COOPERATIVE DIGITIZATION: POSSIBILITIES, PITFALLS AND PROSPECTS ALABI Conference June 3, 2010 –...
24
COOPERATIVE DIGITIZATION: POSSIBILITIES, PITFALLS AND PROSPECTS ALABI Conference June 3, 2010 – Georgetown, KY
-
Upload
clifton-parrish -
Category
Documents
-
view
218 -
download
2
Transcript of COOPERATIVE DIGITIZATION: POSSIBILITIES, PITFALLS AND PROSPECTS ALABI Conference June 3, 2010 –...
COOPERATIVE DIGITIZATION:
POSSIBILITIES, PITFALLS AND PROSPECTS
ALABI ConferenceJune 3, 2010 – Georgetown, KY
Introductions
Kathy Hillman, Director of Special Collections
Doug Weaver, Department of Religion
Eric Ames, Digital Collections Consultant
Doug Weaver
What led to Baylor’s interest in cooperative digitization?
Why should we consider cooperatively digitizing Baptist materials?
Access Preservation “Union Catalog” Some or all of the above
What types of Baptist materials should we consider? Heavily used Baptist materials accessible
only in print or on microform (older SBC annuals, journals, reference books, etc.)
Items from significant Baptist gatherings Panoramic and other photographs Archival and other items of historical
importance
Expectation
Reality
Potential pitfalls
Metadata Who does it, how much?
Waning of initial enthusiasm Minimize by “beginning with the end in
mind” Orphaned projects
Project complete, but caretaker(s) no longer involved
Context Key consideration, often overlooked
Resources: Things to keep in mind
Inventory Control System Loan and donation management Digitization equipment & location Metadata schema File formats and standards Storage and backup Digital preservation Public access Production of collateral materials
Resources for collaboration
Who scans? Who creates metadata? Who does quality control? Where does content live? Who maintains the content in the years to
come?
Option 1: Distributed model Who scans?
Member institutions at the institutional level Who creates metadata?
Member institutions at the institutional level Who does quality control?
Member institutions at the institutional level OR Central authority control
Where does content live? Central solution – a hosted CONTENTdm site OR Individual pages (“silos”) serviced by a central
search function (Most difficult to implement) OR Group-operated site like Blue Host.com
Option 2: Centralized model
Who scans? Centralized service provider
Who creates metadata? Central authority control OR Member institutions at the institution level
Who does quality control? Central authority control OR Member institutions at the institution level
Where does content live? Central solution – a hosted CONTENTdm site OR Individual pages (“silos”) serviced by a central
search function (Most difficult to implement) OR Group-operated site like Blue Host.com
Option 3: Blended approach
Who scans? Member institutions (less complex items) AND Outsourced provider AND Central service provider (complex, fragile, rare,
etc.) Who creates metadata?
Member institutions (basic information) AND Central authority/panel of experts (context, detailed
metadata) Who does quality control?
Member institutions (low level, initial pass) AND Central authority (high level, final approval)
Where does content live? Central solution – a hosted CONTENTdm site OR Individual pages (“silos”) serviced by a central
search function (Most difficult to implement) OR Group-operated site like Blue Host.com
Various project solutions
Conclusions
Scanning is easy; everything else is not
Identifying potential collections up-front is very important
A range of options available Lessons from BU’s experience
Big questions
Will your institution participate? What is the purpose of this
collaboration? Access Preservation Union catalog Some or all of the above
What material will you digitize? Why is it important? Who owns the copyright? Is it organized and described NOW?
Discussion points
How can institutions participate? Who is responsible for upkeep? Underlying costs “Branding” online content Ultimate authority for collection(s) How would we start?
Contact information
http://contentdm.baylor.edu
Kathy Hillman, Director of Special [email protected]
Doug Weaver, Department of [email protected]
Eric Ames, Digital Collections [email protected]
What we’ve learned
Staff time and an inventory system are necessary to handle materials and data
Metadata is more than physical description
Backups are not digital preservation Optical discs are not acceptable media
for backup Many copies are safer (LOCKSS) High-resolution files require TBs worth of
space
