title: Te Nahi o Te Taniwha: Teeth of the Taniwha

authors: Rout, Matthew

abstract: This report outlines the scope of the project He oranga whānau: mahi ngātahi Whānau livelihoods within the context of work and Māori economies of wellbeing, which has been funded by Ngā Pae o te Māramatanga—the New Zealand Māori Centre of Research Excellence. Its purpose is to set the direction and design for the research project. To say the creation of such economies will be a complex task is an understatement. Three factors make this task a ‘wicked problem’.

text: Te Nahi o Te Taniwha: Teeth of the Taniwha This report outlines the scope of the project He oranga whānau: mahi ngātahi Whānau livelihoods within the context of work and Māori economies of wellbeing, which has been funded by Ngā Pae o te Māramatanga—the New Zealand Māori Centre of Research Excellence. Its purpose is to set the direction and design for the research project. To say the creation of such economies will be a complex task is an understatement. Three factors make this task a ‘wicked problem’.

year: 2022

title: Stemming the colonial environmental tide

authors: Joseph, Robert

subjects: human activities

abstract: Stemming the colonial environmental tide supports an Aotearoa New Zealand context that fundamentally acknowledges mātauranga and tikanga Māori law and shared co-governance and concurrent jurisdiction through 7 Aotearoa New Zealand EBM principles.

text: Stemming the colonial environmental tide Stemming the colonial environmental tide supports an Aotearoa New Zealand context that fundamentally acknowledges mātauranga and tikanga Māori law and shared co-governance and concurrent jurisdiction through 7 Aotearoa New Zealand EBM principles.

year: 2022-05

title: Metadata tools for institutional repositories

authors: Nichols, David M.

subjects: computer science

abstract: Current institutional repository software provides few tools to help metadata librarians understand and analyse their collections. In this paper we compare and contrast metadata analysis tools that were developed simultaneously, but independently, at two New Zealand institutions during a period of national investment in research repositories: the Metadata Analysis Tool (MAT) at The University of Waikato, and the Kiwi Research Information Service (KRIS) at the National Library of New Zealand. 
The tools have many similarities: they are convenient, online, on-demand services that harvest metadata using OAI-PMH, they were developed in response to feedback from repository administrators, and they both help pinpoint specific metadata errors as well as generating summary statistics. They also have significant differences: one is a dedicated tool while the other is part of a wider access tool; one gives a holistic view of the metadata while the other looks for specific problems; one seeks patterns in the data values while the other checks that those values conform to metadata standards.
Both tools work in a complementary manner to existing web-based administration tools. We have observed that discovery and correction of metadata errors can be quickly achieved by switching web browser views from the analysis tool to the repository interface, and back. We summarise the findings from both tools’ deployment into a checklist of requirements for metadata analysis tools.

text: Metadata tools for institutional repositories Current institutional repository software provides few tools to help metadata librarians understand and analyse their collections. In this paper we compare and contrast metadata analysis tools that were developed simultaneously, but independently, at two New Zealand institutions during a period of national investment in research repositories: the Metadata Analysis Tool (MAT) at The University of Waikato, and the Kiwi Research Information Service (KRIS) at the National Library of New Zealand. 
The tools have many similarities: they are convenient, online, on-demand services that harvest metadata using OAI-PMH, they were developed in response to feedback from repository administrators, and they both help pinpoint specific metadata errors as well as generating summary statistics. They also have significant differences: one is a dedicated tool while the other is part of a wider access tool; one gives a holistic view of the metadata while the other looks for specific problems; one seeks patterns in the data values while the other checks that those values conform to metadata standards.
Both tools work in a complementary manner to existing web-based administration tools. We have observed that discovery and correction of metadata errors can be quickly achieved by switching web browser views from the analysis tool to the repository interface, and back. We summarise the findings from both tools’ deployment into a checklist of requirements for metadata analysis tools.

year: 2008-08