Indeed a very useful discussion. While RaaS sounds like a great idea, it
did not seem to ever take off for publications based repositories,
typically because each institution wants to handle certain things
differently and because of interoperability issues with other
institutional systems. While I would personally be happy to see a RaaS for
datasets, the fact is that two years would be too late for us to meet
EPSRC and possibly other deadlines. This has already led to some
institutions starting to work in a collaborative model where they would at
least use the same platforms. As an example, Lancaster, York, Durham,
Hull, and others are currently looking at Hydra for data repository
purposes, to develop the product further to meet our needs and to develop
shared expertise in the process.
During the last Research at Risk meeting, there were discussions on cloud
based services as well, e.g. OwnCloud and whether we can join forces to
bring the product to a state where it can be as good as DropBox. Both of
these points are also mentioned in Scott¹s notes. I would personally be
keen to see Jisc support these existing models, so that they can be taken
to a state where they become an easy to deploy and maintain solutions for
all institutions, not necessarily always in the form of RaaS.
Thanks,
Masud
--
Masud Khokhar
Head of Digital Innovation
Coordinator Joint IGeLU/ELUNA Special Interest Working Group on
Interoperability
The Library, Lancaster University
Bailrigg, Lancaster, LA1 4YH
Tel: +44 (0)1524 594 236
Email: [log in to unmask]
Twitter: mkhokhar
On 16/10/2014 19:33, "Rachel Bruce" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>Hi All,
>
>This is a really useful discussion, just to say as part of the Jisc
>co-design work on research data we've been consulting with the sector on
>what work Jisc should take forward.
>The requirement for a repository as a service has emerged, and also for
>there to be more work on national agreements and framework agreements for
>storage, preservation, data access and sharing; discussions with
>stakeholders have confirmed the point Angus makes with regards to HEIs
>avoiding having to build their own.
>
>There are still some steps for us to undertake to form the final plan to
>move forward, but I am pretty confident these issues will form part of
>the Jisc supported activity over the next two years. As soon as the new
>Jisc blog and web page for research data is set up we will be able to
>start sharing the plans - at the moment there is just a brief mention of
>the co-design work in this area here
>http://www.jisc.ac.uk/blog/collaborative-approach-to-sector-wide-challenge
>s-15-aug-2014, but Scott Wilson from Oxford University did share his
>overview of the discussions at the last related consultation meeting we
>had on this so this gives you a good idea of some of the areas informing
>the planning:
>http://blogs.it.ox.ac.uk/acit-rs-team/2014/10/08/research-at-risk-report-f
>rom-the-jisc-co-design-workshop/ , largely the work will be about
>building on what we have in place in the UK and as far as possible having
>shared services, best practice and easy access to solutions.
>[thanks Scott!]. Scott also mentions the Research Data Spring - as he
>says this will be an activity that is more about new ideas and projects
>that create new tools and solutions for data curation, depot and re-use -
>this is due to be announced next week.
>
>Many thanks, Rachel
>
>
>
>Rachel Bruce
>Deputy Chief Innovation Officer
>T 0203 006 6061
>M 07841 951300
>Skype rachelbruce
>Twitter rachelbruce
>Brettenham House, 5 Lancaster Place, London, WC2E 7EN
>jisc.ac.uk
>Jisc is a registered charity (number 1149740) and a company limited by
>guarantee which is registered in England under Company No. 5747339, VAT
>No. GB 882 5529 90. Jisc's registered office is: One Castlepark, Tower
>Hill, Bristol, BS2 0JA. T 0203 697 5800. jisc.ac.uk
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Research Data Management discussion list
>[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Angus Whyte
>Sent: 16 October 2014 18:37
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Repositories as a service
>
>The demand from institutions to avoid each having to build their own data
>repository (etc) was very clear when DCC surveyed institutions earlier in
>the year. DCC colleagues are involved in developing the national Research
>Data Registry and Discovery Service (RDRDS) though that is about metadata
>of course, not about managing storage or the policies relating to
>specific datasets.
>
>We do however want to offer more relevant case studies and support in
>this area, and to better understand the potential for efficiencies. I'm
>interested in what the uses cases are for scaling data repository
>services beyond the institution. By that I mean any services higher level
>than the bit-level preservation service already provided through the
>Janet framework agreement with Arkivum.
>
>My assumption is that an institution should want to own and control its
>data assets (sharing that responsibility with its data producers) but
>place them where they will get the best 'return' in terms of providing
>the enhanced description etc need to promote discovery and reuse. Some of
>the high-level repository services needed to do that might be better
>managed at the specialist sub-domain level; as Sebastian I think suggests
>below, a long-tail of specialist niche repositories could offer potential
>efficiencies to institutions for some functions, while others such as
>persistent identification make more sense at institutional and national
>level.
>
>There are different economies of scale that could work if you break down
>a 'data repository' into different services. Some might be more
>economical at research group, institution, regional, national or broader
>levels. What examples of repository functions that are above file
>storage and 'bit-level' preservation, and might be provided by a national
>or regional service are people looking for?
>
>Angus
>
>--
>Dr Angus Whyte
>Senior Institutional Support Officer
>Digital Curation Centre
>University of Edinburgh
>
>
>
>
>On 15/10/2014 22:36, Sebastian Rahtz wrote:
>> On 15 Oct 2014, at 22:28, John Milner<[log in to unmask]>
>>wrote:
>>
>>> The big sciences and UKDA are excellent, but it's not practical to do
>>>this for every discipline group. Therefore we thought that taking
>>>lessons learned there and elsewhere into institutions who can then cope
>>>with the long tail of research groups is a better strategy.
>> the two problems with this approach are that:
>>
>> a) the institutional repository has to adopt a one-size-fits-all
>>approach and therefore doesn't offer the specialised (e.g.) APIs and
>>visualisations that the specialist repo might provide
>>
>> b) dividing up the data by institution doesn't actually fit the
>>needs of the researcher. most academics seem to be barely aware of what
>>their
>> institution is, but identify with a subject grouping instead.
>>
>> The answer, plainly, is that subject repositories become aggregating
>>caches and not archival data holders; which is fine,
>> _if_ the institutions also accept some of the responsibilities for
>>hosting and maintaining subject repositories.
>> --
>> Sebastian Rahtz
>> Director (Research) of Academic IT
>> University of Oxford IT Services
>> 13 Banbury Road, Oxford OX2 6NN. Phone +44 1865 283431
>>
>> Não sou nada.
>> Nunca serei nada.
>> Não posso querer ser nada.
>> À parte isso, tenho em mim todos os sonhos do mundo.
>>
>
>
>--
>
>
>The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
>Scotland, with registration number SC005336.
|