Project – EMBRACE

Project Name:

Embedding repositories & consortial enhancement

Short Project Name: EMBRACE

Programme Name:  Repositories and Preservation

Strand:  Repositories Start-Up and Enhancement

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

Project URIhttp://www.sherpa-leap.ac.uk/embrace.html

Start Date: 1 May 2007

End Date: 30 October 2008

Governance: JISC IE

Contact Name and Role:  Martin Moyle (Project Manager)

Brief project description:

EMBRACE will enhance the SHERPA-LEAP hosted repositories by improving the service architecture and by migrating the partner repositories from EPrints 2.3 to EPrints 3. The Eprints Application Profile will be implemented for the hosted repositories, and advocated to the other LEAP partners. A tool to embed citations and other information into the text of eprints at deposit will be developed, implemented for the EPrints repositories within the consortium, and made available on an open source basis to the community. A training programme will be arranged to support these technical measures.

EMBRACE will also investigate the challenges of embedding repositories of digital assets in institutional strategy. The espida toolkit will be used as a starting point for a focused investigation encompassing e-prints, e-theses, learning objects and primary data. The project will deliver a toolkit to support the institutional embedding of digital repositories.

Name of Trawler: Mahendra Mahey

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

  • Upgrade of SHERPA-LEAP repositories to EPrints 3.0, together with more robust architecture for the SHERPA-LEAP hosted repository service.
  • Implementation of and advocacy for the Eprints Application Profile.
  • Creation of a generic citation support tool for IRs, with an EPrints implementation.
  • Testing, evaluation and adaptation of the espida toolkit.
  • Report on repository strategy and sustainability, covering a number of types of digital asset, at a minimum of 3 SHERPA-LEAP institutions.
  • Consolidated generic, reusable and adaptable toolkit to support the embedding of repositories of digital assets in institutional strategy and policy.
Advertisements

Project – NAMES

Project Name: Names: Pilot national name and factual authority service

Programme Name: Repositories and Preservation Programme

Strand: Information Environment

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

Project URI: http://names.mimas.ac.uk/

Start Date: 1st May 2007

End Date:30th September 2008

Governance: RPAG

Contact Name and Role: Amanda Hill, Project Manager

Brief project description:

The project is scoping the requirements of UK institutional and subject repositories for a service that will reliably and uniquely identify individuals and institutions.

A prototype service is under development to test the various processes involved. This includes determining the most appropriate data format, setting up a test database, mapping data from different sources, populating the database with records and testing the use of the data.

This will provide important information about the future usefulness of a name authority service for institutional and subject-based repositories, and other applications beyond the repository sector.”

Outputs:

Comments:

The prototype service is now available as at 13th Jan 2009, but some development work is still to be done (acc to Names blog last paragraph).

Output – VIF: Embedding Versioning

Title: VIF: Embedding Versioning Information in an Object

Pages: webpage
Date Released: Jan2008

URI for Output: http://www.lse.ac.uk/library/vif/Framework/Object/index.html

Summary of contents:
Because it is entirely possible for users to access objects within a repository without ever seeing any metadata, VIF recommends that some versioning information is embedded into the object and suggests the following:

“It is strongly recommended that at least one of the following solutions to embed versioning information into object is advocated and used systematically within a repository:

1. ID Tags and Properties Fields
2. Cover Sheet
3. Filename
4. Watermark”

The framework provides some further details about each of these. In essence – use something and use it consistently

Comments:
Supporting interoperabilty, especially interoperability over time is reliant on being able to distinguish between versions. It maybe simple to regard ‘use something consistently’ as a standard but if a repository at least follows it’s own standard. this provides a starting point for interoperability.

Output – VIF: Version labels or taxonomies

Title: VIF: Version labels or taxonomies

Pages: webpage
Date Released: May 2008

URI for Output: http://www.lse.ac.uk/library/vif/Framework/Essential/taxonomies.html

Summary of contents:
“Clarity of versions is important; but the terminology, even for just articles, is not static or decided. Consistent usage within one repository, possibly for particular items may be achievable, such as at LSE, but care should be taken in their use and their implementation should be supported by clear policy and definition.

Explicit definition of vocabulary used is a minimum requirement if taxonomies are used.”

Suggested taxonomies are the those produced by the following projects:

Comments:
In light of their survey results (noted here: https://rrtsynthesis.wordpress.com/2009/02/03/output-vifthe-results-of-the-vif-user-requirements-study-taxonomy/ ) VIF had already noted that widespread consistency in the use of any taxonomy is unlikely. Here they have recommended some appropriate standard taxonomies and noted that within a single repository consistent use may be possible.

Output – VIF: Versioning Information – identification

Title: VIF: Essential Versioning Information

Pages: webpage
Date Released: May 2008

URI for Output: http://www.lse.ac.uk/library/vif/Framework/Essential/index.html

Summary of contents:
As well as author and title information VIF reccomends that the clear identification of an item should be supported by as much of the following information as possible. The pieces of information should be exposed by “embedding them into an object or storing them in metadata”

” 1. Defined dates
2. Identifiers
3. Version numbering
4. Version labels or Taxonomies
5. Text description”

Comments:
The VIF provides further details about each of these types of information. Where there are key recomendations they are listed in this blog as seperate entries.

The consistent provsion of this set of information would better enable repository services to locate appropriate copies from aggregated copies of the same item.

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

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:
“There is an awareness by information professionals of a trend towards a wider range of object types being created. When asked what types of material they currently stored in their repositories, 95.4% of information professionals claimed that they currently store, or plan to store, text documents with many also stating that they store, or plan to store, audio files (73.6%), datasets (77.9%), images (83.3%), learning objects (46.5%) and video files (75.3%). This can be seen to be especially positive, especially in the context of the results of the academics survey, which suggested a large number of researchers either already create or intend to create audio files (47.2%), datasets (68%), images (72.5%), learning objects (74.6%) and video files (57.6%). As expected, the vast majority also intend to continue working with text documents.”

Comments:
Survey data about snapshot of content types stored by repositories and content types created by academics; it provides one comparasion between current ‘supply’ (what can be stored) and ‘demand’ (what users want to store) which informs the sector.

The figures for non-textual materials being (or about to be stored) by repositories seem quite high given comparable stats from OpenDOAR:

Content Types in OpenDOAR Repositories - Worldwide
From: OpenDOAR

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).