Building digital heritage collaboratives_ Next Steps

Building digital heritage collaboratives: Next Steps Liz Bishoff, Vice-President, Digital Collections and Metadata Services, OCLC Wisconsin Digital Library Conference March 24, 2004 Where do we start?  Planning committee     Provide leadership in digital library initiatives Advocate within their organizations and across the communities for the digital initiatives Participate in fund raising/grant writing Participate in state and national digital library activities Planning committee composition         Organizations with digital initiatives underway Organizations who are ‗very‘ interested in digitizing collections Organizations with collections of statewide/national significance Technical and metadata expertise Preservation expertise Funders Organization that could coordinate project across multiple organization types People that will ask the tough questions Responsibilities of the planning committee   Define the vision/purpose of the initiative Define the audience   Current Future Survey collections Focus on theme vs. topic  Collection    Access    Centralized content/Centralized Metadata Centralized metadata/Decentralized content Portal linking of sites  Commit to Interoperability  Commitment to Standards/Best Practices    Metadata Digital Content Creation Digital rights management     Commitment to Digital Preservation Training, Promotion Project Management Funding Who are the content owners?        Libraries and archives Museums and Historical societies Public broadcasting stations Faculty and their universities Private collectors Individuals For profit content owners Why do we digitize?        Make resources broadly available—24x7 Reach new users Market our collections, organization Provide a value-added product Capitalize on investment in resources and technology Our audience/customers/users expect it. Preserve original Digitization projects        Increase the demand for primary source materials in a manageable way Help people find and use resources Increase use of ―hidden‖ treasures Integrate disparate collections Enhance the digital library/museum Support distance/lifelong learning Support K-12 standards Collaboration realities        Whether we collaborate with one or many, issues and approaches are the same Cultural heritage institutions share same functions  Acquisition/selection  Organization  Dissemination  Preservation How we disseminate is very different--interpretation vs. identification Museums have a strong education role Lack a common vocabulary Curatorial heritage establishes standards, systems, technology use Competing interests Leveraging through Collaboration   Expand access to collections and their content Cost effective     Scan centers—hardware, software for scanning Shared digital media lab—high end equipment Digital archive Shared image management system (e.g. CONTENTdm)     Training Networking Standards and best practices Funding opportunities What museums, historical societies and archives offer          Primary source materials--content, content, content In-depth knowledge of the resources—staff or volunteers Knowledge of exhibits and interpretative approach to exhibits Preservation and curatorial expertise Excitement about the subject area Creativity, eagerness, problem solving skills Connections with the community Knowledge of standards Generally no money Models for statewide collaboratives   15-17 state level initiatives underway; several regional efforts Focus is on:          Funding from LSTA and IMLS Training and consulting Scanning facilities Contracting services Shared image management software Union catalogs of metadata; OAI repositories Grants/funding Standards/Best practice adoption Digital archiving Examples           Colorado—www.cdpheritage.org North Carolina ECHO—www.necho.org Virtually Missouri—virtuallymissouri.org Georgia—galileo.peachnet.edu Kentucky Virtual Library—www.kyvl.org California Digital Library—cdlib.org Maine Memory Network—www.mainememory.net Mountain West Digital Library (Utah, Nevada) LOUIS—Louisiana Academic library initiative Kansas, Maryland Michigan, Minnesota, Nebraska, Wyoming, Colorado Digitization Program   Vision: Create a virtual collection of digital objects representing the special collections and unique resources of Colorado‘s archives, historical societies, libraries and museums through digitization Strategy: create infrastructure, enabling everyone to participate, build institutional capacity, support K-20 learning CDP:www.cdpheritage.org  Program         HERITAGE COLORADO database Training 7 regional scan centers Grants, mini-grants Networking opportunities Working group Minimal program staff; many volunteers Data Archive Board of Directors—11 members 501c3 Executive Director  Governance    CDP Today         Grants totaling $2,096,000 80+ institutions participating in program in Colorado and Wyoming 165,000+ digital objects Newspaper project, 1859-1899, using Olive Software OAI harvestable, Michigan‘s OAISTER and UIUC Cultural Heritage repository Training programs for practitioners, volunteers, teachers Going beyond Colorado—Collaborative Digitization Program NEH grant with New Mexico, Wyoming and Colorado for EAD initiative Standards/Best practices-Metadata    Again: Start with everyone at the table The dream: Seek agreement on one standard for description, controlled vocabulary Reality, in a collaborative environment this won‘t happen  Finding aids—you can get agreement to use EAD  Digital resources: agreement on one standard is difficult and may not be necessary  Using existing metadata from the original provides cost effective option for many  Crosswalks allow translation across schema  Curatorial traditions dictate metadata and controlled vocabulary  Museum community uses wide variety of metadata schema accommodating their different resources  Dublin Core allows for a common set of elements Standards/Best Practices-Metadata   Audio and video standards are still emerging Preservation Metadata: required to support the long term sustainability of the digital object. Supports Administrative and Functional metadata  Western States Best Practices for Dublin Core www.cdpheritage.org support collaborative initiatives. Best Practices/Standards Digital Imaging      Western States Best Practices for Digital Imaging Based on recommended minimum standards approach Based on concept that capture is done at the intellectual level appropriate to the item. Create master, access, thumb nail Other best practice and quality control principles Training     It‘s more than ―what‘s a dpi?‖ 5 basic workshops Need to train in everything from who‘s the audience to principles of digital imaging, to metadata creation, quality control, as well as web design Training in related topics—exhibit creation, preservation, cataloging Working with Teachers    If we build it they will come…not Repurposing of collections ―Teaching with Colorado‘s Heritage‖       Adaptation of the Library of Congress American Memory Fellows Program Trained 150+ K-12 teachers Regional onsite/online program; week long onsite program; half day workshop Materials online at the CDP website Significant increase in teachers use of digital primary source materials 2001 IMLS National Leadership grant Digital Preservation      Too often overlooked component of projects Digital Archiving is not the same as backing up your files Requires a sustainability plan based on quality standards Digital archiving is a systematic means of assuring the life of the digital object National Trusted Repositories, LC‘s NDIIPP program Successful elements       Start with everyone at the table Agree on audience definitions Start small Risk taking with flexibility Understand that the partner organizations have similar values, but different goals, missions, organizational cultures, funding structures Creative problem solving    Working groups—strong mix of volunteers representing different interests Strong leadership across types of institutions; Strong project leadership Analysis of different approaches to solve same problem  Library willingness to adopt museum approaches  Museum willingness to adopt library approaches What worked and what didn’t      WHAT WORKED Respect Collegiality – based conversations New solutions that represent hybrids between museums and libraries Technology-based communication      WHAT DIDN‘T Being too prescriptive Too many assumptions without discussion. Forgetting to talk about end users. Not enough face to face communication to start things off. So where do YOU go now?