1. Scoping a Geospatial Repository for Academic Deposit and Extraction James Reid EDINA National Data Centre University of Edinburgh October 2006 Geographic image: © 2005 Clark Labs.

2. Scoping a Geospatial Repository for Academic Deposit and Extraction JISC: Digital Repositories Programme  June 2005 JISC £4m programme  Aim of encouraging growth of repositories in UK universities and colleges  Programme consists of 25 projects exploring role and operation of projects  Focus on how repositories can assist academic researchers both to do and share work more easily  Open access is key driver plus growing demand for outputs of publicly-funded research to be freely available on the web

3. Scoping a Geospatial Repository for Academic Deposit and Extraction  Reusability  Managed, quality controlled  Streamlined access  Curation & preservation Vision (aspirational)

4. Scoping a Geospatial Repository for Academic Deposit and Extraction Project Work Programme Formal Repositories Establish user based evidence for the requirements and functionality of a repository capable of managing licensed geospatial assets Automatic data validation More ‘traditional’ geo friendly views on to data Automated (partial) metadata completion Informal geospatial data-sharing Investigate and make an assessment of informal mechanisms for geospatial data sharing Informal geodata-sharing survey Compile use-cases of informal geo-data-sharing from sites Classification of existing informal repositories Informal ‘demonstrator’ setup DRM Digital rights issues - when we consider the reuse of derived geospatial data concerns over data ownership, IPR and copyright are commonplace AHRC legal report and framework for geospatial data sharing Institutional vs media-centric (geospatial) repositories Debate over institutional repository – one size fits all? Cultural aspects of allegiance to discipline not institution Audit & review of geospatial data within institutional repositories SWOT of institutional v media-centric repositories Interoperability Interoperability issues – how could a geospatial repository interact within JISC IE, how could it make its assets available to the Grid / eScience community SWOT analysis of interoperability issues within repositories 1234 5 JUNE 2005 APRIL 2007

5. Scoping a Geospatial Repository for Academic Deposit and Extraction Main Findings to date  perceived need for the establishment of a national geospatial data repository.  existing repository software is ill suited to dealing with the complexities of geospatial data and metadata  a bespoke community specific geospatial repository would be better equipped and more appropriate to meet the requirements and needs of that community.[1][1]  the legal issues surrounding the use and reuse of geospatial data within the academic community are peculiar and distinct from other data sharing communities where IPR and digital rights issues are less pronounced (if relevant at all).  there is a significant degree of informal data sharing occurring - predominantly via conventional channels e.g. email, CD/DVD, FTP.  the main barriers to geospatial data sharing within the community (in order of user expressed priority) are:  perceptions of the complex licensing and digital rights issues surrounding geospatial data (re)use in the UK;  lack of quality metadata about geospatial datasets; and  concerns over the protection of depositors intellectual property. [1][1] The work of the GoGeo! Phase 4b project has indicated that there is substantial evidence of datasets – “From information provided by Strathclyde, Edinburgh, Kingston and Leeds [universities], we believe there are at least 900 undocumented datasets of various types and quality but which could be made available for reuse, certainly within the institutions but also possibly between institutions. Scaling this up to all HE intuitions suggests that there are probably thousands of geospatial datasets in academics institutions across the UK.”

6. Scoping a Geospatial Repository for Academic Deposit and Extraction Main Findings contd.  the main factor that would encourage geospatial data sharing and reuse was identified as the establishment a National Geospatial Repository service.  there are currently no UK geospatial subject- specific/community repositories in operation and institutional repositories do not manage any geospatial content (and would not be capable of effectively doing so).  The law on copyright and licensing for geospatial data in the UK is not as well understood nor as clear-cut as it might be and that there exists scope for clarifying fundamental end user rights with respect to copyright and European database directive law.

7. Scoping a Geospatial Repository for Academic Deposit and Extraction Tentative Conclusions There appears to be a genuine desire and demand, at least at an expressive level, for the establishment of a formal national geospatial data repository. This demand however is not fully realised due to uncertainties relating to the IPR and digital rights (policy) issues that cloud all discussions of geospatial data reuse in the UK. The main interim conclusion is that the legal uncertainties as highlighted by the work of the AHRC partners needs to be taken forward and used to improve the ability of the research community to fully exploit its prior endeavours. Alternatively, existing licensing contexts can be exploited, but will restrict the breadth of the audience that can be serviced.

8. Scoping a Geospatial Repository for Academic Deposit and Extraction Issues – Content Packaging  Consider a geospatial data asset deposited into a repository, it’s more than one file:  GML and associated schema!  proprietary vector format plus cartographic representation detail  geodatabase  raster with header file  Data set metadata and IPR info  What is best method to package data?  In eLibrary world the Metadata Encoding and Transmission Standard (METS) and IMS content package (IMS CP) and MPEG-21 DIDL for repository objects  What direction is the GI industry taking with content packaging?

9. Scoping a Geospatial Repository for Academic Deposit and Extraction Issues – GML for archiving?  If content packaging is about asking ‘best’ method to package data, next question is about content being packaged.  “Permanent access” requirements:  profiles and application schemas widely understood and supported, avoid requiring “digital archaeology”  Role of GML : current focus is as transfer format  Assessing formats for preservation: sustainability v. quality v. functionality  How to handle proprietary formats?  Spatial databases pose special challenge

10. Scoping a Geospatial Repository for Academic Deposit and Extraction Issues – Persistent Identifiers  Once a geospatial data asset is deposited within a repository, there is a need to be able to persistently identify this asset  Particular repository softwares use particular schemes e.g. Fedora uses ‘info’ URI scheme  Requirement to ensure identifier is actionable  What about version management?  OpenURL Resolvers? Digital Object Identifier (DOI) for handle schemes? UUIDs? URI, URN, URL, URC!!!! A N Other? Interoperability? Persistence?  What direction is GI industry taking with persistent identifiers?

11. Scoping a Geospatial Repository for Academic Deposit and Extraction Issues – more!  Data citation  Data2article citation  Data lifecycles  Feature types  … (add your own pet concern)