1. From OATS to Solar Boats Managing Digital Objects in Scotland. Presentation to EC 2005 Dennis Nicholson, Director Centre for Digital Library Research, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, Scotland

2. Intentions 1/3 n A sampling of what EC2005 covers u No pretence at being comprehensive – a dip rather than a dissertation u Drawing on: CMS Project (early data) u Examples from Mopark, but note: To illustrate potential issues, not necessarily your issues METS, e-GMS, DC? Depends…

3. Intentions 2/3 n Brief Introduction to the CMS Project u Funded by SLIC – CDLR, NLS, SMC Aim: to ensure metadata Interoperability across Scottish Content Management Systems and Digital Repositories u Guidelines for Best Practice u Survey and electronic forum: george.macgregor@strath.ac.uk george.macgregor@strath.ac.uk

4. Intentions 3/3 n A peep into the world of Scottish digital object management: u The objects themselves u The content management systems u The metadata schemas u The issues that might come up u The CMS facilities that might be required

5. Digital Objects n Created in all domains: u Electronic papers and theses u Records, exam papers, minutes u Images, video, animations, audio u Web pages, digitised texts, Digital essays, 3D maps, archival materials u Electronic learning materials u MoPark Interpretive Journeys

6. MoPark MoPark and its Interpretive Journeys illustrate the complex end of what is out there: They are looking to manage guides to park tours for PDAs, solar boats, as well as almost everything else: audio guides, 3D maps, poster e-publishing, components, hard-copy

7. Content Management Systems n CMS Project had reports of: u Index+, ADLIB, Tridion, Extensis Portfolio, STUDY IT, IntraLibrary, iBase, Encompass, Insight, Oracle CMS, Microsoft.NET CMS, CALM, Fedora, DSpace, MoPark DAMS u Comparison not part of the project, metadata is the main focus

8. MoPark building their own CMS – DAMS. Here: set up screen for adding asset types and linking them to file types, metadata categories.

9. Metadata Schema Used n Survey responses to date: u DC, MARC, UK LOM, e-GMS, TEI, VRA, EAD, ISAD (G), proprietary schemes u Some using more than one n No report of recent standards like: u MODS, MIX, IMS-CP, MPEG-21 u Except METS planned in three u MetaMap – URL later

10. MoPark Plan to use METS Descriptive metadata (as MARC, e- GMS mostly are) Administrative metadata (technical, rights, analogue source, digital object files provenance), Files metadata Structural Map metadata to outline objects hierarchical structure Structural Links metadata for inter-hierarchy links Behaviour metadata

11. Possible Issues n One repository or many – web-site, IR, VLE, DL, FOI… n Using various staff to manage accuracy, legality, promotional impact, safety issues, currency in digital objects via workflow control - the right checks in the right order n Other issues: Common objects in composites; Preservation metadata

12. G FE D C B 4 2 x 7 6 5 x x x INCHCAILLOCH CLAIRINSH The Kitchen BALMAHA PIER Figure 1: Schematic diagram illustrating Inchcailloch journey Numbers refer to interpretive points on plan A H MoPark has most of these issues. An IJ is one object with (say) 12 stops, each having a complex audio-visual presentation on flora, fauna, history, geology, culture, landscape. Plus versions for walks, solar boats, more

13. For example, part of one stop: 1000 years ago, animal sounds played, then pictures shown

14. Objects extremely complex, management issues include accuracy, currency in changing, seasonal environment, safety, preservation issues. One strategy based on preserving individual objects and using METS structural metadata to describe how they are (or were) inter-linked

15. CMS Facilities Required n Depends, but may include facilities to: u Add, display, edit, manage, export metadata and assets u Add asset types, metadata types, file types, permissions, people; interlink these + assets u Manage workflows – checks, approvals, alerts

16. For example, MoParks DAMS has screens: - for adding metadata categories, attributes

17. - adding asset types, and linking them to file types and metadata categories

18. - Adding metadata under the various METS headings

19. - Managing components, Composites, Workflows

20. Final Summary n Digital Object Management: u Simple or complex? Depends u Growing area; Vital to get it right n CMS Project will help: u Guidelines for best practice in various different circumstances u Bringing people together n Inform SCIE Development Plan

21. Questions? n Further Information u The CMS Project website is at http://cms.cdlr.strath.ac.uk/ http://cms.cdlr.strath.ac.uk/ u Metamap: http://mapageweb.umontreal.ca/turner/m eta/english/index.html http://mapageweb.umontreal.ca/turner/m eta/english/index.html u Contacts: d.m.nicholson@strath.ac.uk george.macgregor@strath.ac.ukd.m.nicholson@strath.ac.uk george.macgregor@strath.ac.uk u CDLR: http://cdlr.strath.ac.uk/http://cdlr.strath.ac.uk/