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

ARROW Progress Report to CAUL September 2004

Geoff Payne,

ARROW Project Manager

ARROW Progress Report September 2004

2

ARROW Project

ARROW Consortium Partners Monash University (Lead Institution) University of New South Wales Swinburne University of Technology National Library of Australia

• ARROW is a FRODO Project funded by DEST Federated Repositories of Digital Objects

ARROW MAMS – Meta Access Management System ADT – Australian Digital Theses APSR – Australian Partnerships for Sustainable Repositories


3

ARROW model


4

ARROW Project Teams

Technology ARROW Technical Committee

Choosing a vehicle for content management

Content (Advocacy) ARROW Content Committee

Cultural changes to ensure content capture Project Management

ARROW Management Committee


5

ARROW Technology – Software

Need a repository system early in the project To learn what works and what does not work To manage content as a demonstration system But all Repository software is immature at present

Commitment to open source software in the ARROW Funding Agreement Evaluation of DSpace, Fedora, other software


6

ARROW Technology – Software Selected

Flexible Extensible Digital Object Repository Architecture -Fedora™ Cornell and University of Virginia ARROW a founding member of the Fedora

Development Consortium VITAL from VTLS Inc www.vtls.com ARROW / VTLS partnership to take the Fedora

“engine” and construct a working repository to meet ARROW’s functional requirements

Sustainability through vendor support

http://www.vtls.com/




7

ARROW model

Fedora

VITAL

& Fedora

VITAL Access Portal


8

ARROW stages

Demonstration (2004) Developing architecture, selecting, testing and

developing software Deployment (late 2004 – end 2005)

Populating the ARROW Partners’ repositories Distribution (mid 2005 – end 2006)

Enabling others to participate Under review for earlier participation by

others


9

ARROW Web Site Project Information

National Library of Australia

Swinburne

UNSW

Monash ARROW Repository Digital Object Storage using Fedora & VITAL

Members only areaMeeting Minutes etc

National Library of Australia ARROW Resource Discovery Service Using TeraText to index metadata harvested by OAI PMH

ARROW Open Access Journal Publishing System Using OJS from Public Knowledge Project

Internet Search Engines Capture text exposed by ARROW Repositories

ARROW Branded Services Profile Internet


10

ARROW Software Development – Stage 1August 2004 - Installed Vital 1.0

UNSW and Monash

Functionality Image Management Fedora native ingest for other digital objects Dublin Core metadata

Training based on Test Server at Monash 2 Production Servers, 1 Test Server


11

ARROW Software Development - Stage 2October 2004 - Install Vital 1.2

NLA and Swinburne, upgrade at Monash & UNSW

Functionality Image Management – additional image types Text Documents Fedora native ingest for other digital objects

Training based on Test Server at Monash 4 Production Servers, 1 Test server


12

ARROW Software Development - Stage 3February 2005 - Install Vital 2.0

Upgrade for Monash, UNSW, NLA and Swinburne

Functionality - Manage Audio Manage Video Fedora native ingest for other digital objects

Training based on Test Server at Monash 4 Production Servers, 1 Test Server


13

Fedora™ - Flexibility at the expense of implementation design effort

Allows storage of any number of different types of digital objects

But extra effort required Data Modelling

How any given type of digital object will be stored can be tailored to suit

Metadata schemata for each data model (or even every object!) are allowed

Persistent Identifiers Flexible – ARROW will use Handles identifiers


14

ARROW - Data modelling

Required to define how objects will be stored Atomic objects

Level at which an individual Persistent identifier must be applied to allow reference as part of multiple complex objects

Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR) as guidance on atomicity Atomicity at the FRBR expression level


15

Functional requirements for Bibliographic records (FRBR)

Work Expression Manifestation Item

Already a whole body of work exists in this area

Functional requirements for Bibliographic Records : Final Report by the IFLA Study Group on the Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (Sauer, 1998) (UBCIM Publications: New Series v.19) 136 pp. ISBN: 359811382X. Also at http://www.ifla.org/VII/s13/frbr/frbr.pdf

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










16

ARROW Metadata

Requires metadata schemata to suit individual data models No requirement to shoehorn all metadata into

one schema Each stored object can retain metadata

developed for it by the community of practice which generated the object

Maintains flexibility to store many types of digital objects in the repository

No need to anticipate every object type now


17

OCLC Metadata Interoperability Core

From: Godby, Smith and Childress. 2003. “Two paths to interoperable metadata” p. 3 at

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








18


19

ARROW - Summary of design criteria

A generalised institutional repository solution Initial focus on managing and exposing traditional

bibliographic research outputs Expand to managing non-bibliographic research

outputs Design decisions are being taken with the

intention of not precluding management of other digital objects such as learning objects and large research data sets


20

ARROW Content (Advocacy)

Advocacy tools prepared and circulated Pro Forma Memorandum of Understanding

with a university faculty of department Copyright strategy paper drafted ARROW Frequently Asked Questions

Pursuing policy changes such as mandatory deposit of e-Theses

Project champions recruited


21

ARROW Content (Continued)

Design work proceeding on an interface between Research Master (RM) and ARROW for gathering DEST research evidence Monash, Swinburne, UNSW all use RM v.4,

but the solution will be as generalised to accommodate other practices

Migration of content from e-prints repositories planned


22

ARROW partnerships

OCLC To test the metadata interoperability core

Google To test indexing of research materials

Open Journal System (OJS)

VTLS and Fedora


23

ARROW Licensing

ARROW has paid a small deposit on Software Licences for other Australian universities to Lock in preferential pricing provided to the

Original ARROW Consortium Partners Set the maximum licence cost for any

Australian university for the ARROW software Details are commercial in confidence

available for your university on written application to the ARROW project


24

Further information

Details of the ARROW project can be found at:

arrow.edu.au

http://www.arrow.edu.au/

http://www.arrow.edu.au/