Two projects I’ve been working on are about to collide. RUBRIC has been looking at institutional repositories for storing finished documents and ICE looks at the process of creating documents. RUBRIC is considering long term storage of documents with stable metadata (ie fairly fixed context) and ICE is looking at short-term storage of works in progress where context changes all the time.
I want to think about Workflow for Web 2.0
Web 2.0 is all about open systems and people interacting. (I was not a fan of the term, but I’ve given up resisting and started using it.)
Wikipedia currently says:
In the opening talk of the first Web 2.0 conference, Tim O’Reilly and John Battelle summarized key principles they believed characterized Web 2.0 applications:
the Web as a platform
data as the driving force
network effects created by an architecture of participation
innovation in assembly of systems and sites composed by pulling together features from distributed, independent developers (a kind of “open source” development)
lightweight business models enabled by content and service syndication
the end of the software adoption cycle (“the perpetual beta”)
software above the level of a single device, leveraging the power of The Long Tail.
The highlighting is mine – these are the bits I want to talk about in this post.
I think that some of the characteristics of ‘Web 2.0’ are important to workflow. I’m thinking that workflow should emerge out of the interaction between people using multiple different, mainly web-based systems, and that building too much workflow into any one system is likely to be unsatisfying. Web 2.0 is about relinquishing centralised control over process, while maintaining the integrity of individual systems.
The idea is to work out what you are trying to achieve. For an institutional repository the criteria for inclusion might be something like the following.
An item must:
Be a peer reviewed scholarly work or thesis for which a higher-degree has been awarded.
Be available for Open Access.
Have associated archival-quality metadata that has been certified by the library.
So any item that meets these criteria can and should go in as automatically as possible. It shouldn’t matter in what order these things happen, just that they can be shown to have happened. If the metadata for a thesis can be finalized during the examination period and locked-down then why not allow that even if the workflow designer didn’t foresee that happening?
Cameron Loudon and I like to call this approach ‘emergent workflow’ but I’m thinking of calling it ‘Workflow 2.0’ .
Workflow 2.0: what would it look like?
Currently it is de-rigeur for institutional repositories (IRs) to have a web-ingest mechanism. That is, there is a form you can fill out on the web to upload a document.
But in a Workflow 2.0 system the IR might not need to have a web ingest. Instead there could be an ingest rule that would fire when a certain context was detected, such as a document attaining a certain state of development, which would be reflected in it’s metadata. That’s the ‘data as the driving force’ that’s quoted above. In this case it’s metadata that’s doing the driving.
So if your institution uses Microsoft Sharepoint, for all content management, then you might add your paper to Sharepoint, and collect metadata about it there. Sharepoint could have an ATOM feed for ‘Conference papers that have been accepted into peer-reviewed conferences’. The IR would subscribe to the feed and grab new content automatically. That’s content and service syndication.
Or there might be a marvelous metadata collection application that is independent of the IR – why not use that? I know some libraries use their existing metadata tools rather than the ones that come with the repository; the examples I’ve seen have been a bit clunky, but in a Web 2.0 / Workflow 2.0 world integration could be quite seamless.
We’re going to try this with ICE in the new ICE-RS project.
Here’s a fictional scenario. We don’t have all these features yet:
I decide to write a paper for a conference. Let’s say it’s AusWeb.
I go to my drafts folder in ICE and add a new document, choosing ‘conference paper’ as a template.
ICE brings up a form with a few key details.
name of the conference
date the full paper is due
dates the conference will be held
working title for the paper
what referencing style does the conference require?
(If ICE doesn’t already know some of the above entered by another user)
ICE creates a document and I start working on an abstract.
I forget all about it.
A month before the deadline, my calendar reminds me that the paper is due in a month.
Well, when I added the draft, ICE added the dates to its iCal calendar, including reminders at strategic points. My calendar is subscribed to ICE, so the reminders will pop up at the right time. That’s workflow 2.0; there’s no overarching ‘flowchart’ in ICE that’s mapping out steps, more a polite integration with my other tools. That’s pulling together features.
I finish the paper and use ICE to format it to AusWeb’s style guide.
Here it would be great to click the ‘submit to AusWeb’ button, and I have spoken to the organizers about making this happen, but maybe I have to do the submission myself and just tick the ‘I have Submitted’ button.
My paper is accepted subject to some fix-ups, so back to step 7 until…
… the paper is unconditionally accepted so I can tick the box that says ‘Accepted’.
The USQ e-Prints site notices that my paper has been accepted, via an ATOM feed that watches ICE, and grabs a copy for the repository, where is sits in a holding pen awaiting review.
A librarian grooms the metadata I added to my document and when it’s spiffy, uses the IR’s internal workflow to ingest the document. Optionally, the librarian could do this in ICE some time during the authoring process, and we can cut out the approval process at the end.
ICE reminds me, via my calendar that I have three weeks to sort out my travel.
There’s other potential here as well. There might be a dashboard in the travel office that works out that there are three people planning to attend the same conference, so maybe we should share transport. That’s a kind of workflow I can’t see you getting any other way. Imagine trying to put in a new university-wide system that tried to track all the conference submissions happening everywhere so the bureaucrats could save a few dollars. But if authors are induced to input the data because it’s of use to them, then we might see a ‘network effect created by an architecture of participation’.
Hey, ICE might even be able to help in filling out the travel forms or interfacing with the travel API for the University, assuming it’s a ‘2.0’ kinda system.