whitney (2002), “Analysis of SciFinder Scholar and Web of Science citation searches”, Journal of the American Society for information Science and Technology, 53, (14), pp. 1210-1215. J. R. Young (2002), “ 'Superarchives' could hold all scholarly output: online collections by institutions may challenge the role of journal publishers”, Chronicle of Higher Education, 48 (43) http://chronicle.com/free/v48/i43/43a02901.htm Appendix 1 – List of invitees to the first meeting in October 1999

Caroline Arms - Library of Congress William Y. Arms - Cornell University Mark Doyle - the American Physical Society Dale Flecker - Harvard University Edward Fox - Virginia Tech & NDLTD Joan Gargano - University of California Paul Ginsparg - Los Alamos National Laboratory & arXiv.org Rebecca Graham - the Digital Library Federation Rick Johnson - the Scholarly Publishing & Academic Resources Coalition Thomas Krichel - University of Surrey & RePEc Carl Lagoze - Cornell University Michael Lesk - National Science Foundation Rick Luce - Los Alamos National Laboratory Clifford Lynch - Coalition for Networked Information Kurt Maly - Old Dominion University Deanna Marcum - the Council on Library and Information Resources David Milman - Columbia University Michael Nelson - NASA Langley Jim Ostell - NCBI Bob Parks - Washington University & EconWPA John Sack - HighWire Press & Stanford University Andrew Trotman - NCBI Herbert Van de Sompel - University of Ghent & Los Alamos National Laboratory Don Waters - The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation A representative - University of Southampton & CogPrints Los Alamos, New Mexico Appendix 2 - Represented institutions/organisations

American Physical Society Andrew W. Mellon Foundation Association of Research Libraries California Institute of Technology Coalition for Networked Information Cornell University Council on Library and Information Resources Digital Library Federation Harvard University HighWire Press Library of Congress Los Alamos National Laboratory Massachusetts Institute of Technology NASA Langley Old Dominion University Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources Coalition Stanford Linear Accelerator Center University of California University of Ghent University of Southampton University of Surrey Vanderbilt University Virginia Tech Washington University

Represented eprint-initiatives: arXiv.org (=xxx) CogPrints NDLTD RePEc EconWPA NCSTRL NTRS

Minerva Access is the Institutional Repository of The University of Melbourne

Author/s: SULLIVAN, SHIRLEY; Young, E.

Title: Establishing an eprint repository at the University of Melbourne: implementation aspects

Date: 2003

Citation: Sullivan, S., & Young, E. (2003). Establishing an eprint repository at the University of Melbourne: implementation aspects. In Proceedings, Educause in Australasia 03, Adelaide.

Publication Status: Unpublished

Persistent Link: http://hdl.handle.net/11343/34979

File Description: Text