This is a question that comes up again and again when we’re talking about the One Repo: how is it different from SHARE?
SHARE stands for SHared Access Research Ecosystem. It is an initiative of academic libraries in the USA, initially created as a response to the OSTP memo on public access. This memo was an important game-changer for how scholarly publishing will work in the USA, effectively expanding the NIH’s very successful public access policy across most federally funded research.
[This post is the second in a series that serialises the One Repo whitepaper in digestible chunks. Do please weigh in with comments! See also Part 1: the problem]
We offer The One Repo (http://onerepo.net) as a solution to these challenges. This is a system, already existing in proof-of-concept form, to gather all the content of all the world’s repositories into a single database, in a uniform format, freely accessible to all as a Web UI, as embeddable widgets, as a set of web services, and as harvestable data.
The One Repo is not a research project, but is built on battle-tested components that are in use in high-volume commercial systems. It has been proven robust, efficient and scalable.
[This post is the first in a series that serialises the One Repo whitepaper in digestible chunks. Do please weigh in with comments! See also Part 2: the solution]
It was more than twenty years ago that Stevan Harnad published his “subversive proposal” that scholars should make the manuscripts of their publications freely available on the Internet. In the initial version of this proposal, the mechanism was FTP sites, but these were quickly replaced by institutional repositories (IRs), collections of manuscripts generated by all of a university’s authors. Many of these IRs are implemented using well established software packages such as EPrints and DSpace.