Web 2.0 and repositories - have we got our repository architecture right?
Download as PPT, PDF41 likes15,482 views
The document discusses issues with current institutional repository architectures and how they can be improved to better align with Web 2.0 principles. It suggests repositories could become more like social networks by focusing on user interfaces, global aggregation, social interaction and tagging rather than complex metadata standards. A new vision is needed where repositories fundamentally change scholarly communication by fully embracing the Web rather than just replicating print processes online.
Web 2.0 and repositories - have we got our repository architecture right?
- 1. Web 2.0 and repositories… … have we got our repository architecture right?
- 2. Outline where are we now? what’s wrong with where we are now? what can we do about it? do we need a new vision?
- 3. Where are we now? where are we now?
- 4. What is a repository? a university-based institutional repository is a set of services that a university offers to the members of its community for the management and dissemination of digital materials created by the institution and its community members. It is most essentially an organizational commitment to the stewardship of these digital materials, including long-term preservation where appropriate, as well as organization and access or distribution . … An institutional repository is not simply a fixed set of software and hardware (Cliff Lynch, 2003)
- 5. Repository “doing” words manage deposit disclose make openly available curate preserve
- 6. Repository content all sorts… but most “academic” focus currently on scholarly publications learning objects research data
- 7. Repository content all sorts… but most “academic” focus currently on scholarly publications learning objects research data this talk focuses on the first of these, but with the intention that most of what I say will be generic
- 8. Repository architecture largely institutional focus though some exceptions – arXiv, RePEC, JORUM, etc. interoperability through centralised aggregators (national and global) search services (OAIster, Intute, …) registries (DOAR, ROAR, …) harvesting metadata about content using OAI-PMH (metadata = simple Dublin Core) content = PDF SWORD as deposit API
- 9. What’s “wrong” with where we are now? what’s “ wrong ” with where we are now?
- 10. #1 We talk about “repositories”…
- 11. …rather than “the Web” a focus on ‘ making content available on the Web’ would be more intuitive to researchers
- 12. Whatever happened to the CMS? a focus on ‘ content management ’ would change our emphasis OAI-PMH out… search engine optimisation, usability, accessibility, Web design, tagging, information architecture, cool URIs in…
- 13. #2 We don’t emphasise… Google indexing RSS feeds widget technology – embedding functionality into other sites
- 14. #3 Our focus is on sharing metadata… … even though we have full-text to share worse… the full-text we share tends to be PDF rather than native Web format the Web equivalent of a cul de sac and the metadata we share tends to be “simple Dublin Core” little consistency in approaches to describing ‘files’ vs. ‘documents’ little consistency in naming authors and subjects ultimately, it is both too simple and too complex!
- 15. #4 We ignore the Web Architecture we have tended to adopt service oriented approaches in line with long tradition from Z39.50 to SOAP/WSDL e.g. JISC eFramework focus is on building “services on content” rather than on the “content” pbo31 @ flickr
- 16. REST is good we don’t tend to adopt a resource oriented approach we don’t adopt REST – an architectural style with a focus on resources, their identifiers (e.g. URIs), and a simple uniform set of operations that each resource supports (e.g. GET, PUT, POST, DELETE) we don’t encourage a Web style “follow your nose” approach
- 17. #5 We are antisocial… … at least, we tend to treat “content” in isolation from the “social networks” that need to grow around that content successful “repositories” (Flickr, YouTube, Slideshare, etc.) promote the social activity that takes place around content as well as the content management and disclosure activity friends, groups, social tagging, comments, embedding, re-purposing, etc.
- 18. But not just about functionality… the institutional approach has fundamental mismatch with the real-life social networks adopted by researchers subject-based cross-institutional global while institutional approach is good from perspective of institutional management, preservation, etc. globally “concentrated” repositories might better reflect the social networks that need to arise
- 19. The net effect… … is that there is no net effect repositories remain uncompelling places to disclose scholarly publications from POV of the researcher perceived cost of deposit remains higher than perceived benefits we resort to institutional or funder mandates, “thou shalt deposit”, to fill what would otherwise remain empty
- 20. Wait just a minute… didn’t we used to have globally “concentrated” repository services? arXiv – the first Web 2.0 service? invented before the Web unfortunately, also invented before Amazon S3 i.e. before we knew how to scale things
- 21. Wait just another minute… … doesn’t the blogsphere successfully layer a set of globally concentrated services over a distributed network of content? e.g. Technorati yes… but… the content is under the control of ‘individuals’ rather than ‘institutions’, and… the interoperability “glue” (RSS and tagging) is very lightweight and RESTful
- 22. Having the conversation is hard highly political space strong “open access” voices who, understandably, don’t want their agenda de-railed by discussion about preservation search engine optimisation Web 2.0 social networks semantic Web the future of peer review it can be hard to get the conversation started
- 23. What can we do about it? what can we do about it?
- 24. Things can go two ways… I think that things can go two ways… The Web 2.0 Way or The Semantic Web Way … possibly both
- 25. Things can go two ways… what would a Web 2.0 repository look like?
- 26. Like this?
- 27. A Web 2.0 repository? high-quality browser-based document viewer (not Acrobat!) tagging, commentary, more-like-this, favorites, … persistent (cool) URIs to content ability to form simple social groups ability to embed documents in other Web sites high visibility to Google offer RSS as primary API use of Amazon S3 to cope with scalability
- 28. In short… we go “simple” we develop simple(ish) repositories and complex aggregators and search engines RSS/Atom as primary “glue” social tagging as “description” full-text indexing microformats Google Sitemaps to guide harvesters to content complex functional requirements (e.g. author disambiguation) either ignored or met thru complexity in aggregators
- 29. Alternatively… we go “complex” …we look to the Semantic Web we create and share much richer metadata about scholarly publications than we do currently we explicitly model complexity (a la FRBR) and aggregations we expose resulting metadata thru the SW “graph”
- 30. We go “complex”... SWAP and ORE
- 31. We go “complex”… SWAP – Scholarly Works Application Profile an application of the Dublin Core Abstract Model and Application Profiles capturing relationships between works, expressions, manifestations, items and agents ORE – OAI Object Re-use and Exchange capturing relationships between aggregations and aggregated resources note that ORE not tied to specific entity in FRBR note that ORE implemented as profile of Atom
- 32. SWAP application profile model ScholarlyWork Expression 0..∞ isExpressedAs Manifestation isManifestedAs 0..∞ Copy isAvailableAs 0..∞ 0..∞ 0..∞ isCreatedBy isPublishedBy 0..∞ isEditedBy 0..∞ isFundedBy isSupervisedBy AffiliatedInstitution Agent
- 33. OAI ORE
- 34. Summary what can we learn from Web 2.0? user interface design matters global ‘concentration’ is an enabler of social interaction simple DC is both too simple and too complex richer DC application profiles such as SWAP and/or RDF applications like ORE may be a way forward but need to ensure that their use does not over-complicate user interfaces and workflows
- 35. A new vision? a new vision?
- 36. Flickr and digital cameras… didn’t just take the practice of photography and put it on the Web they fundamentally changed what photography was about
- 37. What’s our vision? the standards we adopt in the scholarly communication space… OAI-PMH, OpenURL, DOI, PDF, … are primarily about replicating in a Web world what we have always done on paper this is not surprising given the necessary inertia of the scholarly communication life-cycle but… do we need to re-envision scholarly communication as a true Web process? if so, what would a repository look like?
- 38. thank you