Output – SAFIR: Images content model – overview

Title: Digital Library Project (SAFIR): Content model for images

Pages: all
Date Released: 29-01-2009

URI for Output: https://vle.york.ac.uk/bbcswebdav/xid-316149_3

Summary of contents:

The output provides a Fedora content model for images.

Although the content model is developed in the specific context of York, it provides a useful reasoned overview of the metadata requirements and model (for images, technical information, preservation metadata), conventions for datastreams, creating alternate versions, recording relationships, indentifiers, access control requirements, workflow, and rights.


For organisations using the Fedora repository platform, the content model provides an example of a content model for images. More importantly it also provides a template for the development of other content models.

Project – RSP

Project Name: Repositories Support Project

Short Project Name:RSP

Programme Name: Repositories and Preservation


JISC Project URIhttp://www.jisc.ac.uk/whatwedo/programmes/reppres/repsupport.aspx

Project URI: http://www.rsp.ac.uk

Start Date: October 2006

End Date: March 2009

Governance:JISC IIE

Contact Name and Role:  Bill Hubbard (Project Manager)

Brief project description:

The Repository Support Project (RSP) is a 2.5 year project to co-ordinate and deliver good practice and practical advice to English and Welsh HEIs to enable the implementation, management and development of digital institutional repositories.

Name of Trawler: Mahendra Mahey

Outputs: (just link to individual output postings) as a bulleted list

Output – UHRA – Self Archiving Support Materials

Title: UHRA repository self-archiving support materials

Date Released: Unknown

URI for Output: http://uhra.herts.ac.uk/uhra/promotion.html

Summary of contents:

Contains useful information on the process of self-archiving including how the submission process works and issues such as copyright, rights and permissions.

Additional information:


At http://uhra.herts.ac.uk/uhra/promotion.html

Output – UHRA – Training Sessions

Title: UHRA repository self-archiving training sessions

Date Released: May to July 2008

URI for Output: http://uhra.herts.ac.uk/uhra/news.html

Summary of contents:

Evidence of delivery of training outputs. Materials not available

Additional information:


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:


Output – Life2 – Final Report – Section 5 (British Library Newspapers Case Study)

Output Name: Output – Life2 – Final Report – Section 5

Title: British Library Newspapers Case Study
Number of pages or page numbers: pages 75-99

Date Released: 22/08/08

URI for Output: http://eprints.ucl.ac.uk/11758/1/11758.pdf

Summary of contents: Interesting output looking at the issues of legal deposit for newspapers, comparing analogue to digital collections.  Looks at the Burney Collection (static collection) and legal deposit of newspapers (dynamic).  Talks about ingest issues from Microfilm (page 87).  It carries out a comparison of the process, including differences in preserving digital vs analogue collections.  It’s conclusion on page 99 is relevant:

The aim of this Case Study was to see whether the lifecycle cost of analogue objects could be
identified and mapped against that of digital collections and this has been done. It was not a
Case Study to determine which method is cheaper or more expensive, although a by-product
of the research is that it is possible to see the results of the costs side by side.
The only clarification that the LIFE team think is important to make is that the creation cost
for digital material has had a major impact on the total lifecycle cost of a digital entity. For
analogue materials, because of the legal deposit situation, no creation costs are counted, but
the team knows that there are of course creation costs incurred in other areas outside the
institutional responsibility outlined here.
So for final costing purposes, the team feels that the most realistic comparison would be the
digital object cost minus creation cost versus the equivalent analogue object cost

A comparison of the costs:

Digital = £3.60

Analogue = £4.60

Per item.

Project – MetaTools

Project Name: Metatools

Programme Name: Repositories and Preservation Programme

Strand: Tools and Innovation

JISC Project URI: http://www.jisc.ac.uk/whatwedo/programmes/programme_rep_pres/tools/metatools.aspx

Project URI: http://www.ahds.ac.uk/about/projects/metatools/

Start Date: 15 March 2007

End Date: 15 September 2008

Governance: Integrated Information Environment Committee (JIIE), Repositories and preservation advisory group

Contact Name and Role: Dr Malcolm Polfreman – (Project Manager)

Brief project description:

To develop a methodology for evaluating metadata creation tools. To Compare the quality of currently available metadata generation tools. To develop, test and disseminate prototype web services that integrate the best metadata generation tools and functionality.

Name of Trawler: Mahendra Mahey

Project Outputs are not available as yet (though project was supposed to finish in September).

According to the project plan the outputs will be:

  • Develop a methodology for evaluating metadata generation tools
  • Compare the quality of currently available metadata generation tools
  • Develop, test and disseminate prototype web services that integrate the best metadata generation tools and functionality.