Meetings/20070105/DefiningImageAccess-KickOff

From ImageWeb

Jump to: navigation, search
Defining Image Access

Defining Image Access: Requirements for interoperable discovery and delivery of image data stored in DSpace, EPrints and Fedora-based institutional repositories using a data web approach

Minutes and notes from the Project Kick-Off Meeting Friday 5th January 2007, Oxford University Press, Oxford

Contents

Minutes

These Minutes reference the notes below.

Present

  • David Shotton Image Bioinformatics Research Group, Oxford University
  • Graham Klyne Image Bioinformatics Research Group, Oxford University
  • Jun Zhao Image Bioinformatics Research Group, Oxford University
  • Julie Allinson UKOLN Repositories Programme (in place of Rachel Heery)
  • Jessie Hey University of Southampton Library and School of Computer Science
  • Patricia Killiard DSpace@Cambridge (in place of Peter Morgan), University Library
  • Brian Matthews CCLRC e-Science Centre, Rutherford Laboratory
  • Dolores Iorrizo Imperial College Internet Institute
  • Yiota Polydoratou Imperial College Library (Clare Jenkins unable to attend)
  • Balviar Notay JISC Programme Manager
  • Michael Fraser Oxford Computing Services, Learning Technologies Group
  • Peter Robinson Oxford Computing Services, Learning Technologies Group
  • David Wallom Oxford e-Research Centre
  • Sally Rumsey Institutional Repository Project Manager, Oxford Library Services
  • Neil Jefferies Oxford Library Services

Apologies for absence

  • Rachel Heery UKOLN Repositories Programme (indisposed)
  • Howard Noble Oxford Computing Services
  • Dan Brickley Semantic Web Consultant (in Argentina)

Agenda (as slightly revised at the wish of the meeting)

  • 10:30 David Shotton
    • Welcome and introductions
    • Description of the data webs vision
    • Summary of the JISC Defining Image Access Project
  • 11:30 Coffee
  • 12:00 David Shotton Report of the BioImageWeb Consortium meeting held on 4th Jan 2007
  • 12:15 Julie Allinson and Balviar Notay Relationship of this project to other JISC activities
  • 13:00 Lunch
  • 14:00 Brian Matthews Advice from a CCLRC perspective, and CCLRC participation
  • 14:15 Patricia Killiard Description of image holdings within DSpace@Cambridge
  • 14:30 Jessie Hey Description of image holdings within EPrints
  • 14:45 Sally Rumsey Description of image holdings within the Oxford Repositories
  • 15:00 Yiota Polydoratou Description of image holdings within the IC Repositories
  • 15:05 David Wallom Advice from an OeRC perspective, and OeRC participation
  • 15:20 Michael Fraser Advice from a OUCS perspective, and OUCS participation, and Peter Robinson on OxCLIC
  • 15:30 Tea and visit to OUP Museum
  • 16:00 Graham Klyne Presentation of the Defining Image Access project plan and discussion of technical approaches
  • 16:45 Discussion of outstanding issues; decision of dates of visits and future meetings
  • 17:00 Close of meeting

Welcome and introductions

David permitted each person to introduce themselves and describe their interests of relevance to the project. He explained that Dan Brickley had been invited to join the project as a Consultant Partner. While he was unable to attend the meeting, being currently in Argentina, he was due back soon and would until then participate by e-mail. He thanked everyone for their enthusiastic partnership in the Defining Image Access scoping project, for their generous offers of time and advice, and for participation in the meeting. He encouraged them to help the core team by bringing to their attention JISC projects and other initiatives of relevance. He also thanked Richard O’Beirne of Oxford University Press for his kindness in hosting this meeting and providing the lunch and refreshments.

Presentation on data webs and the Defining Image Access project

Comments on data webs and the Defining Image Access project

  • David Wallom: Open Source software is nice, but not necessary. Sometimes faster progress can be made by using commercial software.
    • Response: We agree; the open-ness is a philosophical position and general preference, but proprietary software is not absolutely ruled out.
  • Stakeholder analysis (see slides):
    • Peter Robinson: Not everything happens in a silo. value may come by looking across interests. More generally, the ability to create new facilities (e.g. mashups) may be of value to a wider audience - as-yet unidentified stakeholders developing new and emerging applications.
  • Balviar suggests a BioImageWeb steering group for this project. This betrayed some confusion between the BioImageWeb Consortium, the larger informal group including publishers, and the specific partners of the Defining Image Web project, who between themselves constitute the project’s "steering group".
  • It was agreed that the issue of domain ontologies to define image holdings was a difficult area.

David Shotton: Report of BioImageWeb Consortium meeting

Comments on David’s BioImageWeb presentation

  • Dolores: Publishers don't actually do research. They are thus excited to be part of a collaborative initiative, so they can benefit from R&D work. This strips away initial preconceptions that they're are just competitors. The Thursday meeting was remarkable in having no discussion of IPR. There are questions publishers have that institutional repositories don't, e.g. how could new technologies keep metadata intact? Maybe new value-add enabled by expert text markup – perhaps involvement of the Text Encoding Initiative to change social practice/expectations of authors when text is submitted. This could transform publication, leading to "intelligent articles" and "intelligent books".
  • Some general grumbling about authors not willing to do this, but it was recognised that there is a need for co-reference, identity detection, disambiguation, etc. We need expert markup, so we need to create some changes in author behaviour to achieve this. Some reference to JISC possible funding.
  • There was also mention of assignment by publishers of DOIs for images within articles.
  • Dolores sees a clear need for an annotation system, and ways for formal and informal annotation working together, creating possibilities for mashups. Robert Kiley (of all those present on Thursday) was sceptical about the requirement for this.
  • Traditional boundaries between consumer and provider are becoming mixed up. This needs to be included in the requirements analysis – the need to involve many more people: publishers, authors, consumers, computing, public policy, etc.
  • Still not clear about the new business model for Open Access publishing.
  • David Wallom: Are there contribution from publishers regarding pre-publication services? Elsevier and Nature are looking at this. Physics are ahead of the game in this respect.

Julie Allinson, Repositories Research Team at UKOLN

David asked for partners to educate the core team concerning JISC projects we should be aware of, and standards we should consider.

Digital Repositories programme will finish July. 25 project funded. Within the Repositories and Preservation strand, the following projects are of relevance:

    • ACTION: JISC to put us in touch with MIDESS draft authors.
  • JISC Application profiles being developed for (Eprints) images, time-based media, geospatial, eScience data (cf. Robert Muzuelfeld?). JISC have approached TASI to lead this area.
  • (Balviar said: "It appears you already identified most of the key synergies.")

Balviar Notay, Programme Manager, JISC

We should build upon Rachel Heery's report on digital repositories.

JISC needs application profiles for other media types, including images, geospatial data, time-based media. JISC funding two studies, one for research data and one for e-learning. For images and movies, TASI will lead

Repositories programme structure: JISC funding two mechanisms to support this area:

  • Repositories and search team - supply training
  • Repositories support project lead by SHERPA - will take all stuff about repositories and pull it together. They have just started - our output will feed into their work.
    • Key contact Bill Hubbard Nottingham; UKOLN will also have 2 fulltime members of staff.
  • Intute search project - just started. Alpha site based on eprints UK project. Caroline Williams and Vic Lyte in Manchester are main contacts, plus Humanities Intute work in Oxford (Michael Fraser).
    • Intute is doing geo crosswalk: disambiguation for geographical coordinates > image of that place, parish name, etc. Personalization of search too.
  • Discovery and disclosure (aggregation), and subject search - our project needs to be part of that. Towards a (better) UK version of OAIster?

Michael Fraser: First search method everyone uses is typically Google, so registry holdings need to have visibility to Google. David S: a role here for Google Scholar? Perhaps Neil Jefferies could help??

  • (Comment that some research articles appeared in Google but not in Google Scholar). JISC were building a relationship at one point, top secret(!)
  • Michael: preferable to work with individual Google engineers rather than the organization.
  • David Wallom's comment: In general, US universities have better relationships with Google (cf. Harvard, Stanford).

Brian Matthews commended the upcoming JISC conference in June in Manchester. Neil Jacobs organizing it. Geared toward practitioners - showcasing the Digital Repositories programme and projects, open to all to attend. Brian Matthews to chair thread on Science data.

Balvier later added: JISC Visual and Sound Material Portal (http://edina.ac.uk/projects/vsmportal/ and http://www.jisc.ac.uk/whatwedo/programmes/programme_portals/project_vsmportal.aspx). Based on PIXUS image portal developed by System Simulation (N.B. BioImageWeb Consortium members!) for content based image retrieval. Just started: run by Christine Reese of EDINA.

Someone suggested that contact with the JISC National Text Mining Centre (Liverpool) might be useful. David S replied that he had invited them to last Ontogenesis Network meeting, but they were unable to attend.

In answer to David's enquiry as to why JISC chose to fund this project, Balviar replied because it was innovation in the images area, using semantics.

Brian Matthews, e-Science Centre, CCLRC, Rutherford Laboratory

CCLRC has large data holdings, built up over the last 25 years. Formats developed ad hoc. 2001: e-Science started to look at managing back catalogue and new data (LHC) - Mechanisms for storage, cataloguing and reuse

  • 2001: Data portal project started - scoping. Familiar structure to this project - harvest metadata over distributed resources > central metadata catalogue and search facility.
    • e.g. analysis of paracetamol can return a list of resources that refer to such; uses XML format and ad hoc protocols.
  • Metadata catalogues now spun off and live on as the metadata catalogue of ISIS metadata, rolling out for Diamond Light Source, and other projects.

Data have similar characteristics to images, in not being self-describing, thus lessons learned relevant.

Metadata Format for Scientific Data now has an independent life as ICAT (Information catalogue) - meeting the need for more simple metadata, being used for Combichem, etc. See http://www.e-science.clrc.ac.uk/web/groups/Data-Management/.

After the early work, Brian started to work with SW technologies. In light of this, he is now revisiting metadata formats and repositories, and feels that that data portals need something like Semantic Web technology.

CCLRC has ePubs Repository http://epubs.cclrc.ac.uk/, using its own software based on FRBR. (Matthew Mascord wrote ePubs).

  • [Dolores asked: Could this be used to test integration of FRBR and CIDOC?]

JISC CLADDIER Project http://claddier.badc.ac.uk/trac and http://www.jisc.ac.uk/whatwedo/programmes/programme_digital_repositories/project_claddier.aspx. Addresses issues involved in publication of data: What does it mean to publish data and contextual information? How to cross-link data and publications?

  • David Wallom: OERC have been approached by people from Diamond about similar requirements.
  • Also of relevance is the Integrative Biology VRE Project: http://www.vre.ox.ac.uk/ibvre/, due to finishing this summer - Matthew Mascord at OUCS is working on this. They have images of heart simulation, etc.

Semantic Web work: SKOS http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/ originated in CCLRC as part of SWAD-E.

  • Capture meaning and vocabs. Being developed by Alistair Miles with Dan Brickley. Standard exchange representation for thesaurus.
  • Contrasts with OWL - SCOS comes from digital library approach - subject classification of resources in simple manner, focused towards information retrieval as reflected in library practice. In contrast, OWL, coming from an AI approach, is trying to capture real world semantics.
  • W3C Working Group is taking SKOS on a W3C recommendation track.

Brian has been involved in developments very similar to datawebs, but using XML and ad hoc protocols. He is now excited about revisit these ideas with more principled approaches, perhaps using SKOS as a mechanism for doing searches.

He discussed Alistair's ideas for the management of the evolution of meaning within defined vocabularies, using his analogy of "gardens of meaning", with SKOS as part of the underlying technical infrastructure. This takes ideas from folksonomies, but captures the wisdom of the community in a structured manner, and is able to track changes over time, so that one can obtain reasonable recall for instances tagged with old names, when searching with new names. This approach could also handle multi-lingual thesauri. This notion of capturing change over time leads into the digital curation area. This may relate to Martin Doerr's work on mapping.

In the curation area:

  • David Giaretta's work on OAIS (Open Archives Information Systems; http://nost.gsfc.nasa.gov/isoas/) - an abstract model for long-term preservation, has led on to a major European project called CASPAR (Cultural, Artistic and Scientific knowledge for Preservation, Access and Retrieval; http://www.casparpreserves.eu/) that is of relevance. CASPER work is a proof of concept of OAIS.
  • Reference to "designated community" - there are important aspects of this that impact community-sensitivity of data/metadata. Brian emphasised the need to know who is the designated community, what they know, and what info you give back to them.
  • [Dolores Iorizzo commented:: Ingest should be a separate workpackage - need to consider ingest at the same time as preservation issues. What about ingest with semantic tags?]

How to keep a record of the resource discovery process once the search has been undertaken and the resource has been discovered?

  • Brian recommended TREXY (http://trexy.com/welcome.cgi), which hooks into search engine searches and remembers searches in a sharable way.
    • (Google personalized search is similar, except that it works only for Google-initiated searches.)

He summarized lessons learned:

  • Important to know the community one is trying to serve.
  • There are serious problems of getting good metadata - data owners will put it in badly and wrong, but they don’t trust anyone else to do it!
    • Kerstin Kleese <K.Kleese@dl.ac.uk> is developing methods for doing this, using "carrots, sticks and stealth"!
  • Control of / influence over data gathering environment can be helpful. CCLRC's own experiments are undertaken within a closed system, so metadata capture here is easy.

He asked what do we mean by an image: Vector? Raster? Visualization as the end-point of analysis, constructed for presentation, and needs to be available for interpretation of the image.

How much background data do you wish to capture? Is it necessary to record details of the tools and software necessary to render specialized images, or even to preserve the tools themselves?

He also raised questions of quality assurance and Digital Rights Management.

ACTION: add a definition of an image to the wiki pages. ACTION: clarify scope of present project in wiki ACTION: clarify that we deal with image as (mostly) opaque entities, and depend on available information/metadata.

Patricia Killiard - Description of image holdings within DSpace@Cambridge

DSpace@Cambridge has been running for 2 years and holds ~200,000 files, mostly chemical (chemical structures represented as cml files).

Images fall into two groups:

(A) Still images deposited as a result of digitisation of library manuscripts, photographs and other material, or photographs taken in the field, e.g. by archaeologists and anthropologists (TIFFs and JPEGS), and moving images resulting from fieldwork, mainly by the above specialists, where there is metadata for individual files. Stand alone images - at least 1000 with metadata, including:

  • The Royal Commonwealth Society Photographic Collection, with modified DC metadata.

Spatial data, coordinates and geographic names relate to many images - temporal data too - "iron age". See example at http://www.dspace.cam.ac.uk/handle/1810/789?mode=full .

  • Other image collections have not had metadata mapped to DC. MPEG-21 used to embed metadata. Images mostly open access (except TIFFs, which are sold as part of a business model). Modified DC metadata only, using library application profile.

(B) Images that are embedded images in PDFs, e.g. pre-prints, e-prints, working papers.

  • e.g. PDFs of EPRints submitted by material science, economics, etc, with unknown metadata.

Digitization of images is a high priority for Cambridge - Mellon-funded digitization project, plus Scott Polar images funded by JISC, will generate many images.

DSpace@Cambridge in general:

  • Now funded as a Library Service, rather than as an experimental project.
  • Supports modified DC and OAI-PMH v2.
  • Has little control of legacy data. When image collections are loaded, metadata has to be mapped to qualified DC.
  • Various museum images available, using museum standards, but not loaded because metadata is in wrong format.
  • Interested in metadata conversion tools.

[GK: Maybe can identify missing tools for metadata conversion? ]

David Wallom asked: How will your collections be funded in (say) 10-15 years?

  • Patricia: Has idea of charging data providers for disc space, and usage tracking to enable charging (?).

Name authority (see memo from Patricia...) **************

OAI-CAT software -- see DSpace wiki for more information.

Jessie Hey - UoS Repositories - Diversity and media types

Jessie's presentation: http://imageweb.zoo.ox.ac.uk/drupal/files/Hey%20-%20UoS%20Repositories%20-%20Diversity%20and%20media%20types%205%20Jan%202007.ppt

e-Prints at Southampton is central repository system involved in a variety of other things too:

  • AKT - consortium publications, own classification, not visible AgentLink - EU consortium publications, own classification
  • CLAReT - 4 universities projects and outputs; contextual learning. See also MURLLO and CLARET. Contains video, audio and text.
  • eCrystals - Southampton and EPSRC. Various data files and summary report. Preservation - what happens when people retire?
  • SERPECT - ROV technology (remote operated vehicle). Example: videos and images from ocean around oil rigs. Images with location, ocean depth, behaviour. Video also. Rich metadata.
    • DMS: The striking images of deep ocean creatures would be very suitable for this project.

URL of briefing. [??]

Exploring CLADDIER project for linking with datasets. Datasets need rich(er) description to link with depositions in repository.

Other tools:

  • ROAR - registry of open access repositories [DMS: See also JISC Open DOAR]
  • DROID automatic file format identification tool.

GK: Occurs to me: ask repository partners to focus on aspects of repositories that represent anticipated future position.

DS: Asked for comments about extracting images (figures) from publications.

  • JH: better images available in associated data. Not easy to extract from documents in repository, as ePrint s is currently set up. "The ones that are hidden from the publisher are hidden for ever". Eprints v3 will have more support for images and more flexibility.

Sally Rumsey - Description of image holdings within the Oxford Repositories

The OULS Imaging Service has ~900,000 digital images archived as TIFFs with little or no metadata. Some other metadata spread over 3-4 bespoke databases. Imaging service and library have different copies. Imaging service copies are archived.

The Oxford Digital Library Development Fund digitized ~25,000 images with METS metadata of varying granularity.

Oxford's alliance with Google is for digitization of images of out-of-copyright books, at page level plus cover images - several million images in all, as JPEG 2000 with minimal metadata, linked to volume catalogue records.

Other holdings: Mixed bag of stuff from elsewhere: e.g. Microfilm > TIFF > GIF Broadside ballads; old journals digitized; digitizing of John Johnson ephemera funded. Potentially, all these images could go into Fedora repository.

Separate from this is the Research Output Archive that Sally is building.

Summary: a mixed bag, should be able to find some useful examples.

Decision to use Fedora taken about a year ago.

Yiota Polydoratou - Description of image holdings within the IC Repositories

Repository active 1 year, using DSpace, local software to hold metadata, and DC. Emphasis primarily on articles, not images.

Dolores Iorizzo added: Motivation for being here is to get departments working together. Big collections in:

  • Neurosciece - NeuroGrid project
  • Medical imaging
  • Environmental science
  • Insect database and trees
  • Geo and earth sciences
  • Plate tectonics and cracks for oil drilling
  • Astronomy

Functional requirements document to view????

David Wallom - Advice from an OeRC perspective, and OeRC participation

Many OeRC projects involved images:

  • BioSymGrid - simulated protein folding and docking - many partners, now unfunded, still going
  • ClimatePrediction.net generates images for presentation from multiple terabytes of climate data
  • Classics - ancient documents and old woodblock writings; image processing and feature extraction software from Mike Brady's medical imaging group helps to recover images.
  • NeuroGRID
  • Cancer and Brain imaging project (Microsoft) generates terabytes of data

All generated large amounts of raw research data: plan is to not store images, but to store extracted metadata in Institutional Repository. Working from storage resource broker archive, and other local storage, from which will harvest the metadata. Institutional repository will have different curation rules to other local storage.

Campus Grid: Computation work generates data, with automatically generated job metadata linked to results.

New projects:

  • Another project involves MEG scans and MRI scans of human brain: want to combine images from the different scanning techniques.

Concern for long term curation:

  • Large data sets arise from specific projects with limited funding. Who will pay for this long term? Need a model for charging users on access to stored data. Access to 1901 census data is charged, still is popular.
  • David S. raised comparison with US giving away weather data, generating secondary service industries that generate ten times the tax revenue that Europe makes by selling such weather data. However, he acknowledged that this equation only makes sense if it is the government that is giving away the data, or recompensing those who do so from tax revenues.

Michael Fraser - Advice from a OUCS perspective, and OUCS participation

Recognises that there are many projects using repositories - not just ePrints. Oxford is about to establish a Digital Repository Steering Group.

The Fedora production system can offer a range of different repository services: ePrints, eTheses, other services (ingest management, etc) - moving to a service oriented approach, and at the technical level.

Activities in OUCS involve national projects relevant to repositories and images:

  • JISC Capital Fund: digitization of 1st World War archive in English faculty- will be seeking a repository for images.
  • ASK project - e-learning reading list resources - expertise in service-oriented approach and METS metadata standard.
  • Intute
  • Oxford Text Archive, part of AHDS
  • Text Encoding Initiative (XML-based)
  • Integrative Biology > repository of data relating to simulations - data only makes sense when handled holistically.

Peter Robinson - OxCLIC: Use of images for education

CLIC surveyed 500 image collections. Software didn't allow advantage of OAI standards, so recommended a subject-based lightweight approach.

OxCLIC is a follow-on project to digitise slides for 4 different arts/humanities subjects, catalogue with metadata and put into image repositories.

Prototype uses MDID software - open source - inherently image-centric, with built in slide viewers, and PowerPoint-like presentations. Well-documented path from catalogue to CSV file of cross-searchable metadata. Can assign DC metadata to different fields, and can search across different MDID repositories.

Lessons learned:

  • We know that academics don’t want to catalogue - at max they will supply only 3 pieces of metadata!

Use commercial data entry software: Extensis Portfolio (http://www.extensis.com) simplifies entry of repetitive data, exports to XML.

iView MediaPro just taken over by Microsoft (http://www.iview-multimedia.com/).

Repository software needs an efficient batch method for entering images and metadata.

Motivation: Academic image collections are usually from narrow specific research project. There is a lack of generic image material for teaching, and need for some cross-subject aggregation.

ASK Project is JISC-funded to bring collections together within JISC repository framework. Has good implementation of cross-searching.

IPR is a confused issue, with no-one seeing the whole picture of who owns what, and what is willing to be exposed. Groups and access permissions need to be thought about carefully - need a gradations of permission levels rather than yes / no.

Graham Klyne: project plan review

Project plan: DefiningImageAccessPlan

Overview notes

Summary of some key technical features of the Defining Image Access project.

The general goal is given as: facilitating interoperable access to research images

Name: DEFImage? (Dspace, Eprints, Fedora Images) [DMS: also "ImageDEF", or "DIA"]

  • The web makes possible publication of images and other "particulars" (cf. mention of "distributed personal data publication" in David's slides)
  • Guiding principles and values
    • To maintain full access to and control by existing repositories - a data web is not a new synthetic repository.
    • To work with existing repository and metadata formats as we find them - adding value rather than changing existing deployments
    • Loose coupling - easy replacement of components
    • Avoid development complexity
    • Use existing software tools wherever possible
    • Use existing metadata standards wherever possible
    • Use the power of the World Wide Web as a platform
    • Provide a higher point of departure for new applications (cf. Tim O'Reilly in "What is Web 2.0": "The right to remix") - not attempting to solve all user requirements in a single system
  • Approach for this project
    • Focus on:
      • Information design
      • Software selection
    • Will survey:
      • Repository software systems - Dspace, Eprints, Fedora
      • Metadata deployment
      • Software tools
    • Isolate common metadata themes - towards a core ontology
    • Synthesize a system with minimum new code - use existing software for "heavy lifting", and use the Web as a platform for integration
  • A brief note about Web architecture and technologies
    • URIs as identifiers - this is fundamental, and can encompass DOIs, LSIDs, etc.
    • Common transfer mechanisms - commonly HTTP, but others are possible
    • Representations
      • HTML for humans
      • XML for specific applications
      • RDF: "integration comes for free"
        • Single syntactic model (unlike XML)
        • Well-founded basis for composing documents
        • Truth propagation (truth of composed document is entailed by truth of components)

Graham presented a draft list of potential tools, as shown on the project plan.

Others suggested:

  • The VITAL commercial version of FEDORA, which has suits of tools.

Tagging: While not part of the core project, everyone recognised that this is important. It should be integrated with the workflow of a repository, as part of process of adding or editing metadata.

Is metadata embedded in or accompanying the image? What tools are there for metadata extraction from image headers?

Other ideas:

  • We need a new Work Package to study use cases - how stakeholders will relate to data webs.
    • [DMS comments: This is part of the complementary requirements analysis that he hopes the publisher members of the BioImageWeb Consortium will fund.]
  • We also need to review other repository comparisons.

ACE Media is heading the multimedia ontology project. Dolores suggested that it might be worth visiting Paola Hobson at Motorola for a talk.

Discussion of outstanding issues; decision of dates of visits and future meetings

David thanked everyone for attending and making the meeting so helpful in launching the project, and asked Balviar whether there were any further issues that she would like to raise on behalf of the JISC (there were none).

Dates of the next project meetings: He proposed that the next two project meetings be:

  • In Oxford on February 9th on the subject of standards, software and ontologies
  • In Bath (with ULOLN’s agreement) on March 9th to discuss interactions with the Intute Search system, to which key Intute staff would be invited.

The meeting closed promptly at 5 pm.

Retrieved from "http://imageweb.zoo.ox.ac.uk/wiki/index.php/Meetings/20070105/DefiningImageAccess-KickOff"
Personal tools
Oxford DMP online
MIIDI
Claros