We are very pleased to announce that the next Digital Preservation Training Programme will take place on the 14th -16th November 2011, in SOAS, London. The Digital Preservation Coalition is providing three scholarships to attend and applications are invited from DPC members.

Full details are available on the DPTP website.

If you haven’t seen it, can I recommend Kristen Snawder’s recent post on the Library of Congress Digital Preservation blog, Digitization is different than digital preservation. Kristen reiterates familiar points about the long-term commitment necessary for serious digital preservation, contrasted with the quick hit of a scanning project. “In the hurry to meet user expectations, institutions may scan large quantities of materials without having a solid plan for preserving the digital images into the future.”

However another recent find on the Web compels me to make an additional point, namely that we might do equally well to differentiate between scanning and digitisation. Anyone can set to work with a scanner and create a bunch of digital images – but that barely scratches the surface of what I think we should be expecting of a digitisation project in 2011.

First and foremost, we need metadata: the more the merrier, but something at least. Even if we expect to come back later and polish it up (once the images can be browsed and examined on screen). In the absence of any established metadata profiles for a project, at least try to cover as many Dublin Core elements as possible – title, creator, date, subject/keywords… Images, in particular, may prove tricky or time-consuming to find again, especially once there are thousands of them on a disk. We should probably keep the metadata in a database, and perhaps additionally store metadata with the objects. This can be as XML or plain text files stored alongside the digital images, or embedded in the files we create (many common file formats – TIFF, JPEG, MPEG, PDF – support metadata embedding, and there are many free tools available to help).

There is yet more, though, that we should be doing, particularly when we are scanning text-based objects (articles, books, magazines, reports, etc). Most importantly, we really should try and extract the text from the image if possible. ^[1]

My recent web find was the teaching blog of Dr Toine Bogers at the Royal School of Library and Information Science (RSLIS) in Copenhagen, Denmark. One fascinating post describes a Lab Session exercise, From OCR To NER, a set of comparatively simple command-line processes to get the most out of a scanned-text project.

Toine’s post walks us through the process. Once the article is scanned, we should apply some OCR. The exercise goes further and also describes the use of tools to clean up and spell-check the resulting OCR’d text. This will, at the very least, result in a separate text file, hopefully containing a fairly accurate version of the article text. Finally, the cleaned-up text can be submited to a Named Entity Recognition service. Toine’s exercise uses NER tools at University of Illinois. (We’ve been using similar functionality provided by OpenCalais and GATE for our AIM25 Open Metadata project.)

Why do all this? The most important, instant, result of this is that we can now easily index our article for full-text searching – in a local repository system, such as EPrints or DSpace provide – and of course by Google. None of this is possible if we leave the scanned image as just that – an image.

Another  side-effect of any successful OCR outcome, is that the text is now free to be re-flowed. This means that we might consider sharing it with users in a variety of forms enhancing usability and accessibility.

It’s important not to confuse preservation formats with formats for access and dissemination. You probably will have your scanned image masters in TIFF, RAW, JPEG2000, PostScript, SVG. None of these are likely to be of much use to your users over the Web. Not only are the formats not widely supported by Web browsers, but most users probably don’t need or want your master image. If it’s a high-resolution scan of a 100 page book, they might be looking at 100Mb download, or worse – slow to load, and probably slow to render and navigate.

Time taken thinking what formats will give users the best experience is time well spent. What platforms might they want to use now and in the foreseeable future? It’s less than 18 months since Kindle3 made e-book readers affordable, and the Ipad made them sexy. E-books look and function very impressively on both platforms (albeit in different ways): for an overview of some of the benefits of the EPUB format, see Martin Fenner’s post Beyond The PDF… is EPUB. PDF outputs may yet have their uses, if users can at least search for text within them. The point is that only with properly digitised text, do these kinds of accessibility options become possible.

Even image collections can also be disseminated as E-books – nice offline items some users might care to flick through on their tablet computers, possibly even smartphones. I’ve demonstrated how we can create OJS XML from EPrints XML on-the-fly with XSLT: since EPUB and Mobi/Kindle are XML-based formats, we should be able to do something similar to create e-books using repository APIs. Also, by using appropriately sized images in dissemination formats (Ipad screen is 1024x768px; Iphone4 is 960x640px) we can not only ship our users a sensibly-sized download, we can protect any capital we may have in the master images, without having to resort to ugly tricks like watermarking. (Giving users full-size, high-res images with embedded watermarks seems to me the worst of all worlds.)

Therefore I’d suggest that, in order to get the best out of a digitisation project, consider what would you like to see at the end of the project – and, more importantly, what would give your users the best experience, or even win you new users? Ask around, do some tests, with users if possible, and get an idea how they want to use the materials and how they will get the best out of them. Maybe there are comparable projects and systems that you admire, with features you’d like to be available for your collection. What about in five or ten years’ time: will your current project outputs help or hinder longer term accessibility goals?

This kind of vision of is essential. Without some conception of the end result, how the materials will be used and managed most effectively, all the scanning in the world isn’t going to amount to a successful digitisation project.

Chris Awre, William Nixon, Rory McNicholl at the Texas Longhorns stadium

The conference kicked off with a keynote from Jim Jagielski of the Apache Software Foundation, describing the history and organisation behind Apache and its projects. It was observed by some in the Twitter backchannel that the talk could as easily have been from 2001 as 2011, but for all that it was a worthwhile reminder that, in all our efforts, we stand on the shoulders of the giants who created and maintain the infrastructure of the Web and the Internet. And also that many our endeavours benefit from a little more dedication and commitment than you can usually squeeze between 9-to-5.

The closing keynote was by repositories stalwart Clifford Lynch, who managed to touch on so many perennial repository themes, I won’t attempt to summarise them. There is a handy anthology of tweets about his talk on Storify.

In between were plenty of presentations and opportunities to meet friends old and new from the United States of Repoland – some we have worked with, some we would like to work with, and many with challenging ideas and insights into the many facets of working with repositories.

The OR conference hops back and forth across the Atlantic (I’ve previously attended OR08 in Southampton, OR09 in Atlanta and OR10 in Madrid). Unfortunately when the conference is held Stateside, the representation of the EPrints community tends to be noticeably smaller. Not that there aren’t EPrints users in the USA (we were particularly pleased to meet the team from Cal Tech Library, very happy users and advocates of EPrints), but the distribution of software platforms is significantly different from Europe in general, and the UK in particular (if you are interested in such things, you can check out the statistics at OpenDOAR). And of course travel logistics (and costs) are non-trivial. Luckily Rory and I had been saving our prize money from last year’s Developer Challenge!

While it eluded me in previous years, I think at last I am starting to grasp at least some of the salient points of the thing they call Duraspace (launched, if I recall, in Atlanta)! I’m certainly hoping to find time to take my free Duracloud trial. However other aspects still remain opaque to me. At one panel discussion about the prospects for implementing DSpace over Fedora (or Fedora under DSpace, depending which way up you look at it), I was surprised to hear a description of ongoing DSpace-Fedora alignment efforts as “more about the journey than the destination”. An enviable luxury: for the time being we need tangible outcomes for our repositories and customers, and that’s one reason why we’ll be sticking with EPrints for the foreseeable future.

Personal highlights for me are described elsewhere: the Developer Challenge, which we enjoyed immensely, and Changing Platforms the talk that I presented with Imma Subirats, of the UN Food & Agricultural Organisation, where we discussed migrating between repository platforms. Rory also had a chance to meet developers from Yale, who had worked on the other end of the SOAS-Yale Islamic Manuscripts collaboration, and show off some of his work for the SOAS repository. We were also hugely appreciative of the generosity of the EPrints team, who kept us generally amused and amazed, and kindly included us in their group dinner on the last evening.

Adrian Stevenson's got them all-night late bar open repository blues...

The facilities at UT’s AT&T Conference Centre were outstanding, as was the surrounding campus generally, including the Longhorns football stadium (with its insanely massive west stand) where the conference dinner was held. Austin has far more attractions than we could see in such a short time, and it is an impressive and vibrant city, from the spectacular grandeur of the Texas state capitol, to the noisy entertainment on 6th Street, where virtually every bar has some kind of rock or blues band playing. We were most impressed by UKOLN’s Adrian Stevenson who jammed on a borrowed guitar with the blues band in the Blue Moon bar at 2am. As if that wasn’t enough, our visit also coincided with the massive Republic Of Texas biker rally – an insanely noisy procession of up to 50,000 bikers through the main streets of the city. Our ears won’t forget OR11 in a hurry.

In addition to her work at FAO, Imma is Chief Executive for the E-LIS repository, a major international and multi-lingual repository of articles about Library and Information Science. E-LIS has operated since 2003 on EPrints, but last year migrated to DSpace, because CILEA in Italy, who generously donate support and hosting, now focuses exclusively on working with DSpace. The E-LIS migration has been largely successful, however a number of EPrints features on which the E-LIS editors and users depended, have been difficult to replicate in DSpace, or had to be put on ice. This is no reflection on the specialists at CILEA, but perhaps indicative of more profound differences between EPrints and DSpace, that aren’t always reflected in the usual comparisons of repository platforms, such as the otherwise informative JISC RSP Repository Software survey.

ULCC of course has just completed a repository migration from DSpace to EPrints for the School of Advanced Study. Our motivation was in many respects the same as that of CILEA – our expertise lies firmly in the EPrints camp. But I think the outcomes for our end-user community are more demonstrably positive: in fact I don’t think there’s a single feature of the new SAS-Space-on-EPrints that isn’t a major improvement over its previous incarnation.

Migration of metadata and data (at least from DSpace to EPrints) presented few issues (that weren’t of my own making!) – export, transform, import. Here the similarities between the models of the two platforms was extremely valuable. But we did encounter other significant differences, some of which are set out in more detail below.

Richard presenting Changing Platforms at OR11

Issues in EPrints

Perhaps the most significant issue we encountered with re-implementing SAS-Space on EPrints was the absence of built-in support for Handle persistent identifiers. Handle support comes out-of-the-box with DSpace, but not with EPrints, so the choice we faced was between re-implementing Handle support, or dropping it. We chose the latter, since the benefits of Handles to a relatively small IR like SAS-Space were not obvious, and so it was hard to justify the extra cost and effort. By ensuring that items kept the same ID when migrated from DSpace to EPrints, and implementing a simple rewrite rule, we have ensured that Handle URIs created while DSpace was operational continue to point to the same item – but for items added since EPrints went live, no new Handle URIs are coined.

(Shortly after we returned from OR11, an extended discussion broke out on Twitter, amongst several well-respected gentlemen in our field, about the benefits of using Handles. A considerable amount of scepticism was expressed about their usefulness.)

Issues in DSpace

Imma described some workflow issues encountered with the new implementation of her repository. The E-LIS team is accustomed to a very flexible EPrints-based workflow that allows items to have their workflow status changed quite freely. DSpace, by contrast, has a unidirectional workflow model, so that items cannot (for example) be reverted from Live to Pending, if some kind of error is spotted, but effectively need to be deleted and resubmitted. This is obviously a significant divergence between the superficially similar repository platforms.

Another example Imma gave of a perplexing feature of the default DSpace UI is the button on each abstract page that says “View Full Item Record”. It leads to a rather intimidating web page displaying the item metadata as Qualified Dublin Core. It’s not a very attractive display, nor is it actually a “data” rendering of the metadata (as you would get by explicitly choosing to Export As XML, or from some new-fangled Linked Data features). It’s not clear why this view would be of interest to general users of the repository: why is it there?

At OR11 I talked to several people working with DSpace, and all agreed that there’s room for improvement in the default Web UI. In some cases they have completely reimplemented the web templates. It’s also worth noting that the page layout in the default JSP UI is entirely implemented using HTML tables, and doesn’t pass W3C validation. For a Web application that’s nearly 10 years old, this is disappointing. (The alternative Manakin XML UI implements an attractive vision of UI abstraction using XSLT, but reports suggest that configuring/maintaining it is not for the faint-hearted.)

Quite a few Web design infelicities are perpetrated in the default Community, Collection and Abstract page templates. (During the conference, many of us enjoyed and applauded Simeon Warner’s timely rant,”Don’t bold the field name”.) Of course we can change them – it’s Open Source, isn’t it? – but is it unreasonable to expect default Web templates that are at least potentially usable as is? Of course the natural and reasonable response of the DSpace community is to ask that we report the issue as a bug or feature-request to the development team. Or fix it ourselves and share the fix. But where an absent feature is really important to a user (by which I probably mean a repository manager), then the choice faced is between “getting by” until it’s implemented in the core distribution, or doing it themselves (which probably means hiring a specialist developer to implement it for them).

Out-of-the-box

At the DSpace User Group meeting in 2007, I described how we considered that, back in 2005, DSpace offered a better “out-of-the-box” experience than EPrints. I never thought it was anything to write home about – in fact I remember being disappointed by the very UI issues I’ve described above – but to my untrained eye it did seem better than EPrints, at the time. But, as I’ve mentioned elsewhere, EPrints has improved remarkably since.

Of course a lot of people we admire have proved that you can create impressive repository systems using DSpace. It performs and provides a lot of essential repository functionality. Its Lucene search engine is certainly better than anything EPrints currently offers. But I’m still surprised how much more work seems to be necessary to make a DSpace installation as readily useful and usable as EPrints, and this seems to represent considerable additional cost in setting up DSpace.

I’ve heard it sometimes argued – in both EPrints and DSpace camps – that Repository setup shouldn’t be too easy, lest repository managers get in a mess and endanger the integrity of their system. In my opinion, as developers and solution providers, our job is to provide as many features and tools as possible to enable Repository Managers to manage their collections effectively and easily – not act as as gatekeepers to their systems and data.

By way of contrast, we have recently supported the Institute of Education (IOE) in setting up an EPrints repository of UK government publications, and we were pleased to see the repository manager called on us very little, other than to answer some questions and apply a few small configuration changes. The experience with SAS-Space has also confirmed to me that EPrints now has strong out-of-the-box appeal, and a rich set of features available through the Web UI, that enable a reasonably confident repository manager to get to work without needing to initiate a major technical project.

In the current climate, of straitened library budgets, this could make a considerable difference to the viability of a repository startup project. For a growing number of libraries and information services – not least at smaller research institutions, or in developing countries – that could be the difference between having a repository, or not.

Excitement at the OR11 Developer Challenge Show-and-Tell (Photo by @sparrowbarley)

An event that asked developers to demonstrate the Future of Repositories can only be considered a great success when it receives entries that include:

• Multiple real-time examples of using “Repositories As A Service (RaaS)”, not only exchanging data but also sharing sophisticated functionality between EPrints and DSpace – and even including an Android application
• A tool for bundling and depositing a whole raft of research related outputs from the Web via RDF
• A tactile repository search interface with dynamic search suggestions, specifically designed for tablets and smartphones
• A complete gesture and voice-driven system for depositing and searching in repositories

All these – and other great entries too – were achieved in a couple of days’ work during the course of the conference, for the annual OR Developer Challenge, and presented at a packed Show-and-Tell session on Thursday afternoon (true, there was free beer).

Stuart Lewis’s team were worthy winners with their RaaS project, particularly as they showed a genuine commitment to a cross-platform approach – something which, sensibly, backgrounds the individual software platforms, that often receive too much attention, and focuses on the Repository as an application and entity in its own right.

We were also really pleased to see a prize go to Patrick McSweeney and Matt Taylor. And enjoyed seeing Dave Tarrant stealing the show (again) with his live demonstration of using a Microsoft Xbox Kinect to submit items to a repository.

Our own entry may not have won, but several people liked it, and you may see more of it in future. For the second year running, the Developer Challenge was a great opportunity for Rory and me to concentrate on an idea that we’ve been kicking around, without having found a home for it in existing work (yet). This was true for our Semantic Metadata popup tools that won the challenge with last year.

This year we set about achieving our  longstanding desire to take the very tactile and dynamic search interface that Rory created for the MERLIN project, and turn it into a touchscreen app, for smartphones and tablets.  The results were pretty effective.

The MERLIN Mobile interface ("TEXAS") as demonstrated at OR11

The MERLIN interface on LASSO is quite complex, but at the heart of it is the tag cloud of related terms that the Termine text-mining suggests. This always looked like it might be good on a touchscreen, so we stripped it down, rearranged and tweaked it to make it viable on an Ipad screen. If you’ve got an Ipad, you can try it out by pointing your Safari browser at http://is.gd/texasweb. (It will work on desktop browsers too, but it looks best on a portrait oriented screen.)

If you’ve got an Android device, you can even download an app-based version of it from http://is.gd/texasapp. (It’s a bit cramped in a smartphone display, but still essentially working.)

If you’ve got neither we created this page to give you a rough idea what it looks like.

It’s worth mentioning that this is a real, live, working application: enter a search term (“logical positivism”, “climate change”, “Jeremy Bentham”,  …) and it searches over the full-text corpus of all articles in University of London Open Access repositories (SHERPA-LEAP consortium members), and makes suggestions about additional or alternative search terms, based on the results of the text-mining analysis of the articles

The hackathon approach of working closely together to create something quickly worked well again: Rory hacks, and I test and review each time he hits ‘Save’! All very agile and iterative.

In honor of our hosts in Austin, we decided to call the new interface Touchscreen Enhanced Cross-Search with Augmented Serendipity – or TEXAS for short.

Kudos to Mahendra Mahey, Peter Sefton and the DevCSI project for putting (and keeping) it all together, and to the awesome panel of judges (even though they didn’t pick us)!

ULCC Digital Archives & Repositories Team, May 2011

Please introduce yourself
We are ULCC’s Digital Archives & Repositories Team, and you can generally find us in the basement of Senate House along with the rest of ULCC. We are five:

• Ed Pinsent and Patricia Sleeman, our digital archivists, provide digital preservation training and consultancy.
• Rory McNicholl is our lead developer and repository systems manager.
• Silvia Arango-Docio is project officer for Web archiving projects and repository support.
• Richard Davis is team leader, and actively contributes to all of the team’s projects, as well as pursuing new and interesting opportunities.

What does your team do?
Our department was created in 1997 to develop the National Digital Archive of Datasets (NDAD), and operate it for The National Archives. NDAD was originally a joint project of ULCC and Senate House Libraries, providing a specialised cataloguing and preservation service for government databases.

Since then we’ve worked on many digital archive and library projects. The NDAD service ceased in 2010, but we continue working on innovative projects for born-digital and digitised records, developing repositories and related information systems for education and research. We provide specialist training and consultancy for the HE and cultural heritage sectors through the highly-acclaimed Digital Preservation Training Programme (DPTP).

Our current or recent partners and customers include most of the University’s colleges and institutes, the British Library, the Parliamentary Archives, the JISC, the UK Web Archiving Consortium, and the European Commission. We work closely with the Digital Preservation Coalition (DPC), and local groups such as the AIM25 archives network and theSHERPA-LEAP consortium of University of London repository managers.

Tell us one thing about your work that colleagues might not know.
Digital preservation issues might seem esoteric, but they are fundamental to every electronic and computer-based activity – in other words, pretty much everything in business, education and research. Understanding the best ways to manage, describe and preserve all our electronic information – from a single email, to complex Web sites, or collections of digital photos or videos – is an essential 21st century skill.

What aspect of your work gives you the most satisfaction?
We are very lucky to work closely with information professionals from around the UK and internationally. Patricia has recently delivered preservation workshops at the National Library of Jordan; Ed and Silvia are working on Web archiving projects for the JISC and the EU; Richard and Rory won the annual JISC Developer Challenge at last year’s Open Repositories conference in Madrid.

What is the most challenging part of your job?
Keeping up-to-date with constantly changing ICT landscape in education, libraries and archives. Electronic information systems evolve continually, as do the tools and methods for managing them. Luckily there is a wealth of current information on the Web, if you know where to look! We actively share our thoughts and experiences through our long-running Digital Archives Blog and on Twitter.

Name one thing that would make your working environment better.
Sometimes it seems we work with everyone except colleagues in Senate House! It would be great to work more with colleagues at the Central University, and bring more of our accumulated experience to bear on some of the University’s information and records management challenges.

If you could meet anyone (dead or alive) who would it be and why?
We’re not going to agree on this any time soon. Suggestions so far include Sofia Loren, Hypatia of Alexandria, Richard Brautigan and Pete Townshend.

Name three hobbies team members pursue – the more unusual the better.
Most of us have small children, so hobbies take a back seat. Ed is an accomplished artist, writer, broadcaster, musician and samizdat publisher. Patricia is about to learn how to stain glass before starting Arabic lessons for the third time.

If, as a group, you stormed the musical charts, what genre of music would that be in, what would be your stage name and who would be your lead vocalist?
We could be a psychedelic beat group called the Dates Of Creation. Our lead singer would have to be Patricia.

During the ArchivePress project at ULCC, we briefly considered the data and metadata generally made available with blogs and blog posts. As ArchivePress focused on the representations of blogs in newsfeeds, we examined the metadata that is generated in common, and exposed in the newsfeeds of three of the most common blog platforms, WordPress, Blogger and TypePad. Blogger and Typepad prefer the Atom newsfeed format; WordPress (particularly WordPress.com) prefers RSS (though it can be made to publish Atom feeds too). This analysis was done, about a year ago, things may have changed, but here is a summary of what we found.

For each Blog, the following core information is available in the feeds:

For each Post, we established that the following core information is available in the newsfeeds:

One interesting point we noted was that neither Blogger nor Typepad published a link to a Comments Feed for each post. This made our work on ArchivePress more difficult since it was predicated on being able to easily identify the Comments feed for each post, and harvest new Comments as they were published. Obviously for blogs generated other than by WordPress, this was not going to be so easy. (Our ace developer Emanuele found some workarounds, but that’s another story.)

I think this offers us an interesting overview of the core of standard, structured blog data and metadata, in three of the leading blog platforms. This is the data structure and metadata profile that is maintained in blog databases, in one of its native forms, and I’d expect it to be present in all blog platforms, since it arguably represents the essence of blogs. I hope this will be useful background when considering the core models for data and metadata handling that will be developed for BlogForever.

Is there a particular blog or blogger you would like to see included in the BlogForever survey? We invite you to use this form to nominate them, and we will try to ensure that the blog is reviewed or the blogger contacted to participate in our survey.

At an atomic level, a “blog” comprises “blog posts”, which are continually added to the blog corpus: that is the dynamic essence of a blog, and distinguishes it from old-fashioned, largely static Websites and hypertexts in which little content changed between major update iterations, which process was probably more akin to “publishing a new edition” in the world of non-digital publications.

The blog also displays, as part of its frame, other graphical and functional elements (sidebars, widgets, “blogrolls”, etc) which may themselves contain dynamically updated, constantly changing information. These can be added, removed, amended and rearranged at will by the blog author/editor. Blog posts that were “published” in the context of one set of framing elements, will persist through subsequent versions of that framework.

Similarly with design (layout, colours, mastheads, etc), though the persistence tends to be longer, the informal nature of blogs means that these may be easily changed by the blog editor/author, and are thus more volatile than a typical “corporate” website. Again, blog posts may persist, unchanged in themselves, through many iterations of the blog site design and layout.

A simple view of blog elements and their temporal relationship

This very simplified visualisations suggests where we might start conceptualising key elements of a blog. It indicates that they iterate over time, but in the cases of Design, Posts and Widgets (as we’ll call them for brevity), according to independent schedules. While Posts and Comments persist in the online view of a blog, designs and widget arrangements are overwritten.

With my earlier ArchivePress project we deliberately overlooked preservation of the blog’s framing elements, and (given the much smaller scope of that project) established an acceptable rationale for doing so. The challenge for BlogForever is to find a solution to  precisely these issues. Unless we were simply to adopt the snapshot approach of Heritrix-based web archiving initiatives (e.g. Wayback/archive.org, UK Web Archive), we need to ensure the BlogForever repository supports a degree of granularity that can capture, describe and preserve atomic blog objects in a way that reflects the particular interdependencies, in order to understand and preserve them authentically, and permit the many possible authentic and valid “time slice” views and analyses that users of the archive will need.

(I appreciate, by the way that these objects themselves are compound objects, so not strictly “atomic”: but the same is also true of atoms, as our CERN colleagues can attest!)

Rory and I met with Richard Gartner and Gareth Knight at CeRch today, to catch up with their investigations into using GATE and OpenCalais to process the EAD outputs from AIM25.

Results look very encouraging. OpenCalais, in particular, generates a post-processing set of identified entities (personal names, place names, corporate names) which Richard G has then created regular expressions to locate these in the body of the EAD and wrap in appropriate EAD tags (<persname> etc).

This suggests that the way forward for enhancing the existing data entry processes for AIM25 will involve dispatching the EAD-compliant data entered by collections manager to OpenCalais, and returning the data, with enhanced markup, for checking by the submitter. This hook should be easy enough to insert for manual, form-based entry; for batch entry processes we will need to assess whether any significant delays are introduced.

We’ve also started to consider ideas for a URI scheme for the entities identified. Our current working hypothesis is that this will involve defining a “data” namespace for AIM25, binding to http://data.aim25.ac.uk/. Within that we can develop a structure along the lines /person, /place, /corporate_body, and append our unique IDs for each entity. Further research is necessary, particularly into the recommendations of the Cabinet Office recommendations for Designing URI Sets for the UK Public Sector.

These URIs can then be used in identifier attributes for our EAD elements (<persname>, etc.), and thence easily transformed into an RDFa format for the Web-based HTML rendering of the AIM25 catalogues.

Next steps include further investigating how to implement and assert relationships between our entities and other open datasets (e.g. our_entity is_the_same_as your_entity). And how to make the authority data, duly marked-up, available as open metadata.

Rory and I can now start to consider suitable approaches to embedding this in our development copy of the existing AIM25 system, and we’ll continue to liaise closely with CeRch for advice on  the relative merits of Gate and OpenCalais processing, and guidance on URI implementation.

Friday’s CeDAAME dissemination event was also an opportunity to be reminded that ULCC’s Digital Archives team has contributed in other ways to the success of SOAS’s team, directly and indirectly. Julie Makinson described how SOAS used the AIDA digital asset assessment toolkit in developing their strategic approach; and many of the SOAS team are alumni of the DPTP: so Ed and Patricia have also had their part to play in supporting SOAS’s digitisation efforts.

The presentations at SOAS were extremely interesting, describing the full range of activities of a multi-faceted digitisation programme, from the development of the strategy (using the aforementioned AIDA) to the many challenges of digitising Islamic manuscripts and related materials.

How, for example, do you reliably OCR pages of centuries-old text with mixtures of Arabic and Latin/English/French? The answer is that sometimes rekeying is unavoidable. We learned, too, that Yale used UKOLN’s DC Dot Dublin Core editor to create their metadata for Islamic collections (and then convert to TEI). Thanks to the native DC and Unicode support in EPrints, SOAS metadata (in English and Arabic) was created and managed directly in the repository. Metadata exchange between Yale’s Fedora-based system and SOAS’s EPrints system seems to have been achieved effectively – I know Rory worked closely with SOAS and Yale on this.

And I sensed genuine excitement in the room when the page-turning interfaces for viewing the books online were unveiled: both very impressive. (For SOAS Rory has been working long and hard on adapting the open source book viewer used by the Internet Archive, and ensuring that the right-to-left reading and page-turning functionality works smoothly.) We also learned about a variety of different approaches to the issues of managing and funding digitisation and cataloguing activities: with my work on the Mediawiki-based Transcribe Bentham project in mind, it was particularly interesting to hear about University of Michigan’s Collaborative Cataloguing initiative.

All in all an exciting day, and particularly satisfying to see close-up the kind of synergies that exist across all of the activities of ULCC’s Digital Archives and Repositories Team. In addition to further enhancing the SOAS Digital Archives system, we are also looking forward to working with them on their JISC-funded Engaging Overseas Communities project, which is going to involve hooking EPrints up to mobile phones in Africa and Asia.

As if that wasn’t enough, at lunchtime I also dashed over to the School of Pharmacy, where Jean, Neroli and Michelle had kindly organised a lunchtime meeting for the University of London repository managers in the LEAP consortium. It was an opportunity for me to unveil a preview of the new SHERPA-LEAP website (with added social networking goodness, courtesy of WordPress/BuddyPress) that we expect to launch very shortly.

It was a nice way to round off a week in which the Team also achieved significant milestones in our work on preservation metadata for the Parliamentary Archives and strategic development for The Women’s Library, began planning for the next DPTP course, and we received news that the FP7 BlogForever project, which will see us collaborating with Warwick, HATII, CERN and others until 2013, has received its final sign-off from the European Commission.

As usual we had a wide range of projects and activities, but without doubt our biggest challenge for the year was negotiating the complex task of transferring the NDAD Dataset Archive back to The National Archives, in its entirety. The National Digital Archive of Datasets is a hugely important collection of government datasets and databases, meticulously catalogued, researched and preserved by the DA team at ULCC under contract to TNA since 1998. The NDAD team worked long and hard to ensure a successful transfer in time for the end of the contract in October.

Our other activities have been in the now familiar fields of Web Archiving, Digital Preservation training and Repository development.

Ed led our Web Archiving effort, continuing to manage the harvesting of websites for the JISC, as part of the UK Web Archive, and contributed to the deliberations of the DPC’s Web Archiving Task Force. Kevin and I also put in an appearance at one of the Open University’s Innovations in Reference Management events, with an appeal to ensure that web preservation issues are adequately addressed when training undergraduates and researchers in information management skills (I also turned this into an article for Ariadne). We were also pleased to see the creation of the Guide To Web Preservation, based on the outputs of the JISC-PoWR project: you can order print copies from Lulu, download the PDF, or comment on the interactive web version at JISCPress.

Ed also continued working with the DCC for the Integrated Data Management Planning toolkit project (IDMP), building on earlier initiatives including the Assessing Institutional Digital Assets (AIDA) toolkit we developed for JISC; and Ed and AIDA also made a cameo appearance as part of Southampton University’s KeepIt! project, providing digital preservation training for repository managers.

In another interesting Web Archiving project, we prepared a set of recommendations for the Railway Heritage Committee, keen to preserve the many web sites and information sources related to railway services. Unfortunately the RHC looks set to be disbanded in the current round of government cuts, but we sincerely hope its successors in this role will take forward the important work of preserving this information.

Patricia led the Digital Preservation Training Programme, which ran successful courses in March and October, and also a specialist one-day Web Archiving workshop in June. We were very pleased that The National Archives chose to recommend DPTP when it published its Digital Preservation FAQ in the autumn. Patricia even took the Digital Preservation message to one of her local schools, and found the school-children encouragingly clued-up.

In repositories, Rory continued his work developing the SOAS Digital Archive, which will soon accommodate further collections, and ploughed on with the MERLIN repository text-mining project, producing ever more impressive results. We took a poster about the Furer-Haimendorf work to the annual Open Repositories conference in Madrid. We didn’t win best poster, but we did win the annual JISC-sponsored Developer’s Challenge, with a neat idea for enhancing semantic metadata in repository abstract pages, which we hope to develop this further. We also completed the migration of the School of Advanced Study’s SAS-Space repository from DSpace to EPrints, and the upgrade of all our hosted repositories to a stable EPrints 3.1 platform.

We were also pleased to contribute to the success of UCL’s Transcribe Bentham project, providing a customised wiki to support collaborative transcription; to deliver another digital preservation study for the DPC’s Case Notes series; and continue to support the work of the SHERPA-LEAP London repository consortium.

Unfortunately the end of the NDAD contract has meant that we have had to say farewell to many esteemed and longstanding colleagues – archivists Jim Jamieson and Joanne Anthony, data specialists Sally Hughes, Mina Creathorn and Annemarie McCaughey, and systems administrator Ben Wheeler. And of course we also said farewell this year to Kevin Ashley, who left for the Digital Curation Centre in February, after 25 years managing digital archives and other special projects at ULCC.

But the rest of the team – Ed, Patricia, Rory, Silvia and myself – expect to continue the good and diverse work long associated with ULCC’s Digital Archives team, and we already expect to have our hands full in 2011 with many new and ongoing digital archive and repository projects, including

• work with the Parliamentary Archives to define a preservation metadata profile for the records of the House of Lords
• work on a new digital preservation strategy for the The Women’s Library
• developing new repositories (alongside integrated VLE and e-Portfolio systems) for the GuildHE CREST project
• further work on the theory and practice of blog archiving, as part of an imminent EU FP7 project, which will see us collaborating with many UK and international partners

And DPTP, will be running several scheduled and custom courses in 2011, and of course we’ll continue to support and assist our repository service customers, old and new.  So keep watching this space…

…and a Happy New Year!

It was great to take part in last week’s Repositories Support Project event at Sheffield Cathedral. The theme of the day, organised by Jackie Wickham and the RSP team, was “Doing It Differently” and it covered a wide range of repository-related themes. I took along an updated and expanded version of the presentation I made to SHERPA-LEAP repository managers. I covered the same topics, but in preparing the presentation, I was amazed how many more things there were to talk about a year on.

Stephanie Taylor gave an excellent overview of the repository scene, and I hope I followed it up with useful ideas about making repositories more user-friendly or just generally useful to users. Other talks went off into less well trodden areas, though no less interesting: Pat Lockley impressed again with his enthusiastic description of Xpert; Joss Winn described his further adventures in WordPress land; and Stephanie Meece described the challenges of non-textual repositories at UAL. My ears pricked up when Jason Hoyt of Mendeley mentioned that an imminent upgrade to Mendeley will be able to identify OA sources for papers, which might signal it’s time for me to finally catch up with Mendeley (dissertation starts next year!). I didn’t catch the final speakers as I had to catch my train, but I commend to you Vicki McGarvey’s post on the SHARE project blog at Nottingham Trent University.

I tried to keep things simple by steering clear of all the complicated issues in repository management – OA, OAI-PMH, copyright, advocacy, REF, RIM, etc – and just focus on simple UI enhancements that might improve a user’s experience of the repository, and effective use of features like RSS feeds and statistics, with examples from all over the world of institutional and specialist repositories. Which features a repository manager might choose, if any, is up to them and their own circumstances, but my aim was to ensure they are at least aware of what’s possible – as evidenced by what’s been done in many repositories around the country.

Although I focused on EPrints installations, I think nearly everything I demonstrated ought to be feasible in other platforms. Overloading an abstract page with features like “Share this on Facebook/Twitter”, QR Codes, or metadata export in RSS/JSON/CSV and more, should be a very easy way to enhance the user experience of repositories. As I suggested, adding buttons to support “the latest thing” users may be finding useful, is generally not difficult. A “Send This Paper To My Kindle” button, for example, seems so trivial I might even try it myself.

I had a long list of ideas/examples to show: for anyone who didn’t have time to copy down the small print, they were:

• SNEEP
• Lincoln EPrints
• Language Box
• MePrints
• Hum Box
• ULCC Publications Archive
• UCL EPrints
• IRStats
• Repository Stats using Google Analytics (presentation by Graham Triggs at OR10)
• E-Space at Manchester Metropolitan University
• Framework for Linking Inline Semantic Metadata
• Oxford University Research Archive
• MERLIN

We’ve brought along a smashing poster of our work for SOAS, which attracted a considerable amount of interest for its distinctive and attractive Web user interface.

Of the themes of the conference we found most interesting, more in due course.

But we also decided it was about time we entered the annual Repository Developer Challenge. And at the conference dinner on Wednesday we learned that our entry was awarded first prize. La Roja weren’t the only ones with something to celebrate; and we’r'e very pleased to have our names on the same (virtual) cup as such giants of the reposphere as Tim Donohue, David Tarrant, Ben O’Steen and Tim Brody!

The challenge set by the JISC funded DevCSI project, managed by UKOLN, was to “Create a functioning repository user-interface, presenting a single metadata record which includes as many automatically created, useful links to related external content as possible.”

Our idea began by simply imagining a typical repository abstract page overloaded with functional, contextual popup menus, just like a Google Docs page, for example. We could add a menu to each metadata element, and populate the menu with links pertinent to the element.

In order to do that we needed:

• first, to be able to automatically identify the metadata values (title, author and the like) in the page, and,
• second, to manage a list of the web services that are appropriate to each metadata element. The result would automatically generate, on each item’s abstract page, links such as “Find this title at Amazon”, “Find this author at the BL”
• third, some clever scripts that put all this stuff together

The first task was achieved by editing the EPrints templates to ensure each metadata value was wrapped in RDFa semantic tags (spans with a ‘property’ class) that we could identify programmatically. The semantic schemas used are formally declared in the page header.

The second aim achieved by identifying appropriate target services, and the exact URL required to activate them. As a simple example, we can easily create a link to search Google for VALUE using the URL http://www.google.com/#q=VALUE. By way of a data source for these services, I created a spreadsheet in which each row linked a metadata element (e.g. dc:title) to a service (e.g. Google).

The third part was the tricky bit that Rory deftly dispatched. He created scripts that scour the Abstract page looking for RDFa tags, then look them up in the services data table, and dynamically create links as appropriate.

We chose to create an example using the test server that we maintain for the Linnean Online collection. Linnaeus’s botanical specimens make a nice change from the usual ETDR fare of most repositories. This also allowed us to demonstrate using metadata schema from a domain other than the ubiquitous Dublin Core: life sciences have developed a schema called Darwin Core, which defines necessary metadata in that domain, for example as Genus and Species. What’s more, there is a wide range of resources in the field that might usefully be linked to, such as the collections at Kew or the Natural History Museum, the International Plant Names Index and the Encyclopedia of Life.

The results were pretty much as we’d hoped. It’s worth noting that, while we implemented it in EPrints, the technique could be applied to any template-based repository platform, or, for that matter, virtually any web application. Once the RDF templates and code are in place in the templates, it is only necessary to edit the table of data services in order to add or remove links. With only a bit more polish than we had time for during the conference, we think that this could be a useful addition to the toolkit of any repository developer or repository manager. We’ll keep you posted!

UKOLN filmed the proceedings so you can see me presenting our entry at the conference if you want.

Winner of the Developer Challenge at OR10 (Madrid) – Richard Davis and Rory McNicoll from UKOLN on Vimeo.

It was observed by some, at the time, that the Handbook was quite a hefty tome. It was full of good advice and illustrative case studies collected during the course of the project, but arguably suffered a bit from a lack of objective editing.

However, thanks to Brian’s prudent audit of the project budget, he was able to engage Susan Farrell to take this work further, and Susan has done a great job in editing and condensing the material, so now we can present what I think can truly be described as a much more handy Handbook that fulfils the project’s key aims, of offering an accessible introduction to the preservation issues surrounding Web sites and materials, and a practical guide to dealing with them.

The 60 page guide is available through Lulu.com for the bargain price of £2.82 for anyone that wants a hard-copy now. Both UKOLN and ULCC hope to be able to share copies with those attending events such as IWMW and DPTP. I hope we’ll also shortly be able to deposit OA PDFs in one or more repositories.

And with a bit of luck there should even be a preview of it embedded below; if not hop on over to Lulu.com and check it out there.

Obviously, transcription of manuscript materials is an important digitisation activity that can rarely, if ever, be left to computers, in the way that printed texts can be, using OCR. But it’s painstaking and laborious work, and anything that eases the burden is welcome.

The project is already throwing up some very interesting conversations about transcription.  At ULCC we have thought about transcription before, particularly with regard to our ongoing work for the Linnean Society archives, and we hope that there will yet be synergies to exploit. It is a great feeling to be so closely involved with disseminating the work of two such seminal figures as Linnaeus and Bentham.

We’re not naïve enough to think that collaborative web-based transcription is new, but we’ve yet to find any substantial comparable examples. A comment on UCL’s Digital Humanities blog teases us with the prospect of information about other similar projects, but fails to provide even a single link or hint, so is effectively useless: hardly in the collaborative spirit! A more useful lead was Joanne Evans’ link to the National Library of Australia’s Australian Newspapers project, which is crowdsourcing the proof-reading and correcting of OCR outputs, and has an impressive-looking site – I’m sure we’ll be borrowing some ideas from there.

Another useful lead has been from Ben Brumfield of Austin, Texas, directing us to his blog about collaborative manuscript transcription which has been going even longer than DA Blog, and looks like it’s going to make interesting reading. Ben’s recent blog post about a distributed transcription exercise of the US Geological Survey’s Bird Phenology Program includes a link to a training video for volunteers (it even sounds like it’s been recorded in a birdhouse).  In the video we can see a database-form approach to transcription, which is particularly appropriate for transcribing data already entered on structured forms.

For more heterogeneous and free-form texts, such as the Bentham manuscripts, wikis seem to me much more appropriate, being in essence discrete hypertext engines. As for collaborative features, MediaWiki in particular has strong and proven features: there can be few better advertisements for effective virtual, global collaboration and crowdsourcing than Wikipedia.

One thing that is particularly compelling about the BPP video is that it is an excellent example of a thorough approach to online collaboration, giving clear and unequivocal guidance to contributors. Now that screencast tools are so readily available, it’s clear that for many activities like this, video-based instruction is the ideal tool, and often preferable to any number of written instructions. No less than for online teaching and learning environments, the need for effective induction and inclusive management of the online community must never be overlooked.

Beacon cited through fog

Who would have thought that reference management could be so interesting? We spent a  very informative and enjoyable Thursday in snowy Milton Keynes, at the Innovations in Reference Management (#IRM10) event (part of the OU/JISC TELSTAR project). All thoroughly blogged by Owen Stephens, and tweeted by many.

Owen Stephens and Jason Platts of OU described the outputs of the TELSTAR project, which integrates the OU’s Moodle VLE with Refworks. This means that students using the VLE can move seamlessly between their reading lists and Refworks, locating resources, maintaining consistency of style and generating bibliographies easily.

Paul Stainthorp of Lincoln University described some exciting, bleeding-edge uses of Yahoo Pipes to mashup data from Refworks, OPAC, and Amazon. Arguably even more bleeding-edge was the presentation by Euan Adie from Nature Publishing, who showed us Help Me Igor, a reference manager plugin for Google Wave. Speakers from CiteULike and Mendeley also gave us fascinating insights into their respective social-tinged bibliographic management offerings.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, Kevin and I brought to the table the theme of web preservation. With reference to our work with JISC-PoWR, UKWAC and ArchivePress, we reminded anyone who hasn’t heard our spiel already that there are many important, valuable and eminently citable web resources, notably blogs by academic researchers, that are at risk of disappearing – making references to them virtually useless.

Authors may not be responsible for ensuring their readers can access the resources they reference, but we think they should at least give them a fighting chance of doing so! We  therefore proposed that students and researchers should be encouraged to locate and cite copies of web resources in stable web archives (such as the UK Web Archive) rather than “in the wild”.

We also discussed the idea that persistent collections of web resources could be created at the institutional level, whether that were an open archive of blog posts by a university’s researchers, or a closed repository where researchers can store copies of the web resources they cite.

One of the strong themes that emerged in discussion was the need for information literacy/digital skills training at all levels to address current tools and trends in reference management; and to re-assert the purpose, value and nature of citation in online digital environments

An interesting suggestion also made was that reference management tools are becoming a natural part of the environment, just as email has: is provision of specialised applications by universities an “aberration”?

I’m inclined to think not, after all it was clear from the workshop that there’s still a need to support ongoing study and research effectively, and scope to develop and validate new approaches.  Microsoft Word may now include reference management features, but that doesn’t obviate the need to educate people in how to use them effectively, and why.

We’re very grateful to Owen for including us in his programme: this is a fascinating area, where e-learning, libraries, preservation and publishing collide, and I’m sure we haven’t heard the last of it.

As regular readers will know, we have been working with repositories for quite a few years now. In 2005 we began working with the School of Advanced Study on their requirements for an Institutional Repository, and since then we have installed, configured and maintained several repositories, including some highly customised, specialist systems.

In most cases we have used EPrints. This is partly because we are familiar with the stuff it is built with (Perl, MySQL and XML have been at the heart of the NDAD dataset repository we have operated for The National Archives since 1997). But also because we like the ever-expanding set of features and options EPrints provides. I’ve watched its capabilities grow, thanks to the seemingly limitless energy and initiative of the EPrints team at Southampton. (For an interesting, user’s-eye perspective on the relative merits of DSpace and EPrints, I recommend reading some of the posts tagged DSpace in Dorothea Salo’s Caveat Lector blog).

It’s three years almost to the day since Rory and I attended the pre-launch briefing on EPrints3 and came away convinced that, with its AJAX UI and evolving plugin architecture, EPrints 3 was likely to play a big part in our future plans.

And hardly a day’s gone by since, when we haven’t had some EPrints-related work on our plate. In 2007 we began developing Linnean Online for the Linnean Society, and PRIMO for the Institute of Musical Research. Out of this, and the snowballing Web 2.0 zeitgeist, we also honed the idea that became SNEEP (Social Networking Extensions for EPrints), one of the first JISC Rapid Innovation projects. Most recently, we’ve scaled new heights of EPrints customisation with the SOAS Fürer-Haimendorf collection, with its user-defined albums and searching enhancements, all wrapped up in 9Web’s impressive graphic design.

We’ve tweaked config files and hacked templates and for the most part enjoyed doing stuff with EPrints. (All credit is due to Rory and Ben, by the way. My role is chiefly to say “We could make it do that couldn’t we?” And, lo and behold, usually “we” can.)

Over the years I’ve also talked to many repository managers, and potential repository managers, about their requirements and expectations. I’ve spoken and networked at DSpace User Groups , Open Repositories conferences and many excellent events organised by the JISC, particularly the Repositories Support Project – and I’ve met a lot of smart and insightful people in the repo biz. Some of it must have rubbed off – I think my own understanding of what’s needed, and what’s feasible has grown considerably.

But what we’ve never done is run our own repository, and experienced these things day-to-day for ourselves. As Atticus Finch said in To Kill A Mockingbird,

You never really understand a person until you consider things from his point of view . . . until you climb into his skin and walk around in it.

That’s why, in the gaps between everything else going on round here, Annemarie has been putting together the ULCC Publications Archive, which I hope will become a canonical home for our published outputs. It’s not big and it’s not clever, it’s certainly not perfect, but it is something we can use to improve our understanding of what it means to run a repository. We will also no doubt use it to explore some of the tools and techniques emanating from the EPrints developer community.

And now I can really start to empathise with the repository managers I know: their agony – clarifying copyright and licenses, ambiguous form fields, disappearing diacritics – and their ecstasy – a well-formed subject tree or citation, a successful search. I’ve also an insight into the needs of authors/submitters, since several articles are mine – and I naturally want to get the citations looking just right, so that I can embed some of the nice feeds EPrints provides into my blogs, e-portfolios and who knows what other mashups. Self-interest is a great motivator, as many Open Access advocates have observed: before long I’m sure I’ll be wanting download statistics, author profiles, and most of the other things I described in 1001 Things To Do With A Live Repository.

For me it’s an invaluable experience – no less so than when, a couple of years ago, I became an actual user of a VLE, through my MSc course at Edinburgh. There’s a world of difference between being a developer or implementer of this kind of online system – thinking your job’s done when it seems to be up-and-running – and being the poor end-user who doesn’t care about PHP, JSP, Maven, Apache, etc, but  just wants to get something done.

Among the things you’ll find in pubs.ulcc.ac.uk are: papers and articles from events we have contributed to over the years, such as iPRES, Open Repositories, and DLM-Forum; published reports, like last year’s JISC-PoWR web preservation report; presentations and posters from other events, mostly in the field of e-learning or digital archives; and even the swish product sheets produced by our ace marketing department, Tim and Frank!

As well as our most recent UK activities, we’ve also unearthed some other curios, such as Patricia’s article for the Catalan Archivists’ Forum, in Catalan, and a piece by Kevin in La Vanguardia, in Spanish. Also of interest is a brief account of ULCC’s first 30 years, in the form of a brochure for a small exhibition that was held at Senate House Library in 1999.

No doubt as we delve through our own digital archives we’ll find more goodies. Having a repository is an excellent opportunity to locate and appraise these things, and share those that seem interesting and informative enough. No less than this blog, and our E-learning colleagues’ El Blog, it should be an attractive and effective shop-window – just like any good Institutional Repository.

Following up his excellent interview with William Kilbride at DPTP in May, this time Frank Steiner conducted video interviews with some of the DPC students and scholarship winners – hopefully you can see them below:

This is just the first phase of the rollout, not only of Fürer-Haimendorf’s pictures, but also of many other valuable collections at SOAS. We are pleased and excited to have been able to assist with this endeavour, by customising EPrints to meet the extensive requirements set out for the system by Susannah Rayner and Malcolm Raggett, who are leading the project at SOAS. No less than with Linnean Online, it is a rare privilege to be associated with a project giving a new impetus, and worldwide access, to such invaluable historically important, archival collections.

SOAS organised a fascinating series of lectures on Friday to launch the collection. In one talk, Albert Alban von Stockhausen spoke passionately about the importance of sharing the collection not only with researchers, but also with the communities that Haimendorf visited. Surviving subjects in Nagaland, and their descendants, have been deeply moved on seeing these photos again. Some even refer to their own age in terms of how old they were when Fürer-Haimendorf visited.

Stuart Blackburn talked about Fürer-Haimendorf’s work in the Apatani valley in the 1940s, where he got a rapturous reception, if not as the first westerner to visit them, then probably as only the 5th or 6th, when he acted as an official representative of the British government in India, trying (not always successfully) to resolve tribal disputes. In the photos we can see valuable records of rice-growing, forest-clearance, village-settlement patterns, ritual and warrior practices, and the Apatani villages, with their densely populated, crowded lanes. There are also many individual portraits.

We are particularly pleased with the results. It is an EPrints-based repository which implements the very exacting requirements set out by the SOAS team. It has been an opportunity to develop even further the work Rory has done with EPrints, drawing on our experience adding plugins for bookmarking, tagging and commenting, which began with Linnean Online and continued with SNEEP. We also particularly enjoyed, and benefitted from, working closely with the team from 9Web, who provided graphic designs and meticulous usability testing.

I hope to enumerate the new features and describe the development work in a future post; meanwhile you can see it in action at digital.info.soas.ac.uk.

As you’ll know from my previous post, the CLASM project is developing a plugin to enable direct deposit from Moodle to any SWORD-compliant repository. Our specific use case is to support management of CLA materials for teaching, but there is no reason why the Moodle plugins that James has developed couldn’t be adapted to deposit pretty much anything available in a Moodle VLE into a repository.

Luckily I don’t even have to write it up, because James has already written an excellent account on EL Blog, so please check his report out if you want to know more.

FOTE 2009 in Second Life

We used the opportunity to include a short presentation about our CLASM project, and I shared the platform for one session with James Ballard, our resident Learning Technologist and ace Moodle hacker. The full video and slides (with audio) of our talk are available from the FOTE website; the slides are also on Slideshare.

I was particularly pleased to make contact with Jane Secker of LSE, who knows more than most about CLA, and I am looking forward to discussing some issues with her, as we try to refine the work done on the CLASM plugins and produce a finished package. Jane also published an excellent account of the day’s events on her blog

The audience was a bit different from the JISC Information Environment crowd I’ve made presentations to before, so my talk was a very high-level overview of repository work in the sector, with a few ideas about where trends and technology seem to be leading us. One particular advantage I see is that interoperability between web applications should enable us to focus on using the “right” tools – portfolio, VLE, blog, repository, etc, maybe even VW – at each stage of the institutional/educational workflow, rather than using over-ambitious and over-complicated systems that try to do everything. “Small pieces loosely joined,” and all that.

Unfortunately, while the slides on the FOTE website include audio, the video there doesn’t include the slides, which robs the talk of some context. I have, by some dark means, managed to create a new version which combines the video and slides and upload it to YouTube. (To keep it short and relevant to DA Blog readers, I’ve only included my part of the presentation.)

Many interesting discussions about repository approaches for the arts followed, both in the workshops, plenary debates, and over the rather smashing buffet lunch. One interesting direction the discussions took was in suggesting that while endeavours like KULTUR and PRIMO provide examples of ways to develop repositories for visual and performing arts, they don’t offer any kind of ready-made application for institutions wanting to create their own repositories with a minimum of fuss and cost. Is it possible that the benefits of such projects (particularly JISC-funded projects) would be greater if the outputs generated a reusable product rather than just a script or a recipe? Bill agreed to discuss this idea further within RSP, and I look forward to following it up soon.