#Funding models for open access digital repositories Rob Kitchin, Maynooth University @RobKitchin
Sandra Collins, Royal Irish Academy @SandriCollins
Dermot Frost, Trinity College Dublin @astarmain
Rob Kitchen as the money man in the DRI.
Detailing differences in OA models: gratis, libre, delayed, green and gold. But how do we pay for them? Even national archives have to make up funding shortfalls when the state doesn't cover everything. Non 'National' archives don't have even this level of funding. Take away: open is not free, and this introduces a funding dilemma.
So for the DRI they loked at 14 different potential sources of funding, divided into 6 classes:
- core
- consortia (membership)
- built-in costs at source
- public / private partnership
- philanthrophy / corporate sponsorship
- research funded
Audience based income:
- freemium
- content licensing
- infrastructure razor and blades (bait and switch?)
Service based income:
- premium
- pay per purpose
- free with advertising
- white label ('personalised'/ branded))development
Volunteer: [a la wikipedia / OSM]
- open source
Risks:
- repository closes and material it holds is also at risk
- reputational damage to associates and funders - failed attempt may ruin future attempts to revitalise
- a closed repository represents a loss of petential leveragings - i.e. Horizon 20/20 money
- "significant loss of human resources expertiese" - and also some impact on the individual humans too I would think
Conclusion:
Core funding from the State is vital - only way to get sustainable, non-cyclial funding. DRI is pursuing a blended approach based on this [and did Rob mention membership fees?]
Comments & Questions:
William Kilbride raised an interesting point about funding models based on researcher mandated depositing. In the UK, in the case of the Archaeology Research Data Service [?] resulted in material being deposited in archives which aren't fit for purpose.
Kalpana : Technical pieces are the easy pieces, the socio-technical pieces are the difficult pieces.
#Towards a Sustainable European Preservation Infrastructure for the Arts and Humanities Tibor Kálmán GWDG
Danah Tonne, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology
Oliver Schmitt, GWDG
About the DARIAH-DE project and it's addressing long-term preservation. DARIAH has more than 13 member countries. More candidate members.
DARIAH-DE bit-stream preservation. Using 4 federated iRODS locations for long-term preservation.
DAWA / GeoBrowser / Textgrid /
DARIAH storage API middle layer (available through a REST interface)
DARIAH Bit Preservation
iRODS presentation from OR2015: https://www.conftool.com/or2015/index.php?page=browseSessions&search=iRODs
Was mentioned a number of times in #OR2015. Seems to be a common alternative to ceph
####Questions and comments:
Q: So, how do we use it?
A: You need to be part of one of the infrastructural projects. As an individual researcher you could possibly put yr material into Textgrid
#Building a future for our digital memory together: A collaborative infrastructure for permanent access to digital heritage in The Netherlands Marcel Ras, Netherlands Coalition for Digital Preservation @info_NCDD