U T A H A C A D E M I C L I B R A R Y C O N S O R T I U M

Historical Society Pilot  Grant to scan 200 glass plate negatives Planned to send to Nebraska for scanning No database solution  UU scanned 400 negatives (no shipping costs) Offered space on CONTENTdm server Tested concept of remote support  Eventual total of over 10,000 images  Project hatched idea for state-wide initiative

U T A H A C A D E M I C L I B R A R Y C O N S O R T I U M

Proposal to UALC – January 2002  Build a digital collection about the region  Include resources from cultural and educational institutions in Utah  Make content accessible to all citizens  Build on existing expertise in collaborative digitization (UU and BYU)  Offer local control and low-cost  Standardize metadata for interoperability

U T A H A C A D E M I C L I B R A R Y C O N S O R T I U M Start-up Budget - $100,000  CONTENTdm software for USU and SUU $10,000 x 2 = $20,000 (Level 2 licenses)  Flatbed scanners and computers for USU and SUU $20,000 x 2 = $40,000  Aggregating server and license $10,000  PT scanning technicians $7,000 x 4 = $28,000  Training $2,000

MWDL website MWDL website Utah State CONTENTdm Server (Solaris) Utah State CONTENTdm Server (Solaris) U of Utah CONTENTdm Server (Windows) U of Utah CONTENTdm Server (Windows) BYU CONTENTdm Server (Linux) BYU CONTENTdm Server (Linux) SUU CONTENTdm Server (Linux) SUU CONTENTdm Server (Linux) Partners MWDL Structure Partners Multi-Site Server (Windows)

U T A H A C A D E M I C L I B R A R Y C O N S O R T I U M

Current MWDL Numbers  ~447,000 digital objects  7 centers in Utah and Nevada 1 more to be added soon  15? Hosted partners  Does not include Utah Digital Newspapers

U T A H A C A D E M I C L I B R A R Y C O N S O R T I U M MWDL Model in Other Projects  Western Waters Digital Library 12 institutions in 8 western states CONTENTdm servers MSS run at University of Utah  Utah Digital Newspapers Digital newspaper content distributed across three institutions MSS at UU

U T A H A C A D E M I C L I B R A R Y C O N S O R T I U M How MSS Works  Needed: CDM server URL and collection name  Copies current index and offset files from remote servers Does not copy images  Stores indexes locally  Search “hits” grab thumbnail images in real time  Following hit seamlessly redirects user to remote server  Object is displayed with remote site’s result template

U T A H A C A D E M I C L I B R A R Y C O N S O R T I U M Advantages of MSS  Easy Out of the box setup Works flawlessly with CDM servers Provides results templates  Lightweight harvesting Unnoticeable to remote servers Small hardware requirement ~300,000 records = 2.5 Gb space on MSS  Can become OAI data provider OAI harvesters can harvest aggregated index

U T A H A C A D E M I C L I B R A R Y C O N S O R T I U M Disadvantages of the MSS  Costs money  Cannot currently harvest from non-CDM servers DiMeMa can easily do it if demanded  Can’t automatically discover new collections

U T A H A C A D E M I C L I B R A R Y C O N S O R T I U M MSS Pricing Number of serversAnnual fee 2$4,500 3$5,250 4$6,000 5$6,750 6$7,500 7$8,250 8$9,000 9$9,500 10$10,000

U T A H A C A D E M I C L I B R A R Y C O N S O R T I U M The MWDL Model  Partners retain their identity  Multiple access points to collections Local website MWDL website Object stored in only one place  Digitization occurs in a uniform manner High-end equipment, standards  Revenue stream for regional centers Structure is semi-self-sustaining  Partners trained to apply metadata Contribution and control

U T A H A C A D E M I C L I B R A R Y C O N S O R T I U M Disadvantages of MWDL Model  Not everyone contributes equally UU doing most of hosting/supporting  No full-time personnel Website suffers from lack of attention Design doesn’t guide users very well  Nobody wants to pay for the MSS Considering building our own  Open Source movement frowns upon CDM