ReStore Project Workshop

1. ReStore Project Workshop 24 June 2011 76 Portland Place

2. ReStore project ReStore team members Introduction and welcome

3. Explain how ReStore works from the perspective of a potential author of an online resource Describe in detail what is involved in taking an online resource into ReStore Highlight actions which increase the sustainability of online resources-whether they are going into ReStore or not Gain input from you, into our work on policy recommendations for ESRC Have the opportunity to speak individually with you about your own resources Objectives of the day

4. A programme of “two halves” Two-way interaction We encourage discussion and questions Note sheets provided to stimulate reflection and question Format of the day

5. ESRC funds a research methods project which creates an online resource (e.g. NCRM/RDI) Online part completed near to end of project funding Often of great practical value, but immediately begin to decay, lack of maintenance/visibility Review and enhance the site, standardize as far as possible but maintain ‘look and feel’ Take on and maintain within ReStore repository The ReStore preservation and maintenance model

6. Repository for online resources “Restoring”/enhancing quality and utility Promoting accessibility Sustainable service identity Being implemented as an NCRM activity NOT the only solution: if better options exist on a project-by-project basis, that’s fine! Why (specifically) ReStore?

7. A static web archive A continuation funding model for completed projects A research methods advice service A document repository A virtual learning environment (*although discussion later of Moodle/VLEs) Not aims of the project

8. How does it work? ReStoration process

9. 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 How does it work?

10. Two ESRC RDI projects (Rounds 1 and 3) 1/2/06-31/12/08 David Martin, Samantha Cockings and Samuel Leung Online resources and face to face workshops Objective: to help social scientists understand geographical referencing issues such as geographical data linkage and mapping Large number of html pages on specific topics (‘learning objects’); php scripting for web form and custom tutorials; PDFs of workshop presentations Geo-Refer

14. All the contributors based in one institution All contributors worked directly on the ESRC project (either as investigators or researcher) Original site hosted on local (School of Geography) web server Geo-Refer

15. Original project ‘Training in Pragmatic Social Interventions: Problems, Promises and Protocols’ (RDI Round 1) 1/1/06-31/12/07 Stephen Gorard, Carole Torgerson Objective: to increase awareness and knowledge concerning trial-based designs (such as randomised controlled trials) for use in evaluating social and policy interventions Web pages, PDFs and PPTs from presentations by contributors Trials in Public Policy

18. Investigators and team all at York, but had moved institution by the time resources taken into ReStore Range of events, conference, presentations from multiple contributors from multiple institutions Originally hosted on local machine in York, with access via local technical staff Trials in Public Policy

19. 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 Review process

20. Architecture (stand-alone, CMS, VLE?) Scripting (if any) Scope (embedded within another site? Including ephemera?) Accessibility/standards/stylesheets Metadata Broken link checks Technical review

22. Academic ‘user’ review Overall quality Up to date? Easily navigable? Target audience? References (Similar to journal review) Academic review

23. Author knows the strengths and weaknesses best Things we should know? Often aware of incomplete pages, uncertain about IPR issues, wants to fix things... (Akin to due diligence) Author review

24. Decisions taken by ReStore team in editorial capacity, referred to advisory group re. matters of principle, e.g. precedents, difficult issues Review content summarised for authors Team assessment of work required Decision sets in train approved package of work If not suitable, alternative strategies considered Static archiving, maintenance elsewhere, etc. Consideration of reviews

25. Geo-Refer Retained learning object structure and custom tutorials Took out news, contact and workshop details Trials in PP Retained resources and workshop structure Took out news, Google Ads, contact details Content and Coverage

27. Geo-Refer Object-level metadata (Dublin Core) created by project Trials in PP Generated by ReStore project, but only at level of entire resource Metadata

28. Several medata standards available Commonly used standard: Dublin Core http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/metadata/dcdot/ The above retrieves a web page and automatically generate Dublin core metadata title, creator, keyword, publisher, name, subject, date one of the major DC elements. Edna tool set for creating web page metadata Metadata example

29. EXAMPLE

30. Geo-Refer All in one Department Time spent directly on ESRC-funded project Trials in PP Project team in one University Some moved after project Change of IP manager External contributors Team members involved in resource creation

31. Geo-Refer Modularization php Web form Local redirection Security captcha Trials in PP Modularization html Technology considerations

32. Geo-Refer Based on ArcGIS, MS Office examples (Access) Versioning? Software screenshots: permissions required Trials in PP None Software implications

33. Specific actions requested as result of reviews Completion of material, updating of content Changes in external world (policy, terminology, etc.) Updated references to literature New versions of recommended software Broken links Etc. Quality and content

34. Geo-Refer Original researcher still available Able to do own fixes in response to reviews Team members know own material best! Trials in PP Original researcher had left Fixes agreed with PI Fixes undertaken by local IT person Extended chain leads to long lag times! ReStoration Actions

35. Geo-Refer Software supplier permissions required for screenshots Same institution, so no ownership issues Trials in PP Issue of multiple academic contributors Institutional affiliations during resource development? Separate contributors’ form required IPR Considerations

37. ReStore project individual contributor permission form This is to confirm that I am the author of the __________________________________ resource, which was originally created for, and has been hosted as part of the _____________________________________ project website at the University of __________________. I hereby give my consent for this resource to remain available as part of the project website, which is to be transferred into the ESRC-funded ReStore web repository (http://www.restore.ac.uk), currently hosted at the University of Southampton (although this may change to another academic institution at some future date). I also confirm that I am not aware of any third party implications that prevent me from giving this consent Signed ____________________________ Name ____________________________ Date _______________________

38. Maintain IPR register Permissions for all content types Record of contributor permissions Contractual arrangements between institutions Etc. Examples on ReStore guidance pages IPR Principles

39. Lunch

40. Geo-Refer University server logs Database of web form activity Workshop delegate lists Trials in PP None Usually the case! Usage monitoring

42. Licensor: Usually institution hosting the resource Licensee: NCRM HUB, University of Southampton Licensor warrants that all consents/permission provided to ReStore appropriately referenced and acknowledged the author of any third party content Licensor gives permission to the licensee to: Make any editorial changes during ReStoration Promote, make available work in a variety of formats Display & use the Licensor’s logo or trademark only ReStore Licence, inc. redirection

43. Both parties notify each other in case rights are infringed. Licensee takes down disputed content immediately until the matter is resolved. Licensor permits licensee to catalogue, enhance, incorporate and modify metadata and and re-format the Work in any way to ensure its future preservation and accessibility; Site-wide redirection following the sign off ReStore Licence, inc. redirection

44. Mitigates risks of IPR infringement Makes process clear Who to contact What action will be taken Thinking it through ensures consideration of how such an issue would be handled We have had to use it! Take-Down Policy

46. Virtual Learning Environments Blackboard, Moodle, etc. Content Management Systems User registration systems User-generated content Google Groups, Ning, etc. Other issues