ARROW Progress Report to CAUL September 2004 Geoff Payne, ARROW Project Manager.
-
date post
18-Dec-2015 -
Category
Documents
-
view
223 -
download
3
Transcript of ARROW Progress Report to CAUL September 2004 Geoff Payne, ARROW Project Manager.
ARROW Progress Report to CAUL September 2004
Geoff Payne,
ARROW Project Manager
ARROW Progress Report September 2004
2
ARROW Project
ARROW Consortium Partners Monash University (Lead Institution) University of New South Wales Swinburne University of Technology National Library of Australia
• ARROW is a FRODO Project funded by DEST Federated Repositories of Digital Objects
ARROW MAMS – Meta Access Management System ADT – Australian Digital Theses APSR – Australian Partnerships for Sustainable Repositories
ARROW Progress Report September 2004
3
ARROW model
ARROW Progress Report September 2004
4
ARROW Project Teams
Technology ARROW Technical Committee
Choosing a vehicle for content management
Content (Advocacy) ARROW Content Committee
Cultural changes to ensure content capture Project Management
ARROW Management Committee
ARROW Progress Report September 2004
5
ARROW Technology – Software
Need a repository system early in the project To learn what works and what does not work To manage content as a demonstration system But all Repository software is immature at present
Commitment to open source software in the ARROW Funding Agreement Evaluation of DSpace, Fedora, other software
ARROW Progress Report September 2004
6
ARROW Technology – Software Selected
Flexible Extensible Digital Object Repository Architecture -Fedora™ Cornell and University of Virginia ARROW a founding member of the Fedora
Development Consortium VITAL from VTLS Inc www.vtls.com ARROW / VTLS partnership to take the Fedora
“engine” and construct a working repository to meet ARROW’s functional requirements
Sustainability through vendor support
ARROW Progress Report September 2004
7
ARROW model
Fedora
VITAL
& Fedora
VITAL Access Portal
ARROW Progress Report September 2004
8
ARROW stages
Demonstration (2004) Developing architecture, selecting, testing and
developing software Deployment (late 2004 – end 2005)
Populating the ARROW Partners’ repositories Distribution (mid 2005 – end 2006)
Enabling others to participate Under review for earlier participation by
others
ARROW Progress Report September 2004
9
ARROW Web Site Project Information
National Library of Australia
Swinburne
UNSW
Monash ARROW Repository Digital Object Storage using Fedora & VITAL
Members only areaMeeting Minutes etc
National Library of Australia ARROW Resource Discovery Service Using TeraText to index metadata harvested by OAI PMH
ARROW Open Access Journal Publishing System Using OJS from Public Knowledge Project
Internet Search Engines Capture text exposed by ARROW Repositories
ARROW Branded Services Profile Internet
ARROW Progress Report September 2004
10
ARROW Software Development – Stage 1August 2004 - Installed Vital 1.0
UNSW and Monash
Functionality Image Management Fedora native ingest for other digital objects Dublin Core metadata
Training based on Test Server at Monash 2 Production Servers, 1 Test Server
ARROW Progress Report September 2004
11
ARROW Software Development - Stage 2October 2004 - Install Vital 1.2
NLA and Swinburne, upgrade at Monash & UNSW
Functionality Image Management – additional image types Text Documents Fedora native ingest for other digital objects
Training based on Test Server at Monash 4 Production Servers, 1 Test server
ARROW Progress Report September 2004
12
ARROW Software Development - Stage 3February 2005 - Install Vital 2.0
Upgrade for Monash, UNSW, NLA and Swinburne
Functionality - Manage Audio Manage Video Fedora native ingest for other digital objects
Training based on Test Server at Monash 4 Production Servers, 1 Test Server
ARROW Progress Report September 2004
13
Fedora™ - Flexibility at the expense of implementation design effort
Allows storage of any number of different types of digital objects
But extra effort required Data Modelling
How any given type of digital object will be stored can be tailored to suit
Metadata schemata for each data model (or even every object!) are allowed
Persistent Identifiers Flexible – ARROW will use Handles identifiers
ARROW Progress Report September 2004
14
ARROW - Data modelling
Required to define how objects will be stored Atomic objects
Level at which an individual Persistent identifier must be applied to allow reference as part of multiple complex objects
Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR) as guidance on atomicity Atomicity at the FRBR expression level
ARROW Progress Report September 2004
15
Functional requirements for Bibliographic records (FRBR)
Work Expression Manifestation Item
Already a whole body of work exists in this area
Functional requirements for Bibliographic Records : Final Report by the IFLA Study Group on the Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (Sauer, 1998) (UBCIM Publications: New Series v.19) 136 pp. ISBN: 359811382X. Also at http://www.ifla.org/VII/s13/frbr/frbr.pdf
ARROW Progress Report September 2004
16
ARROW Metadata
Requires metadata schemata to suit individual data models No requirement to shoehorn all metadata into
one schema Each stored object can retain metadata
developed for it by the community of practice which generated the object
Maintains flexibility to store many types of digital objects in the repository
No need to anticipate every object type now
ARROW Progress Report September 2004
17
OCLC Metadata Interoperability Core
From: Godby, Smith and Childress. 2003. “Two paths to interoperable metadata” p. 3 at
http://www.oclc.org/research/publications/archive/2003/godby-dc2003.pdf
ARROW Progress Report September 2004
18
ARROW Progress Report September 2004
19
ARROW - Summary of design criteria
A generalised institutional repository solution Initial focus on managing and exposing traditional
bibliographic research outputs Expand to managing non-bibliographic research
outputs Design decisions are being taken with the
intention of not precluding management of other digital objects such as learning objects and large research data sets
ARROW Progress Report September 2004
20
ARROW Content (Advocacy)
Advocacy tools prepared and circulated Pro Forma Memorandum of Understanding
with a university faculty of department Copyright strategy paper drafted ARROW Frequently Asked Questions
Pursuing policy changes such as mandatory deposit of e-Theses
Project champions recruited
ARROW Progress Report September 2004
21
ARROW Content (Continued)
Design work proceeding on an interface between Research Master (RM) and ARROW for gathering DEST research evidence Monash, Swinburne, UNSW all use RM v.4,
but the solution will be as generalised to accommodate other practices
Migration of content from e-prints repositories planned
ARROW Progress Report September 2004
22
ARROW partnerships
OCLC To test the metadata interoperability core
Google To test indexing of research materials
Open Journal System (OJS)
VTLS and Fedora
ARROW Progress Report September 2004
23
ARROW Licensing
ARROW has paid a small deposit on Software Licences for other Australian universities to Lock in preferential pricing provided to the
Original ARROW Consortium Partners Set the maximum licence cost for any
Australian university for the ARROW software Details are commercial in confidence
available for your university on written application to the ARROW project
ARROW Progress Report September 2004
24
Further information
Details of the ARROW project can be found at:
arrow.edu.au