Note that aspects of the debate relating to adherence to Web architecture are covered in section 4 of this Review.
Some frustration has been expressed within the JISC programmes and in the Review consultation that Web 2.0 applications might be better exploited to support objectives associated with repositories. Web 2.0 is being used here as a catch-all for recent developments on the Web, not just wikis and blogs but also social networking, user generated content, cloud computing etc.
This is an area where JISC has a leadership role, however in practical terms this can be difficult to achieve. The rate of change on the Web means that as well as funding exploratory projects within the context of JISC programmes, it would be useful to have existing development oriented groups exploring new technology without the need for a long lead time. In order to provide leadership there has to be the ability for more immediate engagement in the rapidly changing Web environment. For example a recent DLib article asks for collaboration on djakota,1 an open source image server that allows for Web 2.0 style re-use. Such collaboration could be achieved quickly and effectively through an existing group of funded experts.
In addressing how aspects of Web 2.0 might be used in conjunction with repositories it is important to take account of the previous recommendations to focus on objectives rather than on the repository in isolation. The aim is to use Web 2.0 to achieve high level objectives for scholarly communication and information management, the interest is wider than in the repository alone.
It is worth briefly considering various approaches to how Web 2.0 might be exploited in order to clarify what would be best next steps. Whilst some of these approaches are already being explored, the work in this area is patchy at best.
There are a variety of ways in which Web 2.0 might support research and teaching. So for example various applications for social networking might support research team collaboration or interaction between learning groups e.g. use of wikis, Ning. Specific tools have been developed to encourage social networking amongst researchers and to enable sharing of research data such as MyExperiment and OpenWetWare. Exchanging information between groups is facilitated by bookmarking and tagging aggregations like FriendFeed, and Technorati. Some of these applications require access to collections of content (whether data or research reports) and it is here repositories may have a role. These might be existing repositories or more innovative Web based transitory repositories.
There has been a growth in large collections of ‘concentrated’ user generated data (e.g. Flickr, Slideshare) which exhibit a network effect whereby others are encouraged to deposit, rate and tag content. Could aggregations of scholarly content be gathered with the same beneficial network effects? How would such collections interact with existing or more innovative repositories, and other collections of content? What are the licensing and copyright issues? Lorcan Dempsey’s ideas are relevant here on issues of diffusion and concentration2 on the Web.
There needs to be some reflection on how well Web 2.0 applications fit with scholarly communication. There may be particular characteristics of scholarly communication which mean special tools need to be developed to provide a ‘well-managed’ solution allowing for re-use and preservation. There are issues of IPR and ownership that might discourage (or even make illegal) deposit of peer-reviewed articles in global collections on the Web. There may well be a danger in creating silos of content that are neither interoperable nor accessible for migration. Outsourcing data storage to commercial third party suppliers has implications for sustainability, as has been shown by Google’s withdrawal of its beta scientific data storage facility in late 2008.3
There are further issues on how best to achieve search engine optimisation (SEO) on existing legacy scholarly content, and how best to achieve SEO on future content.
To address these questions a mix of policy and technical expertise is required. In order to lead in this area JISC need to exploit existing Web expertise, and make available Web development skills. In response to the need to address technical issues of interoperability between repositories JISC set up the CRIG (JISC Common Repository Interfaces Working Group). This group has involved developers to identify and address priorities for enhancing inter-working between the emerging base of UK repositories. Here we are thinking about exploiting existing Web 2.0 based tools and services, creating applications that interface with existing tools and services, adapting existing Web 2.0 tools and services.
Recommendation 7: Harness existing JISC funded expertise to take the lead on exploiting the Web for teaching and research. Ensure existing JISC services have responsibility to advise and demonstrate use of new Web developments and services for scholarly communication to include aspects where repositories have a role. This may involve UKOLN, CETIS, and/or the Repositories Support Project. Extend the remit of CRIG (or a similar group) to address interfaces with Web based systems and Web 2.0 initiatives.
As with much JISC activity, within the repository programmes projects range from those undertaken to support short term change to those with more experimental, explorative or long term aims. JISC are looking to the future, supporting change now. Institutional repositories need pragmatic short term enhancements to ensure success at the local level. Others are looking at more complex long term developments such as integration of repositories with VREs or long term digital data preservation. In this environment, it is difficult for any individual repository to keep track of the relevance of much activity and relate it to their own requirements.
Recommendation 8: Ensure clear classification of the outputs of JISC funded activity into categories useful to repository managers such as relevance for adoption or development; in short term or long term; ease of implementation; relevance to different repository types.
- Ryan Chute and Herbert Van de Sompel. Introducing djatoka: a reuse friendly, open source JPEG 2000 image server . DLib Magazine Sept/Oct 2008. http://www.dlib.org/dlib/september08/chute/09chute.html []
- Dempsey,L. The two ways of Web 2.0. March 2008. http://orweblog.oclc.org/archives/001556.html []
- Savvas, A. Google closes data storage service for scientists. ComputerWeekly.com, December 19 2008. http://www.computerweekly.com/Articles/2008/12/19/234014/google-closes-data-storage-service-for-scientists.htm []