Project – UPlaCe

Project Name: UPlaCe

Programme Name: Repositories and Preservation

Strand: Information environment, e-Resources, e-Research, e-Administration, e-Learning

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

Project URI: http://www.uplace.org.uk/

Start Date: 1st April 2007

End Date: 28th April 2009

Governance: RPAG?

Contact Name and Role: Dr Neil Witt, Project Manager

Brief project description:

The University of Plymouth Colleges (UPC) Faculty at the University of Plymouth has a requirement to develop a repository which will meet the needs of a regional partnership and is capable of storing a range of materials.

There is a requirement for sharing good practice and making learning materials available to students in a manner which places students’ needs at the heart of their learning experience in both the college and work based learning environments. The UPC Repository will allow the sharing of materials across a network of colleges and allow staff access to a range of support materials. The lessons learned in delivering and using the UPC Repository across institutions would be transferable to other partnerships within HE and HE in FE.

Outputs:

  • a repository for the UPC faculty
  • workflows involved in the storage of material from across multiple partner colleges in a digital repository
  • published procedures and training and support materials
  • system related documentation
  • a case study on the process of creating a digital repository
  • reports for publication related to implementation, outcomes and impact
  • outcomes of this project will also be written up as a briefing document for UPC and its partner colleges

Comments:

Advertisements

Output – LIFE2 – Economic evaluation of LIFE methodology

Output Name: Output – LIFE2 – Economic evaluation of LIFE methodology

Title: Economic evaluation of LIFE methodology
Number of pages or page numbers: 26 pages
Section:

Date Released:

URI for Output: http://eprints.ucl.ac.uk/7684

Summary of contents: Validation of the economic modelling and methodology for the Lifecycle and Generic Preservation formulae developed in Phase 1 of the LIFE project, with technical and presentational development of the models. Cloudlake Consulting Oy carried out this evaluation.  The major conclusions are on page 16:

All in all there seem to be two major application areas for the LIFE models:

  • Institutional repositories, which span a range of object types that are likely to populate the IR of a particular university.
  • Specialised collections of national libraries and similar organisations, which have a national and sometimes legal obligation to long-term archiving.
In the latter case it seems more sensible to apply the model to individual collections than to
the totality of objects stored in say a national library.
In such a case it is important for a national library, which works within budget restrictions, to be able to compare the long term preservation costs of different collections, in order to make informed priority decisions. This is in contrast with the Institutional Repository Case.
An important point which could have far-reaching consequences for the parameters of the
model is how institutional repositories (which are numerous) are going to solve the
preservation management issue. In contrast to national institutions such as the British Library,
universities would gain very obvious benefits from sharing resources for preservation, for
instance via consortia, outsourcing, using external service providers etc. A good case is for instance the technology watch function included in the model. One can argue if there is a need for every university to
duplicate this effort. A more sensible approach would be for certain service providers to
assume the responsibility for issuing guidelines.

Additional information:

Comments:

Output – Life2 – Spreadsheet for SHERPA DP Case Study

Output Name: Output – Life2 – Spreadsheet for SHERPA DP Case Study

Title: Spreadsheet for SHERPA DP Case Study
Number of pages or page numbers: 4 tabs

Date Released:27 November 2008

URI for Output: http://eprints.ucl.ac.uk/9062/3/9062.xls

Summary of contents:This spreadsheet contains the exact costings for the SHERPA DP Case Study.  The  Spreadsheet has 4 tabs

Tab1 – Introduction

Tab2 – Life Cycle Processes and Costs

Tab3 – Acoronyms and staff costs

Tab4  – Summary

Additional information:    Useful spreadsheet containing costings.
Comments:

Output – IncReASe: Questionnaire

Title: Questionnaire – summary

Number of pages or page numbers: web page

Section:

Date Released: Post March 2008

URI for Output:http://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/increase/quest_summary.html

Summary of contents:

of 330 respondents.

  • 70% hadn’t heard of institutional repository (WRRO)
  • 65% were unaware of funders Open Access policies
  • 57% did not know if there was a Open Access repository for their discipline
  • 78% did not submit details of their publications to any systems outside the university

‘Top three services that might encourage people to use WRRO:

  1. Statistics about publications (62%)
  2. Links to papers from personal websites (57%)
  3. RSS feeds (43%)’

Output – IncReASe: Database Prevalence Report – Full text issues

Title: Database Prevalence Report

Page numbers: 1, 5, 6

Section: Key findings,

Date Released: April 2008

URI for Output: http://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/increase/milestone10_database_prevalence_report_v1.0.pdf

Summary of contents:

‘Most full text is distributed across the web pages of individual researchers; researchers may be using the local content management system to organise their files – but often the files are located on local drives.’ p1

‘Most full text collections could be described as grey literature.’ p1

Percentages of full text available are low – one 12% for working papers in one institution; mostly under 4% availab;e . p5

Output – SWORD – Case Studies

Title: SWORD case studies

Date Released: November 2007 to July 2008

URI for Output: http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/repositories/digirep/index/SWORD_case_studies

Summary of contents: Four case studies were commissioned to demonstrate the requirement for and use of the SWORD profile for deposit.

Additonal information:

Case study 1 : arXiv

Abstract: “The arXiv e-print archive (http://arxiv.org/) has for many years used an ad-hoc automated upload interface to accept submissions from proxies (overlay and other journals also posting open-access copies of articles to arXiv) and from our remote submission site in France (HAL, http://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/). In collaboration with Microsoft, we are working to produce a new interface to allow automated upload of conference articles from the popular Conference Management Toolkit site (CMT, http://cmt.research.microsoft.com/cmt/). We are implementing the SWORD profile of Atom at arXiv to facilitate these uploads.”

Case study 2 : SOURCE

Information at http://flickr.com/photos/dff1978/1533681354/

Case study 3 : SPECTRa

The SPECTRa web application allows for the quick and easy deposition of chemistry data in a range of formats. The original implementation works against the DSpace Lightweight Network interface, since the SWORD did not exist at the time SPECTRa was developed. This is a limitation, since the installed base of the DSpace LNI is extremely small. To ameliorate this limitation, the function of deposit is performed through a plugin mechanism, whereby plugins can be developed for other deposit protocols. A SWORD plugin for SPECTRa will help to achieve two main goals: –

1) Increase the utility of SPECTRa to the mainstream of DSpace installations

2) Allow use of SPECTRa with a range of repository softwares.

Case study 4 : White Rose Research Online

Outlines automatic deposit in a funder-mandated repository from a local repository. Case study outlines:

1. Implementing the EPrints SWORD package on the White Rose server.
2. Proof of concept of export/import between two development repositories.
3. Workflow modelling.

Output – SWORD – Code Libraries

Title: SWORD code libraries

Date Released: 5th to 15th November 2007

URI for Output: http://sourceforge.net/project/showfiles.php?group_id=208296

Summary of contents: Code for implementing SWORD in DSpace, Fedora and EPrints is available from the Sourceforge project page, along with Java Libraries and the reference client code.

Additonal information: EPrints code is also available from http://files.eprints.org/305/