the RIOXX metadata application profile and guidelines

News from 2018

Pierre Lasou from Bibliothèque de l'Université Laval reported a 'bug' in RIOXX 2.0. While the documentation consistently refers to a property called 'rioxxterms:version_of_record', the schema XSD incorrectly includes a property called 'rioxxterms:version-of-record'. I have updated the schema XSD to use the correct form - rioxxterms:version_of_record. This for two reasons: underscores, rather than hyphens, are used consistently elsewhere in the RIOXX profile the only examples of this property I can find 'in the wild' have used this version So, for the avoidance of any doubt, the correct version to use is:

I'm pleased to announce that the number of repositories which declare support for RIOXX has reached 50 (a half-century in cricket parlance). See the full list here This number has grown steadily since January 2015 - quite an impressive rate of adoption. The repository systems which have implemented RIOXX are nearly all ePrints systems - but we expect the number of repositories to increase with support for DSpace coming soon.

I received the following query from Emma Sansby, Head of Library Services at Bishop Grosseteste University: I am currently leading a project to implement Eprints (hosted and supported by ULCC) at my institution. We have the RIOXX plugin installed and I have a question about the licence_ref attribute. I am creating a metadata-only journal article record into our repository which includes a DOI link to the publisher’s website. When I get to the RIOXX page I am forced to enter something under licence_ref as the attribute is mandatory, even though it’s a metadata-only record.