The Magic Word is Repcloud
It is rare that the venue is discussed more on Twitter than the content of the event but at the Repositories and the Cloud (#repcloud) event on the 23rd of February it was a close run thing. The event took place at the rather amazing Magic Circle Headquarters in Euston which gave the speakers and audience plenty of scope for magic related puns!
The focus at Repcloud was discussions about how the leading Digital Repository vendors (represented here by Duraspace, EPrints and Microsoft Zentity) were integrated ‘cloud’ capabilities into their offerings to the community and also how ready and interested the community was for those options.
The three speakers in the morning covered their, mainly beta or upcoming, strategies for ‘cloud’ services and introduced us to some interesting projects and ideas.
Eduserv have already released the videos and presentations online as well as some ‘voxpox’ videos and a link to the Twitter archive on Twapperkeeper so I will just pick out a few highlights.
Duraspace, via its DuraCloud pilot projects, is pushing ahead in this area. The work they are doing seems particularly focused on [multi]media objects rather than traditional papers and they are utilising the ‘cloud’ to not only provide storage but also large computational jobs offering filetype conversion (TIFF to JPEG2000) and video encoding and streaming. They did identify the fact that bandwidth to and from the ‘cloud’ remains an unreliable and costly process though.
Alex Wade from Microsoft did something of a whistle-stop tour through the offerings of Microsoft research and the MS ‘cloud’ service Azure. Some particular points of interest here were the relationship Microsoft has formed for the NSF in the US around offering ‘cloud’ capability, the Research Information Centre which they developed in collaboration with the British Library which includes Sword based push to repository capability and Entity Cube which maps relationships between people (and places) in a visual manner by querying the open web.
The final take of the morning was from Les Carr of EPrints. The focus here was on the changes in EPrints 3.2 that allows for a ‘hybrid storage solution’ mixing local and ‘cloud’ offerings as most appropriate and using the new Storage Controller to write rules that would make decisions on what to do with uploaded content on the fly ensuring the optimal performance of the repository. Something I found particularly interesting (and wrote about elsewhere) was the idea of EPrints offer a ‘Blogger’ like service that would allow users to fire up their own repository on-demand. I thought this sounded like a very clever idea and was surprised it wasn’t discussed further.
The afternoon opened with Terry Harmer from the Belfast e-Science Centre who gave a hugely interesting talk from a perspective of someone who has been using ‘cloud’ capabilities as the backbone of their operations since before the term ‘cloud’ became popular. What was particularly interesting here (to me at least) was how they had used this ‘cloud’ based strategy to circumvent the limitations and bureaucracy at their host institution and as such were much more flexible with the options they could offer.
The rest of the afternoon was split into separate technical and policy sessions (though judging by the discussion after there was more than a little cross-over.)
Issues around geo-location and legal issues (particularly IP) were raised in both sessions. SLAs were also discussed in both sessions with differences from one provider to another identified as a bit of a problem.
Issues around the true costs of using ‘cloud’ services also came up in both sessions - with the issue of bandwidth costs coming up again in the Technical session.
The day ended with Andy Powell and Rachel Bruce closing things by saying both JISC and Eduserv would continue the conversation to see what the next steps might be for work in this area.
I found it a useful day and it seemed that it was a topic that many of the attendees were thinking about and moving towards to some extent or another.
[As I attended the Technical session the following are my notes from the Q&A in that session] Read more
An update on PIRUS2 and article level usage statistics
The PIRUS2 (Publisher and Insitutional Repository Usage Statistics) project - which I blogged about briefly in September and which is exploring technical, organisational and economic issues in collecting and aggregating article usage statistics from repositories and publishers - has now been underway for a few months.
The project plan is available from the JISC Web site, with further information available from the project Web site. The primary partners in this project are MIMAS, Cranfield University, COUNTER, CrossRef and Oxford University Press - which means that it is well placed to consider the many issues to which the collection, aggregation and use of article level statistics gives rise.
PIRUS2 is not alone in considering these issues and is in contact with the Open Access Statistik and SURFSure projects in Germany and the Netherlands respectively which are also working on collecting article level usage data from repositories. The projects are taking similar technical approaches. One key decision - which is in line with a recommendation of the JISC usage statistics review of 2008 - has been to format log data as OpenURL context objects. One explanation of OpenURL context objects can be found on the SURF Web site. Other standards being used are OAI-PMH and SUSHI for harvesting the usage data.
PIRUS2 continues to the end of 2010.
Repositories and Research Management Systems
There have been discussions over the years about the potential of repositories to play a role in research management systems, supporting universities’ ability to report, for example, for the Research Assessment Exercise. A few universities have gone down that road a long way, while others have not. Indeed, various surveys (eg infoNet work) suggest that research information management in UK universities is supported by a rather patchy infrastructure.
A new JISC report from Rightscom gives a summary of the extent to which repositories and research management systems are integrated in the UK, and abstracts from this a table of institutional drivers that would support such integration. This will be a useful tool to repository managers and others building a case for a role for institutional repositories in research information management.
Of course, this needs to be seen in the wider context of UK and worldwide developments in research information management.
‘Article level’ usage statistics from publishers and repositories
Usage statistics for electronic journals are increasingly standardised and usable thanks to the collaborative efforts of publishers, other information providers and librarians in developing and implementing the COUNTER codes of practice.
But what do you do if you need usage statistics for individual articles by a particular author published across different journals and also held across different institutional or subject repositories? This question is increasingly relevant when considering how to measure the ‘impact’ of research, for example.
The PIRUS (Publisher and Institutional Repository Usage Statistics ) project explored how usage statistics for individual articles could be collected from repositories and publishers and then combined to produce consolidated usage reports. PIRUS proposed a number of ways in which this could be done. A report was published in January 2009.
Now this work is to continue with a follow-on project - PIRUS2 - which has the following main objectives. To:
• Develop a suite of free, open source programmes to support the generation and sharing of COUNTER compliant usage data and statistics that can be extended to cover any and all individual items in institutional and subject repositories
• Develop a prototype article level publisher/repository statistics service
• Define a core set of standard useful statistical reports that repositories could/should produce for internal and external consumption
The project formally starts on 1st October 2009 and finishes as the end of 2010.
There are a number of project partners, the main ones being: MIMAS, Cranfield University (Library & Information Services), COUNTER, CrossRef and Oxford University Press.
This post is just to alert you to the existence of the project. More information about the project will be made available on the JISC Web site in due course.
Do library catalogues and repositories talk to each other?
The Centre for Digital Library Research at the University of Strathclyde is currently investigating the links between university library catalogues and digital repositories as part of a JISC funded study.
Can library users find resources in their university’s digital repository through the library catalogue? Do library catalogues and repositories share records for the same items?
If catalogues and repositories generally aren’t linked in these sorts of ways at the moment, could they be?
These are some of the issues being explored by the study. The team are surveying repository managers and others about now - so, if you receive a request to respond to their online survey, your response would be much appreciated.
For further information about the study, please visit the project’s Web site and the project’s Web page on the JISC site.
Sharing citations?
An international workshop in Amsterdam in March, funded by JISC, SURF and DRIVER, discussed work needed to improve interoperability between repositories. Four areas of work were focused upon:
- citation services
- interoperable identification systems
- repository handshaking (interoperable deposit systems), and
- repository organisation (supporting repositories around the world)
There’s more information and an update here:
http://repinf.pbworks.com/
There is also an option to sign up to this wiki / community.
Specifically now, there is a proposal for internationally coordinated work to enable repositories of OA research papers to share the citations therein. This is currently out for public review, and your comments would be most welcome. Please see the proposal here:
http://repinf.pbworks.com/Citation-Services-draft-project-proposal
There are some 15-20 funders of repositories infrastructure around the world (like JISC in the UK) also looking at this proposal, with a view to funding the work it describes.
Thanks
Neil
Web Services and repositories
I attended a workshop on June 2 on the use of Web Services to enable interoperability between repositories, repository services and other systems. The workshop was organised by the Ethos project (Electronic Theses Online). Most attendees were from a repository manager or developer background.
[Update: the presentations (including audio recording) at this event are now available]
As a number of speakers noted, the term ‘Web Services’ is a very broad one. The main focus of the day was on the use of a number of specific protocols and approaches to provide ’services’:
SWORD for depositing items in repositories
SRU to search for and retrieve items
And REST for passing data between servers.
Using such ’services’ enables repository services to be used from within environments other than the repository itself (so, if you wanted to deposit an item in a repository from within a research management application of some kind, for example). It also enables repositories to use other systems’ services. One example given of this was look up of file format information from the National Archives’ PRONOM database of file formats.
From discussion, the general view appeared to be that Web Services do have a role to play in aiding integration of repositories with other systems and avoiding ’silos’. However, achieving such integration raises issues such as:
- having sufficient access to technical expertise
- ensuring good communication between repository managers and developers
- focussing on real user needs.
None of these are easy issues to address. Two of the speakers came from institutions which are members of the Scottish Digital Library Consortium and they noted the value of libraries ‘clubbing together’ to share available technical expertise and resources.
Information Environment Rapid Innovation Grants
We (Andy, Amber, Balviar, David, James) are happy to announce that we are about to issue a new Grant-Funded Call for rapid innovation projects within the Information Environment on 6 March 2009. You’ll be able to read all the text about what money is available and the conditions for using it in more detail in the Grant but to give an overview of what we are looking for:
- Innovative projects that create a ’something’ related to a user need from a named community. That something could be a new interface, a service that brings together existing services or a tool of some sort;
- The scope is quite simply something that is within the Information Environment (see: http://www.jisc.ac.uk/whatwedo/themes/informationenvironment.aspx for definition). We are not being overly prescriptive;
- The projects should be up to six months in length and between £15,000 and £40,000;
- The documentation for everything in the Call is going to be kept lightweight so we can keep the focus on solutions to user needs rather than filling out forms. We’re just looking for five pages in the bid and the project documentation is going to be kept to blogs or wikis so we know what you’re aiming to do and how you are getting on with achieving it but you don’t spend hours telling us about it;
- The approaches should be agile or open. We’d like to see early engagement with users and for that engagement to be kept up so what is produced responds to their needs and is user-led rather than technology-led.
The drivers for this grant have come from a number of different directions:
- dev8D (http://dev8d.jiscinvolve.org/) proved to be very successful in getting users and developers together to create innovative solutions to user needs. We felt we should be doing more of this in the Information Environment;
- Whilst we recognise that certain big central services such as the UK federation could and should be provided by JISC, we also recognise that there needs to be funding for smaller, lighter tools, services and interfaces that help users achieve their goals;
- Whilst there is a place for bigger projects that involve senior managers, we feel that there is equally a place for projects where the bulk of the money goes to developers;
- The last few years have seen an increase in the development of lightweight solutions that respond rapidly to user needs across both the academic and commercial sectors.
We’re looking forward to seeing what bids come back. This forms the perfect opportunity for:
- Those who have bid for funding before and would like funding to try out new areas where we may not want to fund via a big project;
- Those new to JISC who would like to dip their toe in the water and try a smaller JISC project before going for something bigger;
- Developers who have good ideas that they might not have quite enough time to fully develop within their normal schedule;
- Technical managers who may want to have funding to ‘try out’ new members for their team on a student placement basis, for example.
The tag for discussion on this rapid innovation Call is jiscri. Please use this if you’re commenting on the Call via Twitter or posting on other blogs and social media about it so we can easily gather all those comments together and learn and respond as we go along. Subscribe to the JISC-ANNOUNCE list at www.jiscmail.ac.uk to get notified about this or other funding opportunities from JISC or go along to http://www.jisc.ac.uk/fundingopportunities.aspx on 6 March to get the call.
Economic case for open access
This morning, JISC released the report by John Houghton and Charles Oppenheim on the economic costs and benefits of three different models of scholarly communication – subscription, ‘gold’ open access and self-archiving with overlay services. The findings suggest that there are both considerable cost savings to be made by the HE sector by moving to open access, and significant benefits to the UK economy to be gained by doing so. Both the potential cost savings and the benefits run into hundreds of millions of pounds.
This is obviously important. It’s also important to stress that the research has been robust (we think it’s the most detailed modelling of scholarly communication), conservative (eg, the figures for cost savings and benefits to the UK economy assume that no subscriptions are cancelled), transparent (assumptions are clearly listed, and there is a simplified online model here where you can enter your own data to see the effect) and balanced (each model runs with a 20% return for those operating it).
[Please note the online model is an exe file, so you need to save it locally and run it as an application. It is does require some time to understand, and the notes are worth reading. Even simplified, the modelling is not simple]
There’s an outline of the report here, with links to the full version. Because it’s a complex piece of work, with potentially large implications, we have resisted the temptation to collapse the findings into a two-page summary at the moment, and instead we hope those interested will take the time at least to read the extended summary.
Information Environment (IE) & Virtual Research Environments (VRE) call for proposals: Briefing Day notes/Q & A
On 15th December a briefing day on the Information Environment and e-Research JISC Circular (12/08) was held. The event was held in order to provide an overview of the circular and to give people the opportunity to ask questions. The circular has £11m of JISC funding against it which is quite substantial. The calls in 12/08 focus on: digital repositories for learning and research, virtual research environments, use of text-mining and automatic meta-data generation and digital preservation. So in short the circular is seeking projects that are mainly about the creation, management and sharing of information that is part of the research and learning process in ways that support researchers, learners, teachers and administrators.
Here are the links to the presentations from the Briefing Day:
Policy and bid submission
Automated Metadata and Text-mining- strand A1
Digital Repositories: Start-up, rapid innovation and enhancement - strands A3- A5
Developing e-infrastructure to support research disciplines and digital preservation exemplars - strands A2 and A6
Virtual Research Environments (VRE) - strands B1-B3
Notes of the discussion and questions and answers from the briefing day:
IE and VRE Circular 12/08 15 December Briefing Day questions and answers
For some notes of the whole event as it went along see Andy Powell’s (Eduserv Foundation) live blog.
A few points of context:
JISC has funded projects and services in all of these areas previously. So what is different this time? I would say there are three general issues that underpin the projects sought in this circular:
* reflecting the maturity of digital repositories and other types of ‘e-infrastructure’ this circular is seeking further and improved alignment of these systems with user requirements. An emphasis in the calls is the need to involve/take into account end-users and a bringing together of these ‘e-infrastructure’ systems with research and learning processes.
* both the IE and the VRE strands of activity are about building on previous investment and lessons - so these are not completely new areas of activity. In the case of repository and digital preservation activity for example we’re seeking more repositories, improved repositories and policies, further integration with other systems and in areas such as digital preservation we’re looking for actual implementation of solutions that have previously been developed. However although this circular is generally about implementing areas where there has already been substantial work the projects are about improvement and so will involve new ideas and development.
* recognition that in many cases cross domain teams and skills are required to create, manage, use and develop digital systems, supporting policies and related practices within institutions.
The decision to publish the IE and VRE call strands together was partly a practical one as both funding areas were due to issue circulars at the same time, but there was more to this decision than that. Publishing them together was, I think, essential in terms of showing that information systems should not be developed independently of the requirements of the research process. I think if we’d published the calls separately there would’ve been a danger of perpetuating this often unhelpful division. In particular the projects sought under A2, Developing e-infrastructure to support research disciplines bridge both areas and seek to bring the research process and scholarly communications requirements together with underlying information systems. This particular strand in the IE calls also represents the fact that developing the Information Environment (or e-infrastructure) is not just about managing and disseminating information it is about supporting and improving research (and of course learning and teaching, although the projects called for under A2 focus on research). I think the connections that are emerging between both the IE and VRE programme areas are a good thing and are inevitable to progress.