Digging into signs: Developing standard annotation practices for cross-linguistic, quantitative analysis of sign language data. Final Report.

For sign languages used by deaf communities, linguistic corpora have until recently been unavailable, due to the lack of a writing system and a written culture in these communities, and the very recent advent of digital video. Recent improvements in video and computer technology have now made larger sign language datasets possible; however, large sign language datasets that are fully machine-readable are still elusive. This is due to two challenges. 1. Inconsistencies that arise when signs are annotated by means of spoken/written language. 2. The fact that many parts of signed interaction are not necessarily fully composed of lexical signs (equivalent of words), instead consisting of constructions that are less conventionalised. As sign language corpus building progresses, the potential for some standards in annotation is beginning to emerge. But before this project, there were no attempts to standardise these practices across corpora, which is required to be able to compare data crosslinguistically. This project thus had the following aims: 1. To develop annotation standards for glosses (lexical/word level) 2. To test their reliability and validity 3. To improve current software tools that facilitate a reliable workflow Overall the project aimed not only to set a standard for the whole field of sign language studies throughout the world but also to make significant advances toward two of the world’s largest machine-readable datasets for sign languages – specifically the BSL Corpus (British Sign Language, http://bslcorpusproject.org) and the Corpus NGT (Sign Language of the Netherlands, http://www.ru.nl/corpusngt).

Scientific Data Application Profile Scoping Study

This study was undertaken by UKOLN on behalf of the Joint Information Systems Committee (JISC) in the period April to September 2008. Application profiles are metadata schemata which consist of data elements drawn from one or more namespaces, optimized for a particular local application. They offer a way for particular communities to base the interoperability specifications they create and use for their digital material on established open standards. This offers the potential for digital materials to be accessed, used and curated effectively both within and beyond the communities in which they were created. The JISC recognized the need to undertake a scoping study to investigate metadata application profile requirements for scientific data in relation to digital repositories, and specifically concerning descriptive metadata to support resource discovery and other functions such as preservation. This followed on from the development of the Scholarly Works Application Profile (SWAP) undertaken within the JISC Digital Repositories Programme and led by Andy Powell (Eduserv Foundation) and Julie Allinson (RRT UKOLN) on behalf of the JISC. Aims and Objectives 1.To assess whether a single metadata AP for research data, or a small number thereof, would improve resource discovery or discovery-to-delivery in any useful or significant way. 2.If so, then to:a.assess whether the development of such AP(s) is practical and if so, how much effort it would take; b.scope a community uptake strategy that is likely to be successful, identifying the main barriers and key stakeholders. 3.Otherwise, to investigate how best to improve cross-discipline, cross-community discovery-to-delivery for research data, and make recommendations to the JISC and others as appropriate. Approach The Study used a broad conception of what constitutes scientific data, namely data gathered, collated, structured and analysed using a recognizably scientific method, with a bias towards quantitative methods. The approach taken was to map out the landscape of existing data centres, repositories and associated projects, and conduct a survey of the discovery-to-delivery metadata they use or have defined, alongside any insights they have gained from working with this metadata. This was followed up by a series of unstructured interviews, discussing use cases for a Scientific Data Application Profile, and how widely a single profile might be applied. On the latter point, matters of granularity, the experimental/measurement contrast, the quantitative/qualitative contrast, the raw/derived data contrast, and the homogeneous/heterogeneous data collection contrast were discussed. The Study report was loosely structured according to the Singapore Framework for Dublin Core Application Profiles, and in turn considered: the possible use cases for a Scientific Data Application Profile; existing domain models that could either be used or adapted for use within such a profile; and a comparison existing metadata profiles and standards to identify candidate elements for inclusion in the description set profile for scientific data. The report also considered how the application profile might be implemented, its relationship to other application profiles, the alternatives to constructing a Scientific Data Application Profile, the development effort required, and what could be done to encourage uptake in the community. The conclusions of the Study were validated through a reference group of stakeholders.

Keeping Research Data Safe: a cost model and guidance for UK universities (KRDS1)

This study has investigated the medium to long term costs to Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) of the preservation of research data and developed guidance to HEFCE and institutions on these issues. It has provided an essential methodological foundation on research data costs for the forthcoming HEFCE-sponsored feasibility study for a UK Research Data Service.It will also assist HEIs and funding bodies wishing to establish strategies and TRAC costings for long-term data management and archiving. The rising tide of digital research data raises issues relating to access, curation and preservation for HEIs and within the UK a growing number of research funders are now implementing policies requiring researchers to submit data management, preservation or data sharing plans with their funding applications.

KE Workshop report: Report Knowledge Exchange workshop Making data count - Research Data and Research Assessment

The possibilities of digital research have altered the production, publication and use of research results. Academic research practice and culture are changing or have already been transformed, but to a large degree the system of academic recognition has not yet adapted to the practices and possibilities of digital research. This applies especially to research data, which are increasingly produced, managed, published and archived, but play hardly a role yet in practices of research assessment. The aim of the workshop was to bring experts and stakeholders from research institutions, universities, scholarly societies and funding agencies together in order to review, discuss and build on possibilities to implement the culture of sharing and to integrate publication of data into research assessment procedures. The report 'The Value of Research Data - Metrics for datasets from a cultural and technical point of view' was presented and discussed. Some of the key finding were that data sharing should be considered normal research practice, in fact not sharing should be considered malpractice. Research funders and universities should support and encourage data sharing. There are a number of important aspects to consider when making data count in research and evaluation procedures. Metrics are a necessary tool in monitoring the sharing of data sets. However, data metrics are at present not very well developed and there is not yet enough experience in what these metrics actually mean. It is important to implement the culture of sharing through codes of conducts in the scientific communities. For further key findings please read the report.

Report on Knowledge Exchange workshop Price of keeping knowledge: financial streams for digital preservation

In contrast to cost modeling activities, the pricing of services must be simple and transparent. Calculating and thus knowing price structures, would not only help identify the level of detail required for cost modeling of individual instititutions, but also help develop a ”public” market for services as well as clarify the division of task and the modeling of funding and revenue streams for data preservation of public institutions. This workshop has built on the results from the workshop ”The Costs and Benefits of Keeping Knowledge” which took place 11 June 2012 in Copenhagen. This expert workshop aimed at: •Identifying ways for data repositories to abstract from their complicated cost structures and arrive at one transparent pricing structure which can be aligned with available and plausible funding schemes. Those repositories will probably need a stable institutional funding stream for data management and preservation. Are there any estimates for this, absolute or as percentage of overall cost? Part of the revenue will probably have to come through data management fees upon ingest. How could that be priced? Per dataset, per GB or as a percentage of research cost? Will it be necessary to charge access prices, as they contradict the open science paradigm? •What are the price components for pricing individual services, which prices are currently being paid e.g. to commercial providers? What are the description and conditions of the service(s) delivered and guaranteed? •What types of risks are inherent in these pricing schemes? •How can services and prices be defined in an all-inclusive and simple manner, so as to enable researchers to apply for specific amount when asking for funding of data-intensive projects?Please

Report on Knowledge Exchange workshop Cost models for keeping knowledge: economic models for digital preservation

Organised by Knowledge Exchange & the Nordbib programme 11 June 2012, 8:30-12:30, Copenhagen Adjacent to the Nordbib conference 'Structural frameworks for open, digital research' Participants in break out discussion during the workshop on cost modelsThe Knowledge Exchange and the Nordbib programme organised a workshop on cost models for the preservation and management of digital collections. The rapid growth of the digital information which a wide range of institutions must preserve emphasizes the need for robust cost modelling. Such models should enable these institutions to assess both what resources are needed to sustain their digital preservation activities and allow comparisons of different preservation solutions in order to select the most cost-efficient alternative. In order to justify the costs institutions also need to describe the expected benefits of preserving digital information. This workshop provided an overview of existing models and demonstrated the functionality of some of the current cost tools. It considered the specific economic challenges with regard to the preservation of research data and addressed the benefits of investing in the preservation of digital information. Finally, the workshop discussed international collaboration on cost models. The aim of the workshop was to facilitate understanding of the economies of data preservation and to discuss the value of developing an international benchmarking model for the costs and benefits of digital preservation. The workshop took place in the Danish Agency for Culture and was planned directly prior to the Nordbib conference 'Structural frameworks for open, digital research'