Emile Bijk, Europeana Meeting, Belgium 16 December 2009

1. Europeana en de digitale ontsluiting van cultureel
erfgoed
Http://www.gama-gateway.eu/

2. GAMA:
“ONE COMMON PLATFORM AS ACCESS POINT
FOR FACILITATED EXPOSURE, DISCOVERY AND
RETRIEVAL OF THE DIGITAL CONTENTS OF
MEDIA ART ARCHIVES.”
“...TO BE HARVESTED BY EUROPEANA...”
2

4. Objective I
„ [...] the project will consolidate the
extremely heterogeneous landscape of
digital media art archives, libraries and
other digital content providers for the
users.“
ANNEX I ECP_2006_DILI_510029 GAMA
DoW, p. 3
4

5. Multi disciplinary & Pan European
- 8 content providers (ARGOS, NIMK etc)
- 5 technology providers (HKU, TZI, ATOS)
- 6 providers of methodology, administration
dissemination (UB, IN2, KW)
5

6. GAMA in figures
•8.000 artists represented
•22.000 works described
•2500 digitized previews
•15000 generated thumbnails
•8 languages
•350 hours of video material
•270 full length video’s
•9 database adapters
•1 repository
•1 Interface
• Harvesting interface to Europeana OAI-PMH
6

7. „[…] projects such as GAMA are complex
organisations in which companies with
different cultures, approaches and interests
join forces and know-how to achieve common
goals.“
Annex I ECP_2006_DILI_510029 GAMA
DoW, p. 38
7

8. Approach: workpackages & Workgroups
WP1 Management & Administration
WP2 Requirements analysis (archive & users)
WP3 Platform specification
WP4 Analysis software integration (QBE)
WP5 Portal Production (Interfaces & aggregation)
WP6 Evaluation
WP7 Exploitation & Sustainability
WG1 Editorial workgroup (texts)
WG2 Search & Retrieval (search interfaces)
WG3 Harmonisation (of artists and keywords)
WG4 Vocabulary (ontologies etc.)
8

9. Threats and Opportunities I Opportunities
•Cooperation without competition
•Funds for investments in collection
•Technological support/ expertise
•Providing more exposure to collections
•Experiencing the workflow of a large scale
project
9

10. Threats and Opportunities Perceived Threats
•Losing identity
•Standardization
•Losing influence/ rights to works
•Risking conflicts with artists
•Organisational overhead of public funding
10

11. Design for diversity
- Institutional objectives (archives, festivals and
distributors)
- Collection characteristics (full presence vs.
catalogue entries)
- Technical platforms & expertise
- Status of digitization
- Institutional rights to works
11

12. Design for Change
•Fast iterations vs. fixed specification
•Emphasis on shared objectives vs. local differences
•Starting with ‘small’ designs and taking it from there
•Emphasis on best practices
•Pragmatic solutions vs. academic discussions
•Collaborative design
•Organising internal and external feedback
12

13. STARTING: BEST PRACTICE REVIEW
13

14. BEST PRACTICE REVIEW WIREFRAMING BASED ON
MINIMUM SET OF METADATA
14

15. LOOK & FEEL
15

16. FIRST PROTOTYPE ON MINIMUM SET OF METADATA OF ‘EARLY’ ARCHIVES
16

17. SECOND PROTOTYPE
17

18. DESIGN FOR DIFFERENCE
Great heterogenity in information:
• Full video streams
• High quality
• Full biographies
• Author details
• Full descriptions
• Full media information
•Harmonized artist information
•Thumbnail descriptions
•Keywords available
•Types available
vs.
Title/Author
18

19. DESIGN FOR DIFFERENCE II
• Full streams vs. previews
• Auto generated thumbnails vs. archive
selections
• Archive homepages
• Archive mission
• Archive selections on homepage
• Academic clarification of the field
• Harmonization of artist names
19

20. INTERNAL & EXTERNAL TESTING & EVALUATION
• Performance
• Usability (density of layout; identity)
• Data integrity (testing adapters)
• Functionality (bugs, issues)
• Interpreting end-user evaluations
20

21. BENEFITS FOR CONTENT PROVIDERS
• International platform for collaboration
•Funds for digitization
•Investments in enriching original collection
•Greater exposure of collection
•Increase of ‘traffic’ on archives homepages
•European interest in the field
•Experiences gained in large scale projects
•Partnerships and friendships
21

22. “All partners are committed in the exploiting
the project’s results […]
GAMA is registered as a non-profit
organisation, committed to extend the
userbase and participating archives,
Fees are providing funds for maintenance
Annex I ECP_2006_DILI_510029 GAMA
DoW, p. 6 + 7
22