ReStore: A sustainable web resources repository Arshad A. Khan National Centre for Research Methods
Overview Explain the rationale for ReStore, what it is and what it isn’t Explain how it is intended to work ReStore & restored resources site demo Hopes for today’s workshop Questions
Why do we need to ReStore? ESRC investments producing online resources Completed near to end of project funding Often of great practical value, but immediately begin to decay –Dated content (broken links - new ideas) –Changed technical environment Lack of maintenance/visibility
Why ReStore? Repository for online resources Restoring quality and utility Promoting accessibility Sustainable service identity Being implemented by NCRM
Aims of the project Build a prototype service for sustaining online resources Focus on research methods initiatives –RMP, NCRM, RDI, QMI Lead development of an ESRC strategy for the longer term A “working experiment” with immediate practical benefits
Not aims of the project A static web archive A continuation funding model for completed projects A research methods advice service A document repository A virtual learning environment
Basic approach Identify candidate resources Work with original resource authors Technical and academic review Assess value and work required Technical and academic updating Transfer into ReStore service Promote use and review
Selection of resources for review Significant online content: not just project sites or documents Initial demonstrator resources Main phase – aim of working with suitable RMP, RDI, NCRM, QMI resources that are not being maintained – via programme directors Mature phase – perhaps triggered by end of awards?
Review process Parallel technical, academic and author reviews (i) Technical (ReStore team): site architecture, scripting, portability, broken links, media types, potential IPR issues… (ii) Academic (external reviewers): academic content, rigour, referencing, dated material… (iii) Author: reflective review, cross-cutting technical and academic, esp. re. IPR
Consideration of reviews Collaboration with resource authors Funding to pay for commissioned reviews ReStore team assessment of work required Recommendations considered by advisory committee
Possible outcomes Accept resource into ReStore, subject to package of work – by author and/or ReStore Identify most appropriate deposition elsewhere Resource not suitable for ReStore –Still under active development –Other maintenance options preferable –Insufficient quality –Work required exceeds resources available
Known issues IPR framework – authorship/ownership Technical infrastructures Sustainability – how many? how long? –Alternative outcomes Need guidance on future resource development for maximum sustainability Need developing ESRC strategy on sustaining online resources
ReStore site overview Navigation, layout and sitemap Web resource site navigation Finding specific resource Resources mock-up in ReStore repository Technical resource deposition implementation
GEO-REFER resource within ReStore repository
PEAS resource within ReStore repository
PEAS>Level1 within ReStore repository
To be installed/confi gured Currently serving An overview of technical implementation involving the current hardware infrastructure and the proposed one as per future resource requirements
What are we currently doing? Developing policies, procedures and website Working on initial demonstrator resources Awareness-raising - Open Repositories Conference, RMF, advisory groups, today’s workshop Consulting on strategic needs and directions
Hopes for today’s workshop Inform delegates from relevant projects Explain the purpose of the project and raise awareness of the issues Identify additional resources for inclusion!
Any questions please?