VIEWS: 5 PAGES: 16 POSTED ON: 9/13/2011
DAMS: An Overview July 13, 2011 Karen Estlund Head, Digital Library Services Examples of digital asset management at UO Libraries Digital Asset Management Systems • Ingest • Store • Annotate / Catalog • Retrieval / Distribution Current Landscape http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/tmdl Bonneville Dam on the Columbia River, Oregon State University /ColumbiaRvr/ColumbiaTDG.html Archives, http://oregondigital.org/u?/streamsurve,809 Emerging Models By aidisley: http://www.flickr.com/photos/disley/260585673/ Disclaimer In this presentation, I will present the method and results found by the IR/Hosting subgroup of the Orbis Cascade Alliance Digital Services Team 2010. Any views expressed are the views of the presenter and do not reflect views of other members of the IR/Hosting subgroup, larger Digital Services Team, the Alliance, or member institutions. DST Evaluation Background • Northwest Digital Archives Digital Program Working Group (2007-2009) http://www.orbiscascade.org/index/cms-filesystem- action/nwda/files/dpwg_report_recommendations_final_rev_20090727.pdf • Orbis Cascade Alliance Institutional Repositories Task Force (2009) http://www.orbiscascade.org/index/cms-filesystem- action/groups/irtf/irtf_final_report.pdf Summary of Activities • Reviewed available systems • Created initial criteria for review • Contacted current users of systems for feedback • Investigated collaborating with other consortia o Colorado Alliance ADR (Alliance Digital Repository) o LASR (Liberal Arts Scholarly Repository) • Contacted vendors for consortial pricing information on various repository platforms including (Simple DL and CONTENTdm) • Decided to split into different categories based on very different strengths of systems and wide array of member needs and non standard usage of the term IR • Narrowed down systems per category • Communicated criteria and list of systems to wider DST and other self‐identified interested individuals from Alliance institutions for review and feedback • Installed and tested systems; set up vendor accounts for demos • Conducted final review of systems for recommendations Other DAMS Reviews • “A Comparative Analysis of Institutional Repository Software” (Feb. 2010) Purdue and U Wisconsin http://blogs.lib.purdue.edu/rep/2010/02/25/a-comparative- analysis-of-institutional-repository-software/ • "Digital Asset Management (DAM) Planning/Implementation Survey” (Aug. 2010)” UConn Libraries http://digitalcommons.uconn.edu/libr_pubs/24 • “Repository Software Survey” (Nov. 2010) Repositories Support Project sponsored by JISC http://www.rsp.ac.uk/start/software-survey/results-2010/ Initial Criteria Access Storage • Standards compliant • Scalability display • Security / Permissions • Customizable look and • Batch Processing feel with multiple options • Hosting Options (per collection / Additional Information institution) • Cost Preservation • Best for X • Standards compliant • Challenges with Y exportable data • Use in Alliance Institutions Systems Investigated • Dspace • Fedora • OJS Commons(Islandora) • Eprints • Fedora Commons • Greenstone (Hydra) • Omeka • IRPlus • SimpleDL • Zentity • BePRess • LASR • Colorado Alliance Additional Systems Evaluated by OSU/UO Just Prior • CollectiveAccess • DigiTool • Rescarta • CDL Microservices • Collection Space 2nd Round Criteria • Self-submission • Open source/commercial • LDAP/ Shibboleth authentication • Granular control of user • Create and view relationships privileges between items & Multi-file items • Supports controlled • Statistics Collection Statistics vocabularies • RSS for new content • Faceted searching • Collection specific branding • Full text indexing • Batch ingest / export • Intuitive searching with limiters • Batch editing • User contributed • Supports multi. media formats tags/comments • Supports embedded viewers • OAI-PMH compatible Metadata • Streaming Support Schemas • Persistent Links • Cost • Search Engine Optimization Additional Criteria • Image viewer with zoom & • Automated creation of pan capabilities derivative formats • Favorites/Galleries/Light (thumbnails, streaming Table versions) • Slideshow functionality • Data extraction from images • Sharing capabilities • Customizable Submission • Download/export capabilities Forms for end users - single image, • Version/revision tracking batch download, with • Google Scholar Integration metadata, etc. • Exhibit or virtual collection • Persistent Links builder Fedora Commons as a Solution • Open Source since 2003 with active development community • Highly flexible, extensible, and scalable • Interoperable • Preservation Ready o Versioning o Conversion at ingest o Persistent URLs o Preservation Services in Development Islandora as a Solution • Built on Drupal and benefits for development community outside of libraries • UPEI commitment for sustainability of Islandora • Flexible for new kinds of management (data, museums/exhibits) • Works!
Pages to are hidden for
"alliance_dams"Please download to view full document