1. APARSEN WP22 Identifiers and Citability APARSEN WP22 Identifiers and Citability Some key results Fondazione Rinascimento Digitale Emanuele Bellini, Chiara Cirinnà, Maurizio Lunghi, University of Trento Paolo Bouquet, Barbara Bazzanella, Angela Fogarolli APA Conference 7-8 November 2011, London

2. Overview 1.WP22 Objectives 2.Survey on Persistent Identifiers 3.Envisioning scenarios 4.Next steps

3. WP22 objectives Current weaknesses: Standard identifier systems not implemented / local solutions preferred A global unique technology cannot be expected/imposed A unique access point to a joint cross-domain service is missing Added value services tailored on different communities are inadequate Planned objectives: 1. Overview of the current PI systems 2. Interoperability framework and reference model 3. Community-driven added value services FRAGMENTARY LANDSCAPE and LACK of CONSENSUS!

4. WP22 objectives Task 10 Survey and benchmarking Task 20 Interoperability Framework and Reference Model Task 30 Citability advanced services State of the art analysis User requirements, scenarios Benchmarking model Interoperability Framework: functions, roles and responsibilities Citability and cross-reference Provenance Authenticity Bibliometric statistics

5. Survey objectives and structure Objectives: a) General overview of the PI adoption among different communities b) Level of awareness about PI services (existence, usefulness, etc.) c) User requirements Structure: 5 sections of multiple choice answers : 1)PI for digital objects 2)PI for authors/information creators 3)PI for organizations 4)Criteria for the adoption of a PI system for digital objects 5)Digital preservation strategies and practices

6. Survey results The questionnaire received 103 full responses! Important implications for generalizing the results Most responses from European institutions Low number of participants from private sectors

7. Digital objects: metadata, access and repository systems OAI-PMH 6664.08% Other 3029.13% DBMS access permission 2322.33% Other 54 52.43% Fedora 26 25.24% Dspace 25 24.27% Access systems Repository systems 2nd 1st 1.Textual doc 98.06% 2.Images 86.41% 3.Video 63.11% 4.Website 62.14 5.Audio 60.19% … High heterogeneity and interoperability issues! Types of digital objects Dublin Core 7370.87% Other 4745.63% Own db schema 3735.92% Metadata associated to digital objects 2nd

8. DOI is the most commonly used by universities, research organizations, archives and publishers Handle is mostly used by libraries and archives URN is the most widely used by libraries Libraries and archives use frequently internal PI systems PI for digital objects

9. Limits experienced in using PI ValueDOIHandleURNInternal identifier system ARKLSIDPURLOther Low adoption63801112 Locally defined113112035 No standard associated 3159042 Sustainability3320205 Performance12200105 Granularity32440100 Trust1220110 Versioning54430003 Governance structures 32410124 Ongoing cost101110011 None12 860012 Other3310121 TOT 3329262542615

10. PI for authors ObstaclesFreqPercent % It is not a key issue for the organisation2322,33 Authors do not know about (or do not care for) this service1918,45 Low attractiveness of the service due to low level of adoption1312,62 Other (please specify)1110,68 National legislation with regard to privacy of personal data87,77 Lack of trust and authority76,8 Total N. of respondents 103 Main Obstacles Lackof awareness !

11. PI for organizations Main Obstacles ValueFreqPercent % No enough information about this service2019.41 It is not a key issue for the organization1918.45 Low attractiveness of the service due to low level adoption65.83 Lack of trust and authority65.83 Other43.88 Total N. of respondents 103 Lackof awareness !

12. Features for PI Analysis of user requirements in 4 domains: 1. technology, 2.organization of the service, 3. scope and 4. naming rules

13. Top five requested services for PI ValueFreqPercent % Citability7673.78 Global resolution service6260.19 PI resolution service to the resource5755.33 Digital Object certification5553.39 PI resolution service to metadata5048.54 Association of PI to multiple location (URLs)4139.80 Metrics3130.09 Multiple association name2726.21 Link digital object to dynamic dataset1918.44 Others32.91 Mostly PI Basic services Mostly PI future advanced services

14. Summarizing the results… Convergence toward few major systems: DOI, Handle, URN. Internal solutions mainly adopted for authors and organizations. High level of heterogeneity in metadata schema, repository systems and access systems. Need of major requirements for PI for digital objects and authors Preservation practices quite diffused but…disparity between the need of preservation and the scarce commitment (funding and sustainability)

15. Envisioning Scenarios 1)Scenarios on Citability and Metrics services Access to the appropriate copy (FRD) Access to fragments and linked resources (DANS) Association of multiple author PI with a single person (ESSEX) Author career tracking and evaluation (FRD) Researcher profiling with a collaborative index (FRD) 2) Scenarios on Global Resolution services Finding aggregated information on a digital objects or author using a PI (UNITN) Finding information about a resource’s authenticity and availability (DNB) A machine using a GRS to retrieve metadata and information about a resource’s authenticity and availability (DNB) 3) Digital Object certification Document Authenticity (UNITN) Dissertation Authenticity check (FRD/UNITN) Provenance: Author information discovery (CERN)

16. Next steps PI Interoperability Framework Design User requirements come out from the Survey Envisioning scenarios Collecting scenarios from Partners (WP22 + others) Reference Model

17. Thank you! Emanuele Bellini bellini@rinascimento-digitale.it (Maurizio Lunghi ) lunghi@rinascimento-digitale.it