The Australian National Data Service (ANDS) has taken a national leadership role in implementing a national collaborative research information infrastructure strategy. The strategy is designed to build the eResearch capability of Australia‘s researchers through national initiatives and strengthened engagement in international initiatives. ANDS has been established with an understanding that (1) data has become an increasingly important re-usable product of research, and (2) research collaboration is fundamental to the resolution of the major challenges facing humanity in the twenty-first century. With the objective of increasing the discoverability of Australian research data collections, ANDS has built the Research Data Australia (RDA) service. With the benefit of an ANDS grant to help populate the RDA, Griffith University has developed a framework for collecting and exposing research data. Critical to its success has been the key role played by library professionals in both its design and implementation. The system collects appropriate metadata from research collections within the University through customised feeds from the various University content management and corporate systems. This system then acts as a central University repository to feed information in a standard format to Research Data Australia. It can also expose this data to University library discovery tools and other research information federations where appropriate. The end result is that this service not only integrates and aggregates data within the institution but also provides a key link into national and international open systems. This paper describes this project, including the role played by the University‘s library professionals, the underlying infrastructure and processes and integration with national repositories, identifier services, and with the overarching national scholarly communication fabric. It concludes with an analysis of the benefits of such an initiative to individual researchers, to the University and to the national research agenda.
[1]
I. Mangham.
Managing as a Performing Art
,
1990
.
[2]
Linda O'Brien.
The changing scholarly information landscape: Reinventing information services to increase research impact
,
2010,
ELPUB.
[3]
Graham Walton.
Data Curation and the Academic Library
,
2010
.
[4]
Derek Law,et al.
Digital library economics: aspects and prospects
,
2009
.
[5]
J. MacColl.
Library Roles in University Research Assessment
,
2010
.
[6]
Mike Thelwall,et al.
Assessing the international web connectivity of research groups
,
2008,
Aslib Proc..
[7]
Diane Zabel,et al.
What We Talk About When We Talk About Repositories
,
2009
.
[8]
Paula Warnken.
New Technologies and Constant Change: Managing the Process
,
2004
.
[9]
Megan Oakleaf.
The value of academic Libraries: A comprehensive research review and report
,
2010
.
[10]
Sally Newton,et al.
Scholarly information in a digital age: choices for the University of Melbourne
,
2008
.
[11]
Christine L. Borgman,et al.
Research Data: Who Will Share What, with Whom, When, and Why?
,
2010
.
[12]
Wendy Pradt-Lougee,et al.
The diffuse library revisited: aligning the library as strategic asset
,
2009,
Libr. Hi Tech.
[13]
L. Ross,et al.
Exploring the Future of Academic Libraries: A Definitional Approach.
,
2009
.
[14]
Cni Sparc Arl,et al.
Transforming Roles for Academic Librarians: Leading and Participating in New Partnerships (RLI 273, Oct. 2010)
,
2010
.
[15]
Ellen J. Cramer,et al.
VIVO: Enabling National Networking of Scientists
,
2010,
IASSIST.
[16]
B. Library.
Patterns of information use and exchange: case studies of researchers in the life sciences
,
2009
.
[17]
Susan Kroll,et al.
A Slice of Research Life: Information Support for Research in the United States
,
2010
.
[18]
Simon Porter,et al.
Building an Australian user community for VIVO
,
2010,
HiPC 2010.