Output – Lirolem – Briefing Paper: Open Access

Title: Briefing Paper on Open Access and Institutional Repositories

Pages: all

Summary of contents:
An effective review of OA and the related case for institutional repositories.

Comments:
This output is noted here but will not be otherwise summarised – it addresses Open Access and Repositories succinctly and well but does not engage with learning materials – consequently out of scope.

this significance of this is that even in a project explicitly attempting to support the storage and use of learning materials/ complex materials in repositories, the case put to senior management for funding relates to scholarly communications.

Date Released: unknown,
URI for Output: http://learninglab.lincoln.ac.uk/wiki/images/9/9b/Briefing_Paper.pdf

Output – Lirolem -‘a few post project thoughts…’:software and tools

Title:’a few post project thoughts…’ from lirolem project blog

Section: blog posting

Page: blog entry

Summary of contents:
stepping into a discussion of software selection:
repository for Lincoln
” However, the Open Source products [ePrints, Fedora, DSpace], as of Autumn 2007, offered a thriving academic community of users and developers but little to no multimedia functionality. Coming from working with commercial DAMs, I was pretty surprised by how non-text ‘assets’ seemed to have been neglected for so long in the academic world. Things are now clearly changing thanks to the JISC funding that’s supporting projects like LIROLEM, Kultur and SNEEP, but it does feel like a step back in time when I use repository software, which still suffers from the legacy of a ‘text publishing’ workflow process.”

repository related workspace for architecture faculty
“When it became clear that the Virtual Studio [the tool to support the architectural faculty] had more in common with a wiki than a repository (as understood within the academic world), I set up a Virtual Studio on Blackboard using the Campus Pack modules. Within the tight confines that a Blackboard System Administrator has, we had a Virtual Studio space that third year students were invited to test. It wasn’t everything that the Virtual Studio is anticipated to be, but it did allow students and staff to upload materials, create galleries of designs, discuss their work and blog. In principle, this seemed closer to what the Architects wanted. Visually, it still looks like Blackboard and although provided a useful test-case, does not meet the ‘designerly’ UI requirements that the Architects want. In other words, it’s not like using Flickr, YouTube or other rapidly evolving cutting-edge web 2.0 applications. Just as I found user expectations running away from our potential to develop the DAM at Amnesty, the same has always been evident in the LIROLEM/Virtual Studio Project. ”

Comments:
this offers a useful commnetary on the current nature of the three key pieces of repository software and their fit with non- textual assets, user expectations, and desired functionality.

i suggest it has implications for the role of repositories in relation to digital workspaces, and trying to use single systems. it is also of note that Blackboard ended up being the tool they wanted to build in…

Date Released: 29th April 2008

URI for Output:http://pebblepad.lincoln.ac.uk/viewasset.aspx?oid=10236&type=thought

Output – Lirolem Completion Report: institutional impact

Title: LIROLEM Completion Report

Section:

Page: 2

Summary of contents:
‘Yes, there is definitely an interest and positive attitude towards depositing in the repository. For example The Snr. PVC has established a repository Steering Group chaired by the Dean of Research, to direct the strategic development of the repository and to oversee the implementation of an Institutional open access mandate and to approve the necessary policy and business changes that will ensure that all research undertaken by University of Lincoln students and staff should be systematically deposited, routinely managed, preserved and made freely available. We recognize that this will be a slow process that needs to first occur at the Departmental level.’

‘Although there are only approx. 100 IR records visible by the public, the 900+ records that we created for our RAE submission are in the ‘review’ area of the repository and will be made public in the near future, following discussions with each department’

Comments:
Records a strategic decision by institution to engage with Open Access and address the idea of a mandate.

Also notes metadata / content available in a new repository as a a result of this project.

Date Released: unknown, March April 2008 likely

URI for Output: http://learninglab.lincoln.ac.uk/wiki/images/c/ca/Completion_Report.pdf

Output – Lirolem – Completion Report: software and tools

Title: LIROLEM Completion Report

Section:

Page: 1 and 3

Summary of contents:
‘We installed e-prints and although we have not been able to develop a seamless interaction with Blackboard as we originally intended we have developed a wiki space in Blackboard for students to collaborate on the production of materials for deposit in the repository. This is an area which we feel needs much more community effort and focus. We are aware of the SWORD Project but as most HE institutions have VLEs and IRs, there needs to be greater effort spent on integrating the two.’p1

‘We have integrated social bookmarking into the IR, using ‘Add This’.’p3

Comments:
Lirolem highlights the ongoing disjunction between VLE’s and repositories and that their integration has not adequately been addressed.

However, their integration with bookmarking tools is a good example of joining up formal and informal services and supporting users in integrating information from repositories into other tools and making it more visible

Date Released: unknown, March April 2008 likely

URI for Output: http://learninglab.lincoln.ac.uk/wiki/images/c/ca/Completion_Report.pdf

Output – Lirolem – SUM: service arrangement

Title: LIROLEM – Service Usage Model

Section: Structure & Arrangement

Page: 6

Summary of contents:

(section reproduced)

Services: Security, user management, submission, object store, metadata management, search, transcoding, rights management, dissemination and reporting.

Data Sources: User profile information; data object & object representation information (SIP); provenance, context, reference and fixity information (AIP); METS, IMS Packages, IEEE LOM, PBCore, Dublin Core/OAI-PMH (DIP). For SIP, AIP & DIP, see OAIS Reference Model.

Co-ordination:

  • The Security service authenticates and authorises the user to use the upload, metadata management, search, transcode and download services.
  • The User Management service creates, modifies and removes users and their permissions.
  • The Submission service permits the ingest of data objects and and object representation information (SIP) to the repository.
  • The Object Store service tracks data objects being submitted and disseminated from the repository.
  • The Metadata Management service, creates, modifies, verifies and removes all content metadata (descriptive, administrative and technical) in the repository, as well as private user metadata (notes, bookmarks) and shared user metadata (tags, comments). Metadata is linked to objects (items, sets, resources), Licences and users. Provenance, context, reference and fixity information (AIP) is comnpleted for the data object and validated.
  • The Search service allows a user to search data managed by the metadata management service, according to permissions granted by the user management service. The search service returns and displays search results drawing from the object store service and metadata management service.
  • The Transcoding service converts data objects from the source format to another format. This occurs at submission time to create preview thumbnails of images and clips of video and audio and also as requested by the user prior to dissemination. Transcoding is performed according to rights applied to the data object.
  • The Rights Management service requires the application of terms and conditions (a ‘Licence’) to the data object.
  • The Dissemination service permits the download of transcoded data objects and selected metadata (DIP) according to the Licence applied to the data object.
  • The Reporting service permits the audit and reporting of transactions by each of the above services.”
  • Comments:

    this section presents the key service arrangement part of the SUM. this outlines the arrangement of software services and standards LIROLEM used to support the management and use of multimedia resources. As such it provides a point of reference for other software development and delineates what standards the development/ implementation used.

    it would have been helpful if the SUM had explicitly linked standards with specific service arrangements – however the connections will, in general, be deducible.

    Date Released: 2007 -11- 07 (Note: although this SUM is complete it is currently still on the eFramework development wiki – it may move)

    URI for Output: https://e-framework.usq.edu.au/users/wiki/DevelopmentSUMLiroLem

    Output – Lirolem – SUM

    Title: LIROLEM Service Usage Model

    Summary of contents:

    “The Lirolem/Virtual Studio is a means of digitally managing and preserving the output of students and staff at the University of Lincoln, irrespective of the format in which they are produced. Initially, the repository will concentrate on teaching and learning outputs within the School of Architecture, but it is intended that the repository will also manage research and teaching and learning outputs from all University departments. The repository will permit members of the University community to deposit, describe, search for, interact with and extract material that they deem valuable for use in their research, teaching and learning. This SUM describes the specific business processes involved in the operation of the repository and the services it provides. ”

    The SUM contains a business process model of LIROLEM; a SUM diagram of it, lists of eF service types used by LIROLEM their arrangement, design trade offs, and relevant standards.

    Comments:

    although excerpts from this SUM will create or be part of other outputs.  I consider a reference to the SUM as a entity to provide the most appropriate direct evidence of support for the eFramework.

    Page numbers: all

    Date Released: 2007 -11- 07 (Note: although this SUM is complete it is currently still on the eFramework development wiki – it may move)

    URI for Output: https://e-framework.usq.edu.au/users/wiki/DevelopmentSUMLiroLem

    Project – Lirolem

    Lincoln Repository of Learning Materials

    Short Project Name: Lirolem

    Programme Name: Repositories and Preservation Programme

    Strand: Matching funding for digital repository development /SUE

    Brief project description:

    ‘The University of Lincoln is developing a repository in which research outputs, exemplars of student outputs in non text based disciplines, and teaching materials, including copyright cleared digitised texts will be stored. […]

    The primary aim of the project is to lay the groundwork for the establishment of an institutional repository that will support a wide variety of non textual materials, e.g. digital animations of 3-D models, architectural documentation such as technical briefings and photographs, as well as supporting text based materials. By ‘groundwork’ we mean an infrastructure that includes both software and supporting documentation including a service definition, setting out what the repository will offer users, a model of content organisation which will set out how material will be organised within the repository (for example, where an object in the repository consists of multiple parts, how these parts link to each other), and a specification describing how object metadata will be created.

    More specifically the objectives of the project are to test the suitability of existing repository software, (such as e-prints) as a medium to store multimedia products, and to make such a repository publicly available, to document the four principal business processes associated with the repository, (depositing, cataloguing, searching, and retrieval), promote awareness and encourage use of the repository among academic colleagues, initially in the School of Architecture, and to provide training and documentation for users.’

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

    Project URI: original site dead – content moved onto (multipurpose) wiki see:

    Start Date: 2007-04-01

    End Date: 2008-03-31

    Governance:

    Contact Name and Role: Julian Beckton (Project Manager)

    Name of Trawler: John

    Available Outputs:

    Comments: