1. Not So Different After All Creating Access To Diverse Objects in Digital Repositories Jennifer OBrien Roper, Gretchen Gueguen, and Susan Schreibman University of Maryland Libraries

2. What We Will Cover… The Building Blocks of Digital Repositories The Thomas MacGreevy Archive vs. The University of Marylands Digital Repository Future issues of exploration…

3. Barriers to Digital Library Integration Thematic Collections Documenting the American South http://docsouth.unc.edu http://docsouth.unc.edu Historic Pittsburgh http://digital.library.pitt.edu/pittsburgh http://digital.library.pitt.edu/pittsburgh Object Collections University of Indiana (XPat) http://www.dlib.indiana.edu/collections/ http://www.dlib.indiana.edu/collections/ Packaged Collections Romantic Circles http://www.rc.umd.edu http://www.rc.umd.edu After the fact Collections NINES http://www.nines.org http://www.nines.org

4. Digital Project Building Blocks Metadata Vocabulary Interface Design

5. Digital Projects: Metadata Standard Initiatives to aggregate collections: Z39.50 Keep different metadata schemes Keep localized repositories Pressure on the search interface Open Archives Initiatives Metadata Harvesting Protocol (MHP) Extract a normalized record Create a central repository Pressure on the central repository

6. Digital Projects: Metadata Standard Centralized Repository for searching (normalized metadata) Individual Repository (local metadata) User Query metadata URL metadata URL Individual Repository (local metadata)

7. Digital Projects: Metadata Standard Lessons from MHP Normalizing metadata for sharing Keeping local enhanced records Centralize functions like searching, but disperse functions like displaying and storing Drawbacks Lack of enforcement for Metadata Standards Various levels of granularity in data

8. Digital Projects: Vocabularies The ideal language Pre-coordinated vs. post-coordinated Hierarchies and relationships are great for some things, not for others

9. Digital Projects: Vocabularies Controlled vs. local Locally created languages Fit materials well Speak the users language BUT Are difficult to enhance All controlled vocabularies are difficult to combine

10. Digital Projects: Interface Issues Multiple Hierarchies Facilitate access to both individual and general collections Multiple Object Types Film, audio, video, image, text in one interface Multiple Modes of Access Allow users to browse through objects in a manner that promotes cross-collection discovery

11. Thomas MacGreevy Archive http://www.macgreevy.org TEI p4-based repository of texts A few different collections, some searchable, some not Changes Desired Add images to the searchable collection Add a collection of letters with special display needs

12. Thomas MacGreevy Archive : Metadata Standard Limited to TEI p4 Letters have irregularities in the body Images have multiple levels of being Collections havent been named before

13. Thomas MacGreevy Archive : Metadata Standard Solution? Adapt things to fit The Entombment An Electronic Version Fit the title of the original (here, a paiting by Poussin) in the main title and indicate that it is a digital copy in the version title. This is typical TEI practice Markup completed by: Gretchen Gueguen 6 kb Keep the responsibility statement about the creation of the TEI file. Record the creator of the original when you record details about the original

14. Thomas MacGreevy Archive : Metadata Standard Add only what is necessary - Art French 1600-1699 Keywords for cross-searching - These details for display and internal record keeping, NOT searching The McGreevy Family: Front row from left to right Thomas, Nora … A caption is searchable and provide many precise points of access.

15. Thomas MacGreevy Archive : Metadata Standard Translate existing codes Image The collections were loosely designated before by a combination of item type and value. We continued to use this convention even when it was redundant.

16. Only the information that is also available for texts is displayed, such as title, creator, text, and keywords Thomas MacGreevy Archive : Metadata Standard

17. Thomas MacGreevy Archive: Vocabulary Limited vocabulary available Main descriptors based on Dewey Other descriptors based on nationality and date of subject Some other fields used a consistent language Collection designations Text types (poem, art review, obituary, etc.) 500 texts finished Solution?

18. Thomas MacGreevy Archive: Vocabulary Cant create a new vocabulary for the collection Cant create a scalable vocabulary for everything So, Add some new words to list and retrospectively update

19. Thomas MacGreevy Archive: Vocabulary Existing Terms Architecture Art Biography Catholicism Critical Method Dance Education Film Folklore New Terms Career & Finances Domestic Life Irish Culture Literature Politics & Government Portraits Social Life Great War History Journals Music Mythology Opera Sport Theatre Travel

20. Thomas MacGreevy Archive : Interface New collections affect how searching is done New object types need to be displayed different ways Viewing Search results

21. Searchable collections Unsearchable collections Thomas MacGreevy Archive : Interface – Browse

22. Confusing, often missed, options Unclear approach to subjects Thomas MacGreevy Archive : Interface – Search

23. Search in full-text as well as by type Faceted subjects made explicit Collection, author, and date of objects are searchable nodes Thomas MacGreevy Archive : Interface – Revised Search

24. User determines relevancy by author and title within results Thomas MacGreevy Archive : Interface – Results

25. Sort by document type in results Show thumbnails and keywords for image objects Indicate that images are associated with texts List blurbs for articles and abstracts for letters Thomas MacGreevy Archive : Interface – Revised Results

26. Tabbed interface for comparison Unique, textual features of letters represented in images Thomas MacGreevy Archive : Interface – Revised Display

27. Thomas MacGreevy Archive : Lessons Learned Neutral metadata standard Scalable controlled vocabulary Starting over is sometimes worth it, sometimes not

28. University of Maryland Digital Repository FEDORA architecture Individual collections Unique look and feel Customized metadata design Cross collection search and browse Common search interface Rich minimum standards for metadata

29. UM Digital Repository : Metadata Standard - Description Dublin Core Great for cross-collection description Too simple for rich description within a focused collection VRA Core Excels at rich description Created for and focused solely on images

30. UM Digital Repository : Metadata Standard - Description Hybrid standard University of Maryland Descriptive Metadata (UMDM) Customized DTD Rigorous minimum standard Common base of granular data MODS

31. UM Digital Repository : Metadata Standard – Local Standard Required base elements Coverage Place Coverage Time Media Type Physical description Culture Description Subject Title PID Relationships Repository Rights Optional base elements Identifier Agent Language Style

32. UM Digital Repository : Metadata Standard - METS Wrapper for all objects METS record for every object contains: Header Descriptive Metadata Administrative Metadata File Section Structural Map Structural Links Behavior Section

33. UM Digital Repository : Metadata Standard - METS Flexibility to use external descriptive standards Behavioral control Map other standards to UMDM dynamically

34. UM Digital Repository : Metadata Standard - Conversion Mapping existing data to UMDM Indicates where information is in the existing dataset, and intended UMDM location Transformation notes Static information to be added

35. UM Digital Repository : Metadata Standard - Conversion UMDMMARC 245a b p 246 700 710 static: North America static: United States static: 1901-2000 008 character position 11-14

36. UM Digital Repository : Metadata Standard - Conversion Ingestion As a distinct standard, with dynamic generation Batch uploaded from another source Incrementally built

37. UM Digital Repository : Metadata Standard - Conversion

40. UM Digital Repository : Vocabularies Consistent input key to cross- searchability Controlled vocabularies General descriptive Names and name authority Subjects

41. UM Digital Repository : Vocabularies – General Descriptive External vocabularies Media Type (DCMI Type Vocabulary) Language (Former ISO 639-2 values) Local vocabularies Repository

42. UM Digital Repository : Vocabularies – General Descriptive Terms created as needed Culture nationality, ethnic, regional, organizational, Etc. Style architectural, literary, musical, etc.

43. UM Digital Repository : Vocabularies – Name Authority Existing terms LC Name Authority File Getty Thesaurus of Geographic Names Creating terms Name Authority Cooperative Program

44. UM Digital Repository : Vocabularies – Subject Collection based Repository wide browse terms

45. UM Digital Repository : Vocabularies – Subject

46. Subject: Fine Arts Subject: Architecture

47. UM Digital Repository : Vocabularies – Subject Collection based Appropriate to project focus and scope Existing thesauri Library of Congress Subject Headings Art & Architecture Thesaurus Thesaurus for Graphic Materials Etc. Local thesauri

48. UM Digital Repository : Vocabularies – Subject browse terms Defined independent of any project Applied to all objects, regardless of collection Intentionally general Only two levels of specificity Experimented with locally derived list based on LC Call Number Scheme

49. UM Digital Repository : Interface Design Make clear through general and collection interfaces that: Objects are in multiple hierarchies Users can access multiple object types Users can use multiple modes of access and discovery

50. UM Digital Repository : Interface Design - General University of Maryland theme Access to general metadata Accommodate multiple file types Simple and advanced searching

51. UM Digital Repository : Interface Design - Collections Collection based theme Access to customized metadata Exploit file types specific to collection Customized search Extras Contextualized materials Exhibits Documentation

55. Restricted explicit field search Date limit options

56. Embedded video player Metadata to contextualize video Linked subject display Amazon.com inspired feature

58. Option to limit or not by format Drop down menus to help guide searchers Wide variety of unique fields to explicitly search

59. thumbnail Display of customized metadata

60. UM Digital Repository : Interface Design - Browse Explore collection without searching Browse subjects as initial gateway Use common metadata elements to drill down Lists rebuilt weekly, not dynamically

61. UM Digital Repository : Future Issues Difficulties managing multiple hierarchies Workflows for general collections with no curator Balancing infrastructure and individual project development Digital archiving questions unanswered

62. Not So Different After All Creating Access To Diverse Objects in Digital Repositories http://www.lib.umd.edu/dcr/publications/lita.ppt Jennifer OBrien Roper: jroper1@umd.edu Gretchen Gueguen: ggueguen@umd.edu Susan Schreibman: sschreib@umd.edu