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:

Advertisements

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:

Project – VIF

Project Name: Version Identification Framework

Short Project Name:       VIF

Brief project description:
” Continuing from the work of the VERSIONS project the project will provide a common infrastructure for the naming and understanding of issues relating to versions of scholarly works.
The results of an online survey of repository users about current use of digital objects and about the versioning questions that arise will be used to inform a draft framework, to be developed through an expert working group comprising of members from the project partners and other key stakeholders.
The Version Identification Framework will be recommended to the JISC and digital repository communities through a community acceptance plan and a dissemination campaign. ”

Outputs:

Programme Name: Repositories and Preservation Programme

Strand: Discovery to Delivery

JISC Project URI: http://www.jisc.ac.uk/whatwedo/programmes/reppres/vif.aspx

Project URI: http://www.lse.ac.uk/library/vif/

Start Date: 2007-07-10

End Date: 2008-05-09

Governance:

Contact Name and Role: Jenny Brace, Project manager

Name of Trawler: John

Project – LIFE-2


Project Name: Life Cycle Information for E-Literature (LIFE2)

Programme Name: Repositories and Preservation Programme

Strand: Preservation Assessment

JISC Project URI:http://www.jisc.ac.uk/whatwedo/programmes/reppres/life2.aspx

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

Start Date: 2007-03-01

End Date: 2008-08-29

Governance: Integrated Information Environment Committee (JIIE)

Contact Name and Role: Rory McLeod, Project Manager

Brief project description:

The LIFE project supports repositories and preservation by analysing costs of digital curation and lifecycle management. LIFE2 will build on this by:

  • Refining the LIFE methodology for the analysis and costing of the lifecycle of digital objects
  • Providing a cross section of exemplar Case Studies, both to inform the LIFE methodology and to provide a benchmark for comparison and evaluation
  • Enable HE and FE institutions to apply the LIFE methodology simply and easily to their own collections, and thus to evaluate and compare their activities in order to inform planning and increase workflow efficiency
  • Compare, contrast and analyse the lifecycle costs of paper and digital collections, informing the use of differing approaches to preservation and access via digital and other surrogate technologies
  • Identify where efficiencies can be made in the lifecycle costs of digital materials and provide guidance to funding bodies in areas such as preservation services and preservation tools
  • Disseminate project findings and enable take up of the LIFE methodology

Name of Trawler: Mahendra Mahey

Output: Exemplar Case Studies

Project – The Depot

Project Name: The Depot

Programme Name: Repositories and Preservation Programme

Strand: Information Environment

JISC Project URI: http://www.jisc.ac.uk/whatwedo/programmes/reppres/depot

Project URI: http://depot.edina.ac.uk/

Start Date: 1st August 2006

End Date: 31st March 2009

Governance: RPAG

Contact Name and Role: Bill Hubbard, Project Manager

Brief project description:

“The Depot is a JISC support service, launched in June 2007 with the specific task of ensuring that all in the UK research community can benefit from making their published papers available under Open Access, and helping maximise readership of their work. The Depot is OAI-compliant, allowing deposited e-prints to be ‘harvested’ by search engines across the world.”

The Depot offers two services:

  1. a re-direct service, with the Depot acting as a gateway, especially to repositories at UK universities (institutional repositories)
  2. a deposit service for e-prints, with the Depot acting as a national repository for researchers not yet having an institutional repository in which to deposit their papers, articles, and book chapters (e-prints).

Outputs:

Project – The Deposit Plait

Project Name: The Deposit Plait

Programme Name: Repositories and Preservation Programme

Strand: Information Environment

JISC Project URI: http://www.jisc.ac.uk/whatwedo/programmes/reppres/interoperabilitydemos/depositplait.aspx

Project URI: [None that I can find other than http://cadair.aber.ac.uk/dspace/handle/2160/582]

Start Date: 1st May 2008

End Date: 31st Dec 2008

Governance: RPAG

Contact Name and Role: Stuart Lewis, Project Manager

Brief project description:

“The 5 elements of the project aim to investigate:

  • Metadata requirements of repositories and service providers of deposited items
  • What metadata can be easily extracted from the deposited document, and if useful, whether a web service can be built to provide such metadata from a file
  • What metadata can be obtained from online metadata sources and personal bibliographic management software
  • Possibility of building a ‘Meta-API’ using the open document format web service and bibliographic data sources
  • What metadata needs to be verified or provided by the depositor

The initial element of the project will document the metadata needs of repositories and service providers (e.g. Intute Repository Search, OAIster, Google Scholar) from a deposit engine. Following that, three strands of a potential plait of data providers will be investigated to see which can provide each of the metadata needs identified. The investigations will focus on what systems and software could provide this information, what interfaces there are into these systems, what interfaces would be useful, and what services could be built upon the interfaces. The findings will be written up in a final report.”

Outputs:

Four reports –

  • Report 1: A report into the metadata requirements for repositories and service providers, aimed at facilitating the evaluation of the other work packages.
  • Report 2: A report detailing the findings of the investigation into metadata that is available from information stores.
  • Report 3: A report detailing the findings of the investigation into metadata that can be derived from a document.
  • Final report: A report pulling together the contents of the first three reports, and subsequent investigations into the possibility of a meta-API.

Outputs will not available until early 2009.

Project – VALREC

Project Name:Validating Repository Content (VALREC)

Programme Name: Repositories and Preservation Programme

Strand: Information Environment

JISC Project URI: http://www.jisc.ac.uk/whatwedo/programmes/reppres/tools/valrec.aspx

Project URI: http://valrec.eprints.org/

Start Date: 1st April 2007

End Date: 30th September 2008

Governance: RPAG

Contact Name and Role: Les Carr, Project Mananger

Brief project description:

“The key objective of this project is to increase trust in the contents of repositories by developing and testing a service designed to validate the scholarly research articles found in repositories against the final publisher’s PDF available from the publisher’s website.

Outputs:

  • A verification system that:
    1. verifies the basic facts of publication against the publication claims made in the repository metadata
    2. checks for the differences between repository version and publisher’s PDF
    3. provide a signed, digital certificate that attests to the publication of the postprint and any differences in content

No outputs appear to be available as at 30th Oct 2008.