1 / 14

AILLA:The Archive of the Indigenous Languages of Latin America

AILLA is a digital archive that houses a diverse collection of audio, video, and text resources related to indigenous languages in Latin America. With over 500GB of content in over 90 languages from 15 countries, AILLA provides a valuable resource for researchers and language preservation efforts. The archive is maintained by the University of Texas and offers both free public access and password-protected files for restricted access.

leighc
Download Presentation

AILLA:The Archive of the Indigenous Languages of Latin America

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. AILLA:The Archive of the Indigenous Languages of Latin America Heidi Johnson / The University of Texas at Austin

  2. AILLA is a joint project of: • Anthropology: Joel Sherzer • Linguistics: Anthony C. Woodbury • Digital Library Services: Mark McFarland

  3. www.ailla.utexas.org • Pilot site launched March 2001. • Permanent site launched January, 2003. • Parallel sites in English and Spanish; someday, we’ll add Portuguese. • Audio, video, digital text, scanned manuscript text, photos. • Genres ranging from chants to grammars to photo galleries.

  4. Infrastructure • Archive housed on library computers, maintained by UT digital librarians. • MySQL database; PHP interfaces. • Intake & processing done in AILLA’s lab on PCs and Macs by graduate students. • Analog media returned to depositor or sent to the Indiana Archive of Traditional Music (http://www.indiana.edu/~libarchm/)

  5. Fun facts • Collection is now > 500 G • ~ 90 languages from 15 countries • 1430 registered archive users • 917 resources comprising 5391 files; • average resource contains 5-6 files • all bundles inc. format variants, eg mp3, pdf • ~ 20% of files are password-protected

  6. IMDI-esque metadata • Resource = a bundle of files, e.g. recording + annotations, in multiple formats • Information about: • Depositor: contact info, languages • Project: sponsor, contact info. • Participants: role, demographic data, languages • Resources: orig. media, digi specs, lgs, description • Content: genre, content type, description • References: related publications

  7. Bundles, aka resources, aka sessions • Sets of related files • Critical for sharing resources: • things that belong together must stay together • access restrictions/conditions likely to apply to all files in a bundle • metadata describes the set – the whole resource – as well as each component

  8. DELAMAN todo list • Define Relations for IMDI & OLAC. • NOT mathematical relations; documentary linguistics ones: • primary_text (e.g. a recording) • translation/transcription/interlinearization • illustration • commentary

  9. Access management • Restrictions are set for individual files • Two levels of access: • 1: free public access • 2: restricted by password • To be added: • 3: time limit • 4: contact info for controller • 5: reference/link to license and/or recorded agreement governing the resource

  10. Restricted files at AILLA Who restricts access & why? • Students: thesis research in progress • Other depositors: • pending permission from speakers; • recordings include e.g. gossip that needs to be edited out; • still uncertain about the whole access issue.

  11. Pros of this simple method • It’s EASY: • to implement • to operate • for controllers to share access • It’s safe enough for our purposes. • Passwords, etc. are part of the metadata – in the database – so it should be easy enough to pass on to another archive.

  12. Cons of the simple method • Depositors can be VERY hard to reach. • There has to be a time limit and/or phase-out plan, ala the Rosetta protocol. • Assume that nearly everything will ultimately be under the archive’s control – what’s the 50-year plan?

  13. Low tech federation We could define a small set of standard “access packages”, implemented via our existing metadata mechanisms: • student special: good for 5 years only • renew-on-request: expires in 5 years unless you respond to the archive & renew • archivists’ discretion: could require e.g. a faxed letter from an indigenous organization; getting that letter is the users’ problem.

  14. www.ailla.utexas.org Comments gladly received at ailla@ailla.utexas.org

More Related