The MINERVA framework Good Practices in Digitisation Cultural websites quality principles

1. Ministerial NEtwoRk for Valorising Activising in digitisation The MINERVA framework Good Practices in Digitisation Cultural websites quality principles Antonella Fresa Budapest, 11 November 2004

2. The MINERVA framework The MINERVA project is the operative section of a wider framework made up with the Lund Principles, the LUND Action Plan and the National Representatives Group (NRG)

3. Representatives and experts from the Member States gathered in order to identify ways in which “a coordination mechanism for digitisation programmes across the Member States” could be put in place to stimulate European cultural content on global networks. Lund Meeting – 4th April 2001

4. The NRG is made up of officially nominated experts from each Member State: to coordinate digitisation policies and programmes; to facilitate the adoption and implementation of the Lund Action Plan; to monitor progress regarding the objectives encapsulated in the Lund Principles. National Representatives Group

5. The NRG meets every 6 months to share national experiences under the aegis of the presidency in turn. National Representatives Group

6. In order to guarantee the continuity of the initiatives undertaken, the past, present and future presidencies of the EU commonly define the so-called “rolling agenda”. The “rolling agenda”

7. MINERVA is the operative arm of the National Representatives Group. It is a network of Member States’ ministries / agencies,. financed by the European Commission, in the frame of the IST Programme. The MINERVA project

8. Italy, coordinator (Ministero per i Beni e le Attività Culturali) Belgium (Ministère de la Communauté française) Finland (University of Helsinky) France (Ministère de la Culture et de la Communication) Spain (Ministerio de Educaciòn, Cultura y Deporte) Sweden (Riksarkivet) United Kingdom (The Council for Museums, Archives and Libraries) Original Partners

9. Greece Czech Republic Austria Hungary Germany Malta Ireland Slovenia Portugal Estonia Poland Russia and Israel New Members of Minerva Plus

10. MINERVA mission • The network has been created to: • to discuss, correlate and harmonise activities carried out in digitisation of cultural and scientific content; • for creating agreed European common recommendations and guidelines about: • digitisation, • metadata, • long-term accessibility, • preservation.

11. to contribute to the creation of a broad consensus on the European framework derived from the e-Europe initiative; to contribute to start up new national programmes of digitisation of cultural heritage; to contribute to create a process of institutional collaboration among the presidencies of the European Union; to create new opportunities of cooperation among the members of the network. Activities

12. The Charter of Parma • Art. 1 Intelligent use of new technologies • Art. 2 Accessibility • Art. 3 Quality • Art. 4 IPR and privacy • Art. 5 Interoperability and standards • Art. 6 Inventories and multiligualism • Art. 7 Benchmarking • Art. 8 Cooperation at national, European and international levels • Art. 9 Enlargement • Art. 10 Building the future together: at the forefront of the knowledge society

13. Networking activities (workshops, on-line training, WEB site, newsletter, benchmarking, cooperation with other projects, enlargement of the network) 4 Working groups at European level Publications (guidelines, reports, handbooks, brochures) How MINERVA works

14. Cooperation among European cultural projects: sharing knowledge and exchanging experience; promoting results (studies, reports, guidelines); adopting common standards and agendas; avoiding duplication of activities and wasting of resources among projects; merging efforts together to maximise the impact of the individual projects; creating a larger community of users. DigitisationCluster

15. Euromed Heritage IIEVAHEREINMINERVAMUSICNETWORKPRESTOSPACESCRAN Projects participating to the DigitisationCluster BRICKSCALIMERADELOSDIGICULT FORUMEMII-DCFEPOCHERPANET

16. The instruments: Membership agreement To formalise the participation of Ministries from other countries in the MINERVA network Co-operation agreement To formalise the participation of interested organisations (Universities, private companies, cultural institutions, etc., in the MINERVA Users Group Network enlargement

17. Inventories, discovery of digitised content, multilingual issues Multilingualism and thesaurus Interoperability and Service Provision Business Models Identification of user needs, content and quality framework for common access points Small cultural institutions Identification of good practices and competence centres Cost reduction The Working Groups

18. Minerva publishes handbooks and guidelines on digitisation, edited by its working groups, and an annual progress report of the NRG: 1st and 2nd Progress Reports of the National Representatives Group (2002 and 2003) Technical Guidelines Good practice handbook Quality criteria for cultural web applications Publications

19. Provides useful information to the establishment, execution and management of digitisation projects. It is a reasoned organisation of lessons learnt by the analysis of the data collected across Europe until May 2002. The Handbook is enriched with on-line complementary information, and in particular a selection of existing guidelines on digitisation. The good practice handbook

20. Introduction and background (Lund Principles and the Minerva project) 10 Practical lessons learnt and information collected by the Minerva project best practice team. A collections of practical ‘rules of thumb’, to be considered by organisations who are establishing, executing or managing digitisation projects in the cultural sphere. The structure of the Handbook

21. The material is broken down in accordance with the stages in the digitisation life-cycle. Each guideline description is structured as: Title, Issue definition, which sets the scene and introduces the problem(s) addressed, Pragmatic suggestions, Notes or commentary. Practical Guidelines

22. Digitisation project planning Selecting source material for digitisation Preparation for digitisation Handling of originals The digitisation process Preservation of the digital master material Meta-data Publication IPR and copyrigth Managing Digital Projects Practical Guidelines

23. This is the first step in any digitisation project. Time spent on planning will pay dividends in the easier management and execution of the project. Lessons learnt: - the reasons for the project - human resources - research - risks One example: Digitisation project planning

24. Pragmatic suggestions: concrete, explicit and documented aims realistic when compared with available resources Steps of the project validated against its aims Clear justification for the project from an institutional point of view the first lesson learnt in Digitisation Project Planning The Reasons for the Project

25. Pragmatic suggestions: Ensure sufficent staff to carry out the project Assign staff to each task Identify training requirements Carry out training by using software and hardware which will be used during the project Aim at small core of skilled dedicated staff (rather than large group of ‘occasional’ staff) the second lesson learnt in Digitisation Project Planning Human Resources

26. Pragmatic suggestions: Research into other projects which are addressing similar issues it helps in avoiding mistakes and puts project team in contact with others who have completed similar projects giving the opportunity to learn from their experience It adds credibility and enhances the results of the project the third lesson learnt in Digitisation Project Planning Research

27. Pragmatic suggestions: Intellectual Property Rights management Guaranteeing that source material is not corrupt and has been produced by authorised institutions Authenticity Financing of the project Level of skill in the project the fourth lesson learnt in Digitisation Project Planning Risks

28. MINERVA 10 Quality Principles for cultural websites Commentary and explanations Hanbook

29. transparent effective maintained accessible user-centred responsive multi-lingual interoperable managed preserved The 10 Pinciples

30. Structure of the Handbook • Supporting information associated to each principle: • A commentary, providing interpretation, background information and motivation for the principle • A set of criteria to be used to assess whether or not a website is compliant with the principle • A checklist, based on the criteria, to be used in assessing the website • A set of practical and pragmatic tests and questions for the website owner to gain further insight into the compliance of his site

31. The importance of each principle varies with the life-cycle stage of the project Principles Priority Matrix stages of the life-cycle are the same as for the Minerva Good Practice Handbook and the Minerva Technical Guidelines considering that this document is concerned with websites, rather than digitisation projects How to use the guide

32. Website Planning Website Design Content Selection Digitisation Process Storage and Preservation of the Digital Master Material Metadata Capture Website Implementation Online Publication Ongoing Maintenance Stages of the website life cycle

33. For each principle-stage pair, a value between 1 and 3 is provided: 1 – Low priority 2 – Mid priority 3 – High priority The “scoring”

34. The matrix

35. Website planning Website design Website implementation Online publication Maintenance of the site should not compromise on quality in the future Multi-linguality and Interoperability are very important: they must be planned into a site, and cannot be ‘bolted on’ later Most critical stages

36. Two examples • Multi-linguality • Interoperability

37. VII Quality Principle: ”A quality website must be aware of the importance of multi-linguality by providing a minimum level of access in more than one language” Websites are a means for the public to access online cultural heritage. Language can be an important barrier to access. The website owner should focus on providing as much as possible of the website in as many (and as popular) languages as possible. At a basic level: outline of the content and purpose of the website in at least one other official language of the EU. Multi-linguality should be planned at the earliest stage of website design. Multi-linguality – introduction and commentary

38. Some site content should be available in more than one language Sign language may be supported Non-EU languages spoken by immigrant communities supported Site identity and profile information should be available in as many languages as possible The core functionality of the site (searching, navigation) should be available in multiple languages Ideally, static content (images and descriptions, monographs, other cultural content) should also be available in multiple languages Switching between languages should be easy The site structure and layout should not vary with language – site design and user interface language should be logically separate. Multi-linguality should be driven by a formal multi-linguality policy Site elements should be reviewed in terms of the multi-linguality policy. Steps should be taken if site elements are not as multi-lingual as they should be. Multi-linguality - criteria

39. Yes/ No/ n.a. Some site content available in more than one language □ □ □ Some site content available in sign language □ □ □ Some site content available non-EU immigrant languages □ □ □ Site identity and profile available in more than 1 language □ □ □ Site core functionality available in more than 1 language □ □ □ Static content available in more than one language □ □ □ Simple switching between languages □ □ □ Site structure and user interface independent of language □ □ □ Multi-linguality policy exists & drives multi-lingual aspects □ □ □ Multi-linguality reviews take place on site □ □ □ Multi-linguality- check list

40. Does the site have any multilingualmulti-lingual content ? Does the site identity and profile material appear in more than one language ? Is there any material presented in sign language ? Is there any material presented in non-EU languages which are used by immigrant populations ? Is the site’s non-static information available in multiple languages ? Is the static (cultural) information available in more than one language ? Is the site structure logically separate from the language in use ? Was multi-linguality planned into the site from the very start ? Does the site have a stated multi-linguality policy ? Is the site reviewed against such a policy ? Multi-linguality – practical test

41. VII Quality Principle: “ A quality website must be committed to being interoperable within cultural networks to enable users to easily locate the content and services that meet their needs”. How he individual website can interface with other cultural websites and with entities, such as cultural portals. The focus here is on standards, which may cover areas such as (but not restricted to): Meta-data Website technologies Harvesting Distributed Search The details of any interfaces that the site exposes for interoperability purposes should be fully and clearly documented, to facilitate subsequent integration into distributed cultural resources. Discoverability: a site must make clear, to automated search engines and tools as well as to the human user, what it contains and the services or content that it offers. This document give the most cursory of information regarding the standards needed for interoperability. Consultation of other resources, such as the Minerva Technical Guidelines is recommended. Interoperability – introduction and commentary

42. Research into standards and best practice should have taken place before site design began. The site should have been designed using the relevant standards. The meta-data model should comply with relevant international standards and may comply with Dublin Core and/or DC.Culture. The website technologies should use only standard XHTML, HTML and XML. JavaScript is acceptable but not formally recommended. Proprietary extensions are deprecated. Disclosure functionality should use a standard technology such as the OAI protocol. Distributed search of site itself may use page-level META tags, a site map and/or a site search tool. Distributed search of catalogues and databases may use Z39.50 or SRW/SRU. A site-level metadata profile should exist. External interfaces should be clearly documented. Interoperability - criteria

43. Yes/ No/ n.a. Standards and best practice research took place before site design □ □ □ Site design uses relevant standards where appropriate □ □ □ Meta-data uses Dublin Core or DC.Culture □ □ □ Website uses no proprietary HTML extensions □ □ □ Disclosure functionality uses OAI □ □ □ Distributed database or catalogue search uses Z39.50 or SRW/SRU □ □ □ Distributed site search possible □ □ □ Distributed site search using META tags possible □ □ □ Distributed site search uses a site tool with a remote interface □ □ □ Discoverability profile exists □ □ □ Discoverability profile uses appropriate standard □ □ □ All external interfaces documented □ □ □ Interoperability- check list

44. Was desk research carried out before website design began ? Did this focus on relevant standards ? What standards were identified as most relevant ? Is the meta-data model based on Dublin Core ? If not, why not ? Does the website work with any browser ? Is disclosure functionality implemented using OAI harvesting ? If not, why not ? Does the website have a site-level metadata profile ? Is distributed site searching implemented ? Is distributed catalogue and/or database searching possible ? If it is, can it be searched remotely ? And is the remote searching method the standard in use, in the expected interoperability partners ? Interoperability – practical test

45. Quality must be planned into a website from the start The user is critical – involve him at every stage Relationships with other online resources (interoperability) and with future resources (long term preservation) must be given due thought Key messages

46. For further information: www.minervaeurope.org Antonella Fresa – MINERVA Technical Coordinator fresa@promoter.it Thank you