Wheeler & Benedict -- Enabling the Preservation Relay
1 like821 views
The document discusses the role of data repositories and their integration within institutional frameworks, emphasizing the importance of value-added services and collaboration among stakeholders. It presents the gstore system as a case study for managing geospatial and non-geospatial data within the U.S. national spatial data infrastructure, highlighting requirements for effective data management. Additionally, it addresses metadata, copyright, and migration considerations for data curation and sharing.
Wheeler & Benedict -- Enabling the Preservation Relay
- 1. Enabling the Preservation Relay: Interoperable Repository Architectures J O N W H E E L E R J W H E E L 0 1 @ U N M . E D U K A R L B E N E D I C T K B E N E @ U N M . E D U U N I V E RS I T Y O F N E W M E X I C O C O L L E G E O F U N I V E R S I T Y L I B R A R I E S A N D L E A R N I N G S C I E N C E S
- 2. Background Data Management and Institutional Repository Service Drivers ◦ Data repositories as stakeholders in contrast with individuals as stakeholders ◦ Collections in contrast with individual items ◦ How do we add value (or maintain added value) to previously published data? Scope, Cost, and Service Models ◦ Organizational priorities & sustainability ◦ Complementary roles for institutional and data repositories
- 6. Case Study: GSToRE Geographic Storage, Transformation, and Retrieval Engine ◦ Part of the US National Spatial Data Infrastructure (NSDI) ◦ Underlying platform for the NM Resource Geographic Information System (NM RGIS), the NM NSF EPSCoR Program’s Data Portal, and the data hub for a second multi-state NSF EPSCoR environmental modeling project Requirements & Capabilities ◦ Integration with external discovery and access services ◦ Support for diverse geospatial and non-geospatial data types ◦ Standards based, tiered RESTful Services Oriented Architecture (SOA) No Explicit Focus on Long-term Archival Storage • Emphasis on value-added services • Data management best practices
- 8. GSToRE Replication and Repository API Initial experimentation with harvest via standard search, metadata and data retrieval API (production services) ◦ Enables search and retrieval of data and metadata elements for all data in GSToRE ◦ Processed GSToRE items not identified by GSToRE Experimental Repository API ◦ Enables “flagging” of individual data objects in GSToRE as harvest targets for one or more repositories – e.g. Data.gov, DataONE, LoboVault/DigitalRepository.unm.edu ◦ Enables explicit specification of harvest intention by GSToRE ◦ Intended as an interface for middleware processes
- 9. Overview of a Migration Source Repositories as Stakeholders ◦ Communication, roles, and responsibilities ◦ Copyright, use, and access requirements Collections and Items ◦ Which data to transfer? ◦ Metadata requirements ◦ Collection & Disciplinary context ◦ Repository context ◦ Item context ◦ Content and format requirements Evolving the Conceptual Model into Practical Strategies ◦ Revisiting the GSToRE harvest prototype for Sevilleta LTER data
- 10. Harvest
- 12. Bibliography 1. Baker, Karen S, and Florence Millerand. “Infrastructuring Ecology: Challenges in Achieving Data Sharing.” Collaboration in the New Life Sciences. Ashgate.(To Be Published in 2010), 2010. 2. Baker, Karen S., and Lynn Yarmey. “Data Stewardship: Environmental Data Curation and a Web-of-Repositories.” International Journal of Digital Curation 4, no. 2 (October 15, 2009): 12–27. doi:10.2218/ijdc.v4i2.90. 3. “Certification and Assessment of Digital Repositories | CRL.” Accessed December 5, 2016. https://www.crl.edu/archiving-preservation/digital-archives/certification-assessment. 4. Consultative Committee for Space Data Systems. “Recommended Standard for Producer-Archive Interface Specification (PAIS),” February 2014. https://public.ccsds.org/Pubs/651x1b1.pdf. 5. ———. “Reference Model for an Open Archival Information System (OAIS), Recommended Practice,” 2012. 6. Conway, Esther, David Giaretta, Simon Lambert, and Brian Matthews. “Curating Scientific Research Data for the Long Term: A Preservation Analysis Method in Context.” International Journal of Digital Curation 6, no. 2 (2011): 38–52. 7. Conway, Esther, Brian Matthews, David Giaretta, Simon Lambert, Michael Wilson, and Nick Draper. “Managing Risks in the Preservation of Research Data with Preservation Networks.” International Journal of Digital Curation 7, no. 1 (March 12, 2012): 3–15. doi:10.2218/ijdc.v7i1.210. 8. “Data Seal of Approval Management.” Accessed December 5, 2016. https://assessment.datasealofapproval.org/. 9. Janée, Greg, Justin Mathena, and James Frew. “A Data Model and Architecture for Long-Term Preservation.” In Proceedings of the 8th ACM/IEEE-CS Joint Conference on Digital Libraries, 134–144. ACM, 2008. 10. Key Perspectives Ltd. “Data Dimensions: Disciplinary Differences in Research Data Sharing, Reuse and Long Term Viability. SCARP Synthesis Study.” Digital Curation Center, 2010. http://hdl.handle.net/1842/3364 11. Ray, Joyce M. Research Data Management: Practical Strategies for Information Professionals. West Lafayette, Indiana: Purdue University Press, 2014. 12. “re3data.org | Registry of Research Data Repositories.” Accessed December 6, 2016. http://www.re3data.org/. 13. Treloar, Andrew, David Groenewegen, and Cathrine Harboe-Ree. “The Data Curation Continuum: Managing Data Objects in Institutional Repositories.” D-Lib Magazine 13, no. 9 (2007): 4.