University of Bath Repositories Working Group

From DigiRepWiki

1 Documents to read
2 Meeting 1
3 Meeting 2
4 Meeting 3
5 Meeting 4
6 Meeting 5
7 Meeting 6
8 Tasks

[edit]

Documents to read

[edit]

Meeting 1

Thursday 16 November 2006, 9.15-10.00

Present

Professor Kevin Edge (Chair)
Mr Mahendra Mahey
Ms Kate Robinson
Mrs Alison Baud
Dr Diana Newport-Peace

Apologies

Mr Dave Cunningham
Ms Rachel Heery

Notes

Governance and responsibilities

1. It was agreed that the PVC for research would be the project sponsor. The project management would be coordinated by the VC’s Office (DN-P) and the Library would take the lead on developing the University policies for the implementation and use of the repository itself including the development of a detailed specification of requirements. UKOLN would advise on all aspects of setting up and managing the repository.

Timing and objectives

2. It was agreed that the repository was primarily a marketing and communications tool which would raise the profile of the University’s research by making it accessible to the widest possible audience of potential research users, collaborators, students and investors. The visibility and accessibility of high quality research outputs would be the key project driver.

3. The possible inclusion of theses, recognised as a key element of the University’s research output, was raised. This would need to be explored further by the project group.

4. It was agreed that the repository should be established as soon as possible, but that relevant policies should be agreed before the technology was made available to the University community.

5. The target date for a working repository including a small amount of high quality content is summer 2007.

Development of Policies

6. The list of policies identified in the discussion document was expanded to include legal considerations and communication. Responsibility for leading the development of each policy was provisionally allocated as shown below:

a. Governance – VC’s Office b. Infrastructure and preservation – BUCS c. Content – Library d. Deposit mechanism – Library e. Curation – Library f. Legal considerations – VC’s Office g. Communication – VC’s Office.

SHERPA presentation

7. It was agreed that the presentation proposed by SHERPA would be worthwhile and that a focus on policy development and copyright issues would be helpful, although the considerable in-house expertise already provided by UKOLN was also acknowledged. The timing of the presentation shouldn’t be allowed to slow the overall progress of the project or the development of key policies.

Platform

8. The release of the e-prints version 3 started kit was noted. It was agreed that the University’s existing expertise tended to suggest e-prints as the most appropriate platform. However, a decision on this was not taken at this early stage.

Summary of actions

Develop detailed project plan and supporting documentation DN-P Respond to HERDA regarding SHERPA presentation DN-P Begin work on Content and Deposit policies AB/KR Contact Richard Vidgen to establish status of proposed JISC capital funding application DN-P

[edit]

Meeting 2

Thursday 29 January 2007

Present

Mr Mahendra Mahey
Ms Kate Robinson
Mrs Alison Baud

Notes

MM reported on UKOLN collaboration with CETIS, reviewing open access registries and interviewing participants. OpenDOAR, ROAR and Intute were mentioned. As a policy development tool, OpenDOAR was agreed to be a good starting point. It includes a checklist within sub-groups with a minimum and optimum set of elements for inclusion within a repository policy. The group worked through these elements, making initial decisions to flesh-out such a policy. KMR will approach Lizzie Richmond, the University Archivist, to look at the Preservation element of this model. MM agreed to draw all the elements together, and this will be circulated to the broader meeting when it meets in late Feb.

KMR reported that she has two volunteers (Denise Brooks and Greg Ince) to service the broader meetings, and that she will meet with them next week to brief them and to ask them to set up dates for the full meeting, towards the end of Feb. They will also be invited to a brief pre-meeting of AB, MM and KR where the agenda and papers for the full meeting will be set. The meeting will be on 9th Feb, 2.30-4.30, in Kate’s office.

The meeting discussed the PIP and how this will interface with the repository. Suggestions for this will be made at the pre-meeting and a paper prepared for the full meeting. MM recommended the St Andrew’s model as a good starting point where their PIP provides a one-way interface with their repository. MM suggested that we ‘use-case’ (i.e. articulate what we would like it to do in a structured way) what we want from the PIP by developing a scenario. (‘scenario’ -> ‘use-case’ -> ‘UML diagram’ -> ’code’). The pre-meeting will work on this model, to bring to the full meeting.

The matter of bidding for a member of staff to support the IR processes was discussed and MM agreed to approach Theo Andrew (Edinburgh) to ask if we could see his Job Spec. for comparison with those already collected by AB.

It was noted that decisions regarding the use of URIs would also need to be made. There was also some discussion regarding a Links Resolver.

Pre-meeting agenda will be:

PIP
Policy
Staffing
Harvesting/full-text: SHERPA/ROMEO
Quick hits

[edit]

Meeting 3

Friday 9 February / Monday 12 February 2007

Present

Mr Mahendra Mahey
Ms Kate Robinson
Mrs Alison Baud
Ms Denise Brooks
Mr Greg Ince

Notes

Job Description

No Salary range
SL Level
Appoint new/ Secondment of existing staff, request expressions of interest.
Run in initial form FT until 2008
KR/ AB – define details of job desc re Aber Ed OU job descs week beg.12/02/07
Accommodation based on campus - poss within UKOLN? L1 grp study room?
Sit on UKOLN repositories group.
Advocacy – point of expertise / reference for existing SLs who will communicate with departments re details of IR.
Management role
MM To contact Theo Andrew Edinburgh re their Job Description/ Salary details
Timescale – preferable to seconde.
To report to KR/ AB

PIP

PIP content (currently generated by academics in support of RAE) to populate the IR as ‘1st batch’.
AB/KR to meet with Martin Owen (MO) for PIP status report prior to full IR group meeting 1st March. Scenarios will form the basis of this discussion.
PIP metadata needs to be checked for accuracy before entering into IR.
Who has authority to decide on PIP information being used to populate the IR – Dave Cunningham or Kevin Edge?
Which metadata fields are included in the PIP? (Possible use of Source field to identify content not harvested from the PIP)
Is there an administrator interface in the PIP, or an interface searchable by submission date to facilitate identification of recently added PIP items for addition to the IR?

Policy

MM to circulate OpenDOAR policy tool. Possible dissemination via the Wiki.

Metadata Policy

Metadata from PIP to be contained and checked before being added to the IR.

Metadata should not be overwritten in the case of updated content.

Preservation Policy

XML, although editable, is preferable over PDF.

Accessibility vs content protection with reference to W3C standards.

Closure Policy

No policy defined.

Next meeting

12th March, 2007 2-4pm

Possible Agenda Elements:

RAE DN-P
PIP Overview MO
IR MM
ePrints Application Profile MM

[edit]

Meeting 4

Present

Mr Mahendra Mahey
Ms Kate Robinson
Mrs Alison Baud
Dr Diana Newport-Peace
Mr Dave Cunningham
Mr Martin Owen
Ms Denise Brooks
Mr Greg Ince

Apologies

Ms Rachel Heery

Status Report

E-prints software will be used
Policy development ongoing using OpenDOAR policy tool
Job description submitted to Staff Vacancies Review Committee
PIP will be starting point for source of IR data; will require migration and cleaning up of metadata; no full text available; difficulties re version control and copyright clearance

Staffing

Full time equivalent time required within BUCS for installation and maintenance of E-prints *software; ACTION: DN-P
Allocated time required for MO to develop script to export data from PIP

Resources and Equipment

Use of existing Etheses server approved by Gavin Rea
E-prints software to be updated (Version 3 available now; 3.1 available June 2007)

Content

Content should be peer reviewed and will not include material generated from taught courses

Workflow

Initial workflow:

PIP > RAE > IR Holding Area > IR
Mediation to occur once
Permissions for mass export required

ACTION: DN-P to supply copy of RAE metadata for initial population

Proposed Long-term Development

Year One – Pilot departments to be considered; pilot to include RAE items and research theses (subject to copyright)
Year Two – New work as it becomes available
Year Three – Retrospective additions including possibility of mediated self-archiving

Next Steps

Install E-prints

End March / Late April

Agree Policies

Additional meeting required

Export PIP data to E-Prints

Time required as detailed above
Individual academics may need to be consulted in person to obtain permission for initial population of IR
Additional meeting required to discuss E-prints configuration vis a vis ETHOS toolkit

Recruit

Clean up metadata

Obtain IR Content

Additional meeting required to agree file format

Deploy advocacy strategy

Marketing strategy required
Should be seen as part of a larger information strategy

[edit]

Meeting 5

Tuesday 27th March 2007

Present

Mr Mahendra Mahey
Ms Kate Robinson
Mrs Alison Baud
Ms Denise Brooks
Mr Greg Ince

Notes

Research Publications Librarian post advertised; closing date 5th April 2007

IR Content
- Postgraduate research, PhD & MPhil material; plus e-theses
- Other potential material (for academic community to decide whether or not to include): podcasts; presentations
- PHASE 1: (by 1st August 2007) native format & PDF for first 100 items (note implications for management of more material; look at procedures; focus on new research generated & fit into existing workflow)
- PHASE 2: consider additional material, e.g., podcasts, presentations

IR Format
- Native format AND conversion format
- Native format for preservation purposes
- Conversion format for consistency across IR & ease of access, e.g., OpenDocument (XML - can modify item appearance separately from item content), PDF-XMP
- Could hide native format & make access by request only
- Capture as much content as possible at time of submission
- Concentrate on new material then retrospective addition of existing material

IR Policy
- Amendments to E-prints may delay progress of UoB repository (possibility of using FEDORA as alternative but JAVA based with FRBR principles and would require adaptation – query JAVA expertise within BUCS?)

Actions
- Group to submit copy of policy to Research Committee
- KR to look at Risk Management Strategy – DRAMBORA Toolkit may prove useful
- KR/AB to meet week beginning 16th April 2007 re DRAMBORA
- Group to meet 23rd April 2007 re DRAMBORA
- MM to report back on implications of E-prints software use
- GI/DB to circulate minutes of all previous meetings via IR Wiki & add policy document for amendments

[edit]

Meeting 6

Thursday 21st June 2007

Present

Kate Robinson (Chair)
Kara Jones
Mahendra Mahey
Martin Owen
Andrew Male
Diana Newport-Peace
Kevin Edge
Alison Baud
Dave Cunningham
Denise Brooks (minutes)

1. Introductions

All present explained their role.

2. Status Report

Research Publications Librarian:
- Kara Jones appointed to post.
- Work to combine the policy document with actions from previous IR meetings has been completed.
- Kara will be attending a Repository Summer School at the end of June and will be working on the DRAMBORA Risk Assessment tool.

Progress with mapping exercise:
- PIP fields were mapped to the Scholarly Works Application Profile (SWAP - formerly known as Eprints Application Profile (EAP) ).

Clean up of records:
- Designated library staff have proxy access to PIP.
- Finding high levels of errors in metadata.
- Need to set targets for record checking to ensure process completed in time for RAe submission.
- Concerns about metadata copyright permissions associated with PIP items where records have been downloaded from databases, e.g., Web of Knowledge.
- Also concerns about permissions required to download all of one author's work in one go in order to check metadata.
- Process required to secure authors' permissions.
- Content of PIP in present format should not be visible externally as many authors' records reflect directly their RAe submissions; RAe submission will be published in December 2008.
- Possible process to check metadata and copyright status at same time?
- 'Repository Interface Scenarios' document from St Andrews university represents potential workflow patterns for metadata checking and population of IR.

Workflow/Involvement Model:

Workflow/Involvement Model

3. Policy documents for discussion

Content policy (Paper)
Amendments to policy to be made as discussed below; policy document to be approved by Research Committee (potential circulation and approval via email).

Points discussed:

1. Metadata Policy for information describing items in the repository

"...OAI configuration..." clarified 'OAI' as meaning 'Open Access Initiative'.
It was agreed to explain all acronyms or provide a glossary in the policy document.
It was agreed to add an explanatory paragraph defining the purpose of the IR (also including what it is not for).
It was agreed that, at pilot level, population of the IR should not be mandatory but that academics should be encouraged to deposit publications.

2.2.2. (p4) General full-item re-use policy

"the original copyright statement is given" clarified as meaning that the copyright information (copyright symbol, date, copyright owner) is detailed on the front page of e.g., a journal article.
It was agreed to explain this point more clearly in the policy document.

3.2.1. (p5) Content Restrictions

It was agreed to include patents.
It was agreed to include publication date restrictions, e.g., first material to populate IR restricted to 2005 or more recent publications/material about to be published.
This raised questions about those in the process of writing and signing copyright over to publishers - advocacy of IR required to avoid this.
Incentives to deposit publications in IR could include linking copyright permissions with granting of contracts; highlighting importance of citations post-RAe 2008 and impact of IR on increasing number of citations.
Potential FAQs from academics regarding pre-prints deposited in IR and effect of this on chances of material being published.

3.2.2. (p5) Paper Inclusions

It was agreed to specify unpublished pre-prints and working papers (not peer-reviewed).

3.2.3 (p5) Principle Language

"The principle language is English"
It was agreed to remove this point as it was deemed unnecessary and raised questions over processes for foreign language publications.

4.1.2. (p6) Eligible Depositors

"Items may only be deposited by accredited members of the institution or their delegated agents" clarified as meaning staff and postgraduate students of the university who have authored works, and their specific representatives.
It was agreed to explain this point more clearly in the policy document.

4.1.3. (p6) Deposition Rules for Materials Submitted into the Repository

This raised questions about the implications for jointly authored publications, plus the implications of multiple entries of the same work recorded under each separate author's name in the PIP (title/author searches necesary to identify these works).

4.1.4. (p6) Moderation

"The administrator vets items..." This raised questions about what happens if items are deemed to be unsuitable, and the implications for self-archived deposition and mediated deposition in the future.
It was agreed to expand this point and provide more detail in the policy document about what happens when an item is/not accepted into the IR.

4.1.5 (p6) Content Quality Control

"The validity and authenticity and ownership of the content of submissions is the sole responsibility of the depositor" clarified as meaning that the author/copyright owner is responsible for all copyright violations.
IR group can offer guidance and moderation but cannot assume all responsibility for submissions.
It was agreed to soften the wording of this point in the policy document.

5.2 (p7) Functional Preservation

"University of Bath will seek to work with external partners to: backup items in external archives"
This raised questions about whether or not this was realistic. It was clarified that many institutions work together in this way to deposit metadata for the purposes of alternative external access to it.

5.5 (p8) Withdrawn Items

This point was clarified as meaning that all metadata will be kept.

4. Resources

Technical resources

To decide between Eprints, DSpace or Fedora platforms:

Platform choice can be informed by metadata schema to be used or vice versa.

Metadata schema - Dublin Core used by DSpace and Eprints; SWAP - all fields supported by Fedora only; SWAP offers facility to find all related publications and to search on citations; could add this facility to other profiles in future. Platforms - Eprints (PERL) and DSpace (JAVA) quicker to implement; Fedora better long term but more complex to implement, (JAVA); all are open source platforms. Potential to use SWAP with Eprints and DSpace and dumb-down full SWAP functionality by using minimum fields, but relationships between items in the IR will not be recognised. It was agreed that a document detailing the positive and negative points of the various choices should be produced and circulated (KJ).

Platform chosen should be part of large UK community of use.

DSpace has most developed support community internationally; Eprints is of UK origin, fully open source; Fedora has least developed community of support.

Consider permissions levels with different platforms.

IR holding area shown in workflow/involvement model - new interface required or do Eprints/DSpace/Fedora include this?

Implications for theses - ETHOS used at present; theses will also be stored in IR; ETHOS interoperable with Eprints and DSpace.

Staffing

BUCS staffing to be resolved; currently involved large project (CMS).
Potential future development of PIP could include probation, promotion and appraisal.
DC and DN-P to meet to discuss BUCS staffing.
Exit strategy required for end of Research Publications Librarian secondment - merging into library workflows within cataloguing? KJ to investigate as part of risk assessment.

Summary of Actions:

Meet individuals to discuss requirements then draw up and circulate document outlining positive and negative aspects of each platform (KJ)
Decide platform to use (All)
Amend and distribute policy document (KJ)
Meet to discuss BUCS staffing (DC and DN-P)
Resolve issues surrounding PIP data and Web of Knowledge/ownership of copyright (DN-P)
Arrange next IR group meeting for August (DB)