Furthermore, ‘Open Access‘ and ‘Repository’ typically go hand in hand. If you support Open Access you need a repository, and if you question the role of repositories you’re in the pocket of evil publishers who want to lock up everything ever written and lease reading rights back to the employers of those who wrote the stuff in the first place.

Nonsense.

Open Access is an important component of today’s scholarly ecosystem. It’s not the only answer, and it’s not perfect, but it does have a significant part to play. Institutions have a role in preserving, disseminating and exploiting the work of their employees, but these are very different tasks that may benefit from different solutions. In too many cases, the repository is by default seen as a preservation mechanism and a dissemination vehicle, and as such it may fail to cost-effectively achieve either aim.

There are some large, well known, and research-intensive institutions where it might be possible to make a compelling argument for projecting a strong institutional image around a single ‘home’ for all of that research output. Never mind, for a moment, that so much research today is the result of inter-institutional collaboration, or that the eminent researcher might wish to take ‘their’ research publications with them as they move from Oxford to Harvard to York during their glittering career.

Alongside those institutions sit a plethora of others where research of equal quality is also being conducted; there just, maybe, isn’t quite as much of it. Bombarded by ‘advice’ and funding, and desperate to keep up with the Russell Group, ever-more institutions blindly join the repository cult and wonder why their new toys do not fill to overflowing with the jewels of scholarly erudition.

As research becomes increasingly data-rich, the whole cycle looks set to repeat. The recently released Panton Principles for Open Data in Science are to be welcomed, but I’ll bet the institutional response will all too often be the commissioning of a ‘data repository’ to sit alongside the ‘publication repository’ they already don’t use.

All of which is a rather long-winded way of introducing the fact that Eduserv’s Andy Powell has asked me to facilitate a breakout afternoon on ‘Policy Issues’ at the Repositories in the Cloud event Eduserv and JISC are holding in London on Tuesday.

“This free event, organised jointly by Eduserv and the JISC, will bring together software developers, repository managers, service providers, funding and advisory bodies to discuss the potential policy and technical issues associated with cloud computing and the delivery of repository services in UK HEIs.”

In a post on 11 February, Andy invited participants to share some of their views ahead of the meeting, and on 19 February he wrote about some of his own thoughts.

Like Andy, I struggled somewhat to nail down a coherent set of thoughts about the issue of pushing today’s repositories into the Cloud. On one level, I wonder whether the vast majority of institutions with small (and relatively low traffic) repositories would see much of a tangible efficiency gain or cost saving by moving off an in-house computer to rent an equivalent Virtual Machine from Amazon, Rackspace, or any of their competitors. If we’re talking about IT systems within a typical university, there are others (email, calendaring, pools of compute resource for research jobs, etc) that appear more immediately compelling for the shift Cloud-ward. Which is not to say that there isn’t a clear opportunity for someone trusted to step into this space and offer a SaaS repository to which institutions might affordably subscribe. Eduserv? Mimas? Edina? The British Library? The National Archives? Duraspace? Any could, and if we’re not ready for something more then at least one probably should.

However, a bolder reconsideration of what repositories are and what they’re for might very well lead to something interesting, sustainable, and perfectly suited for benefitting from Cloud Computing’s strengths.

Why does a paper have to be ‘deposited’ in a repository? Why does a single paper with three authors from three institutions have to be deposited in three separate institutional repositories? Why does that same paper have to be deposited – separately – in the subject repository favoured by scholars in the relevant discipline? Why does the institution’s very reasonable desire to protect, preserve, promote and disseminate its excellence mean that it has to run systems in perpetuity that preserve and permit access? Why do we address the fundamentally different (perhaps even contradictory) problems of access and preservation in the same system? Why can’t the individual researcher easily assemble a view across their publication history, regardless of the institution within which they happened to reside as they wrote each paper? Why don’t the assemblages of papers reflect personal, professional and disciplinary relationships, alongside (or instead of) the contractual accident of employee-employer relationships? Why isn’t the wealth of metadata implicit to any publication (authors, subjects, dates, citations, and more) available and actionable, both inside the repository and far beyond it across the Web? Why isn’t there a tight and active association between the paper and the data from which its findings were derived (something for which Internet Archaeology was demonstrating utility a very long time ago)?

Scholarly papers principally comprise text, augmented by the occasional static image. They’re not big, and they don’t tend to change very fast. In many ways, they represent a fairly easy problem set with which to work. As more and more data becomes key to research in a growing number of subject areas, the problems are set to become far larger and far more difficult. For individual universities to even consider replicating the process by which they all ended up with their repositories of text surely seems madness in this data-rich environment. Even with levels of uptake as low as those seen in too many text repositories, the issues of data management, curation, access and dissemination are too great to be sensibly solved in the institutional machine room. Services like InfoChimps and Amazon’s own Public Data Sets offering show some of the ways that we might begin to work with data at scale. Might we, for example, come to recognise as Amazon has that it’s actually cheaper and quicker to entrust large data sets to FedEx rather than transmit them over the Internet?

‘The answer’ might be some central service for the community, funded by JISC like the Arts & Humanities Data Service (AHDS) of old. Or it might be something different, something nimbler, more responsive, more flexible to individual, institutional, and disciplinary requirements, and something more scalable to new disciplines; institutional support for and use of existing Cloud infrastructures extending far beyond UK Higher Education, aligned with a clear understanding of the separation between preservation and access.

I certainly don’t have all the answers, but I do believe that simply asking whether or not we should move existing repositories to the Cloud is to miss the point. Rather, we should ask what role the Cloud might play in addressing the business requirements to which the institutional repository was our initial – faltering – response. The answer might very well be ‘None,’ but I doubt it.

I look forward to Tuesday’s discussion. I’m not going there to push my personal view that individual institutions frequently shouldn’t be building, running or populating their own repositories at all. I’m going there to facilitate the discussion those in the room want to have, and to learn from their experiences and their perspectives.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Does a Citation Advantage Exist for Mandated Open Access Articles? (scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org)
• Scholarly content and the cliff edge: the place of subject ‘repositories’ (hangingtogether.org)
• Scholarly Communications must be Scalable (downes.ca)
• Beyond Open Access: Open Publishing (opendotdotdot.blogspot.com)
• 57 college presidents declare support for public access to publicly funded research in the US (scienceblog.com)
• Mandelson says academics are ‘set in aspic’ (guardian.co.uk)

“All too often, insider analyst research and commentary is costly, inaccessible or ineffective to the entrepreneurs, investors and innovators who need timely insights most. We’re changing this by making high-quality expert reports, data and commentary easy to access and highly interactive for our community in key emerging technology areas.”

I was therefore delighted when VP of Research Michael Wolf got in touch before Christmas to ask if I’d be interested in providing them with content.

My first piece, which is published today, explores some of the issues faced by Cloud service providers and users in negotiating the attitudes and laws of the different jurisdictions through which their data may pass. I would welcome any comments on the piece, and must thank Microsoft‘s Matt Deacon, Sun Microsystems‘ Michelle Dennedy, IBM‘s Harriet Pearson, Rackspace‘s Simon Abrahams, Computacenter‘s Matthew Yeager and F5 Networks‘ Lori MacVittie for taking the time to talk with me as I prepared it. Thanks, also, to Celeste LeCompte at GigaOM for editing and for Americaniszing my spellingz… Any misunderstandings, misrepresentations, typos etc, are of course my own.

I look forward to my next GigaOM assignment!

For those on this side of the Atlantic with a particular interest in the topic, London’s Powered By Cloud event (where I participated in a panel last year) is back for a second edition on 8 and 9 February. Of particular interest in this context is an addition to this year’s event; 10 February’s dedicated to a Cloud Law Summit.

Related articles by Zemanta

• GigaOM Pro Shakes up Market Research Industry with Innovative Program (prweb.com)
• GigaOM Pro Launches Analyst Relations Program – Get a Free Pro Subscription (jkontherun.com)
• Introducing GigaOM Pro’s Analyst Relations Program (gigaom.com)

Avanade re-commissioned the same research firm, Kelton Research, to undertake some follow-up work between 26 August and 11 September, and the responses from over 500 C-level executives show a healthy dose of pragmatism with respect to the Cloud and its associated hype.

In amongst the pragmatism, it was interesting (and pleasing) to see a “320% increase” in respondents planning some sort of deployment. Whilst it’s worth noting that this increase only took the ‘planning to use’ contingent up to the dizzying heights of some 10% of respondents, the figure was a more respectable 23% in the USA. In the same data, companies reporting ‘no plans’ to adopt Cloud tools had fallen globally from 54% to 37%. That’s interesting.

Also interesting was the relatively small impact of the economic situation upon Cloud adoption, with only 13% suggesting it had ‘helped’ adoption plans and 58% reporting ‘no effect.’ In my conversations with Nick Carr and others, there’s been an underlying presumption (on my part, as well as theirs) that cost-saving arguments with respect to Cloud Computing would prove persuasive and compelling. It would appear not. This would suggest, of course, that Enterprise adopters are taking to the Cloud for reasons other than the budget sheet… which is hopefully one more nail in the coffin for IDC’s recent ‘advice’.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Security and the Cloud; will focus shift to the customer? (cloudofdata.com)
• Survey Says: Companies Crave Internally Delivered SaaS – Hello, Internal Clouds? (gigaom.com)