The SONEX Workgroup for the Analysis of Repository Interoperability-Related Issues: a Summary of Activities
El Grupo de Trabajo SONEX para elanálisis de cuestiones relativas a la interoperabilidad de repositorios: resumen de actividades Pablo de Castro, GrandIR – email@example.com Peter Burnhill, EDINA National Data Centre – firstname.lastname@example.org
Estructura de la presentación• Cinco secciones con pausas intermedias para Q&A y discusión1. Una breve historia del Grupo SONEX, con énfasis en la incorporación de contenidos a los repositorios2. Algunos proyectos de interés relacionados con SONEX y financiados por el JISC3. Cómo el modelo de análisis de SONEX se extiende a la gestión de datos de investigación – con referencias a algunos proyectos en curso4. Cómo el modelo de análisis de SONEX se extiende a las componentes de servicio del proyecto UKRepositoryNet+5. Cuestiones abiertas/Open issues - Cuál es el valor archivístico de la Copia Final de Autor? - Hacia la hegemonía de la Vía Dorada? - Datos suplementarios/supplementary files y más
SONEX are…As of Nov09 the workgroup coordinator Pablode Castro changed affiliation from SpanishNational Research Council (CSIC) to Carlos IIIUniversity Madrid, and Richard Jones(Symplectic Ltd) became a member of thegroup in Apr10 replacing Jim Downing.
SONEX: Scholarly Output Notification and Exchange• The goal: populating (then) nearly-empty repositories - focus onresearch papers (the multi-authored, multi-institution default case study)• The procedure: an international think-tank with own institutionalactivity in the area and international connections to running projects - Identifying deposit opportunities as deposit use cases - The group philosophy: not a coding project (not even a project) - "no power, no responsibility" - because of that we had influence and language
SONEX usecase scenario III: Funder-mandated deposit• Meeting funder mandates• Subject-based repositories as a potential document source SONEX usecase scenario IV: Deposit via personal software • Direct ingest from author’s desktop • Strongly relying upon Sword-based workflow
(Potential) SONEX usecase scenario V:are IRs a proper target for research data deposit?
Summing up: Section 1 on SONEX work• Began with interoperability deposit opportunity as the priority• Take the multi-authored, multi-institution research paper as default• Review existing deposit projects• Develop use case analysis• Key was think not have to do the work ourselves: think tank thathelped form framwork and language• JISC then acted to commission a set of deposit projects alongSONEX identified deposit worklines
Measuring success of strategies to promote deposit • Measuring success for particular deposit strategies: much harder than getting a general picture • Specific questions should be asked to repository managers, such as: - was any given automated deposit strategy used for content ingest purposes? - could an approximate amount of items thus ingested be estimated as a percentage of total item input? http://www.rsp.ac.uk/grow/measuring-success/
And in the meantime, outside JISC Deposit programme… http://grandirblog.blogspot.com.es/2012/03/creciente-adopcion-de-cerif-como.html
SHERPA RoMEO involved in CRIS End of section 2: Deposit projects
What SONEX does for JISC MRD• Reporting on meetings, activities,new approaches the SONEX way:with a focus on internationalconnections and connecting theanalysis to previous work• Joint SONEX-Sword work foranalysis of Dataset deposit use cases• Providing a conceptual frameworkto Research Data Management• Examination of specific issues: areIRs suitable for research data storageand management?
Researcher View (Without Repositories)Principal Investigator (PI) Publisher monograph Publisher’sleads research team Final Copy researcher (PFC) journal P.I. author(s) Research Award reporting about Outcomes <AwardID> Research Funders £ University <AwardID>
General Landscape (Without Repositories) Publisher monograph Publisher’s Final Copy researcher (PFC) journal P.I. author(s) Research Publisher’s Award reporting Platform about Outcomes Licensed / tollgate $ access Customer LibraryResearch Funders University
Landscape With Green OA Repositories Added Publisher monograph Publisher’s Final Copy <DOI> (PFC) researcher journal P.I. author(s) Licensed/ tollgate Subject access Deposit of metadata/text of Repository Authors’ Final CopyResearch (AFC) <DOI> SWORD DigitalAward <AwardID> Libraryreporting Research Outcomes Institutional Repository <AwardID> CERIF RCUK Wellcome EU Trust Custodian Customer Library Research Funders HEI [OA mandate] Institution HEFCE, SFC … <AwardID> [OA mandate]
Landscape: Actors, Agency & Relationships for Report, Deposit & Access teacher editor Publisher monograph student Academic referee Publisher’s Final Copy researcher (PFC) journal P.I. author(s) Subject Repository Deposit of metadata/text of SWORD Authors’ Final CopyResearch (AFC) <DOI> Digital reader LibraryAwardreporting Research Institutional Licensed Outcomes Repository / CERIF tollgate Custodian access RCUK Wellcome EU Trust Customer <DOI> Library Research Funders CRIS HEI [OA mandate] Institution [OA mandate] HEFCE, SFC …
A Simpler View of Repository Landscape Monograph Teacher Article Journal Reader Academics Publishers Author P.I. Subject Repository Open Acces Institutional Repository s Funders Repository Research Research Informatio CRIS Library Awards n Faculty Institution Funders s Managem Research Grant Office ent
High-Level Plan Plan toKey DeliverablesJISC-funded Project with Build an Infrastructure2011 2012 2013Aug Oct Jan Apr Jul Oct Jan Mar JISC Programme Outputs & Dependencies (Scholarly Comms, Research Information Management, etc.) WP1: Project Management & Reporting Core Project Major Review Re-plan Checkpoint Re-plan Checkpoint Final Documents Checkpoint Report WP2a: Scope Production Environment Scoping Study WP2b: Develop and Maintain Production Environment Initial Production Environment (PE) & Description Production Environment Service Desk WP3: Scope Components: Tools & Services Component Catalogue Blueprint Processes Gap analysis & use cases WP5a: Develop Service Suite Phase 1 Phase 1 Shortlist WP5b: Develop Shared Service Suite Phase 2 Phase 1 Components in PE Phase 2 Shortlist Phase 2 Components in PE Partnership Arrangements Phase 1 Partnership Arrangements Phase 2 WP4: Foster Partnerships Consumers & Service Providers for Service Components Stakeholder Analysis & Communications Plan Engagement Strategy WP6: SDPR* *SDPR = Service Development Process Re-engineering Component Lifecycle Model & Processes for Embedding WP7: Service Sustainability Market Analysis Sustainability Options Component Business Cases Sustainability Plan
Stakeholder EngagementInstitutional view Repository managers Research administrators (on research reporting) Researchers??Research funders RCUK, Wellcome TrustPublishers Green and Gold
Stakeholder Analysis: what we learnedValidated the Repository Landscape Proved initial understanding correct Reassurance that there were no gaps in understanding or landscape mappingHow to take this forward ? Concentrate on use cases based on functional areas, eg publisher deposits, PIs, IR manager benchmarks, funder requires statisticsNeeded to sketch the vision of what can be provided in order to extract user requirements within and beyond what is done by existing components in the functional areas
Components for Wave 1Classification and Recommendations
12 Components from (6) Owners: by functional area OpenDOAR ROAR REPUK RoMEO University of Innovation Southampton University of Nottingham Juliet UKOLN Open Depot ORI IRS IRUS-UK CORE Linked data/mobile RJ Broker Open University NAMES2 EDINA MIMAS Aggregation, Text mining & Search Benchmarking, Statistics and Report Constructing Relevant Registries Deposit Tools Enhancing Metadata Quality
Summary of Components by Functional AreaA: Aggregation, Text mining & Search Aggregated set of metadataREPUK for development D: Deposit Tools Search, aggregation, full-textCORE mining for OA repositories RoMEO Publisher policies Search, aggregation, data- on OA depositIRS mining for all IRs Juliet Research funders’ policies on OAB: Benchmarking, Statistics and Report Open Redirect facility to OA IRs, Depot and default OA repository Centralised service for collection of OAIRUS-UK usage statistics M2M direct for multi- RJBroker authored works to OA repository(ies)C: Creating Relevant Registries OpenDOAR Authoritative, manually curated registry E: Enhancing Metadata Quality of OA repositories, combined with Naming Authority for the UK harvested metadata NAMES2 assigning identifiers to Registry of OA repositories compiled with organisations and individuals ROAR statistics in mind engaged in research Organisation based with information ORI on repositories
The purposes and functions of OpenDepot.org are two-fold:1. a repository function to ensure that all researchers can do Open Access – whether or not they belong to an institution with a repository2 a discovery/re-direct function to help populate Institutional Repositories (IRs) The Repository Junction Broker is used in OpenDepot.org for re-direct and has been developed as separate middleware
Sketch of RepositoryNet Infrastructure & Components Funders’ Subject Institutional Repositories Repositories Repositories * Hosted by consumers universities Service Desk Service Support Service Directory hacks … Rapid Service components / Innov. … … curation … Hosted by RepNet Innovation micro-services Remote* Zone RepositoryNet Production Environment
Gracias!More info on Sonex: http://sonexworkgroup.blogspot.com/ Pablo de Castro, GrandIR – email@example.com Peter Burnhill, EDINA National Data Centre – firstname.lastname@example.org
A particular slide catching your eye?
Clipping is a handy way to collect important slides you want to go back to later.