Data Deposit in a CKAN Repository: A Dublin Core-Based Simplified Workflow

  • Yulia KarimovaEmail author
  • João Aguiar Castro
  • Cristina Ribeiro
Conference paper
Part of the Communications in Computer and Information Science book series (CCIS, volume 988)


Researchers are currently encouraged by their institutions and the funding agencies to deposit data resulting from projects. Activities related to research data management, namely organization, description, and deposit, are not obvious for researchers due to the lack of knowledge on metadata and the limited data publication experience. Institutions are looking for solutions to help researchers organize their data and make them ready for publication. We consider here the deposit process for a CKAN-powered data repository managed as part of the IT services of a large research institute. A simplified data deposit process is illustrated here by means of a set of examples where researchers describe their data and complete the publication in the repository. The process is organised around a Dublin Core-based dataset deposit form, filled by the researchers as preparation for data deposit. The contacts with researchers provided the opportunity to gather feedback about the Dublin Core metadata and the overall experience. Reflections on the ongoing process highlight a few difficulties in data description, but also show that researchers are motivated to get involved in data publication activities.


Research data management Metadata Dublin Core CKAN Data publication 



This work is financed by the ERDF – European Regional Development Fund through the Operational Programme for Competitiveness and Internationalisation - COMPETE 2020 Programme and by National Funds through the Portuguese funding agency, FCT - Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia within project TAIL, POCI-01-0145-FEDER-016736. João Aguiar Castro is supported by research grant PD/BD/114143/2015, provided by the FCT - Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia. Yulia Karimova is supported by research grant SFRH/BD/136332/2018, provided by the FCT - Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia.


  1. 1.
    Amorim, R., et al.: A comparison of research data management platforms: architecture, flexible metadata and interoperability. Univers. Access Inf. Soc. 16, 851–862 (2017). Scholar
  2. 2.
    Assante, M., et al.: Are scientific data repositories coping with research data publishing? Data Sci. J. 15, 6 (2016). Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bishoff, C., Johnston, L.: Approaches to data sharing: an analysis of NSF data management plans from a Large Research University. J. Libr. Sch. Commun. 3(2), eP1231 (2015). Scholar
  4. 4.
    Castro, J.A., et al.: Involving data creators in an ontology-based design process for metadata models. In: Developing Metadata Application Profiles, pp. 181–214. IGI Global (2017).
  5. 5.
    European Commission: Accompanying the document Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the re-use of public sector information. SWD/2018/145 final - 2018/0111 (COD). Brussels (2018).
  6. 6.
    European Commission: Horizon 2020. Work Programme 2016 - 2017. Annex L. Conditions related to open access to research data (2017).
  7. 7.
    Van den Eynden, V., et al.: Managing and sharing data - best practice for researchers. UK Data Archive, pp. 1–40 (2011). ISBN 1904059783Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Farnel, S., Shiri, A.: Metadata for research data: current practices and trends. In: International Conference on Dublin Core and Metadata Applications, pp. 74–82 (2014).
  9. 9.
    Gartner, R.: Metadata becomes digital. Metadata, pp. 27–39. Springer, Cham (2016). Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hudson Vitale, C.R.: The current state of meta-repositories for data. In: Johnston, L.R. (ed.) Curating Research Data, Volume One: Practical Strategies for Your Digital Repository, pp. 251–261. Association of College and Research Libraries, Chicago (2017)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Karimova, Y.: Vocabulários controlados na descrição de dados de investigação no Dendro. Universidade do Porto, Faculdade de Engenharia (2016).
  12. 12.
    Karimova, Y., Castro, J.A., da Silva, J.R., Pereira, N., Ribeiro, C.: Promoting semantic annotation of research data by their creators: a use case with B2NOTE at the end of the RDM workflow. In: Garoufallou, E., Virkus, S., Siatri, R., Koutsomiha, D. (eds.) MTSR 2017. CCIS, vol. 755, pp. 112–122. Springer, Cham (2017). Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lee, D.J., Stvilia, B.: Practices of research data curation in institutional repositories: a qualitative view from repository staff. PLoS ONE 12(3), 1–44 (2017). Scholar
  14. 14.
    Qin, J., Ball, A., Greenberg, J.: Functional and architectural requirements for metadata: supporting discovery and management of scientific data. In: Proceedings of the DCIM International Conference on Dublin Core and Metadata Applications, pp. 62–71 (2012).
  15. 15.
    Qin, J., Li, K.: How portable are the metadata standards for scientific data? A proposal for a metadata infrastructure. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Dublin Core and Metadata Applications, pp. 25–34 (2013).
  16. 16.
    Ribeiro, C., et al.: Projeto TAIL - Gestão de dados de investigação da produção ao depósito e à partilha (resultados preliminares). In: Cadernos BAD N.2, jul-dez, pp. 256–264 (2016).
  17. 17.
    Rocha, J., Ribeiro, C., Lopes, J.C.: The Dendro research data management platform: applying ontologies to long-term preservation in a collaborative environment. In: Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Digital Preservation, iPRES (2014)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Sayogo, D.S., Pardo, T.A.: Exploring the determinants of scientific data sharing: understanding the motivation to publish research data. Gov. Inf. Q. 30, 19–31 (2013). Scholar
  19. 19.
    Shearer, K., Furtado, F.: COAR survey of research data management: results. Confederation of OpenAccess Repositories (2017).
  20. 20.
    Swan, A., Brown, S.: To share or not to share: publication and quality assurance of research data outputs. A report commissioned by the Research Information Network (2008).
  21. 21.
    Tani, A., Candela, L., Castelli, D.: Dealing with metadata quality: the legacy of digital library efforts. Inf. Process. Manag. 49(6), 1194–1205 (2013). Scholar
  22. 22.
    Tenopir, C., et al.: Changes in data sharing and data reuse practices and perceptions among scientists worldwide. PLoS ONE 10(8) (2015). Scholar
  23. 23.
    Vardigan, M., Heus, P., Thomas, W.: Data documentation initiative: toward a standard tor the social sciences. Int. J. Digit. Curation 3(1), 107–113 (2008). Scholar
  24. 24.
    Winn, J.: Open data and the academy: an evaluation of CKAN for research data management. In: IASSIST 2013, pp. 28–31, May 2013.

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.INESC TEC, Faculty of EngineeringUniversity of PortoPortoPortugal

Personalised recommendations