Within the next year, we want to upgrade to 10.10 and at the same time, remove Shibboleth
Also some parallel tracks
User interface transition (JSF-UI to Web-UI)
Adding new Nuxeo components; Enabling other features within Nuxeo:
Support for 3D files (management; rendering; and derivative files). Next step: Figure out how to render these in Calisphere
Support for structured text files (e.g., XML, Markdown, HTML). Some campuses have have legacy TEI files -- and Nuxeo could be more effectively used to manage them. Would also then position us to determine how to render these in Calisphere.
Changes or extensions to the standard schema. It’s a UCLDC metadata scheme that we developed early on
Want to update to support rightsstatements.org and CC licenses (option to add these) that we can render on Calisphere
Potentially include a signal that indicates particular kinds of complex objects, to facilitate their display in Calisphere (e.g., oral history complex object)
Maintenance of the existing tools
Revisit the nuxeo_spreadsheet import: UCLA made some improvements to the nuxeo_spreadsheet importer to allow for Google Sheets importing/exporting; but there are performance issues with the most current version. We want to revisit and update the code.
File-renaming: option to rename uploaded files on the backend
Explore additional publication endpoints
E.g., oral history documents -- initial exploration for a Nuxeo → eScholarship integration
3D file support deeper dive:
Nuxeo supports the following 3d filetypes: Collada (.dae); 3D Studio (.3ds); FBX (.fbx); Stanford (.ply); Wavefront (.obj); X3D Extensible 3D (.x3d); Stl (.stl)
Before rolling out the Dashboard broadly to Calisphere contributors, we'd like to gather your input and feedback on the functionality -- and also determine if there are any sensitivities around seeing usage info. across other organizations
Mediated access to digital materials: use case scenarios
Motivations to provide mediated access may include:
Materials have not yet been evaluated at an item-level, to assess copyright. Mediated access is viewed as a solution to help mitigate risk.
Donor stipulations state that a third-party must sign-off prior to access for reproductions
Culturally sensitive materials may also stipulate a third-party sign-off
Collections may lack donor documentation
Providing at least mediated access may surface materials that can be publicly accessed. There may be items that can’t yet be assessed due to lack of access -- and may need some type of visibility to have conversations with administrators
These scenarios are provided to demonstrate workflow considerations. Managing large quantities of materials/files could be simplified by pointing users to a centralized point of access.
Consider: item-level restriction vs. series-level restriction vs. collection-level restriction
Crossover with research data curation:
Currently, only a single UC-wide platform (Dryad), which holds only openly available data.
Considerations for licensed data, or data with potentially sensitive information?
Would it make sense to have a common discovery/delivery platform for access to restricted content managed by UC Libs? Or should restricted data be accessed separately? (What would users prefer?)
Tends to consist of different user groups (archival vs. research data)
We're currently providing access based on particular formats:
From an end-user perspective, it might make sense to have a centralized platform for restricted/mediated access materials