ICOLC Session #1 Group-based Repositories April 23, 2007 Alan Charnes Alexia Thompson-Young.
Post on 28-Dec-2015
213 Views
Preview:
Transcript
ICOLC Session #1
Group-based RepositoriesApril 23, 2007
Alan Charnes
Alexia Thompson-Young
What Do We Mean by a Group-based Repository?
For the next hour, a group-based repository:
- Collects digital content from a group.
- Organizes the content.
- Keeps the content for a long time.
- Makes the content available to users.
Presenters
Alliance Digital Repository (Colorado Alliance of Research Libraries)
Alan Charnes
eScholarship (CDL) Ivy Anderson
Florida Digital Archive (FCLA) Michele Newberry
Presenters
Ohio Digital Research Commons (OhioLINK)
Tom Sanville
ALADIN Research Commons (WRLC)
Lizanne Payne
Texas Digital Library (TDL)
Alexia Thompson-Young
Agenda
Best effort list of group-based repositories.
About 7 minutes for each presenter, including Q&A.
Presenters to discuss project goals, timetable, platform (software), content, staffing, funding, current status and target audience.
Additional Q&A at the end.
ADR
Alan CharnesExecutive Director
Colorado Alliance of Research Libraries
ICOLCApril 23, 2007
Alliance Digital Repository
7
ADR Goals
As a centralized electronic storehouse for unique and valuable digital content created, collected and deposited by multiple libraries,departments, institutions, agencies and creators….
The ADR strives to…..
8
ADR Goals
Heighten awareness of the value of digital resources to the research, information and educational missions of the eleven Colorado Alliance libraries
Provide access from anywhere to the consortium’s digital collections
Develop a flexible platform able to support any kind of digital asset
Preserve the digital assets
9
What Digital Assets?Images
Texts
Maps/Plats
Audio
Video
Datasets
Faculty Publications
Learning Objects
Electronic Theses and Dissertations
Institutional Records Bulletins, Directories and publications
Current and Historical Campus Newspapers
Whatever!
10
Not Just An Institutional Repository
The ADR is a robust digital repository because of the wide range of content, variety of content providers and mix of institutions (e.g. University of Colorado, Colorado School of Mines, Colorado College and Denver Public Library).
11
ADR History/TimelineMay 2006. Selected Fedora platform after nearly two years of product review by Alliance committees.
October 2006. $445,000 start-up funding approved by Alliance Board.
November 2006. ADR Project launched.
December 2006. Hired 2.0 FTE, committed Colorado Alliance staff and resources.
12
More ADR History/Timeline
January 2007. Hardware installed, ADR Alpha environment configured.
March 2007. Alpha version launched using library-provided sample content (100 digital objects in multiple formats) e.g. electronic texts, images, sound files.
June 2007. Beta release target (1,000 digital objects). Currently engaged in joint R&D effort with NSDL ($22,500 in federal grant support).
13
ADR Timeline
June 2007. Accelerate marketing campaign and development of training resources. Convene All Alliance Conference (grand introduction: audience of 100 senior librarians in the consortium).
September 2007. ETD workflows go live for library staff (ADR grows to 10,000 digital objects).
14
ADR Timeline
December 2007. Production Version 1.0 –Ingest, management and discovery tools in place, plus extensive support features including limited eCommerce capability. (120,000 digital objects).
June 2008. Version 2.0 –now adding non-text content, websites, audio, video (150,000 digital objects).
July 2008. Start-up phase completed.
15
July 2008 and Beyond
ADR installed as ongoing Colorado Alliance service with consortial members providing continuing funding via annual assessments.
Continued pursuit of grant funding for digitization and application initiatives with current and new co-development partners.
ADR broadened to include participation with other consortia.
16
ADR Highlights
Supports multiple formats and content types using open source software and tools.
Provides levels of access to a variety of audiences.
Is centrally managed and operated in a consortial environment. Has an aggressive development and production timeline.
Includes a mix of academic and public libraries in two states.
17
Final Thoughts
More Information?
Visit http://adr.coalliance.org
Contact ADR Staff at adr@coalliance.org
Talk about partnering with ADR?
Email me at alan@coalliance.org
The Florida Digital Archive
Michele NewberryFlorida Center for Library Automation
ICOLC Spring 2007
ICOLC Spring 2007
Florida Digital Archive
ICOLC Spring 2007
Florida Digital Archive
State Universities
FCLA
ICOLC Spring 2007
Florida Digital Archive
•Locally written repository software (DAITSS)•Preservation repository functions only•Designed as a “dark archive”•Based on OAIS functional architecture•Implements format migration & normalization
ICOLC Spring 2007
Florida Digital Archive
AvailabilityCaptureSelection
IdentityDescription
Understandability Documentation
AuthenticityAuthentication
FixitySecureStorage
ViabilityMediaManagement
RenderabilityFormatStrategies
ICOLC Spring 2007
Florida Digital Archive
AvailabilityCaptureSelection
IdentityDescription
Understandability Documentation
AuthenticityAuthentication
FixitySecureStorage
ViabilityMediaManagement
RenderabilityFormatStrategies
DAITSS
ICOLC Spring 2007
Florida Digital Archive
Format treatment
Libraries can archive any content, but only supported formats get full preservation
Formats are analyzed then treatment is coded into DAITSS
For supported formats, files are normalized, localized and/or migrated on at time of Ingest and Dissemination
AIFF 1.3 AIFF-C 1.0 JFIF 1.02 PDF 1.2 – 1.6 Plain text TIFF 5.0, 6.0 WAVE XML 1.0 XML DTD 1.0 JPEG2000 AVI
• MPEG, pcm QuickTime
ICOLC Spring 2007
Florida Digital Archive
Stats and status
Timing in production since November 2005 distributable version of DAITSS since Feb 2007Content mostly ETDs and masters from digitized collections 26,750 “titles”, 206,220 files, 3.7 TB (1 copy)Staffing & funding 4 FTE programmers, 1 FTE operations + oversight funded from FCLA operating budget possibility of cost recovery charging in future
ICOLC Spring 2007
Florida Digital Archive
For more information
http://www.fcla.edu/digitalArchive/
Priscilla Caplan (pcaplan@ufl.edu)
OhioLINK
Digital Resource Commons (DRC)
Cooperating Across Libraries and Institutions
The OhioLINK (DRC) is…• Second Generation to the Digital Media
Center (DMC)
• Single repository that supports storage, distribution, publication, and long-term preservation of all formats of
• the educational and research materials of participating institutions and their people
• for commercial and non-commercial content
• envisioned as a multi-type state vehicle
The DRC can include• Faculty research papers such as pre-prints,
post-prints or working papers
• Open Access Self-Archiving and Publishing
• Student theses and dissertations
• Course Materials and learning objects
• Library, archival, and special collections
• Instructional video, audio, and images
• Virtual Reality, simulations, etc…
Digital Resource Commons Context
DRC
Common Search Interface
Repository
Contributors
Users
EJC E-Books ETDBranded
DRC
Servers, TFN, Grid, Directory/ Authentication, DBMS, Search Engines,
Asset Management Systems, etc
Documents/Objects of all types:Video, Audio, Images, DatasetsReference Books, Encyclopedias Indexes, CitationsTheses, Dissertations Course Modules and Materials Simulations, Tutorials, PresentationsCurriculum MaterialsProfessional Development ResourcesETC.
Institutional RepositoriesDigital Resource CommonsElectronic Journal Center OLN, OSC, OhioLINK, school, and library web sitesOLN, OhioLINK and library catalogsCMS and Hosted CMSOhio Resource Center/Eisenhower NCInstructor course web sitesMy learning Space24x7 Help, Training ServicesETC.
Interoperable Digital Library & Learning Object Repositories
K-12 TeachersK-12 StudentsHigher Ed FacultyHigher Ed StudentsPublic library users and general pop.
USERS
Services and Support
Infrastructure
Conceptual Context for Ohio Commons for Digital Education Initiatives
DRC
The DRC will support…• each institution/community sets its own content
policies • self-activated/controlled content ingestion
workflows• institutional ‘brand’ and customized interface for its
content• a collective OhioLINK level branding and collection• local control, multi-tiered security levels will allow
content to be shared only to the extent desired. • the Institutions. Communities or Contributors will
specify layers of access starting with individual, class, Communities, campus, Institution, OhioLINK community, Ohio, or world-wide access
DRC Technology• Fedora is underlying unified repository
• Presentation/interface layers and ingest functions built by staff (mostly Java based)
• Underlying Application “silos” will vary– Lucene for indexing all silos– DLXS Image Class for multimedia– XTF for e-books
• 5 FTE plus parts of others at various stages
DRC Implementation• DMC multimedia to DRC DLXS platform – done• EBC to DRC XTF platform in July 07• EJC to DRC Lucene/presentation layer - done • EJC content to Fedora – fall 07• Institutionally branded DRC all formats – June 07• OL branded/multi-inst searching – Sep 07• Improved ingest and authorization levels – Dec 07• Integrated front ends and back rooms with other
OhioLINK/OLN services – to follow - continuous• Improved, single sign-on …Shibboleth – now
operational
ALADIN Research Commons
A Shared Institutional Repository at the Washington Research Library Consortium
Lizanne PayneExecutive Director, WRLC
ICOLC April 23, 2007
WRLC’sALADINResearch Commons
ICOLCApril 2007
SharedInstitutionalRepositories
Washington Research Library Consortium
Participant Agreement
Articles of Incorporation and Bylaws
Board of Directors
WRLC 501 (c)(3) corporation
UniversityOf D.C.
Marymount
Georgetown
GeorgeWashington
GeorgeMason
Gallaudet
Catholic
American
WRLC
WRLC’sALADINResearch Commons
ICOLCApril 2007
SharedInstitutionalRepositories
WRLC’s ALADIN Digital Library System
Online Catalog & Library Operations
ALADIN Digital Library Portal
Digital CollectionsResearch Commons
Campus resources
External resources
23+ collections so farPhotos, audio, manuscripts
Over 7 million volumes,1.3 million circulations annually, 216,000 consortial loans
Online databases and E-Journals
WRLC’sALADINResearch Commons
ICOLCApril 2007
SharedInstitutionalRepositories
IR Project Goals
• Showcase each university’s scholarly output through ALADIN
• Facilitate federated searching of local scholarly materials to encourage collaboration
• Leverage shared IT resources to provide new services sponsored by libraries
WRLC’sALADINResearch Commons
ICOLCApril 2007
SharedInstitutionalRepositories
Staffing and Funding
• “Leverage” = no explicit funding
• WRLC maintains IT staff and operating capital to support new projects
• WRLC staff = estimated .5 FTE programmer + .5 FTE systems librarian/Web designer
• Member library staff = task force to coordinate initial development
WRLC’sALADINResearch Commons
ICOLCApril 2007
SharedInstitutionalRepositories
IR Project Status
2005 20072006
DSpace implementation
WRLC staff
DSpace Working Group
Policies and Operational Guidelines
Library staff Pilot projects
Going live?
2004
WRLC’sALADINResearch Commons
ICOLCApril 2007
SharedInstitutionalRepositories
Sample Pilot Projects
• American University– School of Communications Graduate Student
Portfolios
• George Washington University– Battleground Polling Data– Electronic theses and dissertations
• Georgetown University– GU Press Languages & Linguistics Archive– Digital Storytelling & Multimedia Narratives
WRLC’sALADINResearch Commons
ICOLCApril 2007
SharedInstitutionalRepositories
Challenges of a shared IR
• How to preserve institutional identity within a shared IR
• How to navigate legal and organizational complexity– Relationship of IR participant (faculty,
community) to individual institution and WRLC – Defining WRLC responsibilities and rights and
those of individual institutions
• How – or IF – to define common standards for acceptable content
WRLC’sALADINResearch Commons
ICOLCApril 2007
SharedInstitutionalRepositories
WRLC’sALADINResearch Commons
ICOLCApril 2007
SharedInstitutionalRepositories
WRLC’sALADINResearch Commons
ICOLCApril 2007
SharedInstitutionalRepositories
Next steps
• Institutional buy-in and commitment of staff resources
• Marketing
• Copyright education & awareness
• Content, content, content
California Digital Library
CDL eScholarship:Past, Present, Future
Ivy Anderson
California Digital Library
ICOLC Spring 2007
Montreal
California Digital Library
About the University of California
• Ten campuses – 9 Carnegie Research Intensive
– 1 Medical School-Only campus (5 medical schools in all)
– 209,000 students
– 170,000 faculty and staff
• California Digital Library– “11th University Library” – founded 1997
– Reports to UC Office of the President
– Allied with Office of Scholarly Communication and Systemwide Library Planning
California Digital Library
About the CDL• Two Complementary Roles
– Facilitate systemwide library collaboration (e.g. shared collection development)– Distinctive services emphasizing stewardship, innovation in scholarly publishing, and
open-access digital collections
• Three Audiences– UC libraries– Broader UC community– External constituencies and the general public
• Five Programs– Collection Development and Management (Licensed, Print, Built Content)– Bibliographic Services (Melvyl Catalog, SFX, ERM)– Preservation (Digital Preservation Repository, Web Archiving)– Digital Special Collections (Calisphere, Online Archive of California, Counting
California)– Publishing Services (eScholarship Repository, eScholarship Editions, collaboration
with UC Press)
California Digital Library
eScholarship: Background and Evolution
• Began in 2000 as an initiative of the CDL; later helped launch Office of Scholarly Communication– Provide low-cost alternative publishing services for the UC
community
– Support widespread distribution of the materials that result from research & teaching
– Foster new models of scholarly publishing through development and application of advanced technologies
• Now CDL Publishing Services (July 2006)– Increasing collaboration with University of California Press and
other UC-wide digital stewardship initiatives
California Digital Library
Current eScholarship Services• eScholarship Repository
– launched 2003– 200 UC depts. contributing more than 15,000 papers, books,
articles, etc.– 5 million full-text downloads a/o April 2007– Technology: bepress (outsourced solution)
• eScholarship Editions– 2,000 XML Scholarly monographs from University of California
Press– CDL-UC Press partnership extends to monographic series, digital
critical editions, interactive Web based publications– Technology: eXtensible Text Framework (XTF)
http://www.cdlib.org/inside/projects/xtf/
California Digital Library
California Digital Library
California Digital Library
California Digital Library
Budget, Staffing, Infrastructure• Budget: $970K (includes all projects, not just eScholarship)
• Staff: – Catherine Candee, Director – Manager, Publishing Services– eScholarship Analyst (unfilled)– Faculty Outreach Coordinator (unfilled)– 3 technical staff (Tech Lead + text system designer + publishing
services architect)
• Platforms– eScholarship Repository: bepress (outsourced)– eScholarship Editions: eXtensible Text Framework (XTF)
California Digital Library
Unified Publishing Services• Dissemination & Repository Services
– Working papers, technical reports, etc.– Postprint Repository– Electronic Theses & Dissertations
• Traditional Scholarly Publishing Services – Scholarly monographs– Peer-reviewed journals
• New Publishing Models– Distributed Editorial Boards– Digital Critical Editions– Interactive map-based publications in soc sciences & humanities– Science reference/collaboration with museums
California Digital Library
Goals of UC Publishing– Align UC publishing services with the academic
enterprise of the University of California
– Broaden the role of the university press beyond gatekeeper for a select few; reclaim and extend the original role of the university press
– Coordinate planning across the UC system, find intersections in IT planning, digital stewardship, research data support, publishing and preservation
– Develop publishing services to be interoperable with services for research and supplementary data
California Digital Library
Next Steps 2007-2008• Extend repository-based services to support the implementation of UC
policy on faculty copyright
• Formalize a collaboratory structure for UC Press and CDL’s eScholarship Office to focus efforts in strategic publishing initiatives
• Provide a more robust journal publication service: offer a menu of choices for editorial assistance, production quality, print and access options
• Implement cost-recovery mechanisms; secure open access options
• Seek efficiencies across traditional publishing modalities, e.g., books and journals; invest savings in R&D for emerging publishing modalities
California Digital Library
Guiding Principles• To remain competitive the university must provide a research
infrastructure for its faculty that will ensure productivity and stimulate innovation in all aspects of the research, teaching and learning cycle
• Publishing must be conceived more broadly than the production of an archival record; it is an integral part of the research enterprise
• Publishing must embrace a suite of production and dissemination activities, some of which will be revenue generating
• Publishing must enable faculty to create and distribute works via the most appropriate means
April 23, 2007 ICOLC - Montreal 60
A digital infrastructure for the scholarly activities of Texas universities
Partners
• Collaboration of higher education institutions in Texas– 4 Texas ARL libraries: UT, A&M, TTU, and UH– New Associate Member libraries:
• University of North Texas• University of Texas at Dallas• University of Texas at Arlington• Texas State University• Baylor University
– New Affiliate Member libraries:• University of Texas at Brownsville• MD Anderson• Angelo State University• A&M Galveston
• Future Goal– All of higher education in Texas
Goal
Become a center of excellence for the curation and preservation of digital scholarly information
in the state of Texas
http://www.tdl.org
The TDL Budget
• Funds the TDL infrastructure - core technology, core team• Does not fund the actual work of putting up the Institutional
Repository, website, and ETDs • Partners provide cash
– For personnel costs– For shared computing infrastructure
• Partners provide staff– For working groups– For bridge groups– For managing their local repositories
April 23, 2007 ICOLC - Montreal 66
TDL Co-DirectorsMark McFarland
John Leggett
Scott PhillipsResearch & Programming
Coordinator
Philip MattinglyTechnical Coordinator
TDL Working GroupsWeb Oversight, ETD,
Repositories, Metadata, Computing Infrastructure
Bridge GroupsJay Paz
Programmer
TDL Programming Teams
TDL ProgrammerUT Austin/FTE
TDLGoverning
Board
Hillary SpillerAdministrative
Associate
Project ManagerHiring in Process
TDL Management
5 Year Plan
• Year 1: Start-Up, FY2006• Year 2: Plan, FY 2007• Year 3: Demonstrate, FY2008• Year 4: Deploy, FY2009• Year 5: Assess, FY2010
Year 2: Plan2006-2007Plan infrastructure and develop policies for content submission and management
• Manakin DSpace• General Repository Policies• Common Submission System for ETDs• Computing Infrastructure• Preservation Network• Access Control
– Shibboleth
Questions?
Contact me, Alexia Thompson-Young
atyoung@mail.utexas.edu
top related