A vision of the future: ReStoring online resources David Martin and Kaisa Puustinen ESRC National Centre for Research Methods, University of Southampton
Explain the rationale for ReStore, what it is and what it isn’t Explain how it is intended to work Suggest relevance to audience for this presentation Overview
ESRC investments producing online resources Completed near to end of project funding Often of great practical value, but immediately begin to decay –Dated content (broken links - new ideas) –Changed technical environment Lack of maintenance/visibility Why do we need ReStore?
Repository for online resources Restoring quality and utility Promoting accessibility Sustainable service identity Why ReStore?
A separately funded activity of the NCRM hub team at Southampton Developed in response to needs identified by RMP/NCRM Not necessarily or irrevocably an NCRM function – but stylistic connection Relationship to NCRM
Build a prototype service for sustaining online resources Focus on research methods initiatives –RMP, NCRM, RDI, QMI Lead development of an ESRC strategy for the longer term A “working experiment” with immediate practical benefits Aims of the project
A static web archive A continuation funding model for completed projects A research methods advice service A document repository A virtual learning environment Not aims of the project
Identify candidate resources Work with original resource authors Technical and academic review Assess value and work required Technical and academic updating Transfer into ReStore service Promote use and review Basic approach
IPR framework – authorship/ownership Technical infrastructures Sustainability – how many? how long? –Alternative outcomes Need guidance on future resource development for maximum sustainability Need developing ESRC strategy on sustaining online resources Known issues
Significant online content: not just project sites or documents Initial demonstrator resources Main phase – aim of working with suitable RMP, RDI, NCRM, QMI resources that are not being maintained – via programme directors Mature phase – perhaps triggered by end of awards? Selection of resources for review
Parallel technical, academic and author reviews (i) Technical (ReStore team): site architecture, scripting, portability, broken links, media types, potential IPR issues… (ii) Academic (external reviewers): academic content, rigour, referencing, dated material… (iii) Author: reflective review, cross-cutting technical and academic, esp. re. IPR Review process
Accept resource into ReStore, subject to package of work – by author and/or ReStore Identify most appropriate deposition elsewhere Resource not suitable for ReStore –Still under active development –Other maintenance options preferable –Insufficient quality –Work required exceeds resources available Possible outcomes
Limited funding for updating and maintenance of sites by original authors or ReStore team Confirmation and sign-off of IPR issues Resources taken on by ReStore for initial period Indexing and promotion by ReStore team Redirection from original location ReStoration
Contribute online resources from relevant ESRC projects Take advantage of online resources that will be available through ReStore Raise the awareness of current award holders regarding online resource development issues Contribute to strategy development, ultimately for ESRC How ReStore may be relevant to you
Questions are very welcome