1. ARROW Progress Report to CAUL September 2004 Geoff Payne, ARROW Project Manager

2. 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

3. ARROW Progress Report September 2004 3 ARROW model

4. 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

5. 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

6. 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.comwww.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

7. ARROW Progress Report September 2004 7 ARROW model Fedora VITAL & Fedora VITAL Access Portal

8. 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

9. 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 area Meeting 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

10. ARROW Progress Report September 2004 10 ARROW Software Development – Stage 1 August 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

11. ARROW Progress Report September 2004 11 ARROW Software Development - Stage 2 October 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

12. ARROW Progress Report September 2004 12 ARROW Software Development - Stage 3 February 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

13. 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

14. 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

15. 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 http://www.ifla.org/VII/s13/frbr/frbr.pdf

16. 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

17. 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 http://www.oclc.org/research/publications/archive/2003/godby-dc2003.pdf

18. ARROW Progress Report September 2004 18

19. 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

20. 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

21. 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

22. 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

23. 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

24. ARROW Progress Report September 2004 24 Further information Details of the ARROW project can be found at: arrow.edu.au