cni task force meeting december 6, 2004 western waters digital library building a multi-state...

CNI Task Force MeetingCNI Task Force MeetingDecember 6, 2004December 6, 2004

Western Waters Digital Western Waters Digital LibraryLibrary

Building a Multi-State Aggregated Building a Multi-State Aggregated Collection Using CONTENTdmCollection Using CONTENTdm®®

http://westernwaters.orghttp://westernwaters.org

http://hdl.handle.net/1794/300http://hdl.handle.net/1794/300

Carol Hixson Carol Hixson Head of Metadata and Digital Library ServicesHead of Metadata and Digital Library Services

Knight Library, University of Oregon Knight Library, University of Oregon

Kenning ArlitschKenning ArlitschHead of Information TechnologyHead of Information Technology

Marriott Library, University of UtahMarriott Library, University of Utah


OverviewOverview

• Led by Greater Western Library Alliance Led by Greater Western Library Alliance (GWLA)(GWLA)

• Funded by IMLSFunded by IMLS

• Objectives: Objectives: – Begin developing comprehensive information Begin developing comprehensive information

resource resource – Establish a viable technical infrastructureEstablish a viable technical infrastructure– Serve as a collaborative model Serve as a collaborative model

• Initial river basins focus:Initial river basins focus:– Platte, Colorado, Rio Grande, and ColumbiaPlatte, Colorado, Rio Grande, and Columbia


Overview (cont’d) Overview (cont’d)

• Geographically distributed collectionsGeographically distributed collections– 12 of 30 GWLA institutions currently participate12 of 30 GWLA institutions currently participate– Each site runs CONTENTdm serverEach site runs CONTENTdm server

• CONTENTdm Multi-Site Server at Univ. of UtahCONTENTdm Multi-Site Server at Univ. of Utah– harvests only metadataharvests only metadata– creates aggregated index for single site searchcreates aggregated index for single site search– results link out to remote sites results link out to remote sites

• Balancing local control vs. central usability Balancing local control vs. central usability


Current ParticipantsCurrent Participants

• Arizona State U.Arizona State U.

• Brigham Young U.Brigham Young U.

• Colorado State U.Colorado State U.

• Oregon State U.Oregon State U.

• University of ArizonaUniversity of Arizona

• University of New University of New MexicoMexico

• University of OregonUniversity of Oregon

• University of NebraskaUniversity of Nebraska

• University of Nevada-University of Nevada-L.V.L.V.

• University of UtahUniversity of Utah

• University of University of WashingtonWashington

• Washington State U.Washington State U.


ChallengesChallenges

• Metadata*Metadata*

• Searching aggregated metadata*Searching aggregated metadata*

• Selection of contentSelection of content

• Communication*Communication*

• TechnologyTechnology

• Consortia funding modelsConsortia funding models


Metadata ChallengesMetadata Challenges

• Project participants have agreed to follow Project participants have agreed to follow the Western States Dublin Core Metadata the Western States Dublin Core Metadata Best Practices, version 2.0Best Practices, version 2.0– The standards provide considerable latitude for The standards provide considerable latitude for

some elementssome elements

• Some participants are harvesting from Some participants are harvesting from legacy collections that were created legacy collections that were created without reference to these standardswithout reference to these standards


Different Application of Metadata Different Application of Metadata StandardsStandards• Digitization SpecificationsDigitization Specifications

– Mandatory and repeatableMandatory and repeatable– Not mapped to a Dublin Core elementNot mapped to a Dublin Core element– Refers to a variety of standardsRefers to a variety of standards– Lot of local latitude in:Lot of local latitude in:

• labeling fieldlabeling field

• input standardsinput standards


Application of Metadata Standards Application of Metadata Standards (Cont’d)(Cont’d)• Date.Original and Date.DigitalDate.Original and Date.Digital

– Both fields are mandatory (when applicable)Both fields are mandatory (when applicable)– Western States Best Practices document gives Western States Best Practices document gives

clear guidanceclear guidance• Both map to Dublin Core DateBoth map to Dublin Core Date

• Both say to follow W3C – Date Time Format Both say to follow W3C – Date Time Format – yyyy-mm-dd (1897-07-16 for July 16, 1897)yyyy-mm-dd (1897-07-16 for July 16, 1897)


DC Mapping and Aggregated DC Mapping and Aggregated SearchingSearching


UO’s Local SiteUO’s Local Sitehttp://libweb.uoregon.edu/catdept/digcol/wwdl/index.htmlhttp://libweb.uoregon.edu/catdept/digcol/wwdl/index.html


Local Customized Search Local Customized Search InterfacesInterfaces


No Mapping to Encoding SchemaNo Mapping to Encoding Schema


Inconsistent Search ResultsInconsistent Search Results


Inconsistent Search Results (cont.)Inconsistent Search Results (cont.)


CommunicationCommunication• GWLA direction and oversightGWLA direction and oversight

– Executive Board/Library directors (30)Executive Board/Library directors (30)– Digital Projects Task ForceDigital Projects Task Force

• WWDL communication forumsWWDL communication forums– Electronic discussion listElectronic discussion list– Monthly reports and conference calls with project Monthly reports and conference calls with project

coordinatorscoordinators– Semi-annual meetings at ALASemi-annual meetings at ALA– Online repository for reports, standards, minutes, etc.Online repository for reports, standards, minutes, etc.

• Consortia are fragileConsortia are fragile– Misunderstandings arise as result of misinformationMisunderstandings arise as result of misinformation– Are problems result of software, our metadata, our Are problems result of software, our metadata, our

interfaces?interfaces?– Issues/concerns/opinions must be voiced openlyIssues/concerns/opinions must be voiced openly


OpportunitiesOpportunities

• Widening use of metadata standards Widening use of metadata standards

• Collectively digitize more types of materialCollectively digitize more types of material

• Develop consensus on methods for Develop consensus on methods for presenting different types of materialpresenting different types of material

• Improve CONTENTdm software by Improve CONTENTdm software by providing consortia feedback to DiMeMa providing consortia feedback to DiMeMa Inc.Inc.


Website – http://westernwaters.orgWebsite – http://westernwaters.org

Presentation - http://hdl.handle.net/1794/300Presentation - http://hdl.handle.net/1794/300 Carol Hixson, Head of Metadata and Digital Library ServicesKnight Library, University of [email protected](541)-346-3064

Kenning Arlitsch, Head of Information TechnologyMarriott Library, University of [email protected](801) 585-3721

Adrian Alexander, Executive DirectorGreater Western Library [email protected](816)-926-8765

Contact Information

mailto:[email protected]



cni task force meeting december 6, 2004 western waters digital library building a multi-state...

Documents

aggregated metadata

oregon state u

colorado state u

washingtonwashington

digital collectionaggravated

university of utahoverviewled

university of utahuniversity

remote sites