1 / 28

Robyn Holmes: Curator of Music Rose Holley: Trove Manager Karen Vinoles: Music Australia Manager

Robyn Holmes: Curator of Music Rose Holley: Trove Manager Karen Vinoles: Music Australia Manager. IAML Conference, Brisbane. 3 September 2010. Consultation Forum: Music Australia, Libraries Australia and the transition to Trove. Integration of MA into Trove Planned 2011. Why?.

yaakov
Download Presentation

Robyn Holmes: Curator of Music Rose Holley: Trove Manager Karen Vinoles: Music Australia Manager

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. Robyn Holmes: Curator of Music Rose Holley: Trove Manager Karen Vinoles: Music Australia Manager IAML Conference, Brisbane 3 September 2010 Consultation Forum: Music Australia, Libraries Australia and the transition to Trove

  2. Integration of MA into Trove Planned 2011

  3. Why? Transition of all NLA managed discovery services into Trove 2009-2011 Efficiency: single architecture for all services, more features, scalable for innovation Single point of access to Australian information, plus more… Support user creation of knowledge, user contribution and community participation. Web 2.0 compliant

  4. Transition status of discovery services Register of Archives and Manuscripts: Done 2009 Libraries Australia free public search: Done 2009 Australian Newspapers: In progress Australia Dancing: In progress,end 2010 Australian Research Online: Just starting Picture Australia: soon Music Australia: soon PANDORA: Not yet scheduled

  5. Approach to Trove Development Not doing it to people Not doing it for people DOING IT WITH PEOPLE (USERS, CONTRIBUTORS) Public feedback has been driving the development. It is CRITICAL (and also INTERESTING)… 5

  6. Music Australia Consultation What does ‘integration of MA into Trove’ mean for us? How do we manage the transition to preserve the integrity and value of what has been achieved with MA? How can we ensure Trove best serves our music community? How can our music community influence and work together on future developments?

  7. Today’s plan Background (10 mins) Music Australia Current status (5 mins) Introduction to Trove and demonstration (20 mins) Business comparison MA, LA and Trove (20 mins) Discussion of questions, concerns, issues Open discussion

  8. Music Australia Current Status No IT development since late 2007, except to close e-e-commerce Content still growing: 26 active contributing organisations 255,400 items, of which 25% are digital (NLA = c37% content) Still high usage Page views (approx ¼ million per month) Unique visitors Searches and advanced searches

  9. Trove version 1 released Nov 2009 90 million items 9

  10. Music searching in Trove Demonstration http://trove.nla.gov.au

  11. MA Categories in Trove

  12. Business comparison MA-Trove • Data comparison • Method of contribution • Key service differences • Different searching strategies • User engagement

  13. MA-LA-Trove Data Comparison

  14. Contributor method Trove

  15. Keep developing content! How to ? keep contributing reach/educate your own ‘communities’ of users/researchers/creators grow our own digital content grow digital content in other music organisations suggest other industry contributors keep us up-to-date with new resources, initiatives

  16. MA-Trove: Service differences

  17. MA-Trove: Searching differences

  18. MA-Trove: Searching differences

  19. MA-Trove: User Engagement

  20. MA-Trove: User Engagement http://trove.nla.gov.au/work/36496324

  21. 10 Possible transition concerns and issues.Do they matter and are they issues? Branding and good will in music community Music specific service vs generic Subject vs format zone searching Trove Google search plus facets, vs MS simple/advanced search. More navigation in Trove. Topic based research = great results vs more complex for finding specific items Richer repository = more results = more complex Google exposure; international content; additional targets Web 2.0 and user engagement Methods of data contribution Enhancing music experience

  22. Discussion On balance are the 10 points issues or not? If yes why, and how much do they matter? Are there other issues, concerns you have? Is there any feature in MA not in Trove that you really would like to retain? Is there any feature not in either service that you would really like to have? What is the potential of Trove for the music community?

  23. 8 Key messages Continue to: Contribute your content Digitise, especially unique collections – and let us know what you are doing Catalogue and maintain holdings for ANBD Build new services and share data in these

  24. Key Messages Work with us – tell us what you think and want! Educate your communities about Trove Utilise web 2.0 features in Trove to add context and relevance to content and connect with the virtual community Participate in research and development

  25. Summary and Questions? rholmes@nla.gov.au kvinoles@nla.gov.au rholley@nla.gov.au

More Related