Project – OARS

Project Name:Open Access Repository System for Forced Migration Online (OARS)

Short Project Name: (OARS)

Programme Name: Repositories and Preservation

Strand: SUE

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

Project URI: http://oars.forcedmigration.org/

Start Date: 1 September 2007

End Date: February 2009

Governance: JISC IEE

Contact Name and Role: Mike Cave (Project Manager) Refugee Studies Centre

Brief project description:

‘This project will migrate a fragmented digital repository of scholarly resources, currently managed by two proprietary software systems, to a single open source platform. This repository, based at the Refugee Studies Centre, University of Oxford, is the largest in the world on its subject area of forced migration. It is a unique, widely used and constantly expanding collection of resources. The enhancement of this repository will make it more manageable for those maintaining it, and also make it globally interoperable with other open systems, as well as with the University of Oxford’s institutional repository.’

Name of Trawler: Mahendra Mahey

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

• Single management/search interface across Forced Migration Online (FMO)
• Interoperability between the FMO repository and other institutional repositories and search services
• Potential to make FMO’s grey literature collection available via the University’s online Library Catalogue
• Open source management/search software built on Fedora

Output – VIF:The results of the VIF user requirements study – datasets

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:
“VIF carried out further research into repositories that already contain some datasets, and investigated how these datasets are managed. Because this is a currently limited field, and because repository systems are not primarily configured to deal with such objects, we found that repository staff:

* Avoid versioning issues wherever possible by only keeping the most recent version. Older versions are deleted. This contrasts with how older version of other types of object are usually treated.
* By doing this, potential issues about which version people are citing becomes a problem.
* Have not found satisfactory ways to describe or indicate the relationship that a particular set of data holds to other related research outputs that are held in the repository.”

Comments:

This practice, if widespread beyond the survey group, represents a significant challenge that needs to be addressed (possibly by tool/repository plugin development). Succesfully citing and sharing datasets requires a stable and identifiable versioning system.

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:

Comments:

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

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 – 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 – NECTAR: ALISS Case Study – scope/theses

Title:Gathering NECTAR at The University of Northampton

Pages: 3 and
Date Released: 2008

Summary of contents:
The Research Committee’s support shaped the scope of the repository and has helped secure mandatory deposit of research degrees.

“Members of the focus group [a subgroup of the University Research Committee] were primarily concerned about the quality of NECTAR content and it was decided that NECTAR should contain only items that had previously been made available in the public domain. So, published journal articles, exhibited artifacts and presented conference papers were acceptable; internal working papers and other unpublished work were not. Research degree theses (PhD and MPhil level) were to be included, but not undergraduate or taught Masters level dissertations.” p3

“We had had the support of Professor Hugh Matthews in our Steering Group from the very start. As Chair of the university’s Research Degrees Committee and Deputy Chair of the University Research Committee, Hugh gave us very useful influence in both groups. A proposal for the mandatory submission of electronic copies of research degree theses was accepted by the Research Degrees Committee in December 2007 and a proposal to ensure that all research outputs are included in NECTAR is scheduled for discussion in June 2008” p5

URI for Output: http://nectar.northampton.ac.uk/1283/

Citation: [accepted version] Pickton, M. (2008) Gathering NECTAR at The University of Northampton. ALISS Quarterly. 3(4), pp. 33-38. 1747-9258.

Comments:
This illustrates the type of backing that is helpful in securing mandated deposit for theses and marks Northampton as a UK institution with a mandate for the deposit of doctorates and related research degrees.

Project – UHRA

Project Name: University of Hertfordshire Research Archive (UHRA)

Programme Name: Repositories and Preservation

Strand: e-Research, e-Resources, Information Envirnonment

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

Project URI: http://uhra.herts.ac.uk/uhra/

Start Date: 1st April 2007

End Date: 31st March 2009

Governance: RPAG?

Contact Name and Role: Monica Rivers-Latham, Project Manager

Brief project description:

The University of Hertfordshire had previously made an institutional commitment to increasing open access to scholarly communications through the establishment of the UHRA,a institutional repository of research outputs. The University has agreed a mandatory policy for deposit of published research, subject to publishers’ policies and permissions, and for deposit of higher degree theses.

The next stage JISC funded UHRA project will build on this robust foundation to address the two critical requirements for a successful repository:

• achieving substantial ‘critical mass’ repository content
• embedding sustainable self-archiving operational arrangements and practice across the University

Outputs:

• Establishment of UHRA repository. The UHRA project will provide all the building blocks for embedding a self sustaining research archive within the workflow processes of the University and its Research Institutes
• Enhancement of public open access to University of Hertfordshire research outputs
• Identify and evaluate good practice models for embedding self archiving and of current and emerging standard
• Disseminate and demonstrate good practice models
• Support the national development of repositories
• Final report
  

Comments:

The main output from the project is the establishment of the repository/archive which has been achieved.

Project – KULTUR

Short Project Name: KULTUR

Programme Name: Repositories and Preservation

Strand: Information Envirnoment, e-Resources

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

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

Start Date: 1st May 2007

End Date: 31st March 2009

Governance: RPAG?

Contact Name and Role: Victoria Sheppard, Project Manager

Brief project description:

The aim of the Kultur Consortium is to create a transferable and sustainable institutional repository model for research output in the creative and applied arts, a discipline area where repository development is so far underdeveloped. The project will investigate a policy and technical framework for creating a multimedia, multifunctional repository, applicable both to specialist institutions and departments across the sector, and by extension to potential cross-domain users, museums, galleries and performing arts with whom there are strong links within these disciplines. The project is focused both at the technical level, primarily through the software configuration and deployment of EPrints.org, and at the institutional level by developing effective practice for managing multimedia deposit, population and advocacy, dissemination and preservation. An important output is the transfer of experience and expertise across the sector to support those working in the field to translate their mode of scholarly communication into digital form.

Outputs:

• A working model of a sustainable institutional repository for research output in the visual and applied arts providing a framework for effective practice in managing and promoting non-text based research outputs.
• A transferable model of an uber repository based on providing flexibility in matching metadata and indexing to discipline needs.
• An application of a model of shared practice across the sector between a mature repository in the research sector and other HE institutions.
• A metadata, preservation and access framework as an exemplar for managing material in the visual and creative arts compatible with evolving international standards and the work of a national datacentre (Visual Arts Data Service).
• A framework for cross-sectoral, cross-domain partnership in the visual and creative arts.

Comments:

As at 27th January 2009:- Most current outputs are dissemination  and advocacy documents. I can’t find any link to the pilot repository mentioned in the project progress reports. Maybe it was never meant to be made public? Main ouputs of note are from the ‘environment assessment’ work package. There is little or no evidence of the outputs for work packages 3 to 9 on the KULTUR project website.

Output – ART – Semantic Annotation of Papers: Interface & ENrichment Tool (SAPIENT)

Output Name:  Output – ART – Semantic Annotation of Papers: Interface & ENrichment Tool (SAPIENT)

Title: Semantic Annotation of Papers: Interface & ENrichment Tool (SAPIENT)
Date Released: 13 October 2008

URI for Output:  http://www.aber.ac.uk/compsci/Research/bio/art/sapient/

Summary of contents:

The first release of SAPIENT, the ART Tool for the annotation of general scientific papers has been circulated to annotators.

Output – CURVE – Reuse Strategy

Title: Reuse Strategy

Pages: all

Summary of contents:
The document provides a thorough outline of the design use and management of IPeLOs (interprofessional e-learning objects).
It includes a section on overarching Reuse Principles, and outline workflows and checklists of critical questions for the supply, manage, and consume processes.

The strategy is for a particular type of formal learning object created specifically for the purpose of reusable sharing.
“IPeLOs are designed and constructed to facilitate reuse. This means they must be, to some extent, generalised. They do not contain information specific to a location, organisation, instructor, time or course. Any inbuilt bias to a region or culture is explicit. They do not contain hyperlinks to URLs which are restricted to particular groups of authorised users.”p4

Comments:
The document provides a researched strategy for the design and creation of formal commissioned LO’s for sharing and reuse.

The success or failure of the strategy is outwith the scope of the document, but it should be clear that this is not intended to be a generic strategy for sharing learning materials nor can it be easily transferred to most extant learning materials.

Date Released: 12th Nov 2007

URI for Output: http://cuba.coventry.ac.uk/curve/files/2008/05/ur_reuse_strategy_v021.doc