UKOLN Repositories Working Group

From DigiRepWiki

Contents

[edit]

UKOLN Repositories Working Group

Please note that this is a UKOLN Staff Only Part of the Repositories Research Team Wiki.


The first discussion of the UKOLN Repositories Working Group took place on Thursday 9th November 2006 in the UKOLN Operations Group Meeting, Library Meeting Room, Level 4

Attendees in this meeting were:

  • Paul Walk (Chair)
  • Jenny Taylor
  • Matt Thrower
  • Brian Kelly
  • Michael Day
  • Manjula Patel
  • Natasha Bishop
  • Mahendra Mahey (in place of Rachel Heery)

It was decided at this meeting that Mahendra Mahey would set up another meeting for all those that were interested to define the remit of the UKOLN Repositories Working Group, with the primary aim of creating a UKOLN Digital Repository.


[edit]

Meeting 1 - Wednesday 29th November, 2pm-4pm, 2006

Library Meeting Room - Level 4, UKOLN, University of Bath.

Agenda

1. Define the remit of this group

2. AOB

Draft Remit 

UKOLN will set up a repositories working group which will implement a single UKOLN digital repository that is based on existing
expertise amongst technical staff, namely 'eprints.org'.  The purpose, content, policies and advantages of having a UKOLN repository
will need to be defined[add the definition here].  The content is likely to be all the scholarly outputs of UKOLN, including peer 
reviewed papers and grey literature (presentations, does it include Ariadne articles etc)[describe content in detail].  The accepted 
file formats will be .ppt, .doc, .odt, .odp, .pdf, .html...? The relationship of the UKOLN repository to the developing University of 
Bath repository will need to be defined especially in relation to what content UKOLN will provide to this repository [this needs to 
be specific].  The metadata standard for describing content in the repository that is deposited into the repository will 
be... (DCAP?)and the quality of metadata input will be monitored by.... UKOLN will use the following persistent identifier system 
[specify or not as the case may be].  The UKOLN repository will be maintained by the UKOLN repository working group.

Comments about the Remit

Monica Duke

Here is what I think the remit should look like. I think the details (e.g. list of file formats) do not belong inside the remit but need to be moved for discussion under specific policy headings.

The purpose of the UKOLN repositories working group is to manage and guide the implementation and subsequent maintenance of a single UKOLN digital repository. In consultation with the appropriate UKOLN staff (i.e. those who possess the relevant knowledge where expertise is required (e.g. technical knowledge or metadata), or those who will be affected by policies in their everyday work), the repositories working group will:

  • Articulate the advantages to UKOLN of having a repository.
  • Gather scenarios of use for the repository from potential users (including depositors, internal and external users).
  • Decide the technical platform for implementation.
  • Decide on the workflow, responsibilities, skills needed, etc.
  • Define the purpose, content and other management policies for the repositories. The policies to be defined include:
    • Types and quality of allowed content (peer reviewed only, full papers, presentations etc.)
    • Accepted file formats
    • Relationship to other repositories (e.g. University of Bath repository, subject-based repositories)
    • Metadata Standards
    • Quality monitoring (materials input, metadata, compliance with policies)
    • Persistent identifiers
    • Preservation
  • Communicate policies to all staff
  • Report internally on the use and uptake of the repository.
  • Identify training needs related to repository use.
  • Consider new uses for the repository as they emerge.
  • Review implementation decisions and instigate changes when needed (e.g. new software becomes available, new metadata standards).
  • Estimate the resources required for consideration by the resources allocation group. (who is it who has the power to allocate the resources needed?)

The repositories working group will take into account the current in-house knowledge and experience when making decisions and defining policy.

The decisions/proposals made by the repositories working group are presented to (and approved by??) the Operations Group, which then presents them to the SMT for approval (is this the way the new structure works??) Which decisions is the working group allowed to take themselves without seeking approval? Policy decisions? Day to day working?

This remit should be reviewed as needed (what is the process for doing that??) e.g. when the need for new policies emerges.

Brian Kelly

I suggest we include the following in the spec:

The work of the Repositories Working Group was also include an open discussion and experimentation on both the strengths and weaknesses of digital repositories. For example it has been argued that digital repositories can hide resources from services such as Google, the 'Blogosphere', etc. and that they go against many fundamental Web principles, such as clean, application-independent URIs, often make use of PDF formats, etc.

The group should also address the long-term sustainability of an archive hosted by UKOLN - as, due to the nature of our funding, we cannot guarantee that UKOLN will be around for longer than 1-3 year timescale, wouldn't use of, say, a Bath repository, or event a repository provided by Google, provide a more realistic alternative.

Person C

Blah, Blah, Blah

[edit]

Issues to consider

  • Why does UKOLN need a repository, over what it already uses?
  • What are the dangers in hosting a repository
  • Does UKOLN have one repository for now?
  • Relationship to other UKOLN groups e.g. Web services group
  • Why choose 'eprints.org'?
  • Policies we want created...
  • Preservation?
  • File Formats?
  • What content should go into the repository(ies)?
  • Relationship to other repository developments in the university, e.g. Do we deposit peer reviewed papers directly into the Bath University Eprints repository that is likely to only accept peer reviewed papers in the first instance? E-theses repository, Learning Materials File Store etc.
  • What is the status of the UKOLN repository?
  • Can we accept datasets? Why do we need to?
  • The 'M' word (METADATA)
  • Will the repository allow the metadata to be harvested?
  • Are we going to use persistent identifiers?
  • Who maintains it? Who ensures quality?
  • Developing a test bed for testing interoperability between different repositories is a seperate issue.


Please add more issues below:


Is deposit mandatory? What strategy is to be used to encourage/enforce compliance?

What is the relationship to external repositories e.g. subject based repositories, repositories used by co-authors?


[edit]

Meeting 29/11/2006

Attending

  • Michael Day
  • Anne Chapman
  • Julie Allinson
  • Alex Ball
  • Matt Thrower
  • Emma Tomkin
  • Greg Tourte
  • Mahendra Mahey


Agenda


Defining Remit for Group

The meeting's sole purpose was to define the remit for this group. After looking at people's suggestions from the wiki and discussion in the group the following remit was approved, to be presented at the UKOLN Operations Group.

[edit]

Revised Remit

The purpose of the UKOLN repositories working group is to manage and guide the implementation and subsequent maintenance of a UKOLN digital repository. In consultation and with appropriate resource being made available, the group will:

  • Identify the purposes, advantages and disadvantages to UKOLN of having a repository, through scenarios and user studies, and decide on optimum infrastructure.
  • Identify appropriate draft policies (content, management, preservation etc.), workflows, metadata, responsibilities and resources required.
  • Identify training and advocacy requirements and opportunities; monitor and evaluate usage, impact, technical evolution and interoperability, and revise policies, processes and implementation decisions accordingly.
  • Identify and recommend methods for sustainability, scalability and long-term preservation.

The working group will be conducted in an open, pragmatic and lightweight way.

Please note other contributors Monica Duke, Brian Kelly, Sally Lewis, Rachel Heery who were unable to attend the meeting who passed on comments via Mahendra Mahey.

Comments about the Revised Remit

Rachel

I think there should be some timescales included? By including timescales you would help set expectations as to how much work would be involved. How about mid-january for first bullet??

Mahendra

Yes, that is the next stage Rachel, today we just needed to come up with a remit - but I will put timescales against all of these and this will be part of the agenda for the next meeting, including looking at the first remit.

Person B

Blah, Blah


[edit]

Meeting 3 - Tuesday 20 March 2007 - 2.45pm - 4pm

Agenda

1. Update on related activities - University of Bath Repositorry Working Group, JISC IE Pilot Reposiotry

2. Technical infrastructure - can we have a server, implementation, pilot status? What to install?

3. Typical scenario and use cases for why we need a repository

4. Creating draft policies using the Open DOAR Policy Tool

5. Next steps

Retrieved from "/repositories/digirep/index/UKOLN_Repositories_Working_Group"