Creating an Integrated Digital Library Based on the Fedora Platform

David KennedyDeveloperSusan SchreibmanAssistant DeanUniversity of Maryland Libraries

http://lib.umd.edu/digital

Vision

Sustainability

Extensible framework

System Goals

Multiple collections Multiple object types Cross searchability of collections Not every object in a collection Opening up repository to many users

in the library

Organizational Issues

Institutional support Time allowed to develop the system Off the shelf vs Fedora type system Team

Digital Initiatives Core

Full Time Staff Members Sean Daugherty interface specialist Gretchen Gueguen project manager Paul Hammer developer Ann Hanlon project manager David Kennedy developer Kate Murray audio-visual archivist Jennifer O'Brien Roper metadata

Danica Thomas adm support Ben Wallberg developer

Graduate Students Tanya Clement Tony Ross Katie Salay

•Jan 2005: DCR begins

•April 2005: Fedora development begins

•Sept 2006: Jim Henson Works completed

•Dec 2006: Treasury of World’s Fair Art & Architecture done

•Winter 2007: Maryland AlbUM available in live

•Finding Aid collection integrated into Fedora

• Spring 2007: 1st 400 Films@UM completed

•Integrated interface launched

•Autumn 2007: 2nd batch Films@UM completed (300 films)

•1st 100 Prange books in test

Development Timeline

Fedora

Open source digital repository Developed at UVA and Cornell Now supported by Fedora Commons

Fedora

Service oriented architecture Functionality exposed as web

services Fedora object model

Datastreams (content, metadata)Disseminators (services, behaviors)

Relationships between digital objects Object oriented

Laying the groundwork (Jan 05-Fall 06)

Henson, World’s FairsCollection specific design decisionsBoutique interfaces

Growth, maintenance (Fall 06-Present)

New projectsSingle public interfaceAdministrative interface

Fedora @ UMD

Infrastructure

Metadata Content model Web services

Public interface/skins Development of API Admin interface

Metadata

UM Digital Repository : Metadata Standard Description

Hybrid standardUniversity of Maryland Descriptive Metadata

(UMDM)Customized DTDRigorous minimum standardCommon base of granular data

MODS

UM Digital Repository : Metadata Standard – Local Standard

Required base elements

Coverage PlaceCoverage TimeMedia TypePhysical description

CultureDescriptionSubjectTitle

PIDRelationshipsRepositoryRights

• Optional base elements

Identifier

Agent

Language

Style

UM Digital Repository : Metadata Standard - METS

Wrapper for all objects METS record for every object contains:

HeaderFile SectionStructural MapStructural LinksBehavior Section

UM Digital Repository : Vocabularies – General Descriptive

Terms created as neededCulture

• nationality, ethnic, regional, organizational, Etc.

Style• architectural, literary, musical, etc.

UM Digital Repository :Vocabularies – Name Authority

Existing termsLC Name Authority FileGetty Thesaurus of Geographic Names

Creating termsName Authority Cooperative Program

http://lib.umd.edu/dcr/?page_id=38

UM Digital Repository : Vocabularies – Subject

“browse” termsDefined independent of any projectApplied to all objects, regardless of collectionIntentionally generalOnly two levels of specificity Experimented with locally derived list based

on LC Call Number Scheme

Browse-able Categories

Architecture, Landscape, Historic Places

Broadcasting & Communications

Civil Rights & Civic Engagement

Education Agriculture, Environment,

Conservation, & the Natural World

Fine Arts Government, Law,

Politics

Economics, Business, Commerce, & Labor

Literature, Print Culture Performing Arts, Music Personal & Family Lives Religion Science & Technology Sports, Recreation War, Military Women’s Studies

Content Model

How is it stored in Fedora? Consistency between content types

Content Model

Descriptive Metadata

Content

DM

AM AM AM AM

UMDM

METS

image image imageimageUMAM UMAM UMAM

UMAM

Web services

Created web services for our internal work

Services – behaviors Index and search Handle manager

Public interface/skins

Consistent display Customized per collection

Public interface/skins

Public interface/skins

Public interface/skins

Development efficiency Same base code for all projects

Development of API

Java classes Digital object classes AM object classes Metadata classes

Rules and validity When is metadata valid? When is a digital object complete?

Admin interface

Staff to manage their own collections Patron requests Web interface Simple to use Maintain flexibility Maintain specificity in metadata

Admin interface

Still in development/testing Metadata editing Managing content Uploading content items Defining relationships

Admin interface

Lessons learned/Challenges

Editing metadata Authentication Archival storage Proofing of objects/metadata Time vs effort

Where we are at

Have established the fedora architecture Can deliver video/full text (EAD/TEI)/images Composite ‘book’ objects Beginning development to deliver audio files 5 boutique collections with all objects fully

federated 2 content-based collections federated only

at the collection level

Where we are at 3 gateways/tools federated at the

collection level 100 Prange books (1000 images)

available in Test Administrative interface just about

ready for robust beta testing In Live

800 films / 2000 images / 40 TEI / 600 EAD / 350 gig

How to Get in Touch

http://lib.umd.edu/digital

sschreib@umd.edu davekenn@umd.edu