1 / 62

Not So Different After All —

Not So Different After All —. Creating Access To Diverse Objects in Digital Repositories. Jennifer O’Brien Roper, Gretchen Gueguen, and Susan Schreibman University of Maryland Libraries. What We Will Cover…. The Building Blocks of Digital Repositories

sumi
Download Presentation

Not So Different After All —

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. Not So Different After All — Creating Access To Diverse Objects in Digital Repositories Jennifer O’Brien Roper, Gretchen Gueguen, and Susan Schreibman University of Maryland Libraries

  2. What We Will Cover… • The Building Blocks of Digital Repositories • The Thomas MacGreevy Archive vs. The University of Maryland’s Digital Repository • Future issues of exploration…

  3. Barriers to Digital Library Integration • Thematic Collections • Documenting the American Southhttp://docsouth.unc.edu • Historic Pittsburghhttp://digital.library.pitt.edu/pittsburgh • Object Collections • University of Indiana (XPat)http://www.dlib.indiana.edu/collections/ • Packaged Collections • Romantic Circleshttp://www.rc.umd.edu • After the fact Collections • NINEShttp://www.nines.org

  4. Digital Project Building Blocks • Metadata • Vocabulary • Interface Design

  5. Digital Projects: Metadata Standard Initiatives to aggregate collections: • Z39.50 • Keep different metadata schemes • Keep localized repositories • Pressure on the search interface • Open Archives Initiatives Metadata Harvesting Protocol (MHP) • Extract a normalized record • Create a central repository • Pressure on the central repository

  6. Digital Projects: Metadata Standard Individual Repository(local metadata) metadata URL User Query metadata Individual Repository(local metadata) Centralized Repository for searching (normalized metadata) URL metadata URL Individual Repository(local metadata)

  7. Digital Projects: Metadata Standard • Lessons from MHP • Normalizing metadata for sharing • Keeping local enhanced records • Centralize functions like searching, but disperse functions like displaying and storing • Drawbacks • Lack of enforcement for Metadata Standards • Various levels of granularity in data

  8. Digital Projects: Vocabularies • The “ideal” language • Pre-coordinated vs. post-coordinated • Hierarchies and relationships are great for some things, not for others

  9. Digital Projects: Vocabularies • Controlled vs. local • Locally created languages • Fit materials well • Speak the users language BUT • Are difficult to enhance • All controlled vocabularies are difficult to combine

  10. Digital Projects: Interface Issues • Multiple Hierarchies • Facilitate access to both individual and general collections • Multiple Object Types • Film, audio, video, image, text in one interface • Multiple Modes of Access • Allow users to browse through objects in a manner that promotes cross-collection discovery

  11. Thomas MacGreevy Archive • http://www.macgreevy.org • TEI p4-based repository of texts • A few different collections, some searchable, some not • Changes Desired • Add images to the searchable collection • Add a collection of letters with special display needs

  12. Thomas MacGreevy Archive : Metadata Standard • Limited to TEI p4 • Letters have irregularities in the body • Images have multiple levels of “being” • Collections haven’t been named before

  13. Thomas MacGreevy Archive : Metadata Standard Solution? • Adapt things to fit <title type="main">The Entombment</title> <title type=“version”>An Electronic Version</title> • Fit the title of the original (here, a paiting by Poussin) in the main title and indicate that it is a digital copy in the version title. This is typical TEI practice <respStmt> <resp>   Markup completed by:   <name>Gretchen Gueguen</name>   </resp>   </respStmt>   <extent TEIform="extent">6 kb</extent> • Keep the responsibility statement about the creation of the TEI file. Record the creator of the original when you record details about the original

  14. Thomas MacGreevy Archive : Metadata Standard • Add only what is necessary <keywords> - <list type="keyword">   <item type="subject">Art</item>   <item type="nationality">French</item>   <item type="date">1600-1699</item>   </list> • Keywords for cross-searching <note type="phsy-desc-item"> <note type="phys-desc-photo"> <note type="technical-description"> • These details for display and internal record keeping, NOT searching <figDesc>   The McGreevy Family: Front row from left to right <persName reg="Thomas MacGreevy">Thomas</persName>, <persName reg="Honora McGreevy">Nora</persName>… </figDesc> • A caption is searchable and provide many precise points of access.

  15. Thomas MacGreevy Archive : Metadata Standard • Translate existing codes <keywords> <list type="collection"> <item type="images">Image</item> </list> </keywords> • The collections were loosely designated before by a combination of item type and value. We continued to use this convention even when it was redundant.

  16. Thomas MacGreevy Archive : Metadata Standard Only the information that is also available for texts is displayed, such as title, creator, text, and keywords

  17. Thomas MacGreevy Archive: Vocabulary • Limited vocabulary available • Main descriptors based on Dewey • Other descriptors based on nationality and date of subject • Some other fields used a consistent language • Collection designations • Text types (poem, art review, obituary, etc.) • 500 texts finished Solution?

  18. Thomas MacGreevy Archive: Vocabulary • Can’t create a new vocabulary for the collection • Can’t create a scalable vocabulary for everything So, • Add some new words to list and retrospectively update

  19. Existing Terms Architecture Art Biography Catholicism Critical Method Dance Education Film Folklore New Terms Career & Finances Domestic Life Irish Culture Literature Politics & Government Portraits Social Life Thomas MacGreevy Archive: Vocabulary • Great War • History • Journals • Music • Mythology • Opera • Sport • Theatre • Travel

  20. Thomas MacGreevy Archive : Interface • New collections affect how searching is done • New object types need to be displayed different ways • Viewing • Search results

  21. Thomas MacGreevy Archive : Interface – Browse Searchable collections Unsearchable collections

  22. Thomas MacGreevy Archive : Interface – Search Unclear approach to subjects Confusing, often missed, options

  23. Thomas MacGreevy Archive : Interface – Revised Search Search in full-text as well as by type Faceted subjects made explicit Collection, author, and date of objects are searchable nodes

  24. Thomas MacGreevy Archive : Interface – Results User determines relevancy by author and title within results

  25. Thomas MacGreevy Archive : Interface – Revised Results Sort by document type in results Show thumbnails and keywords for image objects Indicate that images are associated with texts List blurbs for articles and abstracts for letters

  26. Thomas MacGreevy Archive : Interface – Revised Display Tabbed interface for comparison Unique, textual features of letters represented in images

  27. Thomas MacGreevy Archive : Lessons Learned • Neutral metadata standard • Scalable controlled vocabulary • Starting over is sometimes worth it, sometimes not

  28. University of Maryland Digital Repository • FEDORA architecture • Individual collections • Unique look and feel • Customized metadata design • Cross collection search and browse • Common search interface • Rich minimum standards for metadata

  29. UM Digital Repository : Metadata Standard - Description • Dublin Core • Great for cross-collection description • Too simple for rich description within a focused collection • VRA Core • Excels at rich description • Created for and focused solely on images

  30. UM Digital Repository : Metadata Standard - Description • Hybrid standard • University of Maryland Descriptive Metadata (UMDM) • Customized DTD • Rigorous minimum standard • Common base of granular data • MODS

  31. UM Digital Repository : Metadata Standard – Local Standard • Required base elements • Coverage Place • Coverage Time • Media Type • Physical description • PID • Relationships • Repository • Rights • Culture • Description • Subject • Title • Optional base elements Identifier Agent Language Style

  32. UM Digital Repository : Metadata Standard - METS • Wrapper for all objects • METS record for every object contains: • Header • Descriptive Metadata • Administrative Metadata • File Section • Structural Map • Structural Links • Behavior Section

  33. UM Digital Repository : Metadata Standard - METS • Flexibility to use external descriptive standards • Behavioral control • Map other standards to UMDM dynamically

  34. UM Digital Repository : Metadata Standard - Conversion • Mapping existing data to UMDM • Indicates where information is in the existing dataset, and intended UMDM location • Transformation notes • Static information to be added

  35. UM Digital Repository : Metadata Standard - Conversion

  36. UM Digital Repository : Metadata Standard - Conversion • Ingestion • As a distinct standard, with dynamic generation • Batch uploaded from another source • Incrementally built

  37. UM Digital Repository : Metadata Standard - Conversion

  38. UM Digital Repository : Metadata Standard - Conversion

  39. UM Digital Repository : Metadata Standard - Conversion

  40. UM Digital Repository : Vocabularies • Consistent input key to cross-searchability • Controlled vocabularies • General descriptive • Names and name authority • Subjects

  41. UM Digital Repository : Vocabularies – General Descriptive • External vocabularies • Media Type (DCMI Type Vocabulary) • Language (Former ISO 639-2 values) • Local vocabularies • Repository

  42. UM Digital Repository : Vocabularies – General Descriptive • Terms created as needed • Culture • nationality, ethnic, regional, organizational, Etc. • Style • architectural, literary, musical, etc.

  43. UM Digital Repository :Vocabularies – Name Authority • Existing terms • LC Name Authority File • Getty Thesaurus of Geographic Names • Creating terms • Name Authority Cooperative Program

  44. UM Digital Repository : Vocabularies – Subject • Collection based • Repository wide • “browse” terms

  45. UM Digital Repository : Vocabularies – Subject

  46. UM Digital Repository : Vocabularies – Subject Subject: Fine Arts Subject: Architecture

  47. UM Digital Repository : Vocabularies – Subject • Collection based • Appropriate to project focus and scope • Existing thesauri • Library of Congress Subject Headings • Art & Architecture Thesaurus • Thesaurus for Graphic Materials • Etc. • Local thesauri

  48. UM Digital Repository : Vocabularies – Subject • “browse” terms • Defined independent of any project • Applied to all objects, regardless of collection • Intentionally general • Only two levels of specificity • Experimented with locally derived list based on LC Call Number Scheme

  49. UM Digital Repository : Interface Design • Make clear through general and collection interfaces that: • Objects are in multiple hierarchies • Users can access multiple object types • Users can use multiple modes of access and discovery

  50. UM Digital Repository : Interface Design - General • University of Maryland “theme” • Access to general metadata • Accommodate multiple file types • Simple and advanced searching

More Related