EprintsAP use case 1

From DigiRepWiki

This document is part of the Eprints Application Profile Wiki.

JISC Digital Repositories Programme Use Case

Use Case Name

Application profile for eprints used by UK repositories search service

Use Case ID



Author 1 Julie Allinson


Eprints Application Profile Working Group

Date Created


Use Case Summary

This use case describes a proposed situation in which the RDN/INTUTE search service implements the Eprints Application Profile for harvesting from repositories and offering search, browse and other functionality to its consumers.

Primary Actor (and goal)

Eprints Search Service Offering cross search of UK repositories, and other services; harvesting from repositories.

Other Actors (and goals)

PROSPERO To offer an interim repository service.
Individual repositories To receive deposit and provide access.
Other search services / harvesters Harvesting / cross search.
UKOLN / Eduserv Foundation To propose the application profile and ensure it is fit for purpose. To register the DCAP in the JISC IE Schema registry.
Producer To deposit materials in the repository.
Consumer To find materials.
Repository administrators To ensure sufficient, accurate and high quality metadata is captured.

Stakeholders and Interests

JISC Funding body
RDN/INTUTE Success of search service.
Repository Management Successful and cost effective repository.
Universities Profile-raising through better access and promotion of its research outputs.
DCMI Community Promotion of correct use of DC.
Digital Repositories Programme phases 1 and 2 To learn from example and to see findings guide the development of the profile and search service.

Main Success Scenario

1 RDN/INTUTE implements Eprints Application Profile for harvesting.
2 Institutional repositories implement the profile and structure their data accordingly to enable harvesting by the RDN/INTUTE service, and potentially others.
3 The profile and cataloguing guidelines ensure metadata offered for harvesting is consistent across repositories.
4 Metadata enables UK repositories search service to support browsing by a defined set of fields, including, but not limited to author, subject, repository
5 Metadata enables UK repositories search service to support fielded searching of a defined set of fields, including, but not limited to author, title, keyword etc..
6 Metadata enables UK repositories search service to filter search results by a defined set of criteria, e.g. document format, , type etc.
7 In particular, the metadata enables search, browse, or filter by publication (journal, book, conference proceedings etc.) name or conference name.
8 Metadata clearly identifiers the originating repository and institution.
9 Metadata also enables different versions [expressions] and formats [manifestations] of the same Work to be linked, maintaining their relationship to one another
10 Metadata enables UK repositories search service to replace older version in aggregated content with more recent version
11 Metadata makes an unambiguous distinction between different versions [manifestations] and formats [expressions] of the same work (possibly harvested from different repositories) and whether those relate to differences in language, intellectual content or publication status.
12 Links and identifiers are consistently and unambiguously created for each work, manifestation and expression.
13 Metadata is structured to enable moving from search results and browse tree to an OpenURL ‘link server’, if desired.
14 Metadata is structured to allow citation service to support citation analysis (between works). (? Not needd now??)
15 RDN/INTUTE service supports other value-added services (not yet scoped).
16 RDN/INTUTE service is deemed successful.


2a Institutions do not implement Eprints Application Profile
2a1 RDN/INTUTE service must harvest oai_dc, or
2a2 RDN/INTUTE service refuses to harvest repositories not implementing the profile
2a1 Additional advocacy activity to encourage uptake.
3a Guidelines are not used effectively; metadata quality suffers in ensuing service
3a1 Guidelines must be re-written
4,5,6,7,8a Incoming data does support the profile and thus these are not possible.
4,5,6,7,8a1 Scope of search service suffers
4,5,6,7,8b Requirements gathering exercise establishes that these are not necessary.
4,5,6,7,8b1 Profile must be modified to reflect this
9a Different versions are listed together in search results, without any indication of their relationship to one another.
9b Authority of data is questioned because of multiple search results.
11a It is impossible to distinguish between different works, expressions and manifestations.
11b Authority of data is questioned because it is impossible to understand the status of search results.
12a Inconsistent use of identifiers and links mean search service cannot interpret incoming data accurately
12a1 Quality of search service suffers.
16a Service is not widely used
16a1 Increased advocacy
16a2 Changes to profile and guidelines are needed.
16a3 Changes to service are needed.