Sep 062012
 

As we approach publishing a final post of highlights from Open Repositories 2012 and move this website towards being an archive of this year’s event we wanted to let you know how you can begin connecting with next year’s conference.

Open Repositories 2013 will be taking place on Prince Edward Island (PEI), Canada and you may recall that in the very warm welcome the team gave at OR2012 they promised to have their website live very soon… Well the OR2013 website is now live! Bookmark it now: http://or2013.net/

On the website already you’ll find some introductory information on the Island and highlights of what you’ll be able to enjoy during your conference stay. An OR2013 Crowdvine has also been set up so do go and sign up.

OR2013 have also launched their Twitter account: you can find them as @openrepos2013 and they are using the hashtag #OR2013 to get the conversation around next year’s conference started.

So, over the next few months you can not only look forward to some updates from the OR2012 team but you can also look forward to hearing much more about OR2013 from the Prince Edward Island team and start planning your ideas, papers, etc.

 

 

 

 

 September 6, 2012  Posted by at 9:45 am Updates Tagged with: , , ,  Comments Off on OR2013 Website Launched!
Jul 132012
 

As the conference draws to a close we wanted to thank all of you that came along or followed the event online, and we wantnd to fill you in on what would be happening around the conference after the in-person part of Open Repositories 2012.

In the next few weeks we will be going through the over 4000 tweets and the fantastic photos, blog posts, presentations, conference materials and commentary that you have been producing throughout the conference and we’ll be summarising all that right here, linking to your blogs and reports, and highlighting where you can access all of the official conference content.

Here are eight ways to keep in touch:

  1. Fill in our survey – tell us what you liked, what we could have done better… we value all of your feedback on the event whether you were here in person or via reading our blogs, tweets, seeing videos etc: http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/OR_2012
  2. Stick with us on Twitter – we will continue sharing blog posts, updates, and conference-related new via the #or2012 tag and the @OpenRepos2012 account. And you should start following the new @ORConference Twitter account which will keep you in touch with Open Repositories throughout the year! Remember to reply, comment, retweet!
  3. Blog with us – we did our best to liveblog from the parallel strands but we would love to hear what you thought of these and other sessions – did you go to or run a fantastic workshop? Was there something increadibly useful from the user group you’d like to see shared more widely? We would love your contributions to the blog or to hear about where you’ve been writing up the event – just drop us an email or leave a comment here!
  4. Keep an eye on the OR2012 YouTube channel – you will find over 40 videos of the parallel sessions (excluding P1A unfortunately, our AV team have been unable to correct a corrupt file of that recording) there already and Pecha Kucha sessions will be appearing over the next few weeks.
  5. Share your pictures – if you haven’t already joined our Flickr group please do get in touch – we’d love to see more of your pictures of the event!
  6. Pin with us! – We have begun the process of gathering our favourite images and videos from OR2012 on Pinterest. We would love to add your highlights, your favourite parts of the event so do let us know what you’d like to see appear!
  7. Connect on CrowdVine! Now that you’ve had a chance to meet and chat it’s a great time to use the OR2012 CrowdVine to stay in touch, make further connection, discuss your thoughts on the event. For instance there’s already a great thread on “highlights and things you’ll take home“.
  8. And finally… Look out for emails about Open Repositories 2013. If you’ve let us know your email address via the feedback form we’ll be in touch. You can also join the Open Repositories Google Group and stay in touch that way. Or you can simply drop us a note to or2012@ed.ac.uk and we’ll make sure we add you to our list for staying in touch.

We really enjoyed Open Repositories 2012 and really hope you did too!

 July 13, 2012  Posted by at 4:04 pm Updates Tagged with: ,  Comments Off on What to expect from OR2012 over the next few weeks
Jul 122012
 

Today we are liveblogging from the OR2012 conference at George Square Lecture Theatre (GSLT), George Square, part of the University of Edinburgh. Find out more by looking at the full program.

If you are following the event online please add your comment to this post or use the #or2012 hashtag.

This is a liveblog so there may be typos, spelling issues and errors. Please do let us know if you spot a correction and we will be happy to update the post.

Kevin: I am delighted to introduce my colleague Peter Burnhill, Director of EDINA and Head of the Edinburgh University Data Library, who will be giving the conference summing up.
Peter: When I was asked to do this I realised I was doing the Clifford Lynch slot here! So… I am going to show you a Wordle. Our theme for this years conference was Local In for Global Out… I’m not sure if we did that but here is the summing up of all of the tweets from the event. Happily we see Data, open, repositories and challange are all prominent here. But Data is the big arrival. Data is now mainstream. If we look back on previous events we’ve heard about services around repositories… we got a bit obsessed with research articles, in the UK because of the REF, but data is important and great to see it being prominent. And we see jiscmrd here so Simon will be pleased he did come on his crutches [he has broken his leg].
I have to confess that I haven’t been part of the organising committee but my colleagues have. We had over 460 register from over 40 different nations so do all go to PEI. Edinburgh is a beautiful city but when you got here is was rather damp but it’s nicer now – go see those things. Edinburgh is a bit of a repository itself – we have David Hume, Peter Higgs and Harry Potter to boast – and that fits with local in for global out as I’m sure you’ve heard of two of them. And I’ve like to than John Howard, chair of the OR Steering Committe and our Host Organising Committee
Our opening keynote Cameron Neylon talked about repositories beyond academic walls and the idea of using them for turning good research outputs into good research outcomes. We are motivated to make sure we have secure access to content… as part of a more general rumbling with workshops before the formal start there was this notion of disruption. Not only the Digital Economy but also a sense of not being passive about that. We need to take command of the scholarly communication area that is our job – that cry to action from Cameron and we should heed that.
And there was talk of citation… LinkedIn, Academia.edu etc. is all about linking back to research to data. And that means having reliable identifiers. And trust is a key part of that. Publishers have trust, if repositories are to step up to that trust level you have to be sure that when you access that repository you get what it says it is. As a researcher you don’t use data without knowing what it is and where it came from. The respoitory world needs to think about that notion of assurance, not quality assurance exactly. And also that object may be interrogatable to say what it is and really help you reproduce that object.
Preservation and Provenance is also crucial,
Disaster recovery is also important.. When you fail, and you will, you need to know how you cope, really interesting to see this picked up in a number of sessions too.
I won’t  summarise everything but there were some themes…
We are beginning to deal with the idea on registries and how those can be leveaged for linking resources and identifiers. I don’t think solutions were found exactly but the conversations were very valuable.And we need to think about connectivity, as flagged by Cameron. And these places l,e twitter and Facebook… WE don’t own them but we need to be I them, to make sure that citations come back to us from here.And finally, we have been running a thing called repository fringe for the last four years, and then we won the big One. But we had a little trepidation as There afe a lot lf hou! And we had an uncondference strand. Ad i can say that UoE intends to do repository fringe in 2013.

We hope you enjoyed that unconference strand – an addition to complement the open repositories, not to take away from it but to add an extra flavour. We hope that the PEI folk will keep a bit f that flavour at OR and we will be running the fringe a wee bit later in the year, nearer the edinburgh fringe.

As I finish up I wanted to mention an organisation in IASSIST, librarians used to be about the demand side of services but things have shifted over time. We would encourage that those of us here lik up to groups like IASSIST (and we will suggest the same to them) and we can finds way to connect up, to commune together at PEI and to kshare experience. And so finally I think this is about the notion of connectivity. We have the technology, we have the opportunity to connect up more to our colleagues!

And with that I shall finish up!

Begin with an apology….

We seem to have the builders in. We have a small event coming up… The biggest festival in the world… Bt we didn’t realise that the builders would move in about the same week as you….what you haven’t seen yet is out 60x40ft upside down purple cow… If you are here a bit longer you may see it! We hope you enjoyed your time nonetheless

It’s a worrying thing hosting a conference like this… Lke hosting a party you worry if anyone will show up. But the feedback seems to have been good and and I have many thank yous. Firstly to all of those who reviewed papers. To our sponsors. To the staff here – catering, edinburgh first,nthe tech staff. Bt particularly to my colleagues on the local Host Orgnaising Committee: Stuart Macdonald, William Nixon, james toon,  andrew bevan – most persuasive committee member getting our sponsors on board, saly Macgregor, nicola osborne who has led our social media activity, and to Florance Kennedy, who has been using her experience of wrangling 1000 developers at FLOc a few years ago.

The Measure of success for any event like this is about the quality of conversation, of collaboration, of idea sharing, and that seems to have worked well and we’ve really enjoyed having you here. The conference doesn’t end now of course but changes shape.. And so we move onto the user groups!

 July 12, 2012  Posted by at 11:33 am LiveBlog, Updates Tagged with: ,  2 Responses »
Jul 112012
 

Lots of people have been asking about download access to presentations and posters. Sorry we didn’t provide information about this earlier – I confess it was partly because until we had missed a simple setting in our conference submission system that provided public access to downloads.

The good news is that many presentations and posters are now available directly from the detailed pages in the conference agenda ; this isn’t a permanent home for the content but it will be available to access for at least the rest of this calendar year. At present, presentations are only there if presenters uploaded them beforehand (similarly for posters.) We’re also trying to collect presentations as they are given, but we can’t guarantee a 100% success rate. If you are a presenter or poster author, please do take a minute or so to upload your presentation whilst you are here. We are only making content available after each session has run, so there’s no risk of any surprises being unleashed early.

Given all that we’ve heard at OR2012 about the advantages of putting content online and making it open and the value of putting content in repositories, it would be downright contrary of any of you not to comply and place your content in the staging post for the conference repository. Do it now if only for the brief glow of self-satisfaction that it will give.

 

 July 11, 2012  Posted by at 1:59 pm Updates Tagged with: , ,  2 Responses »
Jul 112012
 

Today we are liveblogging from the OR2012 conference at Lecture Theatre 5 (LT5), Appleton Tower, part of the University of Edinburgh. Find out more by looking at the full program.

If you are following the event online please add your comment to this post or use the #or2012 hashtag.

This is a liveblog so there may be typos, spelling issues and errors. Please do let us know if you spot a correction and we will be happy to update the post.

Topic: A Repository-based Architecture for Capturing Research Projects at the Smithsonian Institution
Speaker(s): Thorny Staples

I have recently returned to the Smithsonian. I got into repositories through lots of digital research projects. I should start off by saying that I’ll show you screenshots for a system that allows researchers to deposit data from the very first moment of research, it’s in their control until it goes off to curators later.

I’m sure most of you know of the Smithsonian. We were founded to be a research institute originally – museums were a result of that. We have 19 museums, 9 scientific research centers, 8 advances study centres, 22 libraries, 2 major archives and a zoo (Washington zoo). We focus on longterm baseline research, especially in biodiversity and environmental studies, lots of research in cultural heritage areas. And all of this, hundreds of researchers working around the world, has had no systematic data management of digital researvh content (except for SAO who work under contract for NASA).

So the problem is that we need to capture research information as it’s created and make it “durable” – it’s not about presevation but about making it durable. The Smithsonian is now requiring a data management plan for ALL projects of ANY time. This is supposed to say where they will put their digital information, or at least get them thinking about it. But we are seeing very complex arrays of numerous types of data. Capturing the full structure and context of the research content is neccasary. It’s a network model, it’s not a library model. We have to think network from the very beginning.

We have to depend on the researvchers to do much of the work, so we have to make it easy. They have to at least minimally describe their data but they have to do something. And if we want them to do it we must provide incentives. It’s not about making them curators. They will have a workspace, not an archive. It’s about a virtual research environment but a repository-enables VRE. Primary goal is to enhance their research capabilities, leaving trusted data as their legacy. So to deliver that we have to care about a content creation and management environment, an analysis environment and a dissemination environment. And we have to think about this as two repositories: there is the repository for the researcher, they are data owners, they set policies, they have control – crucial buy-in and crucial concept for them; And then we have to think about an interoperable gathering service – a place researcher content feeds into and also cross search/access to multiple repositories back in the other direction as these researchers work in international teams.

Key to the whole thinking is the concept of the web as the model. It’s a network of nodes that are units of content, connected by arcs that are relationships. I was attracted to Fedora because of the notion of a physical object and a way to create networks here. Increasingly content will not be sustainable as discrete packages. We will be maintaining our part of the formalized world-wide web of content. Some policies will mean we can’t share everything all the time but we have to enable that, that’s where things are going. Information objects should be ready to be linked, not copied, as policy permits. We may move things from one repository to another as data moves over to curatorial staff but we need to think of it that way.

My conceptual take here is that a data object is one unit of content – not one file. E.g. a book is one object no matter how many pages (all of which could be objects). By the way this is a prototype, this isn’t a working service, it’s a prototype to take forward. And the other idea that’s new is the “concept object”. This is an object with a metadata about the project as a whole then a series of concept objects for the components of that project. If I want to create a virtual exhibition I might build 10 concept objects for those paintings and then pull up those resources.

So if you come into a project you see a file structure idea. Theres an object at the top for the project as a whole. Your metadata overview, which you can edit, lets you define those concepts. The researcher controls every object and all definitions. The network is there, they are operating within it. You can link concepts to each other, it’s not a simple hierachy. And you can see connections already there. You can then ingest objects – right now we have about 8 concept types (e.g. “Research site, plot or area”). When you pick that you then pick which of several forms you want to use. When you click “edit” you can see the metadata editor in a simple web form prepopulated with existing record. And when you look at resources you can see any resources associated with that concept. You can upload resources without adding metadata but it will show in bright yellow to remind you to add metadata. And you can attach batches of resources – and these are offered depending where you are in the network.

And if I click in “exhibit” – a link on each concept – you can see a web version of the data. This takes advantage of the adminstrator screen but allows me to publish my work to the web. I can keep resources private if I want. I can make things public if I want. And when browsing this I can potentially download or view metadata – all those options defined by researcher’s setting of policies.

Q&A

Q1 – Paul Stanhope from University of Lincoln) Is there any notion of concepts being bigger than the institution, being available to others

A1) We are building this as a prototype, as an idea. So I hope so. We are a good microcosm for most types of data – when the researcher picks that they pick metadata schemas behind the scenes. This think we built is local but it could be global, we’re building it in a way that could work that way. With the URIs othwe intstitutions can link their own resources etc.

Q2) Coming from a university, do you think there’s anything different about your institution? Is there a reason this works differently?

A2) One of the things about the Smithsonian is that all of our researchers are Federal employees and HAVE to make their data public after a year. That’s a big advantage. We have other problems – funding, the government – but policy says that the researchers have to

Q3 – Joseph Green from University College Dublin) How do you convey the idea of concept objects etc. to actual users – it looks like file structures.

A3) Well yes, kind of the idea. If they want to make messy structures they can (curators can fix). The only thing they need is a title for their concept structure. They do have a file system BUT they are building organising nodes here. And that web view is an incentive – it’ll look way better if they fill in their metadata. Thats the beginning… for tabular data objects for instance they will be required to do a “code book” to describe the variables. They can do this in a basic way or they can do better more detailed code book and it will look better on the web. We are trying to incentivise  at every level. And we have to be fine with ugly file structures and live with it.

Topic: Open Access Repository Registries: unrealised infrastructure?
Speaker(s): Richard Jones, Sheridan Brown, Emma Tonkin

I’m going to be talking about an Open Access Repositories project that we have been working on, funded by JISC, looking at what Open Access repositories are being used for and what their potential is via stakeholder interviews, via a detailed review of ROAR and OPENDOAR, and somerecommendations.

So if we thought about a perfect/ideal repository as a starting point… we asked out stakeholders what they would want. They would want it to be authoritative – the right name, the right URL; they want it to be reliable; automated; broad scope; curated; up-to-date. The idea of curation and the role of human intervention would be valuable although much of this would be automated. People particularly wanted the scope to be much wider. If a data set changes there are no clear ways to expand the registry and that’s an issue. But all of those terms are really about the core things you want to do – you all want to benchmark. You want to compare yourself to others and see how you’re doing. And in our sector and funders they want to see all repositories, what are the trends, how are we doing with Open Access. And potentially ranking repositories or universities (like Times HE rankings) etc.

But what are they ACTUALLY being used for right now? Well mainly use them for documenting their own existing repositories. Basic management info. Discovery. Contact info. Lookups for services – use registry for OAI-PMH endpoints. So that’s I think, it looks as if we’re falling a bit short! So, a bit of background on what OA repository registries there are. So we have OpenDOAR, ROAR (Registry of Open Access Repositories) – those are both very broad scope repositories, well known and well used. But there is also the Registry of Biological Repositories. There is re3data.org – all research data so it’s a content type specific repository registry. And, more esoterically, is the Ranking Web of World Repositories. Not clear if this is a registry or a service on a registry. And indeed that’s a good question… what services run on registries. So things like BASE search for OAI-PMH endpoints, very similar to this is Institutional Respositories Search based at Mimas in the UK. Repository 66 is a more novel idea – mashup with Google Maps to show repositories around the world. Then there is the Open Access Repository Junction a multideposit tool for discovery and use of Sword endpoints.

Looking specifically at OpenDOAR and ROAR. OpenDOAR is run at University at Nottingham (SHERPA) and it uses manual curation. Only lists OA and Full-text repositories. It’s been running since 2005. Whereas DOAR is principally Repository Manager added records. No manual curation. And lists both full-text and metadata only. Based at University of Southampton and running EPrints 3, inc. SNEEP elements etc. Interestingly both of these have policy addition as an added value service. Looking at the data here – and these are a wee bit out of date (2011). There seems to be big growth but some flattening out in OpenDOAR in 2011 – probably approaching full coverage. ROAR has a larger number of repositories due to difference in listing but quite similar to OpenDOAR (and ROAR harvests this too). And if we look at where repositories are both ROAR and OpenDOAR are highly international. Slightly more European bias in OpenDOAR perhaps. The coverage is fairly broad and even around the globe. When looking at content type OpenDOAR is good at classifying material into types, reflective of manual curation. We expect this to change over time, especially datasets. ROAR doesn’t really distinguish between content types and repository types – it would be interesting to see these separately. We also looked at what data you typically see about the repository in any record. Most have name, URL, location etc. OpenDOAR is more likely to include a description and contact details than is the case in ROAR. Interestingly the machine to machine interfaces are a different story. OpenDOAR didn’t have any RSS or SWORD endpoint information at all, ROAR had little. I know OpenDOAR are changing this soon. This field has been added on later in ROAR and no-one has come back to update this new technology, that needs addressing.

A quick not about APIs. ROAR has OAI-PMH API, no client library, full data dump available. OpenDOAR has a fulled documented query API, no client library and full data dump available. When we were doing this work almost no one was using the APIs, they just download all data.

We found stakeholders, interviewees etc. noted some key limitations: content count stats are unreliable; not internationalised/multilingual- particularly problematic if a name is translated and is the same as but doesnt appear to be the same thing; limited revisions history; No clear relationships between repos, orgs, etc. And no policies/mechanisms for populating new fields (e.g. SWORD). So how can we take what we have and realise potential for registries? There is already good stuff going on… Neither of those registries automatically harvest data from repositories but that would help to make data more authoritative/reliable/up to date; automated; increased scope of data – and that makes updates so much easier for all.  And we can think about different kinds of quality control – no one was doing automated link checking or spell checking and those are pretty easy to do. And an option for human intervention was in OpenDOAR but not in ROAR, and that could be make available.

But we could also make them more useful for more things – graphical representaqtions of the registry; better APIs and Data (with standards compliance where relevent); versioning of repositories and record counts; more focus on policy tools.  And we could look to encourage overlaid services: repository content stats analysis; comparitive statistics and analytics; repository and OA rankings; text analysis for identifying holdings; error detection; multiple deposits. Getting all of that we start hitting that benchmarking objective.

Q&A

Q1 – Owen Stephens) One of the projects I’m working on is CORE project from OU and we are harvesting repositories via OpenDOAR. We are producing stats about harvesting. Others do the same. It seems you are combining two things – benchmarking and repositories. We want OpenDOAR to be comprehensive, and we share your thoughts on need to automate and check much of that. But how do we make sure we don’t build both at the same time or separate things out so we address that need and do it properly?

A1) The review didn’t focus on structures of resulting applications so much. But we said there should be a good repository registry that allows overlay of other services – like the benchmarking services. CORE is an example of something you would build over the registry. We expect the registry to provide mechanism to connect up to these though. And I need to make an announcement: JISC, in the next few weeks, will be putting out an ITT to take forward some of this work. There will be a call out soon.

Q2 – Peter from OpenDOAR) We have been improving record quality in OpenDOAR. We’ve been removing some repositories that are no longer there – link checking doesn’t do it all. We also are starting to look at including those machine to machine interfaces. We are doing that automatically with help from Ian Stuart at EDINA. But we are very happy to have them sent in too – we’ll need that in some case

A2) you are right that link checkers are not perfect. More advanced checking services can be built on top of registries though.

Q3) I am also working on the CORE project. The collaboration with OpenDOAR where we reuse their data, it’s very useful. Because we are harvesting we can validate the repository and share that with OpenDOAR. The distinction between registries and harvesting is really about an ecosystem that can work very well.

Q4) Is there any way for repositories to register with schema.org to enable automatic discovery?

A4) We would envision something like that, that you could get all that data in a sitemap or similar.

A4 – Ian Stuart) If registering with Schema.org then why not register with OpenDOAR?

A4 – chair) Well with scheama.org you host the file, its just out on the web.

Q5) How about persistant URLs for repositories?

A5) You can do this. The Handle in DSpace is not a persistant URL for the repository.

Topic: Collabratorium Digitus Humanitas: Building a Collaborative DH Repository Framework
Speaker(s): Mark Leggott, Dean Irvine, Susan Brown, Doug Reside, Julia Flanders

I have put together a panel for today but they are in North America so I’ll bring them in virtually… I will introduce and then pass over to them here.

So… we all need a cute title and Collaboratory is a great word we’ve heard before. I’m using that title to describe a desire to create a common framework and/or set of interoperable tools providing a DH Scholars Workbench. We often create great creative tools but the idea is to combine and make best use of these in combination.

This is all based on Islandora. A Drupal+ Feora framework from UPEI. Flexible UI on top of Fedora and other apps. It’s deployed in over 100 institutions and that’s growing. The ultimate goal of those efforst is to release a Digital Humanities solutions packs with various tools integrated in, in a framework that would be of interest to scholarly DH context – images, video, TEI, etc.

OK so now my colleagues…

Dean is visiting professor in Yale, and also professor at Dalhousie University in Canada and part of a group that creates new versions of important modernism in canada prints. Dean: so this is the homepage for Modernist Commons. This is the ancillery site that goes with the Modernism in Canada project. One of our concerns is about long term preservation about digital data stored in the commons. What we have here is both the repository and a suite of editing tools. When you go into the commons you will find a number of collections – all test collections and samples from the last year or so. We have scans of a bilingual publication called Le Nigog, a magazine that was published in Canada. You can view images, mark-up, or you can view all of the different ways to organise and orchestrate the book object in a given collection. You can use an Internet Archive viewer or alternative views. The IA viewer frames things according to the second to last image in the object, so you might want to use an alternative. In this viewer you can look at the markup, entities, structures, RDF relations or whether you want to look at image annotations. The middle pane is a version of CWRC Writer that lets us do TEI and RDF markup. And you see the SharedCanvas tools provided with other open annotation group items. As you mark up a text you can create author authority files that can be used across collections/objects.

Next up Victoria Brown, her doctorate is on Victorian feminist literature. She currently researches collaborative systems, interface design, usability. Victoria: I’ll be talking more generally than Dean. The Canadian Writing Research Council is looking to do something pretty ambitios that only works in a collaborative DH environment. We have tools that can aim as big as we can. I want to focus on talking about a couple of things that define a DH Collaboratory. It needs to move beyond institutional repository model. To invoke persoective of librarian colleagues I want to address what makes us so weird… What’s different about us is that storing final DH materials is only part of the story, we want to find, amass, collect materials; to sort and organise them; to read, analyse and visualize. That means environments much be flexible, porous, really robust. Right now most of that work is on personal computers – we need to make these more scalable and interoperable. This will take a huge array of stakeholders buying into these projects. So a DH repository environment needs to be easy o manage, diverse and flexible. And some of these will only have a small amount of work and resources. In many projects small teanms of experts will be working with very little funding. So the CWRC Writer here shows you how you edit materials. On the right you see TEI markup. You can edit this and other aspects – entities, RDF open annotation mark up etc, notations allows you to construct triples from within the eidt. One of the ways to encourage interoperability is through use of common entities – connecting your work to the world of linked data. The idea is to increase consistency across projects with TEI markup and RDF means better metadata than the standard working in Word, publishing in HTML many use. So this is a flexible tool. Embedding this in a repository does raise questions about revisioning and archiving though. One of the challenges for repositories and DH is how we handle those ideas. Ultimately though we think this sort of tool can broaden participation in DH and collaboration in DH content. I think the converse challenge for DH is to work on more generalised environments to make sure that work can be interoperable. So we need to take something from solid and stable structure and move to the idea of shared materials – a porous silo maybe – where we can be specific to our work but share and collaborate with others.

The final speaker is Doug, he became first digital curator at NYPL. He’s currently editing music of the month blog at NYPL. Doug: the main thing we are doing is completely reconfiguring our repository to allow annotation of Fedora and take in a lot of audio nad video content. And particularly for large amounts of born digital collections. We’ve just started working with a company called BrightCove to share some of our materials. Actually we are hiring an engineer to design the interface for that – get in touch. We are also working on improved display interfaces. Right now it’s all about the idea of th egallery – the idea was that it would self-sustain through selling prints. We are moving to a model where you can still view those collections but also archival materials. We did a week long code sprint with DH developers to extend the Internet Archive book reader. We have since decided to move from that to New York Times backed reader – the NYT doc viewer with OCR and annotation there.

Q&A

Q1) I was interested in what you said about the CWRC writer – you said you wnated to record every key stroke. Have you thought about SVN or GIT that do all that versioning stuff already.

A1 – Susan) They are great tools for version control and it would be fascinating to do that. But do you put your dev money into that or do you try to meet needs of greatest number of projects? But we would definitely look in that direction to look at challenges of versioning introduced in dynamic online production environments.

 

 July 11, 2012  Posted by at 12:27 pm LiveBlog, Updates Tagged with: , , , ,  Comments Off on P4B: Shared Repository Services and Infrastructure LiveBlog
Jul 102012
 

There are two fantastic ways you can use your smartphone at Open Repositories this week!

Microsoft Research have put together a great little Windows Phone 7 app for frequent conference goers and throwers: My Conference. It pulls in conference information and puts it into a convenient, dare I say attractive, interface. Browse events, tunnel deeper to learn about the delegates, and read what they’ve submitted to earn a slot at the conference. You can also see their other publications via Microsoft Academic Search. And what would any conference app be without a quick game of Guess Who? Here’s a little walkthrough and showoff video using the OR2012 programme.

YouTube Preview Image

You’ll probably see a bunch of pixelated little squares around the conference’s paper programme. You should put those QR codes to use, linking to equivalent pages online and freeing all that information from your printout. You can also use our custom map and read abstracts this way. Watch the video to find out how.

YouTube Preview Image
 July 10, 2012  Posted by at 11:47 am Updates Tagged with: , , ,  Comments Off on Two Fantastic Ways to use your phone at Open Repositories 2012
Jul 102012
 

As Day two workshops get underway we thought we’d take a look through the tweets and updated from Day One and share the highlights. This is the first set of updates, we’ll be adding to it from the tweets and comments throughout the day and after the event so do add links and comments here and come back to take a look…

After registration we realised it had taken a wee while for people to spot the 8GB memory stick hidden inside their delegate badges. Thankfully @williamjnixon was on hand with an explanation of how to use them – “The 8gb flash drive just swivels out of the badge”. Yes, it is really that easy 😉

The DSpace Committers meeting seemed to go really well – lots of interesting stuff raised according to those we’ve been chatting to this morning. If you were along and would like to share your notes/thoughts just let us know!

The Islandora workshop introduced Islandora to lots of folk who didn’t previously know much about it. And @jjtuttle was impressed to see “the #DiscGarden #Islandora video solution pack does reencoding using ffmpeg to generate access files. We want that.”

The Open Access Index workshop described establishing a way to “measure openness of research. What factors should it consider?” (via @openscience). To gather responses they have set up a survey here – do fill it in.

The DCC workshop, Institutional Repositories & Data – Roles and Responsibilities highlighted that Research Data Management is “a relay race, pass the baton at key point in the cycle” (via @wrap_ed). @informnivore tweeted Jared Lyle’s take on data curation challenges: “formats, metadata, privacy, and training”. The ICPSR work was of lots of interest. The full results of the recent ICPSR study will be a here (via @sjDCC) and a handy tip from the workshop: “ICPSR has an anonymizer tool for social science data”. One of the more interesting questions raised here was “what the role of funding agencies in data preservation & curation?” (via @informnivore). Breakouts included researcher workflows, insinstutional responsibilities, and IR limitations (via @pcastromartin). Concerns over the latter included “limited qualifications of library staff to deal with domain-specific metadata”. Apparently it “took us an hour or so but ‘the’ question has come up. So ‘what is research data?'” (via @wrap_ed).

At the text mining workshop @CriticalSteph reported back so regularly she got banned by Twitter for the day! But before the ban she shared news of Argo, which has “the aim is to be a community resource of a complete framework of text mining”.

The Repositories Support Project workshop: Building a national network kicked off with an overview from Balviar Notay of JISC’s work with repositories that left the crowd wanting more and particularly interested in the JISC Elevator and UK RepositoryNet+. And @llordllama wondered “Does the JISC elevator sound like the one in Are You Being Served? That would be neat.”. Jackie Wickham spoke on RSP but also on Sherpa as “Congratulations go to Bill Hubbard, now a very recent dad which has trumped attending #or2012“! (via @williamjnixon). OpenDOAR, Sherpa/Romeo and Juliet were all well recognised by the crowd, even those from overseas and “66% of publishers listed on Romeo allow some form of repository archiving. That figure’s been stable for half a decade” (via @llordllama). And one audience member suggested that adding “Article Processing Charges” (APCs) to Romeo would be a v useful addition”. A great fact from Jackie’s talk on RSP (the website for which was launched in 2006): “UK only second to US in number of repositories” – “on OpenDOAR the 9.5% of the institutional repositories are from the UK” (via @RepoSupport). “RSP has been busy with over 1300 delegates to from from 200+ organisations to events and 90+ consultancy visits” and have an embeddedness self-assessment tool (via @williamjnixon and @nancypontika). Marie Cairney talked about “the evolution of Enlighten from its antecedents in JISC FAIR and DAEDALUS“. Now @uofglibrary has two separate repositories 1 for published papers (Enlighten) & 2nd for theses. This led to discussion of deposit policy and of the Glasgow publications policy a “mix of metadata, full text and use of address”. See also: Building a national network – Nick Sheppard’s excellent liveblog of the RSP session: http://ukcorr.org/2012/07/09/building-a-national-network/

And finally…

The DevCSI Developer Challenge is still looking for your fantastic ideas! Add them here or go and say hello in the Developer Lounge on the 1st floor of Appleton Tower (just near the lifts).

Recommended by the Tweetosphere

Get the picture?

 

 July 10, 2012  Posted by at 8:33 am Updates Tagged with: , ,  Comments Off on Highlights of OR2012 Day One!
Jul 092012
 

Welcome to the LiveBlog area for Open Repositories 2012!

Throughout the conference we will be recording sessions, tweeting and posting live blog updates from Keynotes, Parallel Sessions, the Repository Fringe strand and our fabulous events. All of these posts will appear on the main OR2012 page but can also be found here in the LiveBlog category as well. We hope to also have some guest bloggers covering some of the workshops and user groups either live or after the conference has finished.

If you are interested in being one of those bloggers please get in touch (nicola.osborne@ed.ac.uk) and we’ll set you up with access to post!

What to Expect

Our glamorous team of bloggers will be posted in various venues around the conference adding live updates to the blog here. Sometimes these will be summaries of what is being said, sometimes near verbatim accounts (it depends on various factors, particularly the speaker’s talking speed!). Our bloggers will also be tweeting and keeping an eye on the conference hashtag #or2012 for key information, updates, and questions from those reading the blog from their own desks away from the conference. Most of the content at this year’s event will be videoed and made available during or shortly after the event. And our blogging team will also be taking pictures and sharing them via Flickr (where you can also share your images of the event) though some of these may take a bit longer to reach the blog.

If you have a question, comment, or need some information then feel free to say hello to our bloggers and they may be able to help you, or at least put you in touch with other organisers who can assist. Please bear in mind our bloggers will be very busy throughout the week so if it takes them a while to approve a comment or reply to a tweet just give them a wee friendly nudge.

As a general rule we use the EDINA Social Media Guidelines to help us in our work – feel free to take a look particularly if you’d like to join us in the blogging.

Meet the Team

So that you can spot them at the event here are the team who will be blogging, tweeting, videoing and generally helping share Open Repositories 2012 with you…

Nicola Osborne is the Social Media Officer for EDINA and is leading our Social Media activity and amplification this year. She has refined her liveblogging skills through years of covering the Repository Fringe events!

Ask about: Twitter, videoing, how to become an OR2012 blogger, etc.

Superpower: Speedy liveblogging and image taking in parallel.

Contact: @suchprettyeyes, nicola.osborne@ed.ac.uk or via @OpenRepos2012

Zack O’Leary is a PhD student at the University of Edinburgh and is assisting EDINA with social media throughout the summer.

Ask about: Twitter, liveblogs, mobile, burritos.

Superpower: Playing the QWERTY keyboard, he can create a symphony of social media.

Contact: @zaleary

Image of Nick Shepard

Nick Sheppard is Repository Developer at Leeds Metropolitan University and Technical Officer for the UK Council of Research Repositories (UKCoRR). Nick considers himself a Shambrarian and blogs on technical and cultural aspects of repository development , research management and Open Educational Resources (OER) for both his institution and UKCoRR.

Ask about: Twitter, integrated research management (IR/CRIS), OER, Jorum

Superpower: Superfast, highly accurate rock-music assisted metadata creation

Contact: @mrnickn.e.sheppard@leedsmet.ac.uk

Blogs: http://repositorynews.wordpress.com/http://ukcorr.org/activity/blog/

Kirsty PitkinKirsty Pitkin is an event amplifier, who tears around the country covering a wide range of fascinating events.  She works closely with the DevCSI project and will be blogging about the Developer Challenge throughout OR 2012.  If you’re taking part in the challenge, make sure you tell her about your cool idea!

Ask about:  The DevCSI Developer Challenge
Superpower:  Managing multiple social media channels at once.
Contact: @devcsi, http://devcsi.ukoln.ac.uk, @eventamplifier, http://eventamplifier.wordpress.com
A picture is also attached.

 

Steph Taylor, is a researcher, consultant and trainer based in Manchester. Her interests lie in Digital libraries, repositories, research data management and social media (read more on her Crowdvine page). She’ll be updating us on her superpowers shortly.

Natasha Simons: Natasha Simons is a Senior Project Manager in eResearch Services, Scholarly Information and Research, at Griffith University, Australia. She manages a number of projects focussed on building eResearch infrastructure. She’ll be updating her own blog here: http://natashajsimons.blogspot.com.au/. As she’s currently en route to the UK but will update us on her superpowers shortly.

Join the Team!

We welcome and encourage your input before, during and after Open Repositories 2012. If you would like to be one of our livebloggers there is still time – email nicola.osborne@ed.ac.uk and we’ll get you set up. Otherwise feel free to tweet, post on Crowdvine, share your images on Flickr, comment here on the blog – or just enjoy the conference whether online or here in person!

If you will be liveblogging or writing up Open Repositories 2012 somewhere else on the web just let us know and we’ll link to your write-up from our OR2012 Buzz page.

 July 9, 2012  Posted by at 10:12 am LiveBlog Tagged with: , , , , , ,  Comments Off on Welcome to the OR2012 LiveBlog
Jul 092012
 

If you are the author of a poster at this year’s conference, make sure you pick up your free poster stickers from the registration desk. We’re trialling a simple way to help poster authors have discussions with delegates about their posters even when they aren’t standing next to them. You can place the poster stickers on your clothing, your conference bag, laptop or anywhere else you think it will attract attention. 4 stickers have the full title of your poster on them as well as an image of it; 3 just have the poster itself. One contains identifying information to make it easy for the registration staff to hand out the right stickers to the right people.

If you are a delegate and see someone wearing a poster sticker, why not ask them about it ?

Stickers were only printed for those who uploaded their posters to the conference system by early July. If you didn’t do that, we’re sorry but you won’t have any stickers waiting for you.

 July 9, 2012  Posted by at 9:32 am Delegates, Updates Tagged with: ,  Comments Off on OR2012 Poster stickers
Jul 042012
 
Uncle Sam I Want You Poster

(Original image by DonkeyHotey, Flickr, 28-04-11. Painting by James Montgomery Flagg, via the Library of Congress)

The developer challenge isn’t just for developers anymore. It doesn’t matter if you speak Perl or Ruby or if you bash your Fedora, so long as you speak repository. We want curators, managers, and users of every sort to join. It takes all kinds to make great new toys, so you should consider signing up and pitching an idea. If metadata gets you going, or if you revel in getting your hands dirty with big data sets, there’s no better place to be this Tuesday night than the developer challenge at OR2012.

Show us something new and cool in the world of Open Repositories

That’s the pitch, and we want to see what you’ve got. It’s going to take a collaboration between code ninjas, database wizards, and SWORD-wielding users to take home the prize. We know there are all sorts of innovations bouncing around amongst the array of attendees, and we want to showcase the best of the best.

You don’t even have to worry about making it work yet, though it certainly wouldn’t hurt. Just refine your idea a bit and get ready to talk about it. On Tuesday all of the challengers will get together and shout it out, airing their plans and giving each other feedback.Then you’ve got just under a day to make any finishing touches before presenting to an audience and judging panel on Wednesday night at 5:00pm.

To the victor go the spoils

Funding, vouchers, widgets, and the attention of the entire conference on Thursday morning are all up for grabs. Not too shabby. So head over to the DevCSI challenge page to iron out the details, then submit your idea in the comments of the entry page before Tuesday the 10th.

Need some inspiration? We’ve got just the thing – here are a few prize winners from OpenRepo DevCSI challenges in 2009 and 2011.