Your Federal Quarterly Tax Payments are due April 15th Get Help Now >>

alliance_dams by jizhen1947

VIEWS: 5 PAGES: 16

									     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!

								
To top