talat chaudhri: relevant content on this site

Researcher ID Task and Finish Group

Talat Chaudhri — Mon, 20 Jun 2011 15:42:00 +0000

The first meeting of the Researcher Identifiers Task and Finish Group was highly successful and productive because it kept a tight focus on developing an achievable, clearly articulated body of work and developing a process and timescale for the series of meetings that will inform this process and the commissioning and delivery of the reports that the discussions will continue to inform, round until January 2012.

The aim of the first meeting was to agree set of recommendations and collective requirements for Researcher IDs, decide on who else should form a part of future discussions, and decide on the precise scope and limits that the discussions and commissioned work should stay within. At the end of the discussions and after the conclusions of the reports and consultations, it is intended that the JISC should be in a position to commission a number of clearly defined pieces of work to begin implementation of the recommendations of the group.

The first decision was that only researcher identifiers, not institutional identifiers as well, should be considered as part of this work. The initial discussion reached agreement that, although crucial to many or most areas of research information management, the scope had to remain tighter during the limited time frame of these meetings in order to achieve concrete results rapidly. The question of when a person becomes a researcher for the purposes of the many and varied business processes in the UK HE sector is a complex one, and there was considerable discussion around this point. It was agreed that the work needed to concentrate specifically on the UK HE research information management regime, although it needed to be informed by international developments where that was relevant and appropriate to the UK context.

Many different business processes within universities in the UK HE sector were discussed, including but not limited to pre- and post-award grant management, research reporting, publications management, human resources for research and teaching, student monitoring including postgraduate records, statutory requirements such as Freedom of Information, league tables and government targets, and government open data initiatives. The tension between the needs and professional preferences of the researcher in maintaining control over their information and those of the institution in effectively carrying out these processes across multiple disciplines and departments at a managed, institutional level was a recurring theme in the discussions.

There was a focus on the need for technical interoperability with existing systems, in particular on linked data initiatives, especially where that concerns research data sets. The discussion identified several well known researcher ID schemes such as ORCID, HESA IDs and the 16 digit ISNI number. It was agreed that all of these discussions between stakeholders should be documented as a starting point. Suggestions were taken for which stakeholders were not yet present and who should therefore be invited, and it was agreed in particular that HEFCE needed to be represented in some way, whether or not they would actually commit senior staff time to be represented at the meetings directly. It was also suggested that a representative of the Wellcome Trust could be invited.

In summary, Neil Jacobs stated the overall modus operandi and aims of the group as follows:

The group will meet 5-6 times to develop recommendations.
All apart from the first and last meetings will be virtual meetings using Skype, telephone conference or an alternative technology if appropriate.
The dates of these meetings were to be set out at the end of the meeting (see below), following the discussions about the recommended work packages.
The group will be presented with pre-existing reports, e.g. ORCID and the Names Project, and these groups will be continuously consulted on the basis of feedback from the meetings, in a manner to be established as the need arises. For example, there will be a workshop at the end of the month to outline opportunities in identity management, from which a short briefing will be delivered to the group.
The stakeholders will faciliate discussion and provide information to the group.
Case studies will be used to map out the individual pieces of work that might be done to inform about options, risks, benefits in setting up an identifier infrastructure.
At the end of 6 months the recommendations that can be implemented on the basis of these discussions will be in place.
The final report in January 2011 will take a longer term view: there is no expectation that the infrastructure itself will be in place by then. This will be part of subsequent work and will come out of the recommendations that will be in place by then.

David Flanders then gave a brief summary of developments in the Names Project project, followed by brief summaries given by Brian Kelly of the current state of the ORCID project, and the work on the Technical Foundations (Talat Chaudhri) and ISKB (Thom Bunting) web sites, services and processes being developed by UKOLN staff.

The rest of the meeting was largely devoted to focussed discussions of the required nature and scope of the work packages that had been suggested in the actions from the discussions in the preceding half of the meeting, for which the group separated into two groups and then came back together to discuss and synthesise their findings.

In summary, Neil Jacobs reiterated the need to remain aware of milestones outside of this work, e.g. the REF outline in July 2011 and the final specification in January 2012, as well as JES milestones, in order to avoid being caught out by those developments.The meeting was happy with the provisional shape of the work packages recommended to the JISC for commissioning in order to inform the ongoing series of meetings. Josh Brown agreed to prepare a timeline, and that he, Neil Jacobs and David Flanders will report back at the next meeting once these actions have been carried out.

Finally, dates were agreed for the entire series of meetings. Very considerable progress was made during the meeting in a very short space of time, which was hard but rewarding work that proceeded from an initial position of quite general and all-encompassing discussions in the the area of research management and unique identifiers to a clear, scoped and planned series of provisional work packages and processes for their co-ordination with the ongoing meetings of the group.

Practical metadata solutions using application profiles

Talat Chaudhri — Wed, 08 Jun 2011 13:46:43 +0000

Until now, a number of application profiles have been developed by various metadata experts, with the support of the JISC, with the intention of addressing the needs of practitioners and service providers (and thus ultimately their users) across the higher education sector in the UK. The most significant of these have been aimed at particular resource types that have an impact across the sector.

Their names indicate the approach that has been taken to date, e.g.:

SWAP - Scholarly Works Application Profile
IAP - Images Application Profile
GAP - Geospatial Application Profile
LMAP - Learning Materials Application Profile (scoping study only: also the DC Education AP)
SDAPSS - Scientific Data Application Profile Scoping Study
TBMAP - Time-Based Media Application Profile

Problems with this approach

However, it cannot be said that a particular type of resource type, set of resource types, or even general subject domain actually constitutes a real, identified problem space that faces large sections of the information community in the UK higher education sector today. Geospatial resources can be any type of resources that have location metadata attached (e.g. place of creation, location as the subject of the resource). Learning materials can be any type of resource that has been created or re-purposed for educational uses, which can include presentations, academic papers, purpose-made educational resources of many types, images, or indeed almost anything else that could be used in an educational context, to which metadata describing that particular use or re-use has been attached. Images might have all sorts of different types of metadata: for instance, metadata about images of herbs might need very different metadata to images of architecture. The same applies to time-based media: what is the purpose of these recordings and what are they used for? why and how will people search for them? Likewise, the type of science in question, of which there are almost innumerable categories and sub-categories, will to a large extent determine the specific metadata that will be useful for describing scientific data. Of all of the above, only scholarly works, which might more usefully be called scholarly publications, are an entirely focussed, specific set of resource types with a common purpose. The others are loose and sometimes ill-defined collections of resources or resource types that fit into a particular conceptual category. Only in the case of scholarly publications is there an unspoken problem space: discovery and re-use in repositories and similar systems, usually but not exclusively as Open Access resources. There are other related problem spaces such as keeping accurate information about funders and projects for the purposes of auditing that is required by funding bodies and university authorities. The ability to access these resources with new technologies could be a further area of study, and is one that UKOLN is taking an active interest in. Again, the question must be "what do users want to do with these resources?"

Current Approaches

It must not be said that the work in creating the application profiles mentioned above has been wasted. At the same time, the above application profiles constitute general purpose solutions that do not target specific problems affecting identifiable communities of practice across the sector. There is considerable work continuing in Dublin Core Metadata Initiative (DCMI) circles on how metadata modelling should best be carried out, for instance on the Dublin Core Abstract Model (DCAM) and on the overlap between application profiles and linked data, where those application profiles contain relationships that can better enable resource discovery in a linked data world.

New Approaches

These approaches remain useful. However, more immediate, specific problem spaces face particular university services (not all of which are necessarily repositories) in trying to describe resources so that they can be discovered, providing copyright and other licensing information so that they can be re-used, providing funding information so that work can be audited and cases can be constructed for funding new projects, and so on. Some of these resources may be textual, but others are increasingly including images (of many types and for many purposes), music, film, audio recordings, learning objects of many types, and large scale corpora of data. Any metadata solution that is tailored to a particular purpose (and, thus, which is usually de facto an application profile) needs to address specific aspects of the Web services that practitioners and other service providers are seeking to develop for their users, not simply provide general catch-all metadata of relatively generic use. Key to all this is consultation with those communities: first, to scope the most significant two or three problem spaces that face the largest number of resource providers in serving their users; second, to get those practitioners together with developers to draw up practical, workable recommendations and perhaps demonstrations; third, to provide tangible evidence to the developers of existing software platforms, and to engage with them to help solve such problems in practice. To do this, it is necessary to engage practitioners and deverlopers in practical, hands-on activities that can bring the discussion forward and provide tangible solutions.

What is ePub (and why does it matter for metadata and application profiles)?

Talat Chaudhri — Wed, 08 Jun 2011 13:35:57 +0000

ePub is a standard packaging format designed for ebook readers. Why is ePub of interest from the point of view of metadata and application profiles?

Here is the definition given in the entry in Wikipedia:

[...] ePub [...] is a free and open e-book standard by the International Digital Publishing Forum (IDPF). Files have the extension .epub. EPUB is designed for reflowable content, meaning that the text display can be optimized for the particular display device used by the reader of the EPUB-formatted book. The format is meant to function as a single format that publishers and conversion houses can use in-house, as well as for distribution and sale.

That is to say that ePub contains within it the Open Packaging Format (for convenience, we can ignore the other structural parts for the purposes of this discussion), which defines the structure of both the metadata for the item contained within the file and the presentational (XML, XHMTL, CSS) elements of the standard. It is similar in many ways to a .docx file (MS Word 2007 onwards) in being effectively a specialised type of .zip file.

So why is ePub of interest from the point of view of metadata and application profiles? The IDPF's Open Packaging Format gives this description:

Dublin Core metadata is designed to minimize the cataloging burden on authors and publishers, while providing enough metadata to be useful. This specification supports the set of Dublin Core 1.1 metadata elements (http://dublincore.org/documents/2004/12/20/dces/), supplemented with a small set of additional attributes addressing areas where more specific information is useful. For example, the OPF role attribute added to the Dublin Core creator and contributor elements allows for much more detailed specification of contributors to a publication, including their roles expressed via relator codes. Content providers must include a minimum set of metadata elements, defined in Section 2.2, and should incorporate additional metadata to enable readers to discover publications of interest.

In which case, how is the metadata contained within ePub any different to Dublin Core 1.1? This is the interesting part:

Because the Dublin Core metadata fields for creator and contributor do not distinguish roles of specific contributors (such as author, editor, and illustrator), this specification adds an optional role attribute for this purpose. See Section 2.2.6 for a discussion of role. To facilitate machine processing of Dublin Core creator and contributor fields, this specification adds the optional file-as attribute for those elements. This attribute is used to specify a normalized form of the contents. See Section 2.2.2 for a discussion of file-as. This specification also adds a scheme attribute to the Dublin Core identifier element to provide a structural mechanism to separate an identifier value from the system or authority that generated or defined that identifier value. See Section 2.2.10 for a discussion of scheme. This specification also adds an event attribute to the Dublin Core date element to enable content providers to distinguish various publication specific dates (for example, creation, publication, modification). See Section 2.2.7 for a discussion of event.

Using these addition attributes, it is possible to define more accurately what certain fields contain, a standard, normalised format for agent metadata such as personal names, schemes defining the format in which a particular field is expected to appear, identifiers to provide a mechanism to link that metadata to the generating system or authority, and events to describe more accurately the events that have occurred during the life cycle of the item. By applying such constraints that are beyond the scope of DC 1.1, the ePub format effectively contains a de facto application profile, identified by its own namespace. Further, ad hoc metadata can be added using the (X)HTML meta element:

One or more optional instances of a meta element, analogous to the XHTML 1.1 meta element but applicable to the publication as a whole, may be placed within the metadata element [...]. This allows content providers to express arbitrary metadata beyond the data described by the Dublin Core specification. Individual OPS Content Documents may include the meta element directly (as in XHTML 1.1) for document-specific metadata. This specification uses the OPF Package Document alone as the basis for expressing publication-level Dublin Core metadata.

It would seem, however, that this last option suffers from the weakness that such metadata is invented on the fly, and does not have to follow the constraints of any schema or authority. Nonetheless, it would seem overall that the ePub "application profile" does significantly add to the functionality DC 1.1 in a potentially useful way. Different types of agent defined in DC, such as creator, contributor, can be further defined, for example author, editor, illustrator and thesis supervisor for higher degrees. Potentially, this could be leveraged for use with a number of different types of resources and for various purposes, although ePub by it's very nature is designed for reflowable content, which by and large means textual resources such as books, articles, manuals and so on. Illustrations, tables, charts, images and other non-reflowable content can potentially create a problem on the small screens of mobile devices such as ebook readers. The structure of this application profile is very simple and easy to use, unlike for example the classic form of SWAP, whose structure is based directly upon its conceptual data model, a simplified version of FRBR. It would be extremely interesting to compare the two, since they are fundamentally similar, relatively simple solutions that are limited in scope to online publications and similar resources. It would be most revealing to see whether what SWAP seeks to achieve can be done in a simpler way, and whether either SWAP or the ePub application profile have functionality that the other cannot provide. Ultimately, the purpose of this investigation could be to provide online textual content, for example in repositories, via increasingly popular hand-held devices, and to capitalise on the rapid growth of commercial ebooks. It would probably be necessary to provide .epub files in such systems as well as the usual .pdf and .doc(x) formats that are common in publishing, and consequently in institutional repositories. Either this would need to be done by converting the existing content, and likewise new content after it is deposited, or in addition by providing tools to enable the ePub format to be more immediately accessible to service providers and depositors in future.