Deliverables

From DigiRepWiki

Contents

[edit]

Deliverables and outputs

[edit]

Digital Repositories Programme

Linking UK Repositories

Community Image Collections - the CLiC study

CHERRI, a study investigating models and developing an agreed framework for clinical recordings deposit and access, including exploring the potential for a user-driven service

Web 2.0 and Policy

[edit]

Repositories Research Team

  • Heery, Rachel and Powell, Andy. Digital Repositories Roadmap : looking forward, 2006.
http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/repositories/publications/roadmap-200604/
  • Allinson, Julie. OAIS as a reference model for repositories : an evaluation, 2006
http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/repositories/publications/oais-evaluation-200607/
[edit]

Project outputs

[edit]

ASK

Intended Project Outputs 

1. Repository reference model and design customised to requirements defined at the University of Oxford
2. Technical evaluation report on a range of metadata and content management systems
3. Documentation from prototyping and evaluation activities
4. Open source metadata management system that implements relevant interoperability specifications: OAI, SRW, RSS, OpenURL, 
UK LOM Core. It will also implement services such as: ranking, annotation, secondary metadata, metadata life-cycle processes/
workflow, and automatic metadata creation.
5. Open source content management software that implements the relevant functionality e.g. unique identifiers (e.g., DOI , PURL ),
version control, secure access control mechanisms.
6. Web service interfaces that allow communication between user agents (e.g. Bodington, uPortal and LAMS) and the metadata management
system / content management integration.
7. Authentication and authorisation implementation compliant with the Shibboleth 1.2+ and SAML2 specification
8. System for assigning Creative Commons licenses to material authors wish to publish
  • Full Title
  • Availability:
  • Theme:
  • Output type:
  • Summary: Released , 2006.
  • Full Title
  • Availability:
  • Theme:
  • Output type:
  • Summary: Released , 2006.
  • Full Title
  • Availability:
  • Theme:
  • Output type:
  • Summary: Released , 2006.
  • Full Title
  • Availability:
  • Theme:
  • Output type:
  • Summary: Released , 2006.

Available project outputs

  1. Open source project website: http://ask.oucs.ox.ac.uk/ask/index.php/Main_Page
  2. Beta online reading list tool: http://ask.oucs.ox.ac.uk/ask/index.php/Online_Reading_List_Tool
  3. Beta desktop reading list tool: http://ask.oucs.ox.ac.uk/ask/index.php/Desktop_Reading_List_Tool
  4. Beta ASK repository system: http://ask.oucs.ox.ac.uk/ask/index.php/ASK_Repository_System
[edit]

CDLOR

Project Outputs

[edit]
CDLOR: Report on Learning Communities and Repositories
[edit]
CDLOR: Use cases describing use of LO repositories

'The initial use case scenarios are now publicly available: 24 were submitted by the CD-LOR Associate Partners and are being discussed and voted on by the partners and CD-LOR Steering Group. A meeting is being held on Thursday April 6th 2006 after which a decision will be made about which scenarios to develop into full use cases, implement, test and evaluate within the partners' learning communities.'

[edit]
CDLOR: Report on Personal Resource Management Strategies survey
[edit]
CDLOR: Report on LO repository user interviews
[edit]
CDLOR: Software plug-in
[edit]
CDLOR: Use case reports
[edit]
CDLOR: Guidelines for setting up or evaluating LO repositories
[edit]
CDLOR: Recommendations to JISC for further research and development
[edit]
CDLOR: Final report to the JISC
[edit]

CLADDIER

Details of project deliverables are also available here: http://claddier.badc.ac.uk/trac/wiki/wp

The CLADDIER prototype, connecting the two institutional repositories and the BADC (and possibly elements of the NERC DataGrid).

Report I. User Experience of the CLADDIER System (written by active environmental scientists based on their experiences)

Report II. Identifier Migration Issues for Repositories

Report III. Recommendations for data/publication linkage (based on lessons learned, and a review of the literature)

Report IV. Methodologies and Practices for Data Publication

[edit]

GRADE

Intended Project Outputs 

1. Formal media repositories for sharing:
 * A compendium of user based evidence outlining user requirements for the sharing of data derived from licensed data.
 * A comparison and analysis report on the suitability of existing software for building geospatial data repositories.
 * A demonstrator formal media-centric repository.
 * A report documenting the issues raised by this development and piloting work, including how the repository might be scaled to
   support the GI user community within the HFE sector as a whole, including benefits, risks, issues and an outline business case.
 * A report synthesising the lessons learnt into best practice and advice for the wider community
2. Scoping the role of Informal Repositories
 * Use cases of how Informal Repositories are being used at Associate Partner sites and other instances we learn of during the
   project.
 * A classification of extant Informal Repositories.
 * A test bed demonstrator. 
 * A report on the relationships between Informal and Formal repositories detailing strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats
   of the alternative approaches.
 * Recommendations on the role Informal Repositories for geospatial data should play within the UK HFE sector.
3. Digital Rights Issues
 * A compendium of well researched use cases outlining real-life scenarios of intended derived data sharing.
 * A framework for approved data sharing respecting DRM to be used as guidance in the construction of infrastructure for data
   sharing. 
4. Scoping the role of institutional repositories for geospatial data
 * A baseline audit of geospatial asset management within Institutional repositories.
 * A review of the strengths and weaknesses of an Institutional repository vs. a media-centric approach.
 * Recommendations and best practice advice on institutional geospatial data asset management within a repository context.
5.Interoperability
 * A SWOT assessment of interoperability aspects of geospatial data repositories.
 * A report identifying the linkages between geospatial repositories, components of the JISC IE and e-Science infrastructures.

Available project outputs

  • Full Title
  • Availability:
  • Theme:
  • Output type:
  • Summary: Released , 2006.
  • Full Title
  • Availability:
  • Theme:
  • Output type:
  • Summary: Released , 2006.
  • Full Title
  • Availability:
  • Theme:
  • Output type:
  • Summary: Released , 2006.
  • Full Title
  • Availability:
  • Theme:
  • Output type:
  • Summary: Released , 2006.


Test Bed Geospatial Repository Demonstrator

A literature review of existing geospatial repository projects. (Microsoft Word document, 96kb)

Compendium of derived geospatial data (pdf document, 2.9 MB). This report provides a series of examples of derived geospatial data highlighting the variety of source geospatial data providers and a number of geoprocessing techniques.

Baseline audit of geospatial asset management within institutional repositories (pdf document, 660 KB).

[edit]

IRIScotland

Intended Project Outputs 

1. To develop and recommend - in collaboration with senior university managers and researchers - a set of guidelines, including
workflow charts, for the introduction of policies, procedures and mechanisms aiming: 
 (a) to promote and facilitate self-archiving by  researchers in open access institutional repositories;
 (b) to assist researchers during the transitional period; 
 (c) to enable institutional repositories to become efficient management tools for research management in each institution
2. To research, design, implement and evaluate a pilot repository hosting service for Scotland that will meet the needs, in terms of
capacity, range of data and operational matters, of Scottish HEIs that may not wish to set up their own institutional repositories;
this service will be provided by the National Library of Scotland;
3. To research, design, implement and evaluate a pilot cross-repository search and browse service (with supporting metadata and
interoperability programmes) for all Scottish institutional repositories and the collective repository that will be provided by the
National Library of Scotland;
4. To investigate and make recommendations on what elements in a regional distributed institutional repository infrastructure are
best developed and implemented centrally (at a national or regional level), locally or internationally;


Available project outputs

  • Full Title
  • Availability:
  • Theme:
  • Output type:
  • Summary: Released , 2006.
  • Full Title
  • Availability:
  • Theme:
  • Output type:
  • Summary: Released , 2006.
  • Full Title
  • Availability:
  • Theme:
  • Output type:
  • Summary: Released , 2006.
  • Full Title
  • Availability:
  • Theme:
  • Output type:
  • Summary: Released , 2006.
[edit]

IRS

Intended Project Outputs 

1. An API for gathering download data implemented for common IR platforms 
2. A set of agreed standards defining the basis for measuring and reporting usage of materials deposited in IRs and aggregated with
data from other sources where such materials can be found.

Available project outputs

  • Full Title
  • Availability:
  • Theme:
  • Output type:
  • Summary: Released , 2006.
  • Full Title
  • Availability:
  • Theme:
  • Output type:
  • Summary: Released , 2006.
  • Full Title
  • Availability:
  • Theme:
  • Output type:
  • Summary: Released , 2006.
  • Full Title
  • Availability:
  • Theme:
  • Output type:
  • Summary: Released , 2006.
  • Deliverable 1
  • Deliverable 2


[edit]

MIDESS

[edit]
MIDESS Three demonstrator repositories

For managing digitised content, at three of the partner institutions, and the population of those repositories with a range of content and supporting metadata

[edit]
MIDESS Functional and Technical Requirements Specification
[edit]
MIDESS User requirements analysis report

Workpackage 3

[edit]
MIDESS Metadata requirements specification

Workpackage 4

[edit]
MIDESS Report on resource discovery and shared services requirements
[edit]
MIDESS Digital preservation requirements

Workpackage 5

[edit]
MIDESS Integration with Enterprise Architecture Specification

Workpackage 6

[edit]
MIDESS Intellectual property issues in institutional and cross-institutional multimedia repositories

Workpackage 7

[edit]
MIDESS CLT Media database to Fedora ingest
[edit]
MIDESS CLT Metadata to Dublin Core Mapping


[edit]

PERX

Full up-to-date details of all PerX deliverables are available from http://www.icbl.hw.ac.uk/perx/deliverables.htm

[edit]
PerX Engineering Digital Repositories Landscape Analysis
[edit]
PerX Listing of Engineering Repository Sources
[edit]
PerX Basic pilot engineering cross-search service

Populated with identified repository targets.

[edit]
PerX Focus Groups Reports

detailing end-user opinion on the appropriateness of the subject-based approach to resource discovery, the range of different types of materials available in the pilot cross-search service, and gaps in coverage.

[edit]
PerX Implementation of automatic harvesting of OAI repositories within the pilot.
[edit]
PerX Marketing' with Metadata

How Metadata Can Increase Exposure and Visibility of Online Content, advocacy materials which explain the approaches to, and benefits of, enabling resource discovery in multiple repositories.

[edit]
PerX Shared service report

Shared service usage scenarios, e.g. IESR and Resolver service within pilot cross-search

[edit]
PerX Pilot embedded in VLE
[edit]
PerX Embedding and reuse viability report
[edit]
PerX Implementation of metadata augmentation functionality
[edit]
PerX Enhanced pilot cross-search service

with new repository sources, and means of inclusion methods enhanced

[edit]
PerX Trial instance of pilot

Separate, trial instance of the pilot based on a particular user group's needs.

[edit]
PerX Functional requirements

List of basic functional requirements for a full scale subject-based resource discovery service.

[edit]

PROWE

Project Outputs

[edit]
PROWE: Demonstrator communities of practice
  • Availability: shown to enquirers on request
  • Theme: E-learning cluster
  • Output type:
  • Summary: Demonstrator communities of practice based on elgg/PMwiki and Zwiki sited within Plone. Elgg/PMwiki are due to be archived after the end of the porject. Zwiki within Plone will continue to be used by the University of Leicester after the end of the project. Released , 2007.
[edit]
PROWE: PROWE ecology
  • Availability: to be released shortly
  • Theme: E-learning cluster
  • Output type:
  • Summary: The report takes a baseline from Nardi and O'Day, 1999, and incorporating the idea of "actant" form Actor Network Theory). This is presented as a more flexible and thus less time-bound alternative to the Repository Management Reference Model envisaged in the original project plan and as providing a more useful and viable way to model PROWE as an entity because it relates more easily to other information ecologies.
[edit]
PROWE: A Repository Management Toolkit
  • Repository Management Toolkit for sharing good practice in implementing informal networks and repositories
  • Availability:to be released after the end of the project
  • Theme: E-learning cluster
  • Output type:
  • Summary: This toolkit will be comprised of a set of “How to” guides derived from intersection/interaction points: users/institution; users/content; users/interface; institution/content; institution/sinterface and interface/content. To avoid overlap of material from one guide to another a target of five is suggested for production with five key points/issues in each. We plan to package this material into both a fixed hypertext document (i.e. as a project deliverable; and in wiki format as an ongoing developing public resource to which anyone can contribute, and which will be accessible by link from the PROWE website after the project ends formally. Guides will also be available as .pdf files for printing out from the website.
[edit]
PROWE: Understanding the OU user perspective (report)
[edit]
PROWE: Metadata Application Profile for CPD
  • A Metadata Application Profile for CPD for use within personal and informal repositories.
  • Availability:
  • Theme: E-learning cluster
  • Output type:
  • Summary: Based on the FOAF profile.
[edit]
PROWE: Metadata reports
  • Availability:
  • Theme: E-learning cluster
  • Output type:
  • Summary: Two metadata reports are being produced. One is from the perspective of a metadata specialist and one is versioned for a more general audience.
[edit]
PROWE:An evaluation report
  • Availability:
  • Theme: E-learning cluster
  • Output type:
  • Summary: The report includes a critical examination of the potential of the demonstrators.
[edit]
PROWE:Two case studies around 'repository engagement and management'

Dissemination PROWE Dissemination

[edit]

R4L

Intended Project Outputs 

1. Consultation with scientific equipment manufacturers (as represented by the project partners), data analysis software developers
and ‘instruments on the Grid’ eScientists to derive methods and protocols to make raw experimental data available and richly
annotated with metadata, as it is generated in the scientific laboratory.
2. Develop an automated OAIS INGEST process which deposits the experimental data and metadata directly into the Laboratory
Repository.
3. Establish a pilot ‘Priority Assertion’ service to provide a legally sound guarantee of priority for ‘first to invent’ protection.
This service is a scalable, co-operative service designed for an academic context and solving the problems of trust and openness
inherent in the alternative (commercial) solutions. A full description of the service is given in Appendix 1, although a cutdown
version of this service would be implemented for the scope of this project. 
4. Configure a Laboratory Repository to be capable of managing large numbers of heterogeneous scientific datasets.
5. Consult with of an advisory panel composed of scholarly society publishers (as represented by the project partners) to capture
requirements for data oriented publishing, including data reference and citation.
6. Build a report editing tool which can integrate repository data into a journal article.


Available project outputs

  • Full Title
  • Availability:
  • Theme:
  • Output type:
  • Summary: Released , 2006.
  • Full Title
  • Availability:
  • Theme:
  • Output type:
  • Summary: Released , 2006.
  • Full Title
  • Availability:
  • Theme:
  • Output type:
  • Summary: Released , 2006.
  • Full Title
  • Availability:
  • Theme:
  • Output type:
  • Summary: Released , 2006.
  • Full Title
  • Availability:
  • Theme:
  • Output type:
  • Summary: Released , 2006.
  • Full Title
  • Availability:
  • Theme:
  • Output type:
  • Summary: Released , 2006.
  • Full Title
  • Availability:
  • Theme:
  • Output type:
  • Summary: Released , 2006.
  • Full Title
  • Availability:
  • Theme:
  • Output type:
  • Summary: Released , 2006.
  • Deliverable 1
  • Deliverable 2
  • Deliverable 3
  • Deliverable 4
  • Deliverable 5
  • Deliverable 6
[edit]

RepoMMan

See: http://www.hull.ac.uk/esig/repomman/documents/index.html

Project outputs

[edit]
RePoMMan: R-D3 Report on research user requirements survey
[edit]
RePoMMan: R-D4 Report on research user requirements interviews
[edit]
RePoMMan: R-D4a 'Doing Research' flow diagram
[edit]
RePoMMan: D-D8 Report on experiences with Fedora during the first year
[edit]
RePoMMan: D-D11 Report on methods of accessing personal metadata
[edit]
RePoMMan: R-D14 Full (research, learner and administrator) user needs analysis report
[edit]
RePoMMan: D-D13 Report on feasibility of automatic extraction of object metadata
[edit]
RePoMMan: D-D15 Full systems documentation for workflow engine
  • Availability:
  • Theme: Machine services cluster
  • Output type:
  • Summary: expected May 2007; Note: D-D15 and D-D16 will be accompanied by the release of D-D14, the workflow engine itself.
[edit]
RePoMMan: D-D16 Full user documentation for workflow engine
  • Availability:
  • Theme: Machine services cluster
  • Output type:
  • Summary: expected May 2007; Note: D-D15 and D-D16 will be accompanied by the release of D-D14, the workflow engine itself.
[edit]
RePoMMan: R-D15 Investigative report on Digital Rights Management implications

Other project documents

[edit]
RePoMMan: D-D1 Available BPEL runtime environments, evaluation criteria and evaluation results
[edit]
RePoMMan: D-D1 Accompanying Excel spreadsheet
[edit]
RePoMMan: D-D2 BPEL deployment notes
[edit]
RePoMMan: D-D3 Familiarity with BPEL authoring tool
[edit]
RePoMMan: D-D4 Development of Fedora materials
[edit]
RePoMMan: R-D1 Criteria and toolkit for on-line survey
[edit]
RePoMMan: R-D2 Criteria for researcher interviews
[edit]
RePoMMan: R-D12 Teaching & Learning Adminstrator user needs analysis
[edit]

Repository Bridge

Intended Project Outputs 

1. Proof of concept demonstrator showing the potential to automatically link institutional and regional repositories in Wales on a
regular operational basis


Available project outputs

  • Full Title
  • Availability:
  • Theme:
  • Output type:
  • Summary: Released , 2006.
  • Full Title
  • Availability:
  • Theme:
  • Output type:
  • Summary: Released , 2006.
  • Full Title
  • Availability:
  • Theme:
  • Output type:
  • Summary: Released , 2006.
  • Full Title
  • Availability:
  • Theme:
  • Output type:
  • Summary: Released , 2006.
[edit]

Rights and Rewards

[edit]
Rights and Rewards Project Academic Survey

Final Report, January 2006
Authors: Melanie Bates, Steve Loddington, Sue Manuel and Charles Oppenheim

[edit]
Rights and Rewards Digital lifecycles and file types

final report
Authors: Melanie Bates, Steve Loddington, Sue Manuel and Charles Oppenheim

[edit]
Rights and Rewards Workflow Mapping and Stakeholder Analysis Study

Authors: Steve Loddington, Melanie Bates, Sue Manuel and Charles Oppenheim

[edit]
Rights and Rewards Designing a rewards and support scheme for a repository of teaching and learning materials

Authors: Sue Manuel, Charles Oppenheim

[edit]
Rights and Rewards Designing a rewards and support scheme for use in Higher Education

Authors: Sue Manuel, Charles Oppenheim

[edit]
Rights and Rewards Rewarding Teachers

a review of current practice
Authors: Sue Manuel, Steve Loddington, Charles Oppenheim

[edit]
Rights and Rewards Copyright ownership report

Authors: Steve Loddington, Lizzie Gadd, Charles Oppenheim, Sue Manuel, Melanie Bates

[edit]
Rights and Rewards Repository Infrastructure

Authors: Sue Manuel, Charles Oppenheim, Steve Loddington, Melanie Bates

[edit]
Rights and Rewards The make up of a teaching and learning repository network

Authors: Sue Manuel, Charles Opppenheim

[edit]
Rights and Rewards Proposed Rights Solution

Authors: Steve Loddington, Lizzie Gadd, Charles Oppenheim, Sue Manuel

[edit]
Rights and Rewards Support and Evaluation of chosen solution

Authors: Steve Loddington, Lizzie Gadd, Charles Oppenheim

[edit]
Rights and Rewards Communities and networking activity around teaching resource repositories

Authors: Sue Manuel, Charles Oppenheim

[edit]
Rights and Rewards Loughborough University’s Rewards and Awards scheme: a survey of recipients’ views

Authors: Sue Manuel, Charles Oppenheim

[edit]
Rights and Rewards Pilot Repository - PEDESTAL
[edit]

Sherpa Plus

See http://www.sherpa.ac.uk/projects/sherpaplus.html

[edit]
Sherpa Plus create a national information point for repository development
[edit]
Sherpa Plus evaluate and produce advocacy strategies and material to promote the population of repositories
[edit]
Sherpa Plus run an active advocacy programme to promote repository establishment in all HE institutions
[edit]
Sherpa Plus report on the issues involved in extension of repository holdings

with datasets, multimedia, etc

[edit]
Sherpa Plus launch a national forum for repository administrators - UKCORR
[edit]

SPECTRa

Intended Project Outputs 

1. Undertake surveys of communities in computational and organic chemistry.
2. Test and refine crystallography tools developed by eBank.
3. Develop automated search/harvester tools specific to computational chemistry and organic spectra, and providing interactions with
the DSpace repository platforn.
4. Develop chemical metadata functionality based on Dublin Core.
5. Develop protocols for data deposition in chemistry.
6. Disseminate and promote project outcomes to encourage widespread adoption.

Available project outputs

  • Full Title
  • Availability:
  • Theme:
  • Output type:
  • Summary: Released , 2006.
  • Full Title
  • Availability:
  • Theme:
  • Output type:
  • Summary: Released , 2006.
  • Full Title
  • Availability:
  • Theme:
  • Output type:
  • Summary: Released , 2006.
  • Full Title
  • Availability:
  • Theme:
  • Output type:
  • Summary: Released , 2006.
  • Full Title
  • Availability:
  • Theme:
  • Output type:
  • Summary: Released , 2006.
  • Full Title
  • Availability:
  • Theme:
  • Output type:
  • Summary: Released , 2006.
  • Full Title
  • Availability:
  • Theme:
  • Output type:
  • Summary: Released , 2006.
  • Full Title
  • Availability:
  • Theme:
  • Output type:
  • Summary: Released , 2006.
  • Deliverable 1
  • Deliverable 2
  • Deliverable 3
  • Deliverable 4
  • Deliverable 5
  • Deliverable 6

SPECTRa Questionnaire

[edit]

SPIRE

Intended Project Outputs 

1. A closed LionShare P2P testing ground within TALL.
2. A report outlining the pros and cons of taking LionShare to an institutional level.
 a) A list of technical requirements for the installation of a LionShare system at institutional level.
3. Research into the issues of installing a P2P infrastructure at institutional level in the UK.
4. The management and support of a P2P system in the UK.
5. Creating the opportunity for members of the HE community to experiment with secure P2P working.
6. If appropriate, the tying of LionShare to the UK Shibboleth authentication infrastructure.
7. Project wiki tracking the development of the project and the community. (http://spire.conted.ox.ac.uk)
8. Report on the feasibility of using P2P systems as part of the collaborative learning creation methodology of HEIs within the UK.
9. A set of recommendations for the future production of P2P related software.
10. A set of recommendations for the institutional infrastructure of HEIs in relation to P2P working.
11. Making LionShare available as an Eclipse plug-in for the wider development community.
12. Initial development of the merging of the Reload tool with P2P functionality.


Available project outputs

  • Full Title
  • Availability:
  • Theme:
  • Output type:
  • Summary: Released , 2006.
  • Full Title
  • Availability:
  • Theme:
  • Output type:
  • Summary: Released , 2006.
  • Full Title
  • Availability:
  • Theme:
  • Output type:
  • Summary: Released , 2006.
  • Full Title
  • Availability:
  • Theme:
  • Output type:
  • Summary: Released , 2006.
  • Full Title
  • Availability:
  • Theme:
  • Output type:
  • Summary: Released , 2006.
  • Full Title
  • Availability:
  • Theme:
  • Output type:
  • Summary: Released , 2006.
  • Full Title
  • Availability:
  • Theme:
  • Output type:
  • Summary: Released , 2006.


  • Full Title
  • Availability:
  • Theme:
  • Output type:
  • Summary: Released , 2006.
  • Full Title
  • Availability:
  • Theme:
  • Output type:
  • Summary: Released , 2006.
  • Full Title
  • Availability:
  • Theme:
  • Output type:
  • Summary: Released , 2006.
  • Full Title
  • Availability:
  • Theme:
  • Output type:
  • Summary: Released , 2006.
  • Full Title
  • Availability:
  • Theme:
  • Output type:
  • Summary: Released , 2006.
  • Full Title
  • Availability:
  • Theme:
  • Output type:
  • Summary: Released , 2006.


LIONShare in the UK Pros and Cons Report

Use Cases for Using LionShare

Reload LionShare Beta pulgin now available on sourceforge

[edit]

StORe

Intended Project Outputs 

1. To conduct user surveys among research staff in the disciplines represented by the project, in order to identify missing useful
functionality which source-to-output interoperability would deliver, both in source and in output repositories.
2. To develop a Business Analysis of the functional requirements identified in order to provide for interactions between the two
repository types which are valuable both to researchers and to users of source and output repositories.
3. To build pilot exemplar linkages between one source repository and multiple output repositories in order to demonstrate both
enhanced functionality and generic development potential which will benefit the whole UK e-research infrastructure.
4. To evaluate the pilot systems in order to make recommendations for future development work such that the demonstrated
interoperabilities can be replicated across all research disciplines.


Available project outputs


  • Full Title
  • Availability:
  • Theme:
  • Output type:
  • Summary: Released , 2006.
  • Full Title
  • Availability:
  • Theme:
  • Output type:
  • Summary: Released , 2006.
  • Full Title
  • Availability:
  • Theme:
  • Output type:
  • Summary: Released , 2006.
  • Full Title
  • Availability:
  • Theme:
  • Output type:
  • Summary: Released , 2006.
  • Full Title
  • Availability:
  • Theme:
  • Output type:
  • Summary: Released , 2006.
  • Full Title
  • Availability:
  • Theme:
  • Output type:
  • Summary: Released , 2006.
[edit]

TrustDR

Project Outputs

See: http://trustdr.ulster.ac.uk/outputs.php See: http://trustdr.ulster.ac.uk/work_in_progress.php

[edit]
TrustDR: Development pack
  • Managing Intellectual Property Rights in Digital Learning Materials: A Development Pack for Institutional Repositories
  • Availability: http://trustdr.ulster.ac.uk/outputs.php
  • Theme: Legal and policy issues cluster; E-learning cluster
  • Output type:
  • Summary: Contains:
    • Discussion One: The Main Legal, Educational and Technical Issues Word
    • Discussion Two: The Pros and Cons for using Creative Commons (CC) Licences in Digital Teaching and Learning Materials
    • Links to selected readings on these issues
    • Tool 1: Analysing your situation
      • a. A Managed Learning Environment Integration Matrix- from the Scottish Funding Council E-Learning Implementation Guide Word
      • b. An Institutional E-learning Benchmarking Tool and Discussion Paper - from the QAA guide to flexible learning Word
      • c. The E-Learning Maturity Model (eMM) Available from the project homepage: http://www.utdc.vuw.ac.nz/research/emm/
    • Tool 2: Awareness and readiness
      • a. IPR Management Regimes Mapped onto the E-Learning Change Continuum Word
      • b. Analysis and Audit Tool for Rights Management in Learning Object Repositories Word
      • c. Functional and Dysfunctional DRM Frameworks for Teaching and Learning Materials Word
      • d. Activity and Competency Grids to Support Implementation of a DRM framework Word
    • Tool 3: UHI Repository Learning Materials submission form and Metadata Profile Word
    • Tools 4: Placing Our Stuff So We Can Find It Later: A Meta-Learning Essential
      • This article by Jamie Dinkelacker originally appeared in the IEEE Learning Technology Newsletter and is essential reading for anyone involved in information management in e-learning. Reproduced by permission. Word
    • Tool 5: IPR Risk Management Framework and Tools Word
    • Tool 6: TrustDR Checklist Description Word
[edit]
TrustDR: SP-1 The TrustDR Project: a plain-english description for project partners
[edit]
TrustDR: SP-2 Scoping Exercise for the Outputs of TrustDR in Terms of the Target Groups
[edit]
TrustDR: SP-3 Testing the Waters: responses to initial questionnaire about current IPR policy and use of repositories

TrustDR: DRM Policy Creation Strand (Legal and Cultural)

[edit]
TrustDR: WP1-1 Reviewing relevant work, mapping the legal issues and finding sources of guidance
[edit]
TrustDR: WP1-2 Educational Perspectives

WP1-2 Educational Perspectives: Understanding the Business of E-Learning: before applying any DRM

[edit]
TrustDR:WP1-3 Typologies of Content and Repository in Relation to IPR and DRM
[edit]
TrustDR: WP1-4 Targets for Policy Creation

WP1-4 Targets for Policy Creation: After The Deluge: Navigating IPR policy in teaching and learning materials


[edit]
TrustDR:WP1-6 Assessing Different Licence Regimes

DRM Policy Projection Strand (Technical Issues)

[edit]
TrustDR:WP2-1 Technical Factors: current Practice, sources of guidance and developments
[edit]
TrustDR:WP2-3 Reviewing ODRL
[edit]
TrustDR: Supporting Studies & Background Reports
[edit]
TrustDR: Use Cases and Scenarios
[edit]
TrustDR:Publications
  • Prospects for Using Learning Objects and Learning Design as Staff Development Tools in Higher Education.[9] Presented at CELDA 2005
  • Practical Guide to Providing Flexible Learning in Further and Higher Education. due to be published by the Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education in the UK in autumn 2006.
  • Modeling Organisational Frameworks for Integrated E-learning: the experience of the TrustDR project.[10]Presented at the IEEE ICALT 2006
  • Getting Practical With IPR in E-Learning.[11]Presented at the University of Middlesex conference on IPR in e-learning 2006
  • The Interactive Media Industry, Intellectual Property Rights, the Internet and Copyright:Some Lessons from the TrustDR Project.[12]For the World Bank AIM-WB Development Resource Centre Forum, Manilla, 2nd May 2006.
  • Geronimo's Cadillac: Lessons for Learning Object Repositories.[13]Paper accepted for ECDL 2006 workshop
[edit]

UKCDR

See http://www.ukcdr.manchester.ac.uk/dissemination/outputs/

Project Outputs

UKCDR Workpackages [14]

[edit]
UKCDR: Test Case Development & Software Appraisal report
[edit]
UKCDR: Overview of existing software
[edit]
UKCDR: Security Requirements Report
[edit]
UKCDR: Robustness testing
[edit]
UKCDR: Literature Review
[edit]
UKCDR: Overview of Solutions
[edit]
UKCDR: Needs calculator
[edit]
UKCDR: Summary of Use Cases
[edit]

UNPUPR

Final report evaluating five different types of public repositories in the UK – i.e., repositories that are intended for use by people outside a hosting institution. Individual mission concerns for the selected elite repositories were be assessed through an analysis of their user needs, including a comparative evaluation of each type to determine how individual findings can be used to inform the practice of the others. The approach was to carry out this evaluation using a complementary set of qualitative and quantitative research techniques. The qualitative approach was to interview stakeholders and users associated with each repository, and the quantitative approach involved using a newly developed “Web intelligence” technique, designed to collect and analyse Web link statistics.

Available project outputs

  • Full Title
  • Availability:
  • Theme:
  • Output type:
  • Summary: Released , 2006.
  • Full Title
  • Availability:
  • Theme:
  • Output type:
  • Summary: Released , 2006.
  • Full Title
  • Availability:
  • Theme:
  • Output type:
  • Summary: Released , 2006.
[edit]

VERSIONS

See the Versions Deliverables page:
http://www.lse.ac.uk/library/versions/deliverables.html

[edit]
Versions Interim findings report based on interviews
  • Availability: not yet available
  • Theme:
  • Output type:
  • Summary:
[edit]
Versions Scenarios developed from interview findings
[edit]
Versions Questionnaire
[edit]
Versions User study findings report
  • Availability: not yet available
  • Theme:
  • Output type:
  • Summary:
[edit]
Versions Publications List Analysis
  • Availability: not yet available
  • Theme:
  • Output type:
  • Summary:
[edit]
Versions Literature review on guidelines and standards
  • Availability: not yet available
  • Theme:
  • Output type:
  • Summary:
[edit]
Versions Guidelines
  • Availability: not yet available
  • Theme:
  • Output type:
  • Summary:
[edit]
Versions Toolkit of guidelines
  • Availability: not yet available
  • Theme:
  • Output type:
  • Summary:
[edit]
Versions Toolkit published on project website
  • Availability: not yet available
  • Theme:
  • Output type:
  • Summary:
[edit]
Versions Proposed standards document
  • Availability: not yet available
  • Theme:
  • Output type:
  • Summary:
[edit]
VERSIONS invitational evaluation workshop report
[edit]

Community Eprints

http://www.eprints.org/community/

[edit]
An Eprints community structure
[edit]
Eprints v3

A formally designed, modular code base, with associated documentation, and API support for third-party extensions and applications

[edit]
Eprints Development portal
[edit]
Eprints Marketing strategy
[edit]

EThOS

For further information, see the EThOS project page.

[edit]
EThOS Building of British Library-based central host with single search interface
[edit]
EThOS Building of interfaces to harvest data from institutional hosts
[edit]
EThOS Implementation of a pilot programme of retrospective and current digitisation
[edit]
EThOS Development and integration of rights and permission procedures
[edit]
EThOS Toolkit

Production of a start-up e-theses toolkit for institutions

[edit]
EThOS Development of business models

(service and digitisation) for long term sustainability

[edit]

IRRA

[edit]
IRRA White Paper

A white paper outlining the use of Institutional Repositories for the UK's RAE process

[edit]
IRRA EPrints and DSpace RAE Software Silver Release
[edit]
IRRA Repositories and RAE submission information meeting April 2006
[edit]

OpenDOAR

[edit]
OpenDOAR
[edit]
OpenDOAR policy tool
[edit]
OpenDOAR API
[edit]
OpenDOAR Search Repository Contents
Retrieved from "/repositories/digirep/index/Deliverables.html"