ARROW Institutional RepositoriesPresentation to the APSR / University of Tasmania Repositories Seminar 4 May 2006
Geoff PayneDirector Library Corporate
and Financial Services
Why have a repository?– Information management
• Provides a platform for promoting research output
• 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
– Collaboration
• Enables resources to be shared, while respecting access constraints (when software allows access controls)
• Enables effective communication and collaboration between researchers
ARROW project
• ARROW Consortium Partners – Monash University (Lead Institution)– University of New South Wales– Swinburne University of Technology– National Library of Australia
• October 2003 SII Grant of AU$3.66 Million over three years to identify and test solutions to establish institutional repositories at the ARROW partners
What is an Institutional Repository?
• A managed collection of digital objects • institutional in scope• with consistent data and metadata structures for
similar objects• enabling resource discovery by the “Communities of
Practice” for whom the objects are of interest• allowing read, input and export of objects to facilitate
resource sharing• respecting access constraints• sustainable over time• facilitating application of preservation strategies
Why Institutional Repositories? – As Good Management of resources
– Need to safeguard digital resources generated already by institutions.
– Existing digital resources often:• are managed by grace and favour arrangements• rely on unsustainable hardware, software or
individual support • need future-proofing migration strategies
– Yet are widely used and reflect substantial investment in generating their content
Why Institutional Repositories? – As Research Enablers
– Need an enabling environment for other less technologically independent researchers
– Need to facilitate collaboration between researchers with similar interests but located in different faculties or institutions
Why Institutional Repositories?- Research Exposure and Impact
– Greater exposure & impact of institutional research outputs
• Readership is otherwise limited to subscribers to the journal in which research is published
• Better return on investment of public funds in research through greater accessibility
• Can publish online material for which printing is not financially viable
• Opportunity to expose materials other than the print friendly
• Opportunity to preserve and expose research data sets for further analysis by others
Why Institutional Repositories?- Reforming Scholarly Publishing
– Potential to reform the scholarly publishing system• Facilitate publication of research for which the
audience is too small to justify the costs traditional publication mechanisms
• Provide alternatives to expensive journals• Regain intellectual property rights over research
outputs• Achieve shorter times between output and access
Different Types of Repository Content
• An Institutional repository may be expected to store any mix of anything that can be represented digitally– Print equivalents – Research papers, Theses, books,
book chapters, archival records– Audio– Still and moving images– Multimedia objects– Learning Objects– Research data sets
ARROW - Data modelling
– Required to define how objects will be stored– Atomic objects
» Level at which an individual Persistent identifier must be applied to allow reference as part of multiple complex objects
– Retain metadata created by the users oif the objects
ARROW Metadata
– Requires metadata schemata to suit individual data models
• No requirement to shoehorn all metadata into one schema
• Each stored object can retain metadata developed for it by the community of practice which generated the object
• Maintains flexibility to store many types of digital objects in the repository
• No need to anticipate every object type now
OCLC Metadata Interoperability Core
From: Godby, Smith and Childress. 2003. “Two paths to interoperable metadata” p. 3 at
http://www.oclc.org/research/publications/archive/2003/godby-dc2003.pdf
ARROW - Summary of design criteria
– A generalised institutional repository solution for research information management
– Initial focus on managing and exposing traditional “print equivalent” research outputs
– Expanded to managing other digital research resources– Design decisions accommodate management of other digital
objects such as learning objects and research inputs such as large data sets
– Meeting the requirements of DEST research reporting and audit, and the Research Quality Framework encourages the deposit of content in ARROW repositories
Repositories - Technical Issues
– Interoperability
– Metadata
– Federated Searching
– Semantic web
– Authentication and Authorisation of users
– Rights Management
– Persistent Identifiers for digital objects
ARROW Architecture & software components
Fedora
VITAL, Fedora, OJS
VITAL Access Portal, OAI/PMH, SRU/SRW, Web Exposure
Why Fedora?
– A platform for developing ARROW application(s)
– A flexible object-oriented data model
– Persistent identifiers down to the level of individual datastreams, accommodating compound content modelling
– Versioning both content and disseminators (which can be thought of as software behaviours for content)
– ARROW required clean and open exposure of APIs with well-documented SOAP/REST web services.
Fedora satisfied these requirements
ARROW branded services profile
National Library of Australia
Swinburne
UNSW
Monash ARROW Repository Digital Object Storage using Fedora & VITAL
National Library of Australia ARROW Resource Discovery Service Index of Dublin Core metadata harvested by OAI PMH
ARROW Open Access Journal Publishing System Using OJS from Public Knowledge Project
Internet Search Engines
indexing content specifically exposed by by ARROW Repositories
Aust Digital Theses Program
Australian Theses Discovery Service Using metadata harvested by OAI PMH
Research Management Systems Sharing descriptive metadata and linking from an RMS to the research publications
ResearchMaster (RM)
• The functionality of the RM system is encompassed in 5 Management Processes: – Grants Management, – Ethics Management, – Postgraduate and Scholarship Management, – Research Outcome Management, and – Commercial Activity and Consultancy Management.
• Source: RM web site http://www.researchmaster.com.au/rm4.asp visited 26 April 2006
• ResearchMaster stores information about research outputs, but not the actual outputs
ResearchMaster includes citation information about research publications which is used to generate the statistical report lodged annually with DEST
Paper copies of publications and related material specified by DEST are held in Faculties in case DEST chooses to audit the annual research report
Research Output Management with ResearchMaster Now
Research
Master
Research Management supported by ARROW Repository
ResearchMaster includes citation information about research publications, and links using persistent identifiers to the corresponding on-line publications in the ARROW Repository. The citations can be assembled into RQF evidence portfolios including the links to the research outputs in ARROW
ARROW Repository holds copies of all digital research outputs, PhD theses etc. The University’s RQF team can review research online using ARROW or ResearchMaster for inclusion in evidence portfolios submitted to DEST
DEST RQF panel members can assess the research online for the assessment processes
ARROW Repository
Research
Master
ARROW@Monash
Using a repository to deliver evidence
ARROW and ResearchMaster together have been planning to deliver:
Publication collection via Research Master (RMEweb interface)
Transferring to ARROW (METS package: data and files)
Storage in ARROW (data with any type of research publication files)
Secure viewing via Research Master or ARROW (observing copyright and using LDAP and XACML controls for user access privileges)
ARROW@Monash
Working with RM4(Gathering information)
New Research Informatio
n
New ResearchObjects
Old Research Informatio
n
Old ResearchObjects
Possibly existing RM4 records
Currently stored by researchers
ARROW@Monash
Working with RM4(Recording information)
RM4
New Research Informatio
n
New ResearchObjects
Old Research Informatio
n
Old ResearchObjects
ARROW@Monash
Working with RM4(Mediated deposit and checking by Research Office Staff)
RM4
Research Files (publications) + Subset of Research Information
ARROW
New Research Informatio
n
New ResearchObjects
Old Research Informatio
n
Old ResearchObjects
Initiated after checking or validation by
Research Office staff
ARROW@Monash
Working with RM4(mediated checking by ARROW Librarian)
Research Files (publications) + Subset of Research Information
ARROW
Stored after checking or validation by ARROW librarian who confirms● No duplication● Copyright status● Access requirements
ARROW@Monash
Working with RM4(Handles returned)
RM4
ARROW
Handles
Example:http://arrowdev.lib.monash.edu.au/hdl/1959.100/630
New Research Informatio
n
New ResearchObjects
Old Research Informatio
n
Old ResearchObjects
ARROW@Monash
RM4
Working with RM4(Additional information)
TARDIS, CALLISTA, SAP Research staff information Research students information Research grants information, etc
New Research Informatio
n
New ResearchObjects
Old Research Informatio
n
Old ResearchObjects
ARROW@Monash
Working with RM4(Evidence Portfolios)
RM4
ARROW
RQF
Evidence
Portfolios
RQF
Evidence
Portfolios
RQFEvidenc
ePortfolio
s
RQF
Evidence
Portfolios
RQF
Evidence
Portfolios
RQFEvidenc
ePortfolio
s
RQF
Evidence
Portfolios
RQF
Evidence
Portfolios
RQFEvidenc
ePortfolio
s
New Research Information
New ResearchObjects
Old Research Information
Old ResearchObjects
ARROW@Monash
30
RQF
Evidence
Portfolios
RQF
Evidence
Portfolios
RQFEvidenc
ePortfolio
s
RQF
Evidence
Portfolios
RQF
Evidence
Portfolios
RQFEvidenc
ePortfolio
s
RQF
Evidence
Portfolios
RQF
Evidence
Portfolios
RQFEvidenc
ePortfolio
s
Working with RM4(Handles link back to stored Research Objects)
Research Managementand
Analysis Software
ARROW
New Research Information
New ResearchObjects
Old Research Information
Old ResearchObjects
ARROW@Monash
31
RQF Assessment by DEST(DEST collection )
DEST RQF
Collection
RQF
Evidence
Portfolios
RQF
Evidence
Portfolios
RQFEvidenc
ePortfolio
s
RQF
Evidence
Portfolios
RQF
Evidence
Portfolios
RQFEvidenc
ePortfolio
s
RQF
Evidence
Portfolios
RQF
Evidence
Portfolios
RQFEvidenc
ePortfolio
s
ARROW@Monash
32
RQF
EvidencePortfolios
RQF
EvidencePortfolios
RQF
EvidencePortfolios
RQF
EvidencePortfolios
RQF
EvidencePortfolios
RQF
EvidencePortfolios
RQF
EvidencePortfolios
RQF
EvidencePortfolios
RQF
EvidencePortfolios
RQF Assessment(DEST informs Assessment Panels)
RQFASSESSMENT
Panel
RQFASSESSMENT
Panel
RQFASSESSMENT
Panel
DEST RQF
Collection
ARROW@Monash
33
RQF
Evidence
Portfolios
RQF
Evidence
Portfolios
RQFEvidenc
ePortfolio
s
RQF
Evidence
Portfolios
RQF
Evidence
Portfolios
RQFEvidenc
ePortfolio
s
RQF
Evidence
Portfolios
RQF
Evidence
Portfolios
RQFEvidenc
ePortfolio
s
RQF Assessment(Panels View Evidence)
RQFASSESSMENT
Panel
RQFASSESSMENT
Panel
RQFASSESSMENT
Panel
DEST RQF
Collection
Handles enable viewing of Research Digital Objects in Digital Repositories
review
review
review
ARROW@Monash
34
RQF
Evidence
Portfolios
RQF
Evidence
Portfolios
RQFEvidenc
ePortfolio
s
RQF
Evidence
Portfolios
RQF
Evidence
Portfolios
RQFEvidenc
ePortfolio
s
RQF
Evidence
Portfolios
RQF
Evidence
Portfolios
RQFEvidenc
ePortfolio
s
RQF Assessment(Panels Comment on Evidence)
RQFASSESSMENT
Panel
RQFASSESSMENT
Panel
RQFASSESSMENT
Panel
DEST RQF
Collection
review
review
review
Annotations
Annotations
Annotations
INGEST
EXPORT WEB ACCESS HARVEST
Synchronising between ARROW and external resources
Validating data, adding evidentiary material
• Research
• DEST Audit• Researcher citing for
offprints, or for comment, or for refereeing
• DEST search• Researcher search
for topics and research
• Migration to 3rd party METS compliant tool, eg new repository, research mgmt tool
• DEST reporting• Inclusion in 3rd party
tool eg:Excel, Endnote
• Academic use for CV• Faculty production of
webpages7
National Discovery search
Web access to documents
Web access to metadata
Export metadata and docs
Export metadata only
Vital Client Webform Batch
Authorised Users Self submit e.g. research mgmt toolsBibliographic Sources
Metadata only Metadata + docs
Metadata onlyMetadata + docs
Metadata onlyMetadata + docs
Alternative workflows with lodgement direct to ARROW
ARROW Status May 2006
• In 2006 Monash will load 15,000 research outputs of various types to ARROW
• VITAL V 2.1 just installed – includes the Research Master interface
• “ARROW Community” launched– University of South Australia, University of Western
Sydney, University of Central Qld and RUBRIC (University of Southern Qld) have licensed ARROW
• VITAL 3.0 including the XACML access control expected mid year
• DEST submission for further project funding• Melbourne road show scheduled for 2 June
Fedora based projects
• University of Virginia Digital Library– http://fedora.info/community/uva.shtml
• North Western University Humanities Computing Group– Encyclopedia of Chicago– http://www.encyclopedia.chicagohistory.org/
• Links from the Fedora Project Community page – http://fedora.info
Questions?
DEST Research Quality Frameworkhttp://www.dest.gov.au/sectors/research_sector/policies_issues_reviews/key_issues/research_quality_framework/
ARROW Projecthttp://arrow.edu.au
ResearchMasterhttp://www.researchmaster.com.au
Geoff PayneDirector, Library Corporate and Financial ServicesTel: 03 9479 [email protected]
Top Related