BieColl - Bielefeld eCollections
Not a member yet
1004 research outputs found
Sort by
DSpace Under the Hood: The development process and YOUR role in it
Get PDFDSpace development in undertaken by the DSpace community. No one, or no organisation is in charge, and without contributions from the DSpace community the platform would not continue to develop and evolve. Sometimes it can appear that there are people in charge, or that unless you are a technical developer then there is no way or need to contribute. This presentation will explain how DSpace development usually takes place, where and who has input at different stages, and will equip you to contribute further, or to help you contribute for the first time
DuraSpace's Solution Communities: Marshalling the Resources for Open-source Development
Get PDFIn his opening plenary address to the Open Repositories Conference, James Hilton made the statement that "open-source software is free like a puppy." This statement succinctly summarizes the need for institutions that benefit from freely available software to get involved in its ongoing development, that an investment of resources is always required. Anyone who has worked with information technology in libraries, museums and archives knows that compared with the total cost of buying vendor software and making it actually do the desired job, there can be a great deal of room to save money while making a significant investment of resources in the process
Maintaining Standards - managing metadata consistency across collections and tools
Get PDFThe flexibility to store any type of metadata in a fedora repository is one of its greatest strengths, but it externalizes the burden of metadata standardization and validation. This burden is exacerbated by the fact that during the course of a digital object’s life, its metadata may be modified by several different applications or utilities operated by any number of users. This talk will cover strategies to deal with the task of maintaining consistency and the creation of and adherence to institutional-specific policies or standards for metadata quality
On Constructing Repository Infrastructures: The D-NET Software Toolkit
Get PDFDue to the wide diffusion of digital repositories, organizations responsible for large research communities, such as national or project consortia, research institutions, foundations, are increasingly tempted into setting up so-called repository infrastructure systems (e.g., OAIster (http://www.oaister.org), BASE (http://www.base-search.net), DAREnet-NARCIS (http://www.narcis.info)). Such systems offer web portals, services and APIs for cross-operating over the metadata records of publications (lately also of experimental data and compound objects) aggregated from a set of repositories. Generally, they consist of two connected tiers: an aggregation system for populating an information space of metadata records by harvesting and transforming (e.g., cleaning, enriching) records from a set of OAI-PMH compatible data sources, typically repositories; and a web portal, providing end-users with advanced functionality over such information space (search, browsing, annotations, recommendations, collections, user profiling, etc). Typically, information spaces also offer access to third-party applications through standard APIs (e.g., OAI-PMH, SRW, OAI-ORE). Repository infrastructure systems address similar architectural and functional issues across several disciplines and application domains. On the one hand they all deal, with more or less contingent complexity, with the generic problem of harvesting metadata records of a given format, transform them into records of a target format and deliver web portals to operate over these records. On the other hand, they have to cope with arbitrary numbers of repositories, hence administering them, from automatic scheduling of harvesting and transformation actions, definition of relative transformation mappings, to the inherent scalability problems of coping with ever growing incoming records. Existing solutions tend to privilege customization of software, neglecting general-purpose approaches. Typically, for example, aggregation systems are designed to generate metadata records of a format X from records of format Y, and not be parametric with respect to such formats. Similarly, the participation of a repository to an infrastructure is driven by firm policies and administrators often do not have the freedom of specifying their own workflow, by combining as they prefer logical steps such as harvesting, storing, transforming, indexing and validating. In summary, repository infrastructure systems typically provide advanced and effective solutions tailored to the one scenario of interest, while can hardly be applicable to different scenarios, where similar but distinct requirements apply. As a consequence, an organization willing to set up a repository infrastructure system with peculiar requirements has to face the "expensive" problem of designing and developing a new software from scratch. In this paper, we present a general-purpose and cost-efficient solution for the construction of customized repository infrastructures, based on the D-NET Software Toolkit (www.d-net.research-infrastructures.eu), developed in the context of the DRIVER and DRIVER-II projects (http://www.driver-community.eu). D-NET offers a service-oriented framework, whose services can be combined by developers to easily construct customized aggregation systems and personalized web portals. D-NET services can be customized, extended and combined to match domain specific scenarios, while distribution, sharing and orchestration of services enables the construction of scalable and robust repository infrastructures. As we shall describe in the following, D-NET is currently the enabling software of a number of European projects and national initiatives
Re-thinking Fedora's storage layer: A new high-level interface to remove old assumptions and allow novel use cases
Get PDFTraditionally, the pluggable storage interface in Fedora has followed a "low-level" paradigm where objects and datastreams are presented to the storage layer as independent, anonymous blobs of data. This arrangement has proven simple, reliable, and generally flexible. In the past few years however, there has been an increasing need for Fedora to mediate storage in more complex scenarios. Managing large numbers of big datastreams, multiplexing storage between different devices or cloud storage, and archiving content in a transparent manner are tasks that are difficult to achieve through Fedora currently
Taking the plunge. Repositories and Research pooling in Scotland
Get PDFDefining the Problem:
The ERIS Project is working with stakeholders to understand what will motivate them to deposit their research outputs and integrate repository use into a standard part of their research life cycle. A specific focus of the project is on the needs of Research pools. Research Pooling is defined as the formation of strategic collaborations between universities in disciplinary or multi-disciplinary areas involving the international quality departments or individual researchers across Scotland (http://www.sfc.ac.uk/research/researchpools/researchpools.aspx). The emergence of research pooling since the 2001 RAE exercise (http://www.sfc.ac.uk/web/FILES/Our_Priorities_Research/research_pooling_article_july08.pdf) has made a significant contribution to the development and success of Scottish research (http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?storyCode=404806§ioncode=26), and as institutions digest the outcome of the 2008 RAE and plan for the Research Excellent Framework (REF), the pools are considering how they can best manage their strategic approaches and meet the growing return on investment and other reporting demands of their investing partners
Tools for Dataset Lifecycle Management
Get PDFWith a growing demand for transparency and openness around scientific research and an emphasis on the sharing of scientific workflows and datasets, there is a similarly increasing number in the variety of client and web-based tools required to manage each stage in the lifecycle of individual datasets. Datasets are produced from a variety of instruments and computations; are analyzed and manipulated; are stored and referenced within the context of a research project; and, ideally, are archived, stored, and shared with the rest of the world. Each of these efforts, however, requires a number of user actions involving a growing number of systems and interfaces. In an effort to preserve the flexibility and autonomy of the researchers, but also to minimize the logistical effort involved, we present in this paper a partial solution approach to this problem through the integration of workflow execution, project collaboration, project-based dataset management and versioning, and long-term archiving and dissemination. This example demonstrates the orchestration of a number of existing Microsoft Research projects; however, the interaction between each uses existing web interoperability protocols and can easily support the replacement of individual architectural components with related services
eHumanities Desktop - eine webbasierte Arbeitsumgebung für die geisteswissenschaftliche Fachinformatik
No full textScience 2.0, e-Science, Cyberscience: Wissenschaft im Web 2.0
Get PDFIn Konferenzvorträgen, Blogposts und wissenschaftlichen Artikeln ist derzeit von einer neuen Form wissenschaftlichen Arbeitens die Rede, die mal als »Science 2.0«, mal als »e-Science« oder als »Cyberscience« bezeichnet wird. Darunter versteht man die verstärkte Nutzung von Web2.0-Diensten, z.B. Blogs, Wikis, soziale Netzwerke oder Online-Literaturverwaltungen durch Wissenschaftler. Die Auswirkungen sind z.B. veränderte Such- und Lesetechniken, starke Zunahme von Mehrautorenschaft bei wissenschaftlichen Publikationen oder die stärkere Verschmelzung von wissenschaftlicher Kommunikation und Publikationstätigkeit. – Der Vortrag beleuchtet verschiedene Werkzeuge, die das Neue Web der Wissenschaft derzeit anbietet und versucht dabei, deren Möglichkeiten und Grenzen aufzuzeigen. Weblinks: Mendeley: , Google Wave: , CiteULike: , Connotea: , Google Docs: , Bibsonomy: , ResearchGATE