This paper presents a Campus-based Publishing (CBP) project at the University of Hull, specifically an approach to developing a Campus-based Publishing Repository Integrator (CAPRI) component and its integration with Open Journal Systems (OJS) and bespoke eBook conversion modules to facilitate an overlay for the institutional Fedora repository, using a range of open source tools and Fedora’s API-A and M. The paper describes the CBP project, and justification for integration with the repository. An existing integration solution is evaluated, before a description of the development and evaluation of the CAPRI component through an invited beta test, producing ‘Umber’, an anthology of creative writing, made available in multiple electronic formats. With technical issues identified, the paper concludes by describing how the component is integrated with the CBP platform and directions for its future development.

1. Open Repositories 2012
Campus-based
Publishing Repository
Integrator
(CAPRI)
Benjamin Kay, Dr. John Whelan, Dr. TankoIshaya, Chris
Awre, Professor Martin Goodman (University of Hull)

2. Introduction
• About the University of Hull Campus-based Publishing
Platform project
• Justification for CAPRI
• Development of CAPRI
• Evaluation of CAPRI
• Conclusion and recommendations

3. Campus-based Publishing Platform
• Platform to enable Open Access publishing across range of
University publishing output
• JISC-funded project in Scholarly Communications strand
• Key features:
– Automatic conversion of submission (DOCX) to distribution
(EPUB, Kindle, PDF) formats
– Repository Integration
– Peer review models to support range of output
– Print-on-Demand

4. Campus-based Publishing Platform
• Why we chose to integrate the platform with the repository
– Development of manuscripts into publications, including
reviewer comments, traceable through repository;
– OAI-PMH repository interoperability
– Raises visibility and profile of CBPP
– Authentication and authorisation measures, backup and
disaster recovery plans, provide logical, managed location
to store artefacts

5. Campus-based Publishing Repository Integrator
(CAPRI) Justification
• Existing tools for integrating with Fedora Repository
– SWORD (swordapp.org)
– Fedora REST API Drupal Module
(github.com/dongourley/fedora_rest)
– OJS SWORD plug-in
• We had specific requirements
– Integration with automatic conversion processes and
workflow
– Population of XML templates to drive Hydra interface

6. The Aim
Draft 1..n
Versioned Artefacts Published Version
CBPP Conversion Tools
Hydra
CAPRI
Discovery
Interface
UoH CBPP
Hydra Discovery
Repo’ Interface

7. How CAPRI works
• Creates abstraction of Fedora Digital Object within platform
before communication with repository
• Properties and methods pertain to Fedora REST API-A/M
– Properties: PID, namespace, datastreams
– Methods: Get/set PID, namespace, datastreams
– Hydra-specific methods: makeHydraCompliant
• Uses Proxy design pattern to interface with REST methods
(uses PHP Pest OSS class for REST methods)
• Code sample at: http://goo.gl/bofqz

8. CAPRI Code Sample
• Constructor sets repository credentials and URL from
central config

9. CAPRI Code Sample
• Getters and setters for
Digital Object properties
• Hydra-related setters
construct additional
datastreams through
populating template XML
files

10. CAPRI Code Sample
• createObject method uses POST verb to HTTP request the
repository API URL
• Object properties passed in the URL string and POST
arguments

11. Evaluation of CAPRI
• What was user perception of CAPRI? And the wider CBPP?
• Case Studies
– Creative Publishing
• Umber
• Writing Hull
– Scholarly Publishing
• Staff and Postgraduate survey
• Staff interviews (limited)

12. Umber
• Anthology of new writing from
students, associates and staff of the
MA in Creative Writing
• 18 contributing authors
• Versioned artefacts stored privately
in the repository
• Focus group held at publication
launch event

13. Writing Hull (awaiting publication)
• Anthology of new writing from
students, associates and staff of the
MA in Creative Non-fiction
• 17 contributing authors
• Again, versioned artefacts stored
privately in the repository
• Focused survey distributed after
submission of pieces

14. Umber Results
• Some authors reticent to store versioned artefacts:
– Archiving early, artistically or otherwise incomplete work;
– Some ‘embarrassed’ by contents of early work.
• Some authors permissive to store versioned artefacts:
– Inadvertent backup tool;
– Personal aid, encouragement;
– Utilising content from previous work.

15. Writing Hull Results
• Storing versioned • Storing versioned
artefactsprivately in artefactspublically
the repository in the repository
• 67% in favor of selecting if and howartefacts are stored

16. Scholarly Evaluation
• Online survey distributed to
research-active staff and
postgraduates
• 59 participants
• Questions on perception of CAPRI

17. Scholarly Evaluation Results
• Storing versioned • Storing versioned
artefactsprivately in artefactspublically in
the repository the repository
• 90% in favor of selecting if and howartefacts are stored

18. Conclusion and Reflection
• Further development:
– Improve user perception:provide USP to those who want
green and/or gold OA publishing throughchoice of if /how
artefacts are stored
• Sharing among selected users within domain?
• Bespoke copyright & usage agreements?
• Integrate with other workflow elements?
– Continue population of repository: encourage repository
storage through CBPP by clearly communicating benefits
– Utilise existing tools:explore use of existing repository
integration tools (e.g. SWORD) with lessons learnt from CAPRI

19. Acknowledgements
• JISC for supporting the CBPP project and presentation at
this conference
• Project team, and those who helped with the project:
– School of Arts and New Media: Dr. John Whelan, Dr.
TankoIshaya
– Information Management Group – Chris Awre, Richard
Green, Simon Lamb
– Department of English – Professor Martin Goodman and
participating authors from Umber and Writing Hull
– Participants and interviewees from the scholarly
evaluation

20. Conclusion
b.kay@hull.ac.uk
linkedin.com/in/bensk