Output – KULTUR – Institutional Profile: University College for the Creative Arts

Title: Institutional Profile: University College for the Creative Arts
Number of pages or page numbers: pp 6-7
Section: Summation

Date Released: 27th March 2008

URI for Output: http://kultur.eprints.org/docs/Microsoft%20Word%20-%20UCCA%20profile%208%20April%20online%20version.pdf

Summary of contents:

A few observations of interest w.r.t. repositories for the arts in the ‘summation’ section of the report:

“The project will need to engage, advocate and secure ‘buy-in’ from the academic community. It will be important to establish an understanding of the culture of each college so that local differences or requirements can be taken into account. We will need to create a network of contact with key individuals and interest groups across the institution with which to communicate and gain direction on the project. Following on from this it will be imperative to be able to understand, interpret and communicate the range of differing concerns with the project team so that development is accurately representative.”

Additional information:

Comments:

Advertisements

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:

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 – 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

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 – 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