Output – VIF – VIF user requirements study: repository purpose

Title: VIF:The results of the VIF user requirements study

Pages: webpage (summary of http://www.lse.ac.uk/library/vif/Versioning_Issues_-_Discussion_Paper.doc)
Date Released:

URI for Output: http://www.lse.ac.uk/library/vif/Problem/research.html

Summary of contents:
“The two groups did diverge on the perceived purpose of repositories. The academics we surveyed were very clear about their wish to only make the finished version of their output ultimately available and free text comments (often even in answers to questions on different subjects) showed that they considered repositories were useful to highlight latest research, but not necessarily to preserve the body of research. This contrasts directly with the wishes of information professionals, who overwhelmingly wanted to store all available versions.”

Comments:
A finding which highlights a potential difference of opinion between information professionals and academics about what the repository is there for. This lends support to the idea that preservation may not be perceived by academics as a key function of a repository (though counter example of Hull – Repomman etc.- should be noted).

Output – UHRA – University of Hertfordshire Research Archive

Title: The University of Hertfordshire Research Archive

Date Released: Approx September 2007

URI for Output: https://uhra.herts.ac.uk/dspace/

Summary of contents:

The main output from this project is the establishment of the University of Hertfordshire Research Archive. It is described as “.. a showcase of the research produced by the University of Hertfordshire staff (copyright permitting) which is freely available over the web” and ” .. provides a simple interface to enable researchers to self-archive the full text of their published work with just a few quick and easy steps.”

Additional information:

Comments:

The archive/repository appears to be fully functional and contains 2556 items as at 30th January 2007.

Output: VIF – VIF website: versioning issues

Title: VIF: why versioning matters

Pages: webpage
Date Released:

URI for Output: http://www.lse.ac.uk/library/vif/Problem/importance.html

Summary of contents:
The project notes the common versioning issues that repositories face.

  • ” Confusion over whether an article is the published version, a copy that is identical in content to this but unformatted, a draft version, an edited version and so on.
  • Repository searches yielding many results which ostensibly appear to refer to the same item, but actually vary in terms of content, formatting or propriety file type.
  • Research work with multiple authors being deposited in different places at different stages of development without guidance as to which is authoritative or most recent.
  • Multimedia items being handled poorly by repositories that treat them as text, and their relationship to other objects that form part of the research project being undefined by the repository.
  • Vastly inconsistent approach of different repository software packages and implementations in how versions are dealt with.”

Comments:

Although this is intended to provide the context of the project, it also provides a succient introduction to the survey findings and the problem repositories face.

Output – KULTUR – Institutional Profile: University College for the Creative Arts

Title: Institutional Profile: University College for the Creative Arts
Number of pages or page numbers: pp 6-7
Section: Summation

Date Released: 27th March 2008

URI for Output: http://kultur.eprints.org/docs/Microsoft%20Word%20-%20UCCA%20profile%208%20April%20online%20version.pdf

Summary of contents:

A few observations of interest w.r.t. repositories for the arts in the ‘summation’ section of the report:

“The project will need to engage, advocate and secure ‘buy-in’ from the academic community. It will be important to establish an understanding of the culture of each college so that local differences or requirements can be taken into account. We will need to create a network of contact with key individuals and interest groups across the institution with which to communicate and gain direction on the project. Following on from this it will be imperative to be able to understand, interpret and communicate the range of differing concerns with the project team so that development is accurately representative.”

Additional information:

Comments:

Output – KULTUR – Environmental Assessment of the University of the Arts, London

Title: Environmental Assessment of the University of the Arts, London
Number of pages or page numbers: pp 6-7
Section: Summary

Date Released: 8th April 2008

URI for Output: http://kultur.eprints.org/docs/UUAL%20profile%208%20april%20online%20version.pdf

Summary of contents:

The summary section has a few useful observations w.r.t. repositories in the Arts sector:

“The opportunities for a repository at UAL are great since there is a wealth of research
being produced at all levels within the University. At the same time the sheer amount of
research and research active staff can present its own problems. The targeting of key
research staff, the enlisting of research centres/units and the research offices are
essential for the success of the project. Advocacy from the top and from the bottom is
needed but this can only really be effective by establishing good relationships and links
with relevant University bodies and staff. We need to identify just what a repository can
do for each group and advocate along those lines … Populating the demonstrator with a good number of pieces of research will help the project become more attractive and viable to research staff. The interface and the software itself will also play a large part in any success.”

Additional information:

Comments:

Output – KULTUR – Environmental Assessment Report

Title: Environmental Assessment Project and Literature Review
Pages 11-21
Section: 3

Date Released: 13th Feb 2008

URI for Output: http://kultur.eprints.org/docs/Environmental%20assessment%20VS%20Feb%2008.pdf

Summary of contents:

Section 3 “Issues Identified” has some useful insights. These are summarised in the report’s conclusion:

“…  Accounts of these projects give an indication of likely obstacles. In particular, they draw attention to the fact that metadata standards and copyright are made much more complicated when applied to visual, audio and moving image data. Complications arise, for example, in obtaining permission to broadcast a performance involving numerous groups and individuals, or in establishing how many and what kind of metadata records are required to usefully describe a single work.”

“In order to respond to the conceptual and practical challenges of representing
art practice in a repository, it is necessary for the project to know more about the working
habits and motivations of arts researchers. The project’s user profiles will play an
important role here. This knowledge will help us to pinpoint where a repository could fit
within the research process, knowledge which will be valuable in advocating the project.”

These points are filled out in section 3 of the report.

Additional information:

Comments:

Output – CAIRO: Content Model overview

Title:  Graphical Overview of a Cairo Content Model

Pages: all
Date Released: unknown

Summary of contents:

Graphical overview of a collection content model for archives – displays PREMIS and METS links.

URI for Output: http://cairo.paradigm.ac.uk/projectdocs/cairo_contentmodel_overview-2.png

Comments:

It is difficult to navigage and display this image as it is currently available.

Output – CAIRO: Tools survey

Title: Cairo tools survey: a survey of tools applicable to the preparation of digital archives for ingest into a preservation repository

Pages: all
Date Released:21 May 2007

Summary of contents:
“The purpose of this tool review is to identify a set of ingest and metadatarelated applications, tools or code that could form the components of the overall Cairo tool package.”p5

This document contains an overview of 54 tools that the project has indentified that have functionality relevant to ingest of personal digital archives for curation and preservation.

Crtieria for inclusion on this list is:
“General criteria for the survey include applications and tools that:

  1. are available now;
  2. are available for public re-use;
  3. may be open source, ‘free to use’ or commercially available;
  4. extract or generate some form of metadata from or about a file object or
  5. objects;
  6. operate on a variety of computing platforms;
  7. have some basic information about them available.”p3

URI for Output: http://cairo.paradigm.ac.uk/projectdocs/cairo_tools_listing_pv1.pdf

Comments:

Output – CAIRO: Cairo Use Cases

Title: Cairo use cases: a survey of user scenarios applicable to the Cairo ingest tool

Pages: all
Date Released: 21 May 2007

Summary of contents:
The CAIRO “project will develop a tool for ingesting complex collections of born-digital materials, with basic descriptive, preservation and relationship metadata, into a preservation repository.” The tool is designed to aggregate and interface with other tools and so reduce the computing skills overhead on archivists awnting to create AIPs. p3
“This document outlines a set of [55] use cases describing the different interactions users of the Cairo tool have with that tool. The use cases also describe the behaviour of the tool in response to those user interactions.”p5

URI for Output: http://cairo.paradigm.ac.uk/projectdocs/cairo_project_use_cases_pv1.pdf

Comments:
This document provides a selection of use cases that have shaped the developed of an ingest tool. As such they inform not only this tools but software/service development more generally and institutional preservation planning.

Output – NECTAR: Nectar Case History – embedding

Title: NECTAR: Northampton Electronic Collection of Theses And Research

Pages: all
Date Released: 2008

Summary of contents:
“Existing research reporting channels are being exploited to gather NECTAR content. From January 2008 the university’s Annual Research Report will be derived from NECTAR — if a research output is not in NECTAR it will not be reported.”

URI for Output: http://nectar.northampton.ac.uk/NECTAR_case_study_OR08_ver2.pdf

Comments:
this case study is largely superceded by the fuller later one – but i don’t recollect this line in the later article.
This illustrates both how embedded the NECTAR repository has become within the institution and also one of the roles a repsitory can play in the institutional infrastructure.