The New Frontier of Institutional Repositories

Three Libraries Three Plans One Goal

THETHE UUNIVERSITYNIVERSITY ofof

TENNESSEETENNESSEEFLORIDA STATE FLORIDA STATE

UNIVERSITYUNIVERSITYGeorgia Institute

of Technology

Institutional Repository Concept

Three Libraries Three Plans One Goal

Institutional Repositories and Related Research Serve to:

Capture, Preserve and Provide Access to the intellectual output of a single or multi-university community.

•Learning Objects

•Pre-prints/Post-prints

•Data Sets

•Collaborative Virtual Communities

Based on Crow’s Concept

IR Framework for Higher Education

Three Libraries Three Plans One Goal

Community Specific Knowledge Environments for Research and Education (collaboratory, co-laboratory, grid community, e-science community, virtual community, scholarly communications community)

Networking, Operating Systems, Middleware

Base Technology: computation, storage, communication

High performance computation Services

Data, information, knowledge management services

Observation,measurement,fabrication services

Interfaces, visualization services

Collaboration services

= Cyberinfrastructure: hardware, software, services, personnel, organizations

Based on Atkins CI Model

IR’s at Our InstitutionsThree Libraries Three Plans One Goal

Data, information, knowledge management services

October : IR was up w/ 250 deposits pre-purchased

FLORIDA STATE FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITYUNIVERSITY

D-Scholarship : Cost Issues

Mar. 2003

• Lacked infrastructure for locally-produced digital content

• High interest in Institutional Repositories

• Desire to leverage investment, avoid multiple systems

April – June • Reviewed OAIS model, D-Space Tech Specs, etc.

• Drafted “FSU DIR Functional Requirements”

content metadata access, rights preservation representation

July – Aug.• Evaluated functions, REAL costs of OSS & commercial • RESULTS : 12-14 months @ implement cost of $75K - $100K

Sept. • Decision to lease service from Berkeley Electronic Press • Fast , cheap start-up minimized risk and gave time for +

FLORIDA STATE FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITYUNIVERSITY

D-Scholarship : Content• Promotion : Senior Admin., Deans, Dept. Chairs, Individuals

• Mixed Reactions – We decided to wait a while and watch

• Results were less than satisfactory

• Targeted Collections

Leverage success of early ETD program 10,000+ FSU dissertations retrospectively digitizedHighest quality undergrad honors papers collection partnership

Oceanographic Research cruise reports Multi-institutional nature of research program

Currently courting valuable non-published content 35,000+ electron microscope slides – faculty’s lifetime work

FLORIDA STATE FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITYUNIVERSITY

D-Scholarship : Policy Issues

• Same experiences as other IR implementers

Copyright, publisher restrictions

Institution’s “right” to archive faculty output

Institutional vs. Disciplinary repositories

• Licensing of depositsBased on unsatisfactory aspects of ETD project experience

Working within university policies to mandate deposits

Encouraging Creative Commons licensing model

ATTRIBUTION NON-COMMERCIAL NO DERIVATIVES

FLORIDA STATE FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITYUNIVERSITY

D-Scholarship : Project Status• D-Scholarship online 1 year

• Leased Services proved to be best option for slow-growth IR

• Only 25 deposits, but only modest investment ($10,500) gave us something to promote to much of campus community

• Nearly ready to deposit 10,000+ dissertations w/ global access

• Partnerships likely to yield 150+ assorted new deposits/year

• Recent purchase of DigiTool digital asset mgmt. system

Addresses weakness of other IR systems, especially representation

Strong vendor interest in supporting particulars of IR needs

Same platform to manage our other 36,000 files of digital collections

THETHE UUNIVERSITYNIVERSITY ofof

TENNESSEETENNESSEE

Scholars Archive : Cost Issues

Minimal cost to date– UT SunSite’s DSpace Implementation (Fall 03)

• System Administrator - Graduate Assistant

– Hired a 1-year research assistant (Jan 04)• Digital Library Landscape Survey

– http://diglib.lib.utk.edu/dlc/DL_Landscape2004.html

• Posting Trends Survey – http://diglib.lib.utk.edu/dlc/PostingTrends2004.html

– Image Management System purchase very soon (≈ $50,000)

Address specific identifiable content needs first, allowing the demand to define the characteristics of IR system development.

THETHE UUNIVERSITYNIVERSITY ofof

TENNESSEETENNESSEE

Scholars Archive : Content

• Trial Phase for DSpace Classics Slide Collection - Expect over 8,000 images when done Commission for Women – Documenting the history of women at

UT. Newsletters, minutes, images, etc.• Digital Library Center Projects

Journal of Economic Issues – Scalable web service designed specifically for electronic journals. Full-text search, page turner, PDF articles

$2500/Startup, $1400/print vol., $500/electronic vol. College Catalogs – Ten years back with plans to do more. High

use collection. Electronic Theses and Dissertations - Electronic submissions

represented 2.5% of total thesis and dissertation submissions in 1999-2000, 5.5% in 2000-2001, 23.5% in 2001-2002, and 38.7% in 2002-2003. For 2004, 95.8%

THETHE UUNIVERSITYNIVERSITY ofof

TENNESSEETENNESSEE

Scholars Archive : Policy Issues

• Primary drivers– Scholarly Communications Crisis, Stewardship

responsibility, Scholarly community is asking for ?• Current projects with/without a solution

– √ ETD’s, √ E-Journals, √ College Catalogs, Images/Photographic Prints/Slides

• Posting trends survey– A look at the natural, self-archiving strategies on

campus

THETHE UUNIVERSITYNIVERSITY ofof

TENNESSEETENNESSEE

Scholars Archive : Project Status

• Acquire an Image Management System– Easy to use self-archiving interface, thumbnail

display, customizable metadata, JPEG2000 capability, import/export batch processing

• SpiderZilla (HTTrack)– Open source Mozilla extension developed to easily

mirror websites– Identify campus partners from posting trends survey

to test archiving capabilities using this method• Continue to seek a better understanding of the

scholarly process

Georgia Institute of Technology

SMARTech : Cost Issues

• Development of new department, Digital Initiatives

• Other departments -- new positions and staff changes

• Server purchase

• Selected open source software – DSpace

• Future development costs – restricted access – learning objects / IMS/SCORM metadata

Georgia Institute of Technology

SMARTech : Content

• GT-produced intellectual output from educational and research programs, communications activities:

• Annual Reports – Electrical and Computer Engineering Dept. • Computer Programs • Conference Papers • Data Sets • Learning/Complex Objects (“captured” courses [i.e. digitally recorded], multimedia simulations / visualizations (cognitive tools), textual documents, captured notes from faculty and students• Models • Lecture series materials• Pre-Prints/Post-Prints • Proceedings • Research Reports – IPST Project Advisory Committee Reports, GTRI Reports• Simulations • Technical Reports & Working Papers – IPST Technical Papers, GVU Center Technical Reports• Web Pages • White papers

Georgia Institute of Technology

SMARTech : Policy Issues

• Purposely refrain from devising many policies in the abstract -- don’t want to inhibit growth and development of SMARTech

• Allow campus community to suggest what they want in SMARTechOne Requirement: GT-produced intellectual output, born-digital

•Acceptable digital file formats: Standard formats -- commit to migrate and provide access over long term A variety of text, image, audio, video, and authoring software files

•Lack of support on campus for self-submission

•Copyright? Follow existing rules / guidelines. If a problem, take down item

•Collection Development? Follow existing library and archival policies

Georgia Institute of Technology

SMARTech : Project Status

• Pilot phase, Spring / Summer 2004

• Production launch, August 1, 2004

• Over 3,000 digital objects, 10,000 hits in first 2 months

• Currently have 8 communities with 11 collections

Future Projects: Faculty / student portfoliosDistributed learning object repositories

References

Three Libraries Three Plans One Goal

•Atkins, Daniel E. Transformation through Cyberinfrastructure-Based Knowledge Environments.

Online: http://www.communitytechnology.org/products/Trans_thru_CI.pdf•Crow, Raym. The Case for Institutional Repositories: A SPARC Position Paper. Online: http://www.arl.org/sparc/IR/ir.html

•McDonald, Robert H. and Chuck Thomas. Building a FSU Digital Institutional Repository: A Vision Statement. Online: http://dscholarship.lib.fsu.edu/general/1/

•McDonald, Robert H., Anthony D. Smith, Tyler O. Walters, and Chuck Thomas. The New Frontier of Institutional Repositories: Three Different Libraries, Three Different Plans, One Common Goal. A Project Briefing at the Fall 2003 CNI Task Force Meeting. Online: http://dscholarship.lib.fsu.edu/general/2/

LINKSThree Libraries Three Plans One Goal

FSU•FSU Digital Library Center

http://diglib.lib.fsu.edu/•D-Scholarship

http://dscholarship.lib.fsu.eduUTK

•UT Digital Library Centerhttp://diglib.lib.utk.edu/

•UT Scholars Archivehttp://diglib.lib.utk.edu/dlc/scholarsarchive/ir.html

•Posting Trends Surveyhttp://diglib.lib.utk.edu/dlc/PostingTrends2004.html

GaTech•GaTech Digital Collections

http://www.library.gatech.edu/search_locate/digital_collections.html•SMARTech

http://smartech.gatech.edu•ETDs

http://etd.gatech.edu