Output – SAFIR: Policy – overview

Title: York Digital Library: Digital Library Policy

Pages: all
Date Released: 12 Feb 2009

URI for Output: https://vle.york.ac.uk/bbcswebdav/xid-324531_3

Summary of contents:
This document provides the policies of York Digital Library; the digital library has stated policies on:

  • Metadata
  • Code and documentation
  • Resources
  • Content [scope]
  • Submission
  • Rights
  • Preservation

York Digital Library has chosen to use Creative Commons (NC ND BY) licenses for its Metadata, documentation, and resources (where possible).


Although the sample policies are in themselves useful – covering things like takedown policy – the explicit use of Creative Commons for the work of the digital library team is worth noting both for its use and for the instituional view it indicates.

Project – Defining Image Access

Project Name: Defining Image Access

Short Project Name: Defining Image Access

Programme Name: Repositories and Preservation

Strand: Discovery to Delivery

JISC Project URIhttp://www.jisc.ac.uk/whatwedo/programmes/reppres/definingimageaccess.aspx

Project URIhttp://imageweb.zoo.ox.ac.uk/wiki/index.php/Defining_Image_Access

Start Date: 1 January 2007

End Date: 30 June 2007

Governance: JISC IIE

Contact Name and Role: David Shotton(Principal Investigator)

Brief project description:

Investigate what is required to develop and provide discovery and delivery interoperability for research image data held in DSpace, EPrints and Fedora-based institutional repositories, the three main open-source software systems used within the UK HE/FE sector, using a data web approach.

Name of Trawler: Mahendra Mahey

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

Output – SAFIR: Requirements Specification – Scenarios

Title: Digital Library Project (SAFIR): Requirements Specification

Pages: 14-15
Date Released: 07 March 2008

URI for Output: https://vle.york.ac.uk/bbcswebdav/xid-89716_3

Summary of contents:
Five scenarios are presented for the use of a mulitmedia repository.
Each is focused around a key type of use; they are:

  • finding image materials
  • sharing resources, advice and guidance
  • streaming
  • archival collections
  • video materials


The five scenarios are relevant to the growing knowledge/ innovation  base connected to the e-Framework.

Output – SAFIR: Requirements specifcation – overview

Title: Digital Library Project (SAFIR): Requirements Specification

Pages: all
Date Released: 07 March 2008

URI for Output: https://vle.york.ac.uk/bbcswebdav/xid-89716_3

Summary of contents:
The document presents a requirements specification for a digital library / multimedia repository and includes an overview of the methodology used to formulate it.

This requirements specification as a whole provides a useful point of reference for any institution considering the management of these types of materials.

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:


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:


Output – KULTUR – Environmental Assessment Report

Title: Environmental Assessment Project and Literature Review
Pages 11-21
Section: 3

Date Released: 13th Feb 2008

URI for Output: http://kultur.eprints.org/docs/Environmental%20assessment%20VS%20Feb%2008.pdf

Summary of contents:

Section 3 “Issues Identified” has some useful insights. These are summarised in the report’s conclusion:

“…  Accounts of these projects give an indication of likely obstacles. In particular, they draw attention to the fact that metadata standards and copyright are made much more complicated when applied to visual, audio and moving image data. Complications arise, for example, in obtaining permission to broadcast a performance involving numerous groups and individuals, or in establishing how many and what kind of metadata records are required to usefully describe a single work.”

“In order to respond to the conceptual and practical challenges of representing
art practice in a repository, it is necessary for the project to know more about the working
habits and motivations of arts researchers. The project’s user profiles will play an
important role here. This knowledge will help us to pinpoint where a repository could fit
within the research process, knowledge which will be valuable in advocating the project.”

These points are filled out in section 3 of the report.

Additional information: