ReStore: A sustainable web resources

repositoryArshad A. Khan

National Centre for Research Methods

www.restore.ac.uk

Overview

• Explain the rationale for ReStore, what it is and what it isn’t

• Explain how it is intended to work

• ReStore & restored resources site demo

• Hopes for today’s workshop

• Questions

Why do we need to ReStore?• ESRC investments producing online resources

• Completed near to end of project funding

• Often of great practical value, but immediately begin to decay– Dated content (broken links - new ideas)– Changed technical environment

• Lack of maintenance/visibility

Why ReStore?

• Repository for online resources

• Restoring quality and utility

• Promoting accessibility

• Sustainable service identity

• Being implemented by NCRM

Aims of the project• Build a prototype service for sustaining online

resources• Focus on research methods initiatives

– RMP, NCRM, RDI, QMI

• Lead development of an ESRC strategy for the longer term

• A “working experiment” with immediate practical benefits

Not aims of the project

• A static web archive

• A continuation funding model for completed projects

• A research methods advice service

• A document repository

• A virtual learning environment

Basic approach• 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

Selection of resources for review• Significant online content: not just project

sites or documents• Initial demonstrator resources• Main phase – aim of working with suitable

RMP, RDI, NCRM, QMI resources that are not being maintained – via programme directors

• Mature phase – perhaps triggered by end of awards?

Review process• 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

Consideration of reviews

• Collaboration with resource authors

• Funding to pay for commissioned reviews

• ReStore team assessment of work required

• Recommendations considered by advisory committee

Possible outcomes• Accept resource into ReStore, subject to

package of work – by author and/or ReStore

• Identify most appropriate deposition elsewhere

• Resource not suitable for ReStore– Still under active development– Other maintenance options preferable– Insufficient quality– Work required exceeds resources available

Known issues• IPR framework – authorship/ownership• Technical infrastructures• Sustainability – how many? how long?

– Alternative outcomes

• Need guidance on future resource development for maximum sustainability

• Need developing ESRC strategy on sustaining online resources

ReStore site overview

• Navigation, layout and sitemap• Web resource site navigation• Finding specific resource• Resources mock-up in ReStore repository• Technical resource deposition implementation

GEO-REFER resource within ReStore

repository

PEAS resource within ReStore

repository

PEAS>Level1 within ReStore

repository

To be installed/configured

Currently serving

An overview of technical implementation involving the current hardware infrastructure and the proposed one as per future resource requirements

What are we currently doing?

• Developing policies, procedures and website

• Working on initial demonstrator resources• Awareness-raising - Open Repositories

Conference, RMF, advisory groups, today’s workshop

• Consulting on strategic needs and directions

Hopes for today’s workshop

• Inform delegates from relevant projects

• Explain the purpose of the project and raise awareness of the issues

• Identify additional resources for inclusion!

Any questions please?