Institutional Repositories and geospatial data : the GRADE survey

1
Institutional Repositories and geospatial data
the GRADE survey

• Pauline Simpson
• National Oceanography Centre, Southampton
• GRADE Project Meeting 30 Oct 2006

2
Overview

• Work Package 4
• Survey
• Results
• SWOT
• Conclusions

3
WP 4 scoping the role of institutional
repositories for geospatial data

• Predetermined views
• Audit
• SWOT
• Recommendations on geospatial data management
  within institutional repositories

4
What is the real GRADE question?

• IRs and Datasets with geospatial attributes
• Data numeric, imagery, graphic etc
• IR versus Subject IRs (project poster feedback
  on SWOT analysis)

5
Survey Jan Mar 2006
6
Survey

• Call GRADE Partners JISC Repositories SHERPA
  List American Scientist every UK Repository
  listed in ROAR
• 35 Responses
• 24 x UK Uni 7 x Overseas 2 x data centres 1
  x Research Council anon
• Low
• I confess I thought twice about filling in the
  questionnaire originally as it was so specific
  and sounded vaguely scary!(now I've done it
  again, I remember I definitely did fill it in
  last time). So I guess the specificity of the
  topic may account for the low response
• Question formulation
• Is your repository publicly available, if not who
  are your depositors and users?

7
Survey Responses

• Handout discussion
• Software used
• Majority either EPrints or DSPace
• Accept geospatial datasets
• ? Possibly answering for datasets per se
• IRs treatment of geospatial data
• Too busy with publications
• Discussed as future activity
• Not really been offered any
• Software not designed
• No special metadata fields
• Long Term access
• Acknowledgement of preservation needs
• Repository was first step
• No guidance at present

8
IR Software

• DSpace overtly publicises treatment of datasets
• EPrints does not
• anecdote
• GRADE Demonstrator Repository DSpace
• Why not EPrints?

9
Through close collaboration with key players in
the oil and gas industry, the "Scientific and
Environmental ROV Partnership using Existing
iNdustrial Technology" (SERPENT) project aims to
make cutting-edge ROV technology and data more
accessible to the world's science community,
sharing knowledge and progressing deep-sea
research. The programme will interact with
science and conservation groups globally and
transparently communicate our project to the
public to increase the awareness of our fragile
marine resources
10
Very different metadata fields - non Dublin Core
11
(No Transcript)
12
6. Generally, do you think that archiving and
providing access to research data is something
institutions (institutional repositories) should
do or specialist data centres?

• Depends on the dataset
• Role for both, not mutually exclusive
• Specialist data centres have the skills
• In the absence of a data centre IRs provide
  institutional level archive
• Showcase for all research
• It does not matter who does it as long as it is
  done

13
SWOT analysis

• Should Institutional Repositories have a role in
  geospatial data ?
• What are the
• Strengths
• Weaknesses
• Opportunities
• Threats
• (handout)

14
IR as a Data Archive vs Data Centre

• Storage
• Preservation
• Metadata
• Visibility?
• Dataset integrity

• Storage
• Preservation
• Metadata
• Visibility ?
• Data disaggregated
• Quality control
• Information products

15
SWOT - Strengths

• One repository less admin overhead
• Linking text, dataset, images easier
• Showcase for all institutional research
• IR Software - Open Access interoperability -
  visibility
• International Standards
• Metadata skills from Information community
• Dataset citation
• Citation analysis, personal promotion

16
SWOT - Weaknesses

• Software not designed to cope with data
  additional metadata parameters required eg
  geospatial data location coordinates,
  instrument etc
• No IR metadata schema for data
• IR staff without Data Processing skills
• IRs do not quality control content
• Production of information products?
• Storage Preservation (all media types)
• OA culture not yet extended to data altho OEDC,
  EU etc. Some Research Councils mandate deposit
  of data from funded research into designated data
  centres.

17
SWOT - Opportunities

• Offers a data archive (where non exists)
• Treats orphan dataset not accepted by DCs
• Expansion of IR staff skills
• Showcase in one digital repository of all
  research output
• Mandate for datasets also
• Integration joined up research
• Funding e-Research
• Data citation model
• Data and Information communities working together
• Dataset harvesting from IRs to data centres

18
SWOT - Threats

• Turf war
• Will funding follow will funding stream for
  data reduce?
• Too large an undertaking for IR
• Data lost in publication bucket
• Thematic datasets distributed
• No migration/preservation
• Datasets fall between stools

19
Conclusions

• IRs are not dealing with geospatial data
• but not adverse to try
• IR Software not specifically designed for data
• but demonstrators show it can cope but
• IRs could operate as a Data Archive
• but questions re funding
• Where there are thematic Designated Data Centres
  these should be the repository of choice
• Orphan datasets not accepted by DDCs should be
  deposited into an IR
• to ensure preservation and visibility
• Ultimate goal is that datasets are permanently
  visible and available Data Centres and IRs both
  have a role - should work together.

20
Thanks

• Pauline Simpson
• ps_at_noc.soton.ac.uk