• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
dorsdl2006-arrow
 

dorsdl2006-arrow

on

  • 728 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
728
Views on SlideShare
728
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
2
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    dorsdl2006-arrow dorsdl2006-arrow Presentation Transcript

    • The ARROW Project: A consortial institutional repository solution, combining Open Source and proprietary software David Groenewegen ARROW Project Manager
    • Outline
      • Why did we want a repository?
      • What is ARROW?
      • What is VITAL and how does it relate to Fedora?
      • Where is ARROW now?
      • What have we learnt so far?
      • ARROW Stage-2
    • Why did we want a repository?
        • provides a platform for promoting research output in the ARROW context
        • safeguards digital information
        • gathers an institution’s research output into one place
        • provides consistent ways of finding similar objects
        • allows information to be preserved over the long term
        • allows information from many repositories to be gathered and searched in one step
        • enables resources to be shared, while respecting access constraints (when software allows access controls)
        • enables effective communication and collaboration between researchers
    • What is ARROW?
      • ARROW Project:
        • Originally funded for 3 years until December 31, 2006, recently extended for 12 months.
        • Funded by the Australian Commonwealth Department of Education, Science and Training (DEST), under the Research Information Infrastructure Framework for Australian Higher Education.
      • “ The ARROW project will identify and test software or solutions to support best practice institutional digital repositories comprising e-prints, digital theses and electronic publishing.”
    • Who is ARROW?
      • Founding ARROW Partners:
        • Monash University (lead institution)
        • National Library of Australia
        • The University of New South Wales
        • Swinburne University of Technology.
      • ARROW Members:
        • University of South Australia
        • University of Southern Queensland
        • Queensland University of Technology
        • Central Queensland University
        • University of Western Sydney
        • La Trobe University
        • 4 other RUBRIC members are expected to sign soon
      • Together they form the ARROW Community
    • What did the ARROW project set out to achieve?
        • Solution for storing any digital output
          • Initial focus on print equivalents – theses, journal articles
          • Now looking at other datasets, learning objects
        • More than just Open Access – some things need to be restricted
          • Copyright
          • Confidentiality/ethical considerations
          • Work in progress
    • What did the ARROW project set out to achieve? (2)
        • Meeting DEST reporting requirements
          • Expected move to Research Quality Framework (RQF) has increased the focus on repositories
        • Employ Open Standards
          • Making sure the data is transferable in the future
        • Deliver Open Source Tools back to the FEDORA Community
        • Solution that could offer on-going technical support and development past the end of the funding period
    • What is ARROW now?
        • A development project
        • Combining Open Source and proprietary software:
          • Fedora ™
          • VITAL
          • Open Journal Services (OJS)
        • NOT a centralised or hosting solution
          • Every member has their own hardware and software
    • Why Fedora?
      • ARROW wanted:
        • a robust, well architected underlying platform
        • a flexible object-oriented data model
        • to be able to have persistent identifiers down to the level of individual datastreams, accommodating its compound content model
        • to be able to version both content and disseminators (think of software behaviours for content)
        • clean and open exposure of APIs with well-documented SOAP/REST web services.
    • ARROW and Fedora ™
      • Since the beginning of the project ARROW has worked actively and closely with Fedora ™ and the Fedora Community
        • ARROW Project Technical Architect is a member of Fedora Advisory Board
        • ARROW Project Technical Architect sits on Fedora Development Group
        • This is reinforced by VTLS Inc.
        • VTLS President is a member of Fedora Advisory Board
        • VITAL Lead Developer sits on Fedora Development Group
    • Partnering for success, support and survivability
      • ARROW needed to partner with a developer who could not only produce the software but could provide ongoing user support and development after December 31, 2006
      • Why VTLS Inc.?
        • VTLS wanted to be a development partner
        • Had begun work on a repository solution already
        • Familiar with library sector
        • Willing to produce a combination of a proprietary solution, Fedora and other Open Source software
    • What is VITAL?
      • ARROW specified software created and fully supported by VTLS Inc. built on top of Fedora ™ that currently provides:
        • VITAL Manager
        • VITAL Portal
        • VITAL Access Portal
        • VALET - Web Self-Submission Tool
        • Batch Loader Tool
        • Handles Server (CNRI)
        • Google Indexing and Exposure
        • SRU / SRW Support
    • VITAL architecture overview Fedora ™ Indexes Handles server Web services Google exposure SRU/SRW Batch Loading Tool Access Portal Valet Vital Manager
    • Where are we now? 2004
        • Developed architecture
        • Selected, tested Fedora ™ OJS
        • VITAL 1.0
      2005
        • VITAL 1.3
        • Started populating repositories
        • OAI-PMH harvesting
        • ARROW Discovery Service
        • Open sources tools released
        • VITAL 2.0
      2006
        • VITAL 2.1
        • VITAL 3.0 (in test)
        • Authentication/Authorization Services
        • Enhanced Content Models
        • Usage and access statistics
        • User configurable interfaces
        • Movement towards a pure Web based interface
        • Support for OAI sets
        • Integration with 3rd party modules like federated search
      2007 ARROW Stage-2
    • ARROW Repositories
      • Monash University
        • http://arrowprod.lib.monash.edu.au:8000/access
      • University of New South Wales
        • http://arrow.unsw.edu.au/
      • Swinburne University of Technology
        • http://researchbank.swinburne.edu.au/access/
      • Central Queensland University
        • http://library-resources.cqu.edu.au:8888/access/
    • Implementation decisions
      • Atomistic or compound objects?
      • Descriptive metadata
          • adopt one or enjoy MANY types?
          • JHOVE validation
          • JHOVE metadata extraction
      • Use cases and content modelling
      • What import /export formats?
          • honouring what standards?
          • validation, when and how?
    • Policy frameworks and decisions
      • Direct or mediated deposit?
          • managing workflows
      • Open or closed access?
          • LDAP authentication?
          • XACML authorisation
            • creating policies -who can do what?
            • Shibboleth
      • Persistent URL format?
      • External searching and harvesting?
          • OAI-PMH
          • spidering
      • post ARROW project support
      • For more detail see Andrew Treloar’s talk at: http://www.lib.virginia.edu/digital/fedoraconf/schedule.shtml
    • External searching and harvesting
      • Realised need to develop a discovery service for Australian institutional repositories
        • The ARROW Discovery Service developed by the NLA, provides consolidated searching across many Australian repositories, (uses OAI-PMH)
        • Picture Australia developed by the NLA, harvesting image collections (uses AOI-PMH)
        • SRU/SRW interface released as Open Source Software
      • Harvesting
        • Google and other service providers
    • ARROW Discovery Service
      • http://search.arrow.edu.au/
      • Provides a national resource discovery service including:
        • providing an appropriate search interface
          • simple search, advanced search, & browse options
        • contributing to other networks
          • OAIster, Yahoo, Google
        • Ensuring appropriate local institutional and national “branding” of the service
          • occurs throughout the ADS interface and the exchanged metadata
        • providing appropriate subject-based access
          • The Australian Standard Research Classification list
    • Open Source contributions for Fedora
      • Already made:
        • SRU/SRW
        • HANDLES
        • JHOVE Metadata extraction
        • Exposure to Web indexing crawlers.
      • Coming in 2006:
        • LDAP Authentication
        • Administrative Reporting
        • Bulk Citation Export
        • Statistics for Public Users
        • Metadata Synchronisation Requirements
      • Upcoming VITAL Version 3.0
        • Authentication/Authorization Services.
          • XACML (Policy enforcement)
        • Enhanced Content Models.
        • Usage and access statistics.
        • User configurable interfaces.
        • Movement towards a pure Web based interface.
        • Support for OAI sets.
        • Integration with 3rd party modules like federated search.
        • Access to content via VTLS reseller arrangements.
      Future of VITAL
    • What have we learnt so far?
      • Multiple partners are good:
        • Sharing of information and experiences
        • Sharing of development work
        • Multiple perspectives on issues
      • and bad:
        • Multiple perspectives on issues
        • Scope creep
        • Managing expectations
        • Pressure on the project management team
        • Pressure on development team and partners
        • Deadline conflicts
      • Software development feels slow, both commercial and open source
      • Development with a commercial partner can be tricky
    • What have we learnt so far? (2)
      • That there aren’t enough real standards in this area
      • Open versus closed repositories, or information management versus accessibility is a BIG ISSUE
      • Repositories are only partly about software - advocacy, policy, institutional engagement and grunt work need equal attention
      • Constraints of dealing with copyright
    • ARROW Stage 2
      • Funded to the end of 2007
      • Supporting the RQF
      • Creative development of institutional repositories
      • Supporting Australian engagement with institutional repositories
      • Building partnerships to further enhance repositories
      • Identifier Management Infrastructure for e-Research Resources (PILIN)
    • Some changes in direction
      • Trying to do more development ourselves to:
        • Spread the knowledge
        • Leverage our use of Fedora
      • Want to work with VTLS in new ways
        • Contract is finished now
        • Some work we need to do is too local for VTLS
        • VINES
    • Supporting the RQF
      • Inclusion of all discrete pieces of evidence, regardless of content type
        • Including traditional text evidence and less traditional evidence, such as art works and music compositions or performances
      • Provision for maximum possible exposure of content
        • Subject to copyright constraints.
      • Inclusion of metadata and links to content in commercial resources.
      • Reporting to DEST through multiple channels
        • Such as Research Master, or direct to the repository.
      • Support for access and authorisation regimes.
      • Retention of all evidence
        • To build institutional research profiles over time.
    • Creative development of ARROW institutional repositories
      • Inclusion of multimedia and creative works produced in Australian universities.
        • To date have had limited exposure nationally or internationally.
      • Addition of annotation capability
      • Inclusion of datasets and other research output not easily provided in any other publishing channel.
        • In conjunction with the DART (ARCHER) Project.
      • Exploration of the research-teaching nexus by facilitating multiple uses of content held in repositories.
      • Integration with or development of new tools that will allow value added services for repositories.
        • For instance the creation of e-portfolios or CVs of research output of individual academics .
    • ARROW Projects
      • ARROW is planning a number of local projects targeting local and community needs. These will interact directly with Fedora ™ and VITAL where appropriate. The development is being done within the ARROW Community.
    • Partner projects in 2007
      • Gathering research output from websites (UNSW)
      • Displaying outputs through websites (portfolios) (UNSW/Swinburne)
      • Understanding workflows and needs of academics (UNSW/Swinburne)
      • Improving the ARROW Discovery Service (NLA)
        • OAI Sets support
        • Greater automation
        • Statistics capture and reporting
        • Integration of e-journals
      • Usability analysis (Swinburne)
      • Data needs survey (Swinburne)
      • Building Rules for Access to Controlled Electronic Resources (BRACER) (Monash)
    • Supporting Australian engagement with institutional repositories
      • FRODO and MERRI projects have resulted in a significant leap in the levels of understanding and engagement with repositories in Australia,
      • Now the challenge is to translate this into substantial repository activity.
      • The newly formed ARROW Community is intended to provide a central platform for support and the exchange of information .
    • The ARROW community
      • Sharing knowledge and experiences
      • Annual meeting – inaugural one September 8, 2006
      • Regular workshops
      • Working Groups
        • ARROW Repository Managers Group
        • ARROW Development Group
      • Possibly groups for:
        • Portfolio design
        • Metadata: METS, MODS, DC and the future
      • Discussion group
        • GoogleGroup
      • ARROW provides logistical and admin support
    • Building partnerships to further enhance repositories
      • Through partnerships with other projects ARROW will endeavor to use best practice and new innovations to further enhance Australian repositories beyond their current limitations.
      • These include:
        • APSR: http://www.apsr.edu.au/
        • DART/ARCHER: http:// www.dart.edu.au /
        • ICE: http://ice.usq.edu.au/
        • MAMS: http://www.melcoe.mq.edu.au/projects/MAMS/
        • OAK-Law: http://www.oaklaw.qut.edu.au/
        • RUBRIC: http://www.rubric.edu.au/
    • PILIN - Persistent Identifiers and Linking INfrastructure
      • Growing realisation that sustainable identifier infrastructure is required to deal with the vast amount of digital assets being produced and stored within universities.
      • This is a particular challenge for e-research communities where massive amounts of data are being generated without any means of managing this data over any length of time.
      • The broad objectives are to:
        • Support adoption and use of persistent identifiers and shared persistent identifier management services by the project stakeholders.
        • Plan for a sustainable, shared identifier management infrastructure that enables persistence of identifiers and associated services over archival lengths of time.
    • Questions?
      • ARROW Project
        • [email_address]
        • http://arrow.edu.au/
      • ARROW Project Manager
        • [email_address]