Research – Page 3

Orbital and the OAIS reference model

Joss Winn / February 10, 2012February 10, 2012 / Development, Research

In the Orbital project bid, I wrote,

We intend to re-use and develop some of the underlying tools we have built to provide an institution-wide service for the ingest, description, preservation and dissemination of research data, which is informed by the OAIS reference model.

My first encounter with OAIS was about seven years ago, when I was designing a digital archive for Amnesty International’s image, film and video archives. If you begin to do any design work in the digital archiving domain, you come across the OAIS model very quickly. It is the standard and though somewhat daunting, when you get your teeth into it, you realise that it does an excellent job of describing what any decent digital archive should be doing anyway.

The mistake to make with OAIS is looking at the model and thinking that you have to create a system that is designed in such a way, rather than functions in such a way. The OAIS standard is a tool that allows Archivists, Designers and Developers to share a common language when discussing and planning the implementation of a digital archive and what that archive should do, not how it should be designed.

Here is the high-level OAIS model. (Here is the full, composite model).

Here is a high-level model of Orbital.

They’re very different because they should be. Remember, the first is a functional model, the second is a logical model of Orbital’s server requirements.

Here’s another model I published recently relating to building staff profiles.

The task ahead of the Orbital Team is to consider how our on-going designs like these two above, relate to the OAIS functional model. For example, the staff profile diagram (which is not simply an abstract model, but a retrospective design document) tells us where some of the OAIS Submission Information Package (SIP) information will be derived from. When a ‘Producer’ (i.e. a Researcher) signs in to Orbital and uploads a dataset, that content and the information we know from their university profile, as well as further information that they provide, constitutes the SIP.

As I was reading around the OAIS standard recently, I came across a nice piece of work done by a collaborative project between Cornell and Göttingen State universities. Their MathArc project was run using the XP agile project management methodology and as part of their development process, they broke down the OAIS reference model into a deck of 33 cards and tackled each one as a specific iteration. You can download the cards, here [.doc].

Although we’re not planning on 100% OAIS ‘compliance’ during this pilot stage of the Orbital project, it is our intention that Orbital is informed by the OAIS standard and these cards provide a useful and provocative set of functional requirements that we have added to our project tracker. Nick’s currently working on authentication and security for Orbital, or rather, card #3 ‘Provide Security Services’:

Protect sensitive information in the system, including authentication, access control, data integrity, data confidentiality, and non-repudiation services.

Cards #1 and #2 (‘Provide O/S Services’ & ‘Provide Network Services’) are requirements that go beyond the Orbital project itself and are largely met by the wider IT infrastructure that we’re working in at Lincoln. However, our work on ‘piloting the cloud‘ also addresses issues relating to the operating environment and networking of our future RDM infrastructure.

Nick and I met a couple of weeks ago to look at the OAIS model in detail and consider it in light of what we’re beginning to implement. As we’d hope, the high-level stuff you see in the diagram at the top of this post is easy to ‘tick off’. You couldn’t really say you were building an infrastructure to manage research data if you weren’t clear on the basic functional entities of OAIS. The lower-level components of the OAIS standard are where the work gets interesting and more demanding, and where the deck of cards is useful. Along the way, we’ll be creating diagrams like those above to show how we’re iteratively addressing the OAIS standard so that by the end of the project, we should have a model of our own that maps reasonably well onto the OAIS composite model.

I’d be very interested to hear from other MRD projects that are looking at the OAIS standard in detail, as well as people from earlier projects that have been through this process before. I know there have been a number of such efforts in the JISC community. A couple of the documents I found useful were Alex Ball’s Briefing Paper and Julie Allinsons’s OAIS as a reference model for repositories. The paper I remembered from my time at Amnesty is Brian Lavoie’s Introductory Guide. If you’re new to OAIS, I’d recommend that you at least read Lavoie’s report before tackling the full OAIS standard document (PDF).

Piloting the cloud

Joss Winn / January 21, 2012January 23, 2012 / Development, Meetings, Research

Last month, Nick wrote about how Orbital is being designed as an application to run in the cloud. This week, we met with Andy Powell from Eduserv to discuss the use of their ‘Education Cloud‘ for the Orbital project.

In the run up to this meeting, we’d been talking to colleagues in ICT Services about our need for more flexibility and autonomy when we required servers in order to do our work. Outside of work we’re quite used to spinning up servers on Rackspace or AWS to try things out and increasingly we’ve been looking for ways to take control of our servers in this way at work. We’re not the only Researchers who need this flexibility; colleagues in LiSC have also been telling us that for some of their work, the scalability and reliability of cloud services is looking increasingly attractive.

This is not to say that ICT services is inflexible and unreliable by any means. I’ve always found my colleagues very willing to help where and when they can, but I think we’d all agree that a central ICT department in a university, with the multivarious responsibilities it has, is not the same as a dedicated cloud provider and, in our case, does not offer the resilience nor the scalability that Rackspace or Amazon are offering for example. The availability of resources, the business model and available support are quite different. When I joined the University in 2007, ICT Services were implementing a new VMWare server farm, which has given us more flexibility than having to work with physical boxes in every instance. Typically, if I want a Linux server with 4GB RAM and 100GB of HDD, I put in a request, transfer approx. £1200, and some time later, a virtual server is provided to me at no further cost. If I need more RAM or HDD, I put in another request, transfer some money, and some time later, I get what I need. This process can take weeks or months.

However, our VMWare farm is now almost five years old and nearing ‘end of life’ and I know that ICT are thinking about the next five year cycle and how cloud computing fits into their future plans. Colleagues in the Online Services team have been using Rackspace recently as a CDN for the Common Web Design framework as well as hosting our popular Gateway website, and have been very impressed with the service. The main hurdle was not technical but organisational: billing for the use of the CDN is by credit card and Pay As You Go (PAYG), meaning we don’t know exactly how much it will cost each month. This is in contrast to how departments normally make payments which are known in advance and invoiced in arrears. Nevertheless, that hurdle has been overcome and hopefully set a precedence.

So the meeting we had with ICT Services was in light of all this and we recognised and agreed that Orbital was a timely and appropriate project by which the university could pilot a more extensive use of cloud services and look at how we might integrate servers in the cloud with our existing server farm. It would also allow us to think about new business models where the real costs of running a server are more transparent to everyone, rather than being absorbed by ICT as the server ages.

Nick has been setting up the Orbital development environment and basic architecture (more on that in another post) using Rackspace and the Orbital project pays for this each month via our departmental credit card. This works fine if a) the department is happy to use the credit card in this way; and b) we have dedicated project funds for this, but it’s no way to run a long-term service that is to be sustained by the institution. Our interest is not really in whether we use Rackspace or Eduserv for hosting during the period of our project – both offer Linux boxes afterall – rather we’re interest in working with ICT to ensure that by the end of the project, there are formal processes in place for a) running sustained services in the cloud; and b) providing researchers with the ability to spin up and manage adhoc servers as and when they are required.

The plan is to evaluate both Rackspace and Eduserv over the coming months, looking at which service fits best with the future plans of ICT Services. Rackspace has a much more mature offering, but we’re really keen to work with Eduserv too, recognising that they’re a new not-for-proft provider of cloud services, running on JANET and with a long history of providing hosting and other technical services to HE and government.

At our meeting with Andy, he went through much the same presentation that Nick and I had seen at the MRD start-up meeting, answering our specific questions along the way. He also demonstrated (for the first time??) the vCloud Director interface for setting up and managing the servers, and this should, in principle, integrate with our existing VSphere system. One of the nice things about the Eduserv offering is that unlike most other cloud providers, they provide the entire vCloud Director application to their customers, including a full API, rather than a cut-down interface. We’ve yet to see how vCloud Director will allow us to create access controls for different types of users, but that’s what the Orbital project will be helping to investigate and I’m pleased that we’re able to work with our ICT department in this way. There are other important questions, too, around data protection and liabilities, and Andy was keen that we review Eduserv’s Terms and Conditions and SLA and feed back our thoughts on it.

This experience will allow me to better understand the business model of the cloud and how to make the business case for developing and running cloud-based services. As Nick previously said, it also allows us to make our costs more transparent, too, so that the actual costs (per Gigabyte and per Gigahertz) of managing research data are clearer to both Researchers and the institution. Having a clearer idea of the costs will help us create a more sustainable service in the long run.

How the National Archives use MongoDB

Joss Winn / January 17, 2012March 31, 2012 / Research

We spoke to staff at 10gen yesterday about our choice of MongoDB for Orbital and were reminded that the National Archives (UK) are using it as the basis of their discovery platform. We plan to stay in touch with 10gen throughout the project and provide a Case Study on our use of Mongo for Managing Research Data. Here are some slides from a recent conference where the National Archives spoke about their work with MongoDB.

Source link.

USTLG meeting on research data management

Paul Stainthorp / November 29, 2011December 9, 2011 / Events, Research

Yesterday I was at Clare College, University of Cambridge for a meeting organised by USTLG, the University Science & Technology Librarians Group. The group—open to any librarians involved with engineering, science or technology in UK universities—has meetings once or twice a year. The theme of yesterday’s meeting (free to attend, thanks to sponsorship from the IEEE) was data management, with an implied focus on research data.

The meeting consisted of a series of presentations (plus a fantastic lunchtime diversion, below) with plenty of time for networking – there were about 40 people there, all with an interest in research data management – though interestingly, a show of hands suggested very few people were actively engaged in looking after their own institution’s researchers’ data.

As usual, this blog post has been partially reconstructed from the Twitter stream (hashtag #ustlg).

First up, Laura Molloy, substituting for Joy Davidson of the Digital Curation Centre (DCC), on a project called the Data Management Skills Support Initiative (DaMSSI), looking at the [shades of information literacy] skills needed by different people involved in the research data curation process. “DaMSSI aims to facilitate the use of tools like Vitae’s Researcher Development Framework (RDF) and the Seven Pillars of Information Literacy model” developed by SCONUL. Key question: how do you assess the effectiveness of research data management training?

Continue reading “USTLG meeting on research data management”

Notes from RDMF7 workshop

Paul Stainthorp / November 3, 2011November 23, 2011 / Events, Research

I’ve been at the University of Warwick today, for a workshop organised by the Digital Curation Centre (DCC), entitled RDMF7: Incentivising Data Management & Sharing. There appeared to be a wide range of attendees, from data curators & data scientists, ICT/database folk. actual researchers and academics, as well as at least one fellow library/repository rat.

Unfortunately I was only able to attend part of the event (which ran over two days). The following notes have been reconstructed from the Twitter stream (hashtag #RDMF7)!

The first speaker I heard was Ben Ryan of the funding council, the EPSRC. He talked about the “long-established” principles of responsible data management [links below]… this may be my own interpretation of Ben’s presentation, but I don’t think I was imagining undertones of “…so there’s really no excuse!“. He also covered individual and institutional motivations for taking care of data [much more about which later], policy and the enforcement of policy, dataset discoverability/metadata, funding (including the EPSRC’s expectation that institutions will make room in existing budgets to meet the costs of RDM), and embargo periods (inc. researchers’ entitlement to a period of “privileged use of the data they have collected, to enable them to publish” first – important to stress this in order to allay fears/get researchers on board?).

Some links:

Next up was Miggie Pickton, ‘queen bee’ of the University of Northampton‘s repository (and self-described RDM “novice”, indeed!), talking about their participation in the multi-institution, JISC-funded KeepIt project, which aimed to design “not one repository but many that, viewed as a whole, represent all the content types that an institutional repository might present (research papers, science data, arts, teaching materials and theses).” This work lead almost by chance to Northampton’s undertaking of a university-wide audit of its research data management processes using the DCC’s Data Asset Framework (DAF) methodology. This helped them to make the case for an institutional research data management working group and [eventually, and not without resistance] to establish a mandatory, central policy for RDM. (Show of hands at this point: how many other institutions have completed a DAF? I counted perhaps only three, Lincoln certainly not being amongst them. Q. Should the University of Lincoln complete a Data Asset Framework exercise as part of the Orbital project?)

After coffee, we heard a third presentation from Neil Beagrie of (management consultancy partnership) Charles Beagrie Ltd. Neil delivered a very comprehensive explanation of the KRDS (“Keeping Research Data Safe”) project, which has developed both an activity model and a benefits analysis toolkit for the management and preservation-of-access to ‘long-lived data’. I have to come clean here and admit that I was a little bewildered by the detail: much of it went through both ears without sticking to the brain on the way through. I need to go back over the tweets more carefully and have a look at the KRDS toolkit and reports at: beagrie.com/krds.php

The morning’s presentations over, we split into three groups for breakout discussion.

I attached myself to the second of the three groups, led by (JISC programme manager for Orbital) Simon Hodson; our job to consider the question: “What really are the sticks and carrots that will make a long-term difference to the pursuit of structured data management processes?“. After spending some time picking apart the terminology, and what each of the various ‘processes’ might include, we had a wide-ranging (and allocated-time-overrunning) discussion about the things that genuinely motivate scientists, universities, and funding councils(!) to care about RDM; about some of the problems caused by the complexity and inconsistency of metadata for datasets; also about the issue of citations/digital object identifiers for data—how those citations might be treated by publishers and citation data services—and how that relates to any notions of ‘peer review’ in experimental data.

As requested, our group came up with three actions which we believe will help address the question of motivation:

Data citation – publishers should consistently include e.g. DOIs for datasets in final published articles, so that citations of the data can be measured.
Measurement of RDM “maturity” – departments and whole institutions should adopt a standardised quality mark for research data management, to give [potential] researchers, funding bodies, and the public confidence in their ability to handle data appropriately.
Discovery – the research councils (probably) should push for common metadata standards for describing datasets and underlying data-generating research/experimental processes.

Lunch followed, and I had time to hear two more presentations in the afternoon before I had to run for a bus:

Catherine Moyes of the Malaria Atlas Project: in effect, demonstrating what really clear and consistent management of large-scale (geo)data looks like. This seems to consist of an extremely rigorous approach to requesting, tracking, and licensing data from the contributors of the project’s data… and an equally strict (but in a good way) expectation of clarity when dealing with requests from third parties to use the data. If that all comes across as restrictive, I’d point to Catherine’s slide on ‘legalities’ of the data that the Malaria Atlas Project has released openly – it’s about as open as it gets, with no registration needed, no terms & conditions placed on re-use of the published data, and all software/artefacts released under very permissive and free licences (Creative Commons or GNU). N.B. the Orbital project should look at the Malaria Atlas Project’s “data explorer”, available via map.ox.ac.uk, as an example of a really nifty set of applications built on top of openly accessible and re-usable data.

Finally (and I’m sorry I only got to hear part of his presentation), University of So’ton chemistry professor Jeremy Frey on their IDMB (Institutional Data Management Blueprint) Project—southamptondata.org—and some rather funny anecdotes about the underlying knowledge, expectations, and problems faced by researchers managing their own data, which emerged when they were surveyed as part of the above project.

Lots to take in (lots). But some useful suggestions for Orbital, which I’ll be bringing to the next project meeting: and plenty more reading material which I’ll add to the project reading list asap.

—Paul Stainthorp, lead researcher on the Orbital project.