1. 10 February, 2014Paul Child OA-F Organisational Issues Working Group report Final review of organisational issues

2. 10 February, 2014Paul Child Intro Leona Carpenter, with Donatella Castelli, Michael Day, Rachel Heery, Philip Hunter; Dennis Nicholson, William Nixon, Paul Child, Elizabeth Gadd, and a contribution on IPR by Mark Bide (Rightscom Limited) This review explores the validity of the open archive approach through a close examination of organisational issues. It describes the approach and the Open Archives Initiative (OAI), and supports European organisations in benefiting from the added value of open archive technology by exploring the incentives for participation in an exchange-based model for providing information, archiving and metadata sharing services. A summary of Intellectual Property Right (IPR) issues related to open archives is included. Other topics covered are governance of the OAI, business models, content management, metadata issues and quality assurance. This is the second of the two reports that are the contracted deliverables of Open Archives Forum Workpackage 3 'Organisational Validation'.

3. 10 February, 2014Paul Child Overview Business Models Intellectual Property Rights Quality Assurance Metadata Interoperability Content Management Systems Importance of Organisational issues Conclusions Any Questions

4. 10 February, 2014Paul Child Business Models What is a business model? Why are business models important? Business models and Public Organisations Business models and Publicly Funded Projects. Business models and the OA movement.

5. 10 February, 2014Paul Child Intellectual Property Rights Defining Intellectual Property Rights An Infrastructure to support IPR on the network Metadata and other types of content Stakeholder attitudes Implications for Open Archive Services

6. 10 February, 2014Paul Child Quality Assurance What is quality? –ISO 8402 the totality of the characteristics of an entity which bear on its ability to satisfy stated and implied needs Dimensions –StakeholdersStakeholders –Quality dimensionsQuality dimensions Who is responsible?

7. 10 February, 2014Paul Child Stakeholder (primary e-print tasks)High-level aims Researcher (self-archives in institutional archive; retrieves from external e- print service) Enhanced scholarly communication Effective dissemination of research findings Digital preservation Institution (as data provider archives research papers in institutional data repository) Cost-effective access to scholarly output of institution Promotion of the reputation of institution Digital preservation Subject-based European e-print service (as service provider harvests data from data providers and adds value through services such as authority control, automatic classification, ontology mapping, links to author bibliographies etc) Providing high quality resource discovery service Document delivery Student (retrieves a paper from European e-print service) One stop shop for locating and accessing resources Access to a coherent collection of material

8. 10 February, 2014Paul Child Quality dimensionElements / Influences Integrity of dataSynchronising versioning of resources and metadata Harvesting large collections of metadata Linking metadata to resources Quality of service provision to end-users Building coherent collections Providing appropriate metadata Providing high quality added value services that meet requirements Quality of dataEnsuring high quality metadata at metadata creation stage Adequacy of Dublin Core as mandatory OAI-PMH metadata format Editorial control on resources archived in repositories SustainabilityExplicit commitments to digital preservation policies Consensus on digital preservation strategy

9. 10 February, 2014Paul Child Metadata Best Practise Guidelines –Using simple Dublin Core to describe eprints –by Andy Powell, Michael Day and Peter Cliff UKOLN, University of Bath Version 1.2 –http://www.rdn.ac.uk/projects/eprints-uk/docs/simpledc- guidelines / Metadata quality assurance

10. 10 February, 2014Paul Child Subject Interoperability Guidelines –Well maintained subject or class scheme –Use without changes –Create rules for necessary changes –Harmonise changes with other repositories and scheme maintainers –Easy access to information and training –Provide users with a mapping to other schemes Illustrations –http://renardus.lub.lu.se/http://renardus.lub.lu.se/ –http://infolab.kub.nl/prj/macs/http://infolab.kub.nl/prj/macs/ –http://hilt.cdlr.strath.ac.uk/http://hilt.cdlr.strath.ac.uk/ –http://speir.cdlr.strath.ac.uk/http://speir.cdlr.strath.ac.uk/

11. 10 February, 2014Paul Child Content Management Systems Basic premise –A CMS can help co-ordinate a process that requires the skill and experience of staff based in a number of different areas of an institution. Examples include: Step by step –Do different types of materials require different workflow steps in a different order? For example, institutionally planned and executed course materials may start at one point in a work flow, whereas the creation of a research paper may start further on the flow.

12. 10 February, 2014Paul Child Collection Management and Development Policy Identification of requirement Identification of individual or group to be involved in creation Identification of creation schedule and plan Identification of constituent digital objects Bidding for funds Research Paper Electronic resource is created Metadata is created by resource creator Collection managers informed Checks: Research quality/Learning standards/Accuracy and currency of information Checks: Is metadata standard sufficient? Checks: Legal, clean, honest? Checks: IPR issues (risk, liability, protection) Security of information Checks: In line with institutional policies? Current awareness: which classes, students, academics need to know about it? Currency update cycle Commercial or Strategic Exploitation potential Archiving and preservation decisions Electronic publication decision(s) Permissions? Institution Planning

13. 10 February, 2014Paul Child Conclusions