Posts Tagged ‘JISC’

UKCoRR members’ meeting, University of Portsmouth, 27 Jan 2012

Posted on February 2nd, 2012 by Paul Stainthorp

Four boatsHere are some notes on the first event held for UKCoRR members this year:

As you probably know, UKCoRR is an entirely unfunded organisation which relies heavily on the time and energy of its members, and on the generosity of universities to host our meetings – on this occasion our heartfelt thanks to the University of Portsmouth Library, and particularly to Andy Barrow and (associate university librarian) Ken Dick, for very kindly putting us up and keeping us fed and coffee-ed, and for Ken’s warm welcome at the start of the meeting.

This was a very well-attended event: nearly 50 UKCoRR members and invited guests, from as far afield as Edinburgh (350+ miles away)… and a packed schedule. So packed, in fact, that we probably didn’t leave enough breathing space. We’ll build in more rest breaks and time for gossip professional networking at the next meeting!

  1. Slides from all the presentations below will shortly be made available on UKCoRR’s slideshare account, at: slideshare.net/ukcorr
  2. Some of the speakers kindly agreed to be filmed, and videos will be made available at: youtube.com/user/ukcorr

After Ken had welcomed us to Portstmouth, UKCoRR chair Gaz Johnson gave the first presentation of the day, with a science fiction gloss and a look at the possible future directions of UKCoRR. Gaz has already blogged about his talk. A few key points and questions:

  • The committee needs to consult with members, and these members’ meetings are a good way of doing that!
  • Our priorities (validated by the user survey, 2011) should be best practice exchange, lobbying, and advocacy;
  • Is our lack of a membership fee our USP? It means we’re beholden to no-one, we don’t have to serve anyone’s agenda (other than our members’), and it makes it easier to avoid conflicts of interest…
  • …but it’s worth considering what we could do differently if we were funded;
  • Should membership of UKCoRR bring with it certain responsibilities?
  • Aren’t repositories generally understaffed in the UK?

Next up, Andrew Dorward of EDINA on the UK RepositoryNet+ project to build “a socio-technical infrastructure to support repositories”. Andrew gave an overview of the original RepositoryNet project, and the ongoing aim to build shared services for repositories. Recently, the new project interviewed a range of UKCoRR members, Open Access publishers, members of ARMA, and active researchers about the repository landscape — broadly, those interviews validated the current approach to services — but Andrew noted that in repository “ecology“, there is some room for drawing together the range of services (search, deposit statistics, etc.) into fewer but more comprehensive tools. He also talked about the growth in OA publishing since the launch of PLoS in 2003: see doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1001235.t001

Last up before lunch, Marie-Therese Gramstadt from the University of the Creative Arts gave us an update on the Kultivate project, the advocacy and decision-making toolkits, and the associated Kultur II group, sharing best practice in repository design for creative and visual arts research. Asked to show hands, about half the UKCoRR delegates had arts researchers ‘at home’ – about the same number of people also expressed an interest in continuing the work of Kultur II. Some Kultivate links:

After lunch – the lightning talks!

  • Talking about a new strategic marketing project for WRAP (the University of Warwick’s repository) – Yvonne Budden explained the need to revamp the repo’s image, and how WRAP piggybacked on a wider redesign project at Warwick and used an interesting methodology from the Kay Grieves at the University of Sunderland, summarised as: (1) Match services to users (2) Transform services into benefits (3) Translate benefits into messages! Freebie materials (highlighter pens, etc.) are being used as bribes to encourage depositors to take the message of the repo back to their colleagues. A really striking new black-and-yellow colour scheme!
  • Matthew Smith from the University of So’ton, on the EPrints Shelves project. Building a tool to give users more control over how results from their repository are displayed on author profile pages, etc., by allowing people to log in and add/remove items from a ‘shelf’. Those ‘shelves’ can then be exported using normal EPrints export tools. Shelves should be released to the EPrints Bazaar soon. Lots of interest in the room about this plugin!
  • Tracey Kent on the use of a “request a copy” for e-theses at the University of Birmingham. Birmingham offer four options for access to e-theses: from [1] “full OA” through to [2] “request a copy” (with theses available through EThOS), [3] a more limited request (excerpts only; not on EThOS), and finally [4] fully-embargoed theses. They went from around 2,500 thesis requests per year to more than 250,000 requests/yr., with ~88% on some kind of Open Access (options [1] or [2]).
  • Margaret Feetham of Southampton Solent University talked about running their mixed-economy repository (research, student work, university publications) …with (very familiar to UKCoRR members!) little budget and few staff. SSU practice unmediated deposit, with academics given training on  copyright and licensing issues. Margaret explained how they’ve still managed to get an impressive deposit rate by engaging keen users and advocates, and by working with the university’s research services – with REF2014 as an attention-focuser!
  • From the STFC (Science and Technology Facilities Council), Catherine Jones explained how they are using CrossRef to create large numbers of (metadata-only) records in epubs.stfc.ac.uk – scientific authors like the ability to use that repository’s quick & easy DOI import tool to deposit records, but are now pressing to be able to speed the process up even further. Challenges of recording articles with hundreds or even thousands of collaborators – not uncommon in some areas of physics!

A quick breather, then straight on to the first of two invited speakers to wind the day up:

Sarah Gould of the British Library on some of the changes in the pipeline for the EThOS service. There’s general recognition that some of the features of EThOS (e.g. the “checkout” process for supplying PDF copies of theses) are a bit old hat, and too rooted in old document supply processes. The limited metadata applied to many items in EThOS is also a barrier. EThOS are engaging a new development to drag the service kicking and screaming into the 21st century, and are also engaging on a big programme (working with the BL’s library systems vendors as well as with panels of librarians) to improve the quality and range of metadata. There was an interesting discussion at this point about the possibility of EThOS linking to copies of theses in institutional repositories, rather than/as well as holding digitised copies – what might that mean for the responsibilities of the BL and institutions to ensure preservation of access?

Bravely accepting the final slot of the day, Phil Barker of JISC CETIS on the world of Open Educational Resources (OERs). Another show of hands: fewer than 25% of UKCoRR members in the room have involvement with OERs (either through projects, or through working institutional OER repos). That’s not too much of a surprise: the issues involved in storing and managing repositories of OERs can be much more complex (multiple complex objects, quality control, metadata requirements, copyright and licensed re-use, the sheer number of people involved!) and many institutions have shyed away.

Phil talked about some of the motivators for universities to engage with OER, including the morals obligation of the university (“…charter to widen knowledge”), the role of OERs in marketing universities / acting as a shop window / leading to student recruitment, and the hope that the rigorous approach needed in creating of OERs will provide a beneficial ‘trickle down’ effect into the design and management of all educational materials. Some food-for-though OER links:

As always, there was a breathtaking amount of ‘stuff’ for us to get stuck into — useful advice, supportive discussions, and news of exciting work going on — and the recognised benefit of UKCoRR members’ meetings as being a refreshingly practical, non-threatening and safe place for repository staff to talk to people faced with the same problems every day. Keep your eyes peeled for the next couple of UKCoRR events planned for this year: looks like 2012′s going to be one of our busiest yet.

Discovery phase two: programme launch (slides)

Posted on February 2nd, 2012 by Paul Stainthorp

JISC formally launched phase two of the Information and library infrastructure: Resource discovery programme on 11 January 2012 in Birmingham. CLOCK weren’t able to attend in person, but we sent these slides in our absence. They’re good for a quick overview of the aims of the CLOCK project.

KB+ project Technical Advisory Group (TAG)

Posted on January 31st, 2012 by Paul Stainthorp

……aaand just as an adjunct to my last blog post, it’s worth mentioning that I’m currently serving [time] on the TAG (Technical Advisory Group) for the JISC Knowledge Base+ (KB+) project. We had our first meeting on 19 December 2011 at HEFCE’s offices in central London.

Over the course of 2011-2012 HEFCE will be investing £600,000 in the creation of a shared service knowledge base for UK academic libraries to support the management of e-resources by the UK academic community.

This is my idea of a worthy cause—e-journal knowledgebase problems being a particular favourite of mine—and I’m pleased HEFCE and JISC Collections have decided it’s worth investing in a serious and robust attempt to share information between universities and to build better systems for managing e-resources. I’m happy to be involved.

Worth reading = KB+: What’s in it for libraries?

  • Improved Data and Tools
  • Enhanced JISC Services
  • Improving ERM systems
  • Shared Community Activity
For the untainted by ERM jargon, Wikipedia explains as well as anywhere what a knowledgebase actually is and what some of the challenges are. The University of Lincoln’s e-journals knowledgebase is the EBSCO A-to-Z. Also related is the work of the UKSG/NISO Knowledge Bases And Related Tools (KBART) working group.

A pain in the midlands: JISC/SCONUL future of library systems workshop

Posted on January 31st, 2012 by Paul Stainthorp

London Midland 153, very smart

In January I made the long train journey over to the University of Warwick, to attend and speak at the first day of a two-day JISC/SCONUL workshop exploring the future of library systems, under the banner of the “Squeezed Middle” – that is the LMS & other library systems, the bits of library infrastructure often overshadowed/squeezed out of the limelight by the twin heavyweights of Discovery & ERM.

Carrying on from the work done as part of the JISC/SCONUL Shared Services ‘LMS horizon scan‘ in 2008, this workshop points the way toward a new JISC call for ‘path finder’ projects addressing the future of LMSes, under the Information and Library Infrastructure: Emerging Opportunities programme: “you can’t do nothing any more”.

Thank you to Ben Showers of JISC for the invitation to speak at this event!

First, we were treated to a bit of virtual Lorcan Dempsey. In a video talk, he spoke about the trends facing academic libraries (a background of budget constraints, networked decentralisation of content vs. our tradition of vertically integrating services into the one building), and how libraries are re-examining our priorities under pressure, building more flexible spaces, making our expertise more visible, engaging with the network, etc.. Lorcan’s video will be made available via OCLC’s YouTube channel shortly.

Then to the bit of the workshop in which I was involved: a series of ‘provocations‘: radical, challenging visions for the future of library systems (by, say, the year 2020), designed to get the attendees thinking. David Kay of SERO, Ken Chad, and Paul Walk provided the other three visions.

I found it a struggle knowing quite where to ‘pitch’ my vision: it can be difficult to be provocative/radical enough without sounding like you don’t know what talking about. For possibly only the second time in my career I was careful to prefix my statement with “…this isn’t my employer’s opinion!”. I took quite a broad, scattergun approach (figuring if I was broad enough, I’d be bound to hit something…); for that reason I was pleased that some of my themes were echoed in Paul Walk’s Marshall Smith-esque sf/dystopian view of libraries in 2020, which he delivered through the “medium of fiction and the genre of bonkers”.

You can read my own provocation statement, “A vision for library systems in 2020“, on Google Docs.

Links to other blog posts about this event are here, here and here.


Tick tock we don’t stop. Introducing CLOCK, a new JISC-funded resource discovery project at the universities of Lincoln and Cambridge

Posted on December 10th, 2011 by Paul Stainthorp

Cambridge CLOCKThe title says it all, really. The University of Lincoln, working in consortium with Cambridge University Library and Owen Stephens Consulting, has been awarded £49,877 by JISC to investigate ways of driving innovation in libraries’ interactions with Open Bibliographic Data, through a project we’re calling CLOCK (Cambridge-Lincoln Open Catalogue Knowledgebase).

CLOCK is a continuation of and elaboration upon the work of two recent JISC Discovery projects—Jerome at the University of Lincoln and COMET at the University of Cambridge—via a programme of development work shared between the two institutions, and with library consultant Owen Stephens. JISC were impressed enough with the work of both projects, and sufficiently interested in the potential for collaboration, that they encouraged our joint bid for follow-up funding.

Between now and the end of July, 2012, the CLOCK project will provide us with a framework to:

…[1] exploit through real-world applications the significant amount of data released openly by Cambridge University Library; [2] apply the Jerome database architecture, iterative development methodology, and API framework to a bibliographic dataset an order of magnitude greater than the University of Lincoln’s; and [3] to build and enable a new set of tools and demonstrator services which will enable the future development of public Open Bib Data web applications of practical utility to libraries and end-users.

You can read the full bid document, here.

I’m very much looking forward to working with Ed Chamberlain, Systems Librarian in the University Library at the University of Cambridge, along with Owen Stephens, veteran of a number of campaigns to open up access to library data, and Chris Leach (Systems Librarian) and Ian Snowley (University Librarian) from the University of Lincoln. Thanks are due to all of them for their help in writing the successful bid; to the Research & Enterprise Development office at Lincoln for their invaluable assistance in putting together the project budget; and to the LNCD group at the University of Lincoln for providing the kind of supportive development platform that makes these kind of projects possible.

Finally, a big thank you to Andy McGregor and the JISC Digital Infrastructure: Information and library infrastructure: Resource discovery programme, for this opportunity to further explore the blossoming environment of open bibliographic data/open discovery in libraries. If you haven’t done so already, you might like to take a look at the following websites:

As with all our projects, we’ll be blogging it comprehensively (so stand by for a steady stream of awful clock-related puns used as blog post titles). Although there’s little to see there yet, the CLOCK project blog is at: http://clock.blogs.lincoln.ac.uk/ – along with its own RSS feed RSS feed icon. Watch that space!

#jiscmrd programme launch; day 1 – DCC tools workshop

Posted on December 1st, 2011 by Paul Stainthorp

This week sees the formal two-day launch event for the JISC Managing Research Data programme 2011–2013 (the programme which is funding Orbital). It’s being held in the National College for School Leadership, next to the University of Nottingham’s Jubilee Campus.

Unfortunately, after schlepping it from the furthest fringes of Lincolnshire (and then having to go back home for the evening), I was only able to attend a couple of hours of day 1. But it was worth it.

I arrived just in time for a workshop about a number of research data management tools developed/provided by the Digital Curation Centre (DCC). Dr Mansur Darlington, who’s acting as external assessor/consultant to the Orbital project, was also in this workshop and contributed greatly to the discussions. (My Orbital colleagues Joss Winn and Nick Jackson attended the [parallel] workshop on various JANET, Eduserv and UMF SaaS/cloud storage services.)

Slides from this workshop will be posted online. When they’re available I’ll link to them here.

The tools being discussed were:

1. DAF – the Data Asset Framework (www.data-audit.eu)

  • A methodology for identifying gaps in an institution’s data management practices; designed to help institutions ‘clarify their thinking’ around how they manage research data.
    • N.B. We are already planning to use this methodology within the user requirements analysis workpackage of the Orbital project.
  • DAF arose out of recommendations made in the JISC/UKOLN Dealing with Data report (2007): initially the Data Audit Framework, the name was changed because ‘Audit’ was felt to be off-putting, and not an accurate reflection of what DAF is for – now DAF = Data Asset Framework.
  • “It’s worth looking at the four DAF pilot implementation projects” (carried out in 2008), because there’s likely to be one that has subject-relevance to your #jiscmrd project. The pilot projects found that most HEIs were at a very early stage (lack of RDM infrastructure; an emphasis on needs-scoping).
    • (N.B. the ERIM project at the University of Bath [engineering] used DAF but found it rather daunting and “stopped halfway down the page”(!): since then it has been condensed from a 60-page handbook into a shorter implementation guide. However the Dublin Core-based metadata requirements for datasets in DAF are still rather complex – one suggestion is to “ask fewer questions about more things”: the University of Northampton did something like this; running their own tailored ‘mini-DAF’: broadly following the DAF methodology, but tweaking it to meet their own end and the available resources.)
  • Key points:
    • Speak to lots of people in as many different roles as possible.
    • Use a variety of datagathering techniques (desk research, questionnaires, shadowing researchers, etc.)
    • Ask the DCC for tips!

2. CARDIO (cardio.dcc.ac.uk)

  • A freely-available benchmarking tool, designed to help institutions assess strengths and weaknesses in their RDM infrastructure. Developed out of the IDMP: Integrated Data Management Planning toolkit and support project.
  • Based on a ‘three legged stool’ model’; i.e. a successful RDM infrastructure will be based on three stable ‘legs’: technical infrastructure, appropriate resources (e.g. staff & skills), and commitment from the institution. An imbalance in any of these ‘legs’ leads to unstable RDM. The tool helps institutions to identify short ‘legs’ and plan to improve them. Identifying these imbalances can also be helpful in providing evidence to your institution that further investment needs to be made in a particular area.
  • CARDIO is still effectively in beta, with some tweaks still to make (and perhaps a lack of documentation?) – however some institutions have already found it useful.
  • How it works… a co-ordinator registers with the system and initiates the CARDIO assessments. (“If the scale and nature of your research data holdings isn’t known, run a DAF assessment first.”) CARDIO emails participants and asks them to rate a series of statements relating to their institution’s RDM infrastructure. Only once someone has entered their own ratings are they able to view what other people have put. Takes from 30-60 minutes for a full assessment, though it is possible to target shorter sets of questions at particular groups. CARDIO then automatically generates a [customisable] PDF report complete with charts/visualisations of the data.
  • A shorther, nine-question ‘mini-CARDIO’ is also available: see the latest issue of JISC Inform.

3. DMP Online (dmponline.dcc.ac.uk)

  • A practical, browser-based tool which allows researchers to create and store Data Management Plans (DMPs) for research projects – increasingly, research funders explicity require a DMP (e.g. the Wellcome Trust’s policy on data management).
  • Funder- and institution-specific guidance is provided through the website, along with help (“pointers”) on filling in a DMP. Completed plans can be exported in a number of formats.
  • Researchers may also be interested in the JISC guidance document, How to develop a Data Management and Sharing Plan – complementary to DMP Online.
  • The impression I get is that DMP Online is a tool which will be of practical, day-to-day utility to researchers/groups engaged in funded projects (and to the research offices that support them), whereas the other two tools (DAF/CARDIO) are perhaps aimed more at institutions starting out on the road to developing institutional RDM policies & systems, and/or looking to improve on current practice.
  • Some interesting discussions in the workshop:
    • Can DMP Online be ‘scaled up’ to work at the level of the institution, rather than the individual researcher? (A couple of projects—at UCL and Oxford—are already looking at extending the toolkit to form a more institutional service.)
    • If DMP Online (or other similar tools) make it easier for academics to routinely create DMPs by copying/pasting boilerplate text, is there a danger that writing a DMP becomes a box-ticking exercise (less meaningful/less useful for funders if less consideration given by the researcher)?
    • “Who is qualified to peer-review DMPs!?”

More information and help on using all three of these tools can be got by emailing: info@dcc.ac.uk

Then: a cup of tea, a quick catch-up with some colleagues, and to the road/rails again. I’ll be back tomorrow for day 2.

It’s the end of Jerome as we know it (but I feel fine)

Posted on November 28th, 2011 by Paul Stainthorp

The University of Lincoln’s Jerome project finished in August with the successful release of more than 240,000 openly-licensed bibliographic records, available over developer APIs, and a joint hack day with Cambridge University Library‘s COMET project.

Now, encouraged by positive JISC feedback, both institutions—Cambridge and Lincoln jointly—have applied for follow-up project funding under the project title CLOCK. If our bid is successful, the new project will run between December 2011–July 2012, employing a web developer based at the University of Lincoln, and distilling the work of both institutions into the development of new innovative library metadata discovery services for the scholarly community.

You can read the project proposal for CLOCK at http://lncn.eu/ijt4 – the introductory section is below.

The University of Lincoln and Cambridge University Library both delivered successful projects (Jerome and COMET) for the JISC Infrastructure for Resource Discovery Programme in 2011. This is a proposal for the continuation of and elaboration upon the work of both projects, via a programme of development work shared between the two institutions.

Throughout both projects (COMET-Jerome), parallel approaches in technology and data structure were noted and commented upon. A ‘mash day’ workshop event held in Cambridge in August aimed to explore these differences as well as areas of potential synergy. Here project members identified several points of interest to take forward.

Both projects produced outputs of interest to researchers, students, librarians, developers, and designers of bibliographic discovery environments. The CLOCK project will harness the success of these two complementary initiatives and investigate new approaches to data creation and discovery in the library domain. In particular, it will investigate, propose, and develop new, web-based bibliographic tools/APIs which will make it easier for developers, academic libraries and library end-users (esp. researchers) to find Open Bibliographic Data and incorporate that data into systems and workflows.

This project is an opportunity to [1] exploit through real-world applications the significant amount of data released openly by Cambridge University Library; [2] apply the Jerome database architecture, iterative development methodology, and API framework to a bibliographic dataset an order of magnitude greater than the University of Lincoln’s; and [3] to build and enable a new set of tools and demonstrator services which will enable the future development of public Open Bib Data web applications of practical utility to libraries and end-users.

The project will be supported by library consultant Owen Stephens, who will help to put the work into a national context, relating CLOCK to the wider movement toward Open Bib Data and the work of the JISC Discovery initiative. It will take place in an environment (Lincoln/Cambridge) where a culture of developer inquiry and experimentation is encouraged and nurtured. It is also endorsed by senior library management at both universities.

Both universities are involved in complementary development work which will  both inform and be informed by CLOCK: at Cambridge, Ed Chamberlain is guiding the development of the JISC Open Bibliography 2 project; in Lincoln, Paul Stainthorp is lead researcher on the #jiscmrd Orbital project, which is investigating the management of research data, with some areas of overlap.

CLOCK will operate as part of the wider JISC Digital Infrastructure: Information and library infrastructure: Resource discovery, and support the recent concerted effort to move toward openly licensed library discovery in UK Higher Education and beyond.

OAPEN-UK focus group at the British Library

Posted on November 21st, 2011 by Paul Stainthorp

British Library staff & contractors' entrance

Today I was at the British Library (allowed in via the staff entrance, no less) for a librarians’–repository managers’ focus group of the JISC/AHRC-funded OAPEN-UK project, which will run to 2015 and which aims to gather “evidence to help stakeholders make informed decisions on the future of open access scholarly monograph publishing in the humanities and social sciences”.

N.B. There doesn’t seem to be a nice, standard abbreviation for ‘open access scholarly monograph publishing’, so to avoid endlessly repeating the phrase I’ll refer to them as ‘OA e-books’ from now on. Today’s focus group was made up of academic library people (from cataloguing, e-resource management, and subject liaison roles) along with HEI repository managers.

OAPEN-UK is an extension of the original Open Access Publishing in European Networks (OAPEN) project which looked at the role of OA scholarly monograph publishing and its potential effect on researcher attitudes, behaviours, business/publishing models – mainly in the Netherlands. Five publishers (a mixture of ‘pure’ commercial and university publishing houses) are on board the OAPEN-UK steering group; between them they have contributed 60 book titles which will form a pilot data study: divided into 30 matching ‘pairs’ of titles (each pair sharing common characteristics), one book in each pair will form the control group (licensed for sale as usual), the other in each pair will be:

“…made available on the OAPEN Library in open access under a creative commons licence. In addition, the titles may be placed / discoverable via the publisher’s own website, institutional repositories, authors own website and will be 100% available in Google Book Search. MARC records will be made available to libraries”

Quantitative and qualitative data—sales, usage, citations, reuse, plagiarism—will be gathered on both groups of 30 (control/experimental), and combined with information from focus groups (including this one!) and user surveys to inform recommendations for future directions in OA e-book provision: aimed at publishers, universities, libraries, and researcher-authors and researcher-readers.

OAPEN-UK header image

The bulk of today’s focus group was taken up with an exercise to identify some of the issues of interest to libraries and repository managers in an OA e-book-’enabled’ world. The 12 attendees divided into four groups of three and brainstormed using post-it notes (pink: ‘big issues’; blue: opportunities, yellow: questions) on charts divided into four areas for consideration: technical, financial, attitudinal, and administrative. We were then each asked to ‘vote’ on the issues we felt were most important/worthy of discussion, using little red stickers.

I took photos of the four charts:

OAPEN-UK focus group 4 OAPEN-UK focus group 3

OAPEN-UK focus group 2 OAPEN-UK focus group 1

Here’s a list of just a few of the interesting discussions that came out of the exercise:

  • What will be the attitude of subject specialists – if selection isn’t tied up with a financial burden to the university library, will they feel they have lost control of the selection process? Libraries will expect good, accurate, and correctable metadata and selection tools… or will we see a national, shared OA e-books ‘firehose’ feed with little or no selection at the institutional level?
  • How will the vendors of e-book aggregation services and platforms react? And what will be the effect of their reaction on libraries who subscribe to their services? Will we see a model where publishers/aggregators charge for ‘added value’ to a basic OA offering?
  • Does ‘Open Access’ equate to ‘access in perpetuity’? Whose responsibility will it be to ensure continued access? Will we need a LOCKSS/UK Research Reserve-type approach to looking after OA e-books? What should be the role of the JISC/legal deposit libraries/other national bodies in this (to set standards and accredit/certificate universities, perhaps)?
  • Who pays in a future OA e-book ecosystem? We’re not on familiar gold/green journal OA territory. What about author royalties – how will they be collected? Will they suffer, and how? Are libraries being pushed into a new ‘big deal’, this time for e-books (and can OA help)?

Flying Scotsman in sunlight at KGXAt this point, unfortunately—and typically—I had to dash for my train. But I’ll be following the OAPEN-UK project with great interest; it’s one I hope to come back to in future.

Some links:

Electronic Resources Librarian: priorities 2011/2012

Posted on November 17th, 2011 by Paul Stainthorp

I’ve had a useful meeting with my new boss to agree my priorities for the next 12 months of development work in the Library. Here are my top 4, in order of importance.

  1. Discovery selection & implementation;
  2. JISC Orbital project (0.3FTE) – based mainly in CERD until March 2013;
  3. Possible JISC-funded Jerome follow-on work;
  4. Development of the Lincoln Repository – working closely with the Library Institutional Repository Officer (BJ), the Research & Enterprise Office + the subject librarians on the following areas:
    • Metadata workflow and service development
    • Advocacy/training
    • Building a “Research Showcase”
    • CRIS-like development, bibliometrics, and supporting the REF
    • Developing staff profiles on the University’s website
    • E-theses
    • Helpdesk integration (…possibly)

The following are projects—part of the current Library I.T. strategy—that I’ll contribute to but probably won’t lead, and/or work that’s going on in the background that I need to stay abreast of:

  1. Reading list development (project);
  2. Authentication (project);
  3. Participation in various JISC working groups as well as UKCoRR and LISN;
  4. Working with the Acquisitions team on new team rôles/areas of work;
  5. Monitoring and guiding e-resource management (ERM), authentication, and responding to user problems (this area of work will be looked after day-to-day by the Library (E-resources) Assistant (EV), supported by other staff, as part of the cover for my JISC project work);
  6. Supporting the subject librarian for technology in a review of the Library’s presence on the University Portal;
  7. Supporting the subject librarians in promoting and supporting the use of RefWorks 2.0;
  8. Supporting the HELS in administering copyright/digitisation services and the use of Blackboard.
  9. Initiating a new CALM user group.
  10. Co-ordinating LIG (the Library Innovation Group).
  11. Participating in the work of LNCD.

G’won then: what have I forgotten about?

Rough notes from a JISC emerging bibliographic tools workshop, 5th October 2011

Posted on October 12th, 2011 by Paul Stainthorp

I was at Goodenough College in London last Wednesday, 5th October 2011, for a workshop organised under the JISC Discovery programme (discovery.ac.uk), to discuss approaches to publishing, managing, and using Open Bibliographic data (OBD) on the web. Here are some of the notes that I made on the day. I’ve left them rather rough because I don’t have time to bully them into proper paragraphs.

The workshop started with a general overview and discussion of the current picture of OBD.

  • We’re dealing with a growing number of technologies for open library discovery: Linked Data, BibJSON, OPDS (based on Atom), Lincoln’s NoSQL/API-centric approach, even SuperMARC(!?).
  • Few if any people have a good handle on all of these approaches, but we ought to be at least conversant with them.
  • We’re a room full of experimenters! But how can we communicate Discovery/OBD to others? How can JISC funding be used to support the work? We need to surface not only tools and data but also skills.
  • Possibility of looking to e.g. DevCSI/Netskills to help with addressing the skills gap. Are CompSci graduates being encouraged to exercise their skills in open/community development?

We then split into two groups to brainstorm “what’s interesting in bibliographic data at the moment?”: the two groups managed to fill around 8 flipchart sheets :-)

Photo of a flipchart covered in writing

A few quotes and themes I picked up on:

  • What will be the value of OA repositories in hindsight? Will it be open data (some are skeptical) or rather will it be their effect on the publishing industry?
  • A really useful application would be a fits-all API to identify possible identifiers within a record/page – ”I think this is an identifier, please tell me what sort it is” – which then leads into a web service to aggregate information about the thing itself (rights information, etc.) – jokingly called “Rate my Regex”! – some interest in this as a project.
  • Paul Walk: “Please an we have a day off from Linked Data!?
  • Idea of the role of “data doctor/data wrangler” gaining some currency in institutions.
  • There are plenty of code libs for dealing with bibliographic data: pymarc, MARC4JMARC::Record (perl). solrmarc.
  • Owen Stephens: “MARCXML is the worst of MARC combined with the worst of XML. It’s rubbish.
  • A colleague of Peter Murray-Rust (sorry, I didn’t catch your name!). Citable data is not copyrightable. Java library containing ~20,000,000 open article records???
  • Mark MacGillivray[?]: “To most people, this [taps laptop] is just a plastic box full of magic.

After lunch we split again, this time into three groups, each to consider a different aspect of managing Open Bibliographic Data; each to consider opportunities, costs, pitfalls, etc. relating to the technologies themselves as well as to the skills needed in exploiting those technologies:

  1. Transforming data
  2. Munging data (both groups 1. and 2. agreed that the two steps are really the same thing – just “more transformation” – also that ‘munging’ is an awful word…)
  3. Exploitation of data

I was part of the ‘Munging data’ group.

Challenges

  • Problems in the move from a unitary system to distributed data services – loss of control (quality of 3rd-party data can be a problem for the librarian mindset!), worries over sustainability of mashup-style approaches (c.f. dbpedia, BBC RDF, the now-defunct Talis Silkworm project). However, openness itself provides some guarantee against things becoming defunct (i.e. Open Source Software)_.
  • Need to think about the capacity (and the uneven geographic distribution) of local skills
  • “Any data is better than no data”. Use of third-party open data is not really a challenge for management any more (only cataloguers care!)? But still important are notions of provenance, attribution, putting power back in the hands of the end user.
  • We need to think at the citation level – is there a big difference between personal and institutional data?
  • Character encoding!

Gaps

  • Skills. Not enough developers. Unevenly distributed geographically. (Can we construct a course/curriculum for open community development skills?).
  • #ukdiscovery is somewhat distant from the mundane concerns of libraries. Ed Chamberlain is speaking to a group of cataloguers in Oxford about OBD – that’s the sort of thing we want!
  • Thinking about the role of CILIP and ‘professionalism’ – keeping [technical] skills up to date. Portfolios/competency framework approaches. Can we get a push from the top of the library profession?
  • Technology gaps, on the other hand, have mostly gone away. There are enough interesting and easy things to keep us busy without having to worry too much about the things that still don’t work. JISC can help to convince (smaller?) institutions that open development should be trusted.

Opportunities

  • Still attempting to overcome legacy licensing issues. Instead of concentrating on dealing with old data, why don’t we just take a “line in the sand” approach and make sure we’re being 100% open from now on. Do the OBD principles need to be extended?
  • Make use of feedback loops. Learn something about your data by feeding how it’s been used back into the system. Use this usage to inform your transformations.

</end>