ECURE 2005, Phoenix, AZ Faculty Research Data: Informatics and Archiving Sarah M. Pritchard University Librarian University of California, Santa Barbara

March 1, 2005 ECURE 2005, Phoenix, AZ 2 Informatics: A Definition  The study of the structure and behavior of natural and artificial systems designed to process data  Development of tools to ingest and interpret large stores of data in heterogeneous and distributed systems  Integration of data (numeric, textual, image, spatial) with tools for modeling, trend analysis, mapping, image processing, etc.  Business applications not studied in this context

March 1, 2005 ECURE 2005, Phoenix, AZ 3 Informatics at UCSB  Emergence of informatics as a specialty in several academic departments, notably environmental sciences  Highly interdisciplinary faculty  Development of unique stand-alone systems for managing collaborative research data  No ongoing mechanisms for communication and technical coordination  Campus and consortial projects emerging for digital publications and for instructional support but not yet for research data

March 1, 2005 ECURE 2005, Phoenix, AZ 4 Faculty Research Data  Large numeric data sets from physical sciences and laboratory research  Imaging – geosciences, neurosciences  Fieldwork – environmental, archaeological  Customized interpretive and manipulation tools  Drafts, correspondence, notes

March 1, 2005 ECURE 2005, Phoenix, AZ 5 UCSB Computing Environment  One of the original nodes of the Internet  No centralized academic computing organization  Offices for networking, and for instructional support  Individual colleges and departments have developed own servers and support for research data and teaching tools  High-level campus policy board for IT issues brings some coordination

March 1, 2005 ECURE 2005, Phoenix, AZ 6 UCSB Library Context  Alexandria Digital Library ( Extension into new disciplinary applications Heterogeneous metadata ingest Extensive backup and archiving architecture Long record of faculty collaboration NDIIPP  California Digital Library ( Digital preservation initiatives for published documents and for (under development) government information web sites eScholarship program to support publication of online journals, preprint archives Online Archive of California – special collections support  Other faculty support Electronic reserves including streaming audio reserves Digital document delivery to the desktop

March 1, 2005 ECURE 2005, Phoenix, AZ 7 What questions emerge from this?  Why are faculty building informatics systems?  Is valuable research time and funding being spent on tangential work?  Are there commonalities across informatics applications and disciplines?  Is there redundancy in tool development?  Can data be openly accessed or shared?  Are digital library concerns (metadata, IP rights, archiving) incorporated?

March 1, 2005 ECURE 2005, Phoenix, AZ 8 Informatics Project Goals  Create stronger linkages among relevant faculty research projects  Identify components and needs in informatics and the management of research data  Assess the degree of commonality in informatics tools and functionality  Determine whether more support is needed for data archiving, metadata, interfaces, IP  Develop a planning agenda for informatics in a distributed environment  Inform the design of facilities and services

March 1, 2005 ECURE 2005, Phoenix, AZ 9 Project Components  Background research in current informatics work in academic disciplines  Structured interviews and site visits with selected faculty  Matrix of system characteristics and issues  Informal roundtables for faculty working in these areas  Collaboration with related IT units  White paper for campus discussion of futures

March 1, 2005 ECURE 2005, Phoenix, AZ 10 UCSB Informatics: Participants  Faculty chosen on the basis of Innovative science Data intensive work Interdisciplinary research Recommended by the Office of Research, colleagues, department heads, IT offices and librarians.  Control Group: Non-science faculty Select group of technologically innovative faculty in other disciplines were used as a control to determine whether trends were specific to sciences  About 40 people interviewed

March 1, 2005 ECURE 2005, Phoenix, AZ 11 Sample Questions for Faculty  How do you store research information?  Do you do any cataloging, indexing, or metadata?  How are your data maintained on an on-going basis?  Is there something special about the way that you manage your data compared to colleagues within the field?  Do you write or borrow scripts/tools? For what purpose?  Are you having difficulty managing your data collection? Are there services that you wish others would provide?  How is IP and sharing of datasets/information handled in your field?  When you collaborate with others through the web what kinds of tools, if any, do you use?  What are your plans for this research in the next five years? Are there service requirements that you will need then?

March 1, 2005 ECURE 2005, Phoenix, AZ 12 Findings: Growth of Systems  The sophistication of informatics arrangements is determined by the amount of data collected and how labor-intensive it is to collect.  Change happens when the following converge: Data size increases exponentially Research questions encompass broad range of specialties Funding agencies require change for funding  Guiding principles seem to be: “What is the smallest group of people that I can have do the work, and still do the [work]” “What is the least amount of indirect work [e.g., informatics] related to the research that I can do, and still do the [work]”

March 1, 2005 ECURE 2005, Phoenix, AZ 13 Findings: Data Preservation Perceived Long-term Preservation Need of Faculty and Staff Researchers

March 1, 2005 ECURE 2005, Phoenix, AZ 14 Findings: Data Preservation  Some science fields have national and international data centers where data deposit is required for grant funding.  Where data centers do not exist, backup depends on: Length of a grant Length of time primary researcher on campus Perception that data has maximum value for months after publication, and negligible value after 5-10 years.  Departments lack personnel and support for long-term preservation of data.  Faculty store data on the “removable media of the day” and forget about it, until it becomes difficult or impossible to access  More complex systems, same number of people to manage them, leads to less time to devote to “meta-issues”  Critical impact: research collaboration and long term historical data analysis suffer

March 1, 2005 ECURE 2005, Phoenix, AZ 15 Data Preservation Practices

March 1, 2005 ECURE 2005, Phoenix, AZ 16 Findings: Data Organization  Most common organizing mechanism – directory structure, spreadsheets, and word processing software  Databases (with or without metadata) are uncommon. Viewed as time/labor-intensive, unnecessary drain on research time.  Portals built by tech specialists within a field are well utilized.  Storage space is adequate for now. Over half the people contacted were in the process of upgrading.  Most departments did not have strictly enforced limits on , data storage, and personal storage  Though much on their servers is “garbage,” memory is thrown at the problem; little support in most departments for data management  “Not a solved problem.” While actual memory might be cheap, tape, labor, and other equipment to ensure that data are maintained is NOT.

March 1, 2005 ECURE 2005, Phoenix, AZ 17 Findings: Metadata issues  Metadata is discipline specific; commonalities exist, but key requirements of a discipline vary.  Metadata structures and subject taxonomies reflect the way faculty in a discipline think  While organizational structure is an important issue in metadata use, other considerations are: Services available in one’s discipline Acceptance and standardization in the discipline Usage in key portals, data centers, and repositories  One worldwide metadata format is not likely at this time  Interdisciplinary metadata issues and crosswalks

March 1, 2005 ECURE 2005, Phoenix, AZ 18 Metadata Usage

March 1, 2005 ECURE 2005, Phoenix, AZ 19 Findings: Intellectual Property  Intellectual property protocols that faculty follow after creating software, portals or databases are highly correlated to the discipline. In disciplines where things move quickly, the ideal method is to open source one’s tool to obtain an audience, then later align oneself with a company, or start one; In disciplines where there is a lot of money there is pressure to ensure patents are filed.  Databases, portals and data centers on campus typically all have legal waiver forms, allowing release of the data sets to other researchers as part of the process to ingest the data.  Disciplines vary in the extent to which they support an ethic of data sharing.

March 1, 2005 ECURE 2005, Phoenix, AZ 20 Digital Rights Management Practices Prefer to create open source products to avoid intellectual property issues, 22% Practices and Procedures in industry are well tested and accepted - no major issues, 16% Occasional minor issues with an individual collaborator or publisher, 24% Intellectual property issues affect my research significantly, 30% Have not yet encountered issues, 8%

March 1, 2005 ECURE 2005, Phoenix, AZ 21 Findings: Data Support Needs  Some needs and services were mentioned across disciplines regardless of current arrangements: Informatics “point person” or clearinghouse for information on tools, expertise, and research knowledge on campus and nationally Long term archiving of research data especially during the gap in coverage between publication and obsolescence Tiered support services for database development, cataloging, conversion, emulation, migration, web development, metadata, pre-planning for technology grants

March 1, 2005 ECURE 2005, Phoenix, AZ 22 Trends Shaping Future Demand  Growth in complex data objects  Improved data mining  Policies of funding agencies National repositories New cyberinfrastructure initiatives  Prevalence of campus repositories for text  Tech-intensive academic programs  Need for rapid and global data exchange  Steady or decreasing staffing

March 1, 2005 ECURE 2005, Phoenix, AZ 23 Key System Characteristics  Flexibility to customize control, interfaces and security  Secure access worldwide  Metadata-agnostic design  Interoperability with scholarly communication, archiving and rights management systems  Clearinghouse functions  Advanced services for migration, emulation, long-term digital archiving

March 1, 2005 ECURE 2005, Phoenix, AZ 24 Topics for Campus Discussion Where are the gaps in current offerings? How do technology services on campus interact, and are new organizational models needed? What are faculty priorities for various services? What kinds of research data should be high priority for preservation, and how much is at risk? What are incentives for faculty participation? What is the impact of tenure and promotion structures in encouraging “data maintenance work?”

March 1, 2005 ECURE 2005, Phoenix, AZ 25 Possible outcomes  Everything stays as is  More peer-to-peer sharing of resources and expertise  Policies are established Intellectual property rights at several levels Use of metadata and digital object standards Ensure data sustainability  Organizational approaches are considered IT offices, the library, consortial systems support, disciplinary groups, or a combination  New services are offered Database design Metadata creation Consulting Clearinghouse functions Full digital archiving and migration

March 1, 2005 ECURE 2005, Phoenix, AZ 26 Further Information  UCSB Informatics Project web site:  ECAR Research Bulletin, vol. 2005, Issue 2: “Informatics and Knowledge Management for Faculty Research Data,” Jan. 18, 2005 Contact:  Sarah M. Pritchard, University Librarian  Larry Carver, Director of Library Technologies and Digital Initiatives, Special thanks to Smiti Anand, Project Analyst