A vision of the future: ReStoring online resources

1. A vision of the future: ReStoring online resources David Martin and Kaisa Puustinen ESRC National Centre for Research Methods, University of Southampton

2. Overview • Explain the rationale for ReStore, what it is and what it isn’t • Explain how it is intended to work • Suggest relevance to audience for this presentation

3. Why do we need 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

4. Why ReStore? • Repository for online resources • Restoring quality and utility • Promoting accessibility • Sustainable service identity

5. Relationship to NCRM • A separately funded activity of the NCRM hub team at Southampton • Developed in response to needs identified by RMP/NCRM • Not necessarily or irrevocably an NCRM function – but stylistic connection

6. 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

7. 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

8. 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

13. 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

14. 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?

15. 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

16. 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

17. ReStoration • Limited funding for updating and maintenance of sites by original authors or ReStore team • Confirmation and sign-off of IPR issues • Resources taken on by ReStore for initial period • Indexing and promotion by ReStore team • Redirection from original location

18. How ReStore may be relevant to you • Contribute online resources from relevant ESRC projects • Take advantage of online resources that will be available through ReStore • Raise the awareness of current award holders regarding online resource development issues • Contribute to strategy development, ultimately for ESRC

19. Questions are very welcome