UK RepositoryNet+ a socio-technical infrastructure to support repositories

655 views

Published on

Published in: Education, Technology
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
655
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
6
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • Original repository net set up to support the Repositories and Preservation programme
  • Building on the opportunities and successes emerging from  previous programmes and investments , this strand will take a broader view to map the requirements of a repository and curation infrastructure. The focus is on open access research papers. The aims are: provide economies of scale, scope, coherence and accountability by consolidating and rationalising existing shared services and, where required, developing new shared services at national or international level enable institutions to run their systems and processes more efficiently and effectively by providing national shared services  enable ease of use of shared services provided as part of the infrastructure  scope new business models for sustainable services
  • Functional specification for service environment – what is it that we need to achieve? Providing awareness of what is available – Registries (to what end?/who for) - OpenDOAR/ROAR Depositing content in an appropriate location – Deposit tools, protocols - Repository Junction/ DepositMO Enhancing the quality of what is held – IPR/copyright information resources, metadata generation, identifier services, authority files Making use of what is held – Content aggregation and discovery services, authentication and authorisation Analysing what is held and how it is used – Citation analysis, statistics aggregation, activity data Protecting what is held over time – Preservation and curation services Holding of content – hosting a repository
  • UK RepositoryNet+ a socio-technical infrastructure to support repositories

    1. 1. A socio-technical infrastructure to support repositories Andrew Dorward EDINA UKCoRR Member’s Meeting, January 2012
    2. 2. Talk outline <ul><li>Background & rationale </li></ul><ul><li>Who’s involved? </li></ul><ul><li>The high-level plan </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Stakeholder analysis </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Wave One & Wave Two </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Out there – Open Access Publishing </li></ul><ul><li>Summary </li></ul>
    3. 3. Background <ul><li>Original Repository Net 2007-09 </li></ul><ul><li>Depot (continued as OpenDepot.org) </li></ul><ul><li>IRS (continued as irs.mimas.ac.uk/) </li></ul><ul><li>RSP (still going!) </li></ul><ul><li>RRT (ouputs like SWORD still going) </li></ul>
    4. 4. Rationale <ul><li>UK RepositoryNet+ : </li></ul><ul><li>enable institutions to run their systems more efficiently by providing national shared services </li></ul><ul><ul><li>consolidate existing ones  </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>develop new  services </li></ul></ul><ul><li>enable ease of use of shared services provided as part of the infrastructure  </li></ul><ul><li>scope new business models for sustainable services </li></ul>
    5. 5. Who’s involved? <ul><li>JISC and oversight group </li></ul><ul><li>EDINA </li></ul><ul><li>Services & Innovation Partnership Group </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Mimas </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Nottingham and Southampton </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Other component owners </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Innovation Zone (UKOLN) </li></ul>
    6. 6. High-Level Plan Preparation: Stakeholder analysis Functional requirements Select components Implementation: Wave One Integrate components into a production environment Sustainability business models Other JISC Programmes (Open Access Implementation Group, Research Information Management, etc.) Implementation: WaveTwo Service enhancement Integrate new components JISC Service Portfolio Review Jan 2011 2012 Oct Mar Apr Jul 2013 Jan Oct Aug
    7. 7. Stakeholder analysis <ul><li>Institutional view </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Repository Managers via UKCoRR </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Research administrators via ARMA </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Researchers via IR managers </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Research funders </li></ul><ul><ul><li>RCUK, Wellcome Trust </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Publishers </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Green and Gold </li></ul></ul>
    8. 8. <ul><li>Validated EDINA view of Repository Landscape </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Proved initial theory correct </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Assured us there were no gaps we had missed </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>BUT did not provide new feature sets to develop in functional areas </li></ul></ul><ul><li>How to take this forward? </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Refocus for final report (March 2012) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Concentrate on use cases based on functional areas, eg publisher deposits, PI searches, IR Manager benchmarks, funder requires statistics </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Defining Wave 2 functionality </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Define functionality for eg Curation micro-services in parallel </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Feature set to be built out in integrated platform September 2012 – March 2013 </li></ul></ul>Stakeholder Analysis: what we learned
    9. 9. The problem landscape….
    10. 10. Eval Academic reader researcher Research Outcomes UKPMC HEI Institution [OA mandate] Library CRIS Institutional Repository Publisher author(s) editor referee teacher student P.I . journal monograph Licensed/ tollgate access to Publisher’s Final Copy (PFC) Rich Picture: Actors, Agency & Relationships for Report, Deposit & Access ARMA Research Award reporting Deposit of metadata/text of Authors’ Final Copy (AFC) Digital Library curation micro - services Research Excellence Framework metrics Subject Repository stewardship budgets NORA UK Research Funder [OA mandate] HEFCE, SFC … EU RCUK Wellcome Trust SWORD CERIF UKCoRR EU
    11. 11. Supported Activites Publishers Academics Institutions Funders Reader Author P.I. Teacher Faculty Research Awards Institutional Repository Subject Repository Funders Repository Monograph Journal Article CRIS Library Open Access Research Information Management Research Grant Office
    12. 12. Functional requirements <ul><li>Providing awareness of what is available </li></ul><ul><li>Depositing content in an appropriate location </li></ul><ul><li>Enhancing the quality of what is held </li></ul><ul><li>Making use of what is held </li></ul><ul><li>Analysing what is held and how it is used </li></ul><ul><li>Protecting what is held over time </li></ul><ul><li>Holding content </li></ul>
    13. 13. Components by SIPG and functional Category ROAR University of Southampton OAR-J Broker EDINA OPEN DOAR University of Nottingham RoMEO Juliet Open Depot ORI IRS MIMAS IRUS-UK NAMES2 REPUK Innovation UKOLN CORE Linked data/mobile Open University Search, Aggregation and Text Mining Statistics, Reporting and Benchmarking Relevant Registries Deposit Tools Metadata Quality, eg Naming Authority
    14. 14. Components Summary ROAR OAR-J OPEN DOAR RoMEO Juliet Open Depot ORI IRS IRUS-UK NAMES2 REPUK CORE Search, Aggregation and Text Mining Statistics, Reporting and Benchmarking Relevant Registries Deposit Tools Metadata Quality, eg Naming Authority Authoritative, manually curated registry of OA repositories, combined with harvested metadata Registry of OA repositories compiled by automatically harvesting metadata Organisation and Repository Identification – registry of all IRs Centralised service for collection of OA usage statistics Centralised Naming Authority for the UK assigning identifiers to organisations and individuals engaged in research Aggregated set of metadata for development Search, aggregation, full-text mining for OA repositories Search, aggregation, data-mining for all Institutional Repositories Database containing publisher policies on Open Access Database containing research funders’ policies on Open Access Virtual OA repository for researchers. Also redirects to relevant OA IR or SR using OAR-J Broker and ORI Identifies and directs researchers of multi-authored works to relevant OA repository(ies)
    15. 15. SIPG Components showing common/shared functionality <ul><li>Notes: </li></ul><ul><li>Collision Zones’ in 2 areas: Search, Aggregation and Text Mining; Relevant Registries </li></ul><ul><li>In Deposit Tools, Open Depot and the OAR-J Broker are developed in tandem, are mutually dependent and can be seen to have complementary functionality </li></ul>ROAR University of Southampton OAR-J Broker EDINA OPEN DOAR University of Nottingham RoMEO Juliet Open Depot ORI IRS MIMAS IRUS-UK NAMES2 REPUK Innovation UKOLN CORE Linked data/mobile Open University
    16. 16. Component selection <ul><li>Open, accountable, fair process </li></ul><ul><li>Evidence gathering now </li></ul><ul><li>JISC oversight group </li></ul><ul><li>Selection to be made Feb 2012 </li></ul>
    17. 17. O A Publishing – PLoS ONE Number of publications each quarter since 2006, when PLoS ONE launched. Capture article metrics: ■ Article usage statistics - HTML pageviews, PDF downloads and XML downloads ■ Citations from the scholarly literature – currently from Web of Science, PubMed Central, Scopus and CrossRef ■ Comments – left by readers of each article ■ Notes – left by readers of each article ■ Blog posts – aggregated from Nature Blogs, Bloglines and ResearchBlogging. ■ Ratings – left by readers of each article
    18. 18. PLoSOne: article usage metrics
    19. 19. OA going mainstream….
    20. 20. Summary <ul><li>UK Repository Net+ building sustainable shared services for you </li></ul><ul><li>Scoping stage completed </li></ul><ul><li>Services delivered March 2012 onwards </li></ul>Questions?

    ×