Metadata Stores: Acceptance criteria for required deliverables

Principles:

• ANDS requires a Project Plan early in the project, in order to finalise project scope, choice of software and to confirm appropriate resourcing and planning;
• If a project is embarking on metadata stores without existing infrastructure, then ANDS will not require delivery of the complete metadata store, nor all the deliverables depending on it - until the end of the project.
• If a project is embarking on metadata stores with existing infrastructure, then ANDS expects that there will be a feed of records supplied to RDA (see Deliverable #1) by the middle of the project.
• Remaining mandated deliverables are likely to have multiple dependencies on other software and organisation units, so ANDS will not require delivery until the end of the project.
• ANDS encourages project to schedule deliverables earlier than agreed in the project description where possible.
• Because there is likely to be a lengthy period between the Project Plan and other deliverables, ANDS requires regular and frequent progress reporting - every three months. Reporting will be lightweight, just a couple of pages, but ANDS needs to monitor progress closely, given that these are infrastructure projects with a large number of dependencies.
• For consistency, ANDS is maintaining a ratio of payments across all projects of 25% each payment period.

D1	A working feed of records describing Collections and associated Activities, Parties and Services to Research Data Australia, in the current version of RIF-CS (1.3), demonstrated to meet the quality requirements for RIF-CS records as set by ANDS. Acceptance: If the project is using an existing technology* then this feed is expected around the middle of the project. The feed will be confirmed by an inspection (by CLO*) of a sample of nominated records in Research Data Australia. If the technology is bespoke then an expected date should be included in the Project Plan.  *Existing technology means that there is already a working Metadata Store. *CLO = Client Liaison Officer (ANDS.
D2	A feed of collections from at least three distinct Faculties (or equivalent organisational units) within the institution to Research Data Australia.  Acceptance:  This spread across Faculties is intended to support an institution-wide approach. The feed can be automated or manual.  The 3, or more, Faculties (or equivalent) will be confirmed by an inspection (by CLO) of a sample of nominated records in Research Data Australia.  An expected date should be included in the Project Plan.
D3	Demonstrated alignment of metadata records about Parties with an institutional name authority (HR or Library), with the authoritative form of the name sourced external to the metadata store, and with new researcher descriptions added to the metadata through regular updates from the name authority. Acceptance: This interface between one or more nominated sources of party record details and the Metadata Store is expected to be confirmed by a statement of achievement by Project Manager.  Specifically, this will be demonstrated by an alignment of metadata records about parties with an institutional name authority (HR or Library), with the authoritative form of the name sourced external to the metadata store as well as new researcher descriptions added to the metadata through regular update from the name authority be confirmed by written statement by project partner. An expected date should be included in the Project Plan.
D4	Demonstrated alignment of metadata records about Parties with the ARDC Party Infrastructure Project, with researcher descriptions contributed to the NLA, and with People Australia identifiers for researchers recorded against researchers. Acceptance:  Alignment with the NLA Party Infrastructure will be demonstrated by an inspection (by CLO) of examples of records using NLA Identifiers in Research Data Australia, as nominated by Project Manager.  An expected date should be included in the Project Plan.
D5	Demonstrated alignment of metadata records about Activities with institutional and external sources of truth (Research Office, ARC and NHMRC grant registries), with the authoritative description of the Activity sourced external to the metadata store, and with new researcher project added to the metadata through regular updates from the sources of truth. Acceptance:   Integration with the ANDS records derived from the Grants Registries will be demonstrated by inspection (by CLO) of nominated examples of Activity records.  An expected date should be included in the Project Plan. See updated criteria for this Deliverable
D6	Demonstrated workflow for registering new Collections in the university; this can include automated update, or semi-automated (notification-based). Acceptance:    This will be demonstrated by a document description (with schematic) of the workflow that includes some form of alert or notification that a new collection has been, is being, or is about to be, created. An expected date should be included in the Project Plan.
D7	A software system to realise deliverables D1–D6 (and D8, D13–D14 if applicable), with robust storage and management of metadata. Acceptance:  ANDS does not intend to assess software code already assessed or approved e.g. ReDBox, VIVO. A detailed diagram(s) of the working metadata store with associated use-case(s) will be used to assess the deployment by the ANDS Technical Assessment Group and will be shared with ANDS partners  (note - please insure that these diagrams are licensed as CC BY).
D8-D13	Optional Deliverables Acceptance:  ANDS expects each institution to choose at least one optional deliverable. Progress of chosen optional Deliverables is expected to be included in the ANDS Progress Report Template.