Not So Different After All

1
Not So Different After All

• Creating Access To Diverse Objects in Digital
  Repositories

Jennifer OBrien 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 Marylands 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.ed
  u/pittsburgh
• Object Collections
• University of Indiana (XPat)http//www.dlib.india
  na.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 havent been named before

13
Thomas MacGreevy Archive Metadata Standard

• Solution?
• Adapt things to fit
• The Entombment
• An Electronic
  Version
• 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
•   Markup completed by
•   Gretchen Gueguen
•  
•  
•   6 kb
• 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
• -
•   Art
•   French
•   1600-1699
•  
• Keywords for cross-searching
• These details for display and internal record
  keeping, NOT searching
•   The McGreevy Family Front row from left to
  right ThomassName, NoraName
• A caption is searchable and provide many precise
  points of access.

15
Thomas MacGreevy Archive Metadata Standard

• Translate existing codes
• Image
• 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

• Cant create a new vocabulary for the collection
• Cant create a scalable vocabulary for everything
• So,
• Add some new words to list and retrospectively
  update

19
Thomas MacGreevy Archive Vocabulary

• Great War
• History
• Journals
• Music
• Mythology
• Opera
• Sport
• Theatre
• Travel

• 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

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
Culture Description Subject Title
PID Relationships Repository Rights

• 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

51
UM Digital Repository Interface Design -
Collections

• Collection based theme
• Access to customized metadata
• Exploit file types specific to collection
• Customized search
• Extras
• Contextualized materials
• Exhibits
• Documentation

52
(No Transcript)
53
(No Transcript)
54
(No Transcript)
55
Date limit options
Restricted explicit field search
56
Embedded video player
Metadata to contextualize video
Amazon.com inspired feature
Linked subject display
57
(No Transcript)
58
Option to limit or not by format
Drop down menus to help guide searchers
Wide variety of unique fields to explicitly search
59
Display of customized metadata
thumbnail
60
UM Digital Repository Interface Design - Browse

• Explore collection without searching
• Browse subjects as initial gateway
• Use common metadata elements to drill down
• Lists rebuilt weekly, not dynamically

61
UM Digital Repository Future Issues

• Difficulties managing multiple hierarchies
• Workflows for general collections with no
  curator
• Balancing infrastructure and individual project
  development
• Digital archiving questions unanswered

62
Not So Different After All

• Creating Access To Diverse Objects in Digital
  Repositories

http//www.lib.umd.edu/dcr/publications/lita.ppt J
ennifer OBrien Roper jroper1_at_umd.edu Gretchen
Gueguen ggueguen_at_umd.edu Susan Schreibman
sschreib_at_umd.edu