Posts Tagged ‘events’

What did it cost and who benefits?

Posted on July 27th, 2011 by Paul Stainthorp

This is going to be one of the hardest project blog posts to write…

The costs of getting Jerome to this stage are relatively easy to work out. Under the Infrastructure for Resource Discovery programme, JISC awarded us the sum of £36,585 which (institutional overheads aside) we used to pay for the following:

  • Developer staff time: 825 hours over six months.
  • Library and project staff time: 250 hours over six months.
  • The cost of travel to a number of programme events and relevant conferences at which we presented Jerome, including this one, this one, this one, this one and this one.

As all the other aspects of Jerome—hardware, software etc.—either already existed or were free to use, that figure represents the total cost of getting Jerome to its current state.

The benefits (see also section 2.4 of the original bid) of Jerome are less easily quantified financially, but we ought to consider these operational benefits:

1. The potential for using Jerome as a ‘production’ resource discovery system by the University of Lincoln. As such it could replace our current OPAC web catalogue as the Library’s primary public tool of discovery. The Library ought also to consider Jerome as a viable alternative to the purchase of a commercial, hosted next-generation resource discovery service (which it is currently reviewing), with the potential for replacing the investment it would make in such a system with investment in developer time to maintain and extend Jerome. In addition, the Common Web Design (on which the Jerome search portal is based) is inherently mobile-friendly.

2. Related: even if the Jerome search portal is not adopted in toto, there’s real potential for using Jerome’s APIs and code (open sourced) to enhance our existing user interfaces (catalogues, student portals, etc.) by ‘hacking in’ additional useful data and services via Jerome (similar to the Talis Juice service). This could lead to cost savings: a modern OPAC would not have to be developed in isolation or tools bought in. And these enhancements are as available to other institutions and libraries as much as to Lincoln.

3. The use of Jerome as an operational tool for checking and sanitising bibliographic data. Jerome can already be used to generate lists of ‘bad’ data (e.g. invalid ISBNs in MARC records); this intelligence could be fed back into the Library to make the work of cataloguers, e-resources admin staff, etc., easier and faster (efficiency savings) and again to improve the user experience.

4. Benefits of Open Data: in releasing our bibliographic collections openly Jerome is adding to the UK’s academic resource discovery ‘ecosystem‘, with benefits to scholarly activity both in Lincoln and elsewhere. We are already working with the COMET team at Cambridge University Library on a cross-Fens spin-off miniproject(!) to share data, code, and best practices around handling Open Data. Related to this are the ‘fuzzier’ benefits of associating the University of Lincoln’s name with innovation in technology for education (which is a stated aim in the University’s draft institutional strategy).

5. Finally, there is the potential for the university to use Jerome as a platform for future development: Jerome already sits in a ‘suite’ of interconnecting innovative institutional web services (excuse the unintentional alliteration!) which include the Common Web Design presentation framework, Total ReCal space/time data, lncn.eu URL shortener and link proxy, a university-wide open data platform, and the Nucleus data storage layer. Just as each of these (notionally separate) services has facilitated the development of all the others, so it’s likely that Jerome will itself act as a catalyst for further innovation.

An elastic bucket down the data well (#rdtf in Manchester)

Posted on April 20th, 2011 by Paul Stainthorp

I was in Manchester on Monday for Opening Data – Opening Doors, a one-day “advocacy workshop” hosted by JISC and RLUK under their Resource Discovery Taskforce (#rdtf) programme. I delivered a five-minute ‘personal pitch’ about Jerome, open data, and the rapid-development ethos that’s developing at Lincoln.

Ken Chad is writing up a report from the day and Helen Harrop is producing a blog, both of which will be signposted from the website: http://rdtf.mimas.ac.uk/

The big data question

All the presentations can be viewed on slideshare, but there were some particular moments that I think are worth picking out:

The JISC deputy, Prof. David Baker was first up. His presentation, ‘A Vision for Resource Discovery‘ should be compulsory reading for university librarians. See, in particular, slides #6 (guiding principles of the RDTF), #8 (a future state of the art by 2012), and #11 (key themes).

Slide from David Baker's presentation Slide from David Baker's presentation Slide from David Baker's presentation

Following this introduction, there were three ‘perspectives’, short presentations “reflecting on the real world motivations and efforts involved in opening up bibliographic, archival and museums data to the wider world”: from the National Maritime Museum, the National Archives

…and from Ed Chamberlain of (Jerome’s ‘sister project‘) COMET (Cambridge Open METadata), the perspective from Cambridge University Library on opening up access to their non-inconsiderable bibliographic data. N.B. slides #4 (what does COMET entail?), #9 (licensing) and—more than anything else—slide #16 (“beyond bibliography”).

Slide from Ed Chamberlain's presentation Slide from Ed Chamberlain's presentation Slide from Ed Chamberlain's presentation

The first breakout/discussion session which I sat in on looked at technical and licencing constraints to opening up access to [bib] data. This was the point at which the tortured business metaphors started to pile up. ‘Buckets’ of data. ‘Elastic’ buckets that can expand to include any kind of data. And (my personal contribution, continuing the wet theme): data often exist at the bottom of a ‘well’. Just because a well is open at the top, it doesn’t necessarily make it easy to get the water out! You need another kind of bucket – a service bucket that makes it possible to extract and make use of the water. Sorry, data. What were we talking about again?

Then a series of 5-minute ‘personal pitches’, including mine just after lunch. I didn’t use slides, but I’m typing up my handwritten notes on Google Docs and I’ll post them as a separate blog post when I get a chance.

David Kay (SERO), Paul Miller (Cloud of Data) and Owen Stephens delivered the meat of the afternoon session in their presentation, ‘The Open Bibliographic Data Guide – Preparing to eat the elephant‘. The website containing the Open Bib Data Guide (which has not been formally launched until now) can be found at: http://obd.jisc.ac.uk/

The site itself is going to be invaluable in hand-holding and guiding institutions through the possibilities in opening up access to their own bibliographic data (OBD). Slides from the presentation that are particularly worth noting are #8 (which shows the colour-coding used to distinguish the different OBD use-cases) and #14 (examples of existing OBD).

Slide from the OBD presentation Slide from the OBD presentation

Paul Walk’s presentation, ‘Technical standards & the RDTF Vision: some considerations‘, is the source of the slide which I photographed (at the top of this blog post). Paul talked about ‘safe bets’; aspects of the Web that we can rely on playing a part in allowing us to create a distributed environment for resource discovery: including “ROASOADOA” (Resource- / Service- / Data-Oriented Architecture), persistent identifiers, and a RESTful approach. See also this blog post.

In the second breakout/discussion session, we discussed technical approaches. One of the themes which we kept coming back to was that of two approaches (encapsulated by Paul’s slide) which—while not mutually exclusive—may require different business cases or different explanations in order to be taken up by institutions. We characterised the two approaches as:

  • Raw open data vs Data services
  • Triple store vs RESTful APIs
  • Jerome vs COMET (bit of a caricature, this one, but not entirely unjustified!)

I was gratified that Lincoln’s approach to rapid development and provision of open services was also referred to in non-ungratifying terms, as a model which could be valuable for the HE sector as a whole.

Finally, we heard what’s next for the #rdtf programme. It’s going to be rebranded as ‘Discovery‘ and formally re-launched under the new name at another event: ‘Discovery – building a UK metadata ecology‘ on Thursday, 26 May 2011, in London. See you there?

Ken Chad is writing up a report from the day and Helen Harrop is producing a blog, both of which will be signposted from the website: http://rdtf.mimas.ac.uk.

The university of linking

Posted on July 21st, 2010 by Paul Stainthorp

Today’s Talis Linked Data and Libraries open day has motivated me to make a list of some of the external data tools, web services and APIs that could well end up being sucked into Jerome’s vortex of general awesomeness.

I was inspired (possibly through drinking too much SPARQL-themed coffee) by the thought that 2010 is effectively ‘year 1′ for library-themed Linked Data. (But I promise I’ll try and keep the ‘Lincoln’/’linking’ puns to a minimum after this post…)

Library linked data cloud

“With the emergence of large, centralized sources entry to the Linked Data cloud might be easier than you think” (Ross Singer, The Linked Library Data Cloud: Stop talking and start doing, Code4Lib 2010)

So, which of these will make their way into the Jerome toolkit? (I’ll say now, before I get in trouble, that they’re not all purely Linked Data!) …compiled in part from these other lists, and by discussions/examples at the Talis event:

What have I missed? Which of these are not worth bothering with; which should we get stuck into without delay? You know where the comment form is…