ARROW Institutional Repositories Presentation to the APSR / University of Tasmania Repositories Seminar 4 May 2006 Geoff Payne Director Library Corporate and Financial Services

Why have a repository? –Information management Provides a platform for promoting research output Safeguards digital information Gathers an institution’s research output into one place Provides consistent ways of finding similar objects Allows information to be preserved over the long term –Collaboration Enables resources to be shared, while respecting access constraints (when software allows access controls) Enables effective communication and collaboration between researchers

ARROW project ARROW Consortium Partners –Monash University (Lead Institution) –University of New South Wales –Swinburne University of Technology –National Library of Australia October 2003 SII Grant of AU$3.66 Million over three years to identify and test solutions to establish institutional repositories at the ARROW partners

What is an Institutional Repository? A managed collection of digital objects institutional in scope with consistent data and metadata structures for similar objects enabling resource discovery by the “Communities of Practice” for whom the objects are of interest allowing read, input and export of objects to facilitate resource sharing respecting access constraints sustainable over time facilitating application of preservation strategies

Why Institutional Repositories? – As Good Management of resources –Need to safeguard digital resources generated already by institutions. –Existing digital resources often: are managed by grace and favour arrangements rely on unsustainable hardware, software or individual support need future-proofing migration strategies –Yet are widely used and reflect substantial investment in generating their content

Why Institutional Repositories? – As Research Enablers –Need an enabling environment for other less technologically independent researchers –Need to facilitate collaboration between researchers with similar interests but located in different faculties or institutions

Why Institutional Repositories? - Research Exposure and Impact –Greater exposure & impact of institutional research outputs Readership is otherwise limited to subscribers to the journal in which research is published Better return on investment of public funds in research through greater accessibility Can publish online material for which printing is not financially viable Opportunity to expose materials other than the print friendly Opportunity to preserve and expose research data sets for further analysis by others

Why Institutional Repositories? - Reforming Scholarly Publishing –Potential to reform the scholarly publishing system Facilitate publication of research for which the audience is too small to justify the costs traditional publication mechanisms Provide alternatives to expensive journals Regain intellectual property rights over research outputs Achieve shorter times between output and access

Different Types of Repository Content An Institutional repository may be expected to store any mix of anything that can be represented digitally –Print equivalents – Research papers, Theses, books, book chapters, archival records –Audio –Still and moving images –Multimedia objects –Learning Objects –Research data sets

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 –Retain metadata created by the users oif the objects

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

OCLC Metadata Interoperability Core From: Godby, Smith and Childress “Two paths to interoperable metadata” p. 3 at

ARROW - Summary of design criteria –A generalised institutional repository solution for research information management –Initial focus on managing and exposing traditional “print equivalent” research outputs –Expanded to managing other digital research resources –Design decisions accommodate management of other digital objects such as learning objects and research inputs such as large data sets –Meeting the requirements of DEST research reporting and audit, and the Research Quality Framework encourages the deposit of content in ARROW repositories

Repositories - Technical Issues –Interoperability –Metadata –Federated Searching –Semantic web –Authentication and Authorisation of users –Rights Management –Persistent Identifiers for digital objects

ARROW Architecture & software components Fedora VITAL, Fedora, OJS VITAL Access Portal, OAI/PMH, SRU/SRW, Web Exposure

Why Fedora? –A platform for developing ARROW application(s) –A flexible object-oriented data model –Persistent identifiers down to the level of individual datastreams, accommodating compound content modelling –Versioning both content and disseminators (which can be thought of as software behaviours for content) –ARROW required clean and open exposure of APIs with well- documented SOAP/REST web services. Fedora satisfied these requirements

ARROW branded services profile National Library of Australia Swinburne UNSW Monash ARROW Repository Digital Object Storage using Fedora & VITAL National Library of Australia ARROW Resource Discovery Service Index of Dublin Core metadata harvested by OAI PMH ARROW Open Access Journal Publishing System Using OJS from Public Knowledge Project Internet Search Engines indexing content specifically exposed by by ARROW Repositories Aust Digital Theses Program Australian Theses Discovery Service Using metadata harvested by OAI PMH Research Management Systems Sharing descriptive metadata and linking from an RMS to the research publications

ResearchMaster (RM) The functionality of the RM system is encompassed in 5 Management Processes: –Grants Management, –Ethics Management, –Postgraduate and Scholarship Management, –Research Outcome Management, and –Commercial Activity and Consultancy Management. Source: RM web site visited 26 April ResearchMaster stores information about research outputs, but not the actual outputs

ResearchMaster includes citation information about research publications which is used to generate the statistical report lodged annually with DEST Paper copies of publications and related material specified by DEST are held in Faculties in case DEST chooses to audit the annual research report Research Output Management with ResearchMaster Now Research Master

Research Management supported by ARROW Repository ResearchMaster includes citation information about research publications, and links using persistent identifiers to the corresponding on-line publications in the ARROW Repository. The citations can be assembled into RQF evidence portfolios including the links to the research outputs in ARROW ARROW Repository holds copies of all digital research outputs, PhD theses etc. The University’s RQF team can review research online using ARROW or ResearchMaster for inclusion in evidence portfolios submitted to DEST DEST RQF panel members can assess the research online for the assessment processes ARROW Repository Research Master

Monash Using a repository to deliver evidence  ARROW and ResearchMaster together have been planning to deliver:  Publication collection via Research Master (RMEweb interface)  Transferring to ARROW (METS package: data and files)  Storage in ARROW (data with any type of research publication files)  Secure viewing via Research Master or ARROW (observing copyright and using LDAP and XACML controls for user access privileges)

Monash Working with RM4 (Gathering information) New Research Information New Research Objects Old Research Information Old Research Objects Possibly existing RM4 records Currently stored by researchers

Monash Working with RM4 (Recording information) RM4 New Research Information New Research Objects Old Research Information Old Research Objects

Monash Working with RM4 (Mediated deposit and checking by Research Office Staff) RM4 Research Files (publications) + Subset of Research Information ARROW New Research Information New Research Objects Old Research Information Old Research Objects Initiated after checking or validation by Research Office staff

Monash Working with RM4 (mediated checking by ARROW Librarian) Research Files (publications) + Subset of Research Information ARROW Stored after checking or validation by ARROW librarian who confirms ● No duplication ● Copyright status ● Access requirements

Monash Working with RM4 (Handles returned) RM4 ARROW Handles Example: New Research Information New Research Objects Old Research Information Old Research Objects

Monash RM4 Working with RM4 (Additional information) TARDIS, CALLISTA, SAP  Research staff information  Research students information  Research grants information, etc New Research Information New Research Objects Old Research Information Old Research Objects

Monash Working with RM4 (Evidence Portfolios) RM4 ARROW RQF Evidence Portfolios RQF Evidence Portfolios RQF Evidence Portfolios RQF Evidence Portfolios RQF Evidence Portfolios RQF Evidence Portfolios RQF Evidence Portfolios RQF Evidence Portfolios RQF Evidence Portfolios New Research Information New Research Objects Old Research Information Old Research Objects

Monash 30 RQF Evidence Portfolios RQF Evidence Portfolios RQF Evidence Portfolios RQF Evidence Portfolios RQF Evidence Portfolios RQF Evidence Portfolios RQF Evidence Portfolios RQF Evidence Portfolios RQF Evidence Portfolios Working with RM4 (Handles link back to stored Research Objects) Research Management and Analysis Software ARROW New Research Information New Research Objects Old Research Information Old Research Objects

Monash 31 RQF Assessment by DEST (DEST collection ) DEST RQF Collection RQF Evidence Portfolios RQF Evidence Portfolios RQF Evidence Portfolios RQF Evidence Portfolios RQF Evidence Portfolios RQF Evidence Portfolios RQF Evidence Portfolios RQF Evidence Portfolios RQF Evidence Portfolios

Monash 32 RQF Evidence Portfolios RQF Evidence Portfolios RQF Evidence Portfolios RQF Evidence Portfolios RQF Evidence Portfolios RQF Evidence Portfolios RQF Evidence Portfolios RQF Evidence Portfolios RQF Evidence Portfolios RQF Assessment (DEST informs Assessment Panels) RQF ASSESSMENT Panel RQF ASSESSMENT Panel RQF ASSESSMENT Panel DEST RQF Collection

Monash 33 RQF Evidence Portfolios RQF Evidence Portfolios RQF Evidence Portfolios RQF Evidence Portfolios RQF Evidence Portfolios RQF Evidence Portfolios RQF Evidence Portfolios RQF Evidence Portfolios RQF Evidence Portfolios RQF Assessment (Panels View Evidence) RQF ASSESSMENT Panel RQF ASSESSMENT Panel RQF ASSESSMENT Panel DEST RQF Collection Handles enable viewing of Research Digital Objects in Digital Repositories review

Monash 34 RQF Evidence Portfolios RQF Evidence Portfolios RQF Evidence Portfolios RQF Evidence Portfolios RQF Evidence Portfolios RQF Evidence Portfolios RQF Evidence Portfolios RQF Evidence Portfolios RQF Evidence Portfolios RQF Assessment (Panels Comment on Evidence) RQF ASSESSMENT Panel RQF ASSESSMENT Panel RQF ASSESSMENT Panel DEST RQF Collection review Annotations

INGEST EXPORT WEB ACCESS HARVEST Synchronising between ARROW and external resources Validating data, adding evidentiary material Research DEST Audit Researcher citing for offprints, or for comment, or for refereeing DEST search Researcher search for topics and research Migration to 3 rd party METS compliant tool, eg new repository, research mgmt tool DEST reporting Inclusion in 3 rd party tool eg: Excel, Endnote Academic use for CV Faculty production of webpages7 National Discovery search Web access to documents Web access to metadata Export metadata and docs Export metadata only Vital ClientWebformBatch Authorised UsersSelf submite.g. research mgmt tools Bibliographic Sources Metadata only Metadata + docs Metadata only Metadata + docs Metadata only Metadata + docs Alternative workflows with lodgement direct to ARROW

ARROW Status May 2006 In 2006 Monash will load 15,000 research outputs of various types to ARROW VITAL V 2.1 just installed – includes the Research Master interface “ARROW Community” launched –University of South Australia, University of Western Sydney, University of Central Qld and RUBRIC (University of Southern Qld) have licensed ARROW VITAL 3.0 including the XACML access control expected mid year DEST submission for further project funding Melbourne road show scheduled for 2 June

Fedora based projects University of Virginia Digital Library – North Western University Humanities Computing Group –Encyclopedia of Chicago – Links from the Fedora Project Community page –

Questions? DEST Research Quality Framework ey_issues/research_quality_framework/ ARROW Project ResearchMaster Geoff Payne Director, Library Corporate and Financial Services Tel:

Key Steps in establishing a repository –Determine business need Information management Access and promotion Research output and/or resources –Project champions –Policies to populate Theses Research evidence E-prints –Select and deploy software –Have an exit strategy