http://hdl.handle.net/1842/611 Fri, 24 May 2013 14:18:01 GMT 2013-05-24T14:18:01Z http://www.era.lib.ed.ac.uk:80/retrieve/2121/ml2.jpg http://hdl.handle.net/1842/611 http://hdl.handle.net/1842/6683 Title: MOOCs @ Edinburgh 2013: Report #1 Authors: MOOCs@Edinburgh Group Abstract: A report summarising the experience of the University of Edinburgh of offering our first 6 massive open online courses (MOOCs) in partnership with Coursera Fri, 10 May 2013 00:00:00 GMT http://hdl.handle.net/1842/6683 2013-05-10T00:00:00Z http://hdl.handle.net/1842/6551 Title: ERIS Project Authors: Hunter, Philip Abstract: Unlike its predecessor project IRIScotland, which took a more top-down approach to developing repository services for users in Scottish HE institutions, the ERIS project took a bottom-up approach, and consulted potential users of repository systems widely at the outset of the project, whether these systems would be for use by single institutions or subject pools. The idea was to find out what the user community actually required in terms of repository systems and services. In practice we discovered that there was a range of opinion about the usefulness of repositories to researchers, and to institutions. Some groups within HE are already clear about the usefulness of the technology, and the associated workflows. These do not need much persuading. Others see the suggestion that they should use repositories to disseminate their research as an imposition of extra work, additional to the existing publication process, either for themselves or their research administrators. This spectrum of opinion surfaced in both the focus group activity and the case studies, reports on which form part of the appendices to this report. Perhaps surprisingly, the division of opinion was also found among the research pools and their users. The staff of the project responded to the spectrum of opinion, and the range of commitment to the role of repositories in dissemination, and in the research process, by reformulating their ideas about engagement with the research community in Scotland, and about what was required to achieve the goal of enhancing repository infrastructure for users and stakeholders. This was done in an agile way, and the new approach and new targets were formulated and agreed, and reflected in the quality plan which can be found at Appendix J. The new approach consisted of two strands. The first was about increased advocacy for the use of repositories, which involved the offer of hosted repository services during the later stages of the project, for institutions which did not already have their own institutional repositories. If these (generally) smaller institutions wished to continue to have access to these hosted repository spaces after the end of the project, it was proposed that these repository-lite services would be administered by the SDLC (the Scottish Digital Library Consortium), at minimal cost. The idea of this was to ensure at least a minimal level of provision nationally, to encourage the use of repositories. The second strand involved looking beyond the limited period of the project, to what would be required to promote the take-up and development of repository services in the longer term. It was concluded that this would involve developing the business case for continuing ERIS/IRIScotland type work. What the project had in mind was setting up co-ordinating groups and fora for meetings of stakeholders and users, and the research pools. This would be the responsibility of the SCOS group (the Scottish Council for Open Scholarship). It was planned that SCOS would be launched formally at a event closure meeting, held in the Royal Society of Edinburgh, in September 2011. [Quality Plan Appendix J]. The course of the project after the community consultations followed this new approach. The project continued to be agile in response, and influenced related work in Scotland (see section: ‘Outcomes’). We have a number of recommendations to make for future approaches to repository operations in Scotland. These are listed in a section following. Sat, 01 Oct 2011 00:00:00 GMT http://hdl.handle.net/1842/6551 2011-10-01T00:00:00Z http://hdl.handle.net/1842/5474 Title: ILLiad and the new brand of ILL service in the University of Edinburgh Authors: Lobban, Marjory Abstract: Purpose – To describe the introduction of ILLiad at the University of Edinburgh and its wider impact Design/Methodology/approach – a hands on description by a practitioner of an ILL system new to the UK Findings – That the introduction of ILLiad had not halted the decline in ILL but has opened the library up to international resource sharing to a significant extent Originality – The first description published of the introduction of ILLiad into the UK. Sat, 01 Jan 2011 00:00:00 GMT http://hdl.handle.net/1842/5474 2011-01-01T00:00:00Z http://hdl.handle.net/1842/3424 Title: Digital Archives Research Project: A report and recommendations Authors: Semple, Najla Abstract: The preservation of digital resources is of great importance to the academic community and society as a whole. We are in danger of losing much of our academic and cultural heritage through neglect of these burgeoning resources. This report, initiated by the Special Collections Division of Edinburgh University Library, focuses on research methods of preserving information generated in digital form, and provides a set of guidelines and recommendations for the benefit of the University of Edinburgh as a whole. This report covers the main themes in Digital Preservation, legal dilemmas, metadata and methods of preservation such as the Open Archival Information System (OAIS) model, which is now considered to be the internationally recognised process model for Digital Preservation. It also focuses on a pilot project and demonstrates how some electronic university records have been archived successfully. Finally it outlines guidelines and best- practice in creating of a digital object for long-term preservation. Acknowledgements: As part of CURL, Edinburgh University Library sought to consult colleagues on the Cedars project and in that context we are very grateful. The reports Cedars1 have published have been indispensable, as have the process models that the Nedlib2 project have so clearly created and disseminated. Chapters 1 and 2 cover the background to the project and how digital objects are prepared for archiving. For those primarily interested in the practical implementation of Digital Preservation strategies, the Guidelines at the end of the report, in Chapter 4, will be most useful. However, for fuller background and explanation, prior consultation of Chapter 3 of recommended. Fri, 24 Jan 2003 00:00:00 GMT http://hdl.handle.net/1842/3424 2003-01-24T00:00:00Z