R e Store : A sustainable web resources repository

1. ReStore: A sustainable web resources repository Arshad A. Khan National Centre for Research Methods www.restore.ac.uk

2. 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 Overview

3. 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 do we need to ReStore?

4. Repository for online resources Restoring quality and utility Promoting accessibility Sustainable service identity Being implemented by NCRM Why ReStore?

5. 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 Aims of the project

6. A static web archive A continuation funding model for completed projects A research methods advice service A document repository A virtual learning environment Not aims of the project

7. 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 Basic approach

8. 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? Selection of resources for review

9. 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 Review process

11. Collaboration with resource authors Funding to pay for commissioned reviews ReStore team assessment of work required Recommendations considered by advisory committee Consideration of reviews

12. 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 Possible outcomes

13. 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 Known issues

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

20. GEO-REFER resource within ReStore repository

21. PEAS resource within ReStore repository

22. PEAS>Level1 within ReStore repository

23. An overview of technical implementation involving the current hardware infrastructure and the proposed one as per future resource requirements Currently serving To be installed/configured

24. 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 What are we currently doing?

25. Inform delegates from relevant projects Explain the purpose of the project and raise awareness of the issues Identify additional resources for inclusion! Hopes for today’s workshop

26. Any questions please?