Uploaded on

Michael Emly's presentation on MIDESS at the CETIS MDR SIG meeting in Bolton on 6th May, 2008

Michael Emly's presentation on MIDESS at the CETIS MDR SIG meeting in Bolton on 6th May, 2008

More in: Technology , Education
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
    Be the first to like this
No Downloads

Views

Total Views
902
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0

Actions

Shares
Downloads
4
Comments
0
Likes
0

Embeds 0

No embeds

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
    No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. Sharing meta/data between repositories : lessons from the MIDESS Project Michael Emly 6th May 2008 University Library
  • 2.
    • Outline of the MIDESS Project
    • Z39.50 and information architectures
    • Metadata harvesting and OAI-PMH
    • Sharing digital objects with METS
    • Some outstanding questions
    Outline
  • 3.
    • Focused on repositories for storing digital images and other multimedia files
    • Funded by UK JISC and CURL
    • Project partners were:
      • Leeds (lead site)
      • Birmingham University
      • London School of Economics
      • University College London
    • Ran June 2005 – August 2007
    The MIDESS Project
  • 4.
      • To create demonstrator repositories at each partner site and populate with sample content
      • To explore the options for sharing and re-using content between institutions
      • To investigate the main IPR issues for this type of content
      • To establish appropriate metadata standards for this content
      • To explore the role of the repository within the institutional information architecture
    Project Objectives
  • 5.
      • A set of documents which can guide and inform other repository implementations:
      • User requirements specification based on an extensive survey of potential users
      • Technical and functional requirements specification
      • Case studies of implementation on 3 different software platforms
      • Major reports on
        • Data preservation issues
        • Enterprise integration and information architecture
        • Metadata standards
        • IPR
      • + Investigation of OAI-PMH and METS for exchanging data between multimedia repositories (Work-packages 9 & 10)
    Project Outputs
  • 6.
      • Is it really different?
      • More diverse than “eprints”
      • More variation in size and use
      • Supporting various agendas: research, L&T, preservation …
      • More diverse metadata
      • Need to use a wider range of schemas
      • But users
      • Don’t care about technical issues
      • Don’t make the same distinctions between types of content
      • Just want what they need, wherever it is
      • And don’t want to reinvent the wheel if somebody has already done the work
    Multimedia content
  • 7.
      • Configured cross-searching of OPAC and repository at Leeds using Z39.50
      • Used III Millennium LMS client – only limited configuration options
      • Conclusions:
        • Field labels designed for MARC sometimes seemed odd when applied to the matching dublin core element
        • URL back to the repository object failed to display (though it was passed) so no indication of how to access the object
        • Construction of searches very different between OPAC and repository collections
      • Better results using a federated search portal? (not available at the time)
      • Raised awareness of issues around information architecture – what is to be searched from where (and how)
    What did we do? Z39.50
  • 8. Active learning – one view Repository Search Student OPAC Search Library collections Digital objects E-resources Learning objects Web resources VLE Web Search Recommended reading Reading lists Directed learning Independent learning Recommended web-sites
  • 9. And another …
  • 10.
      • Institutional
        • What is to be searched from where (and how)?
        • What protocols need to be supported?
        • What interactions are required >> system integration issues
      • National / international
        • What groupings of services/objects do our users wish to access
        • How do we move beyond the current focus on research outputs within the HE community?
        • Does the format of the objects matter?
    Information architecture: issues
  • 11.
      • Harvested individual records from each system
        • Issues around harvesting (service provider)
      • Conducted functionality testing of each system using the University of Cape Town Dept. of Computer Science site
      • Tried using METS as the metadata format carried over the OAI-PMH protocol
    What did we do? OAI-PMH
  • 12.
      • Firewall restrictions
      • Support for flow control and similar compliance issues around technical compliance
      • Access to the object – is a URL included?
      • Metadata schemas
      • Collections within the repository – what is to be harvested?
      • Handling updates and deletions
    Some issues in using OAI-PMH
  • 13.
      • LSE – FEDORA
        • No URL included
        • Requires Dublin Core metadata internally
      • Birmingham – DSpace
        • URL present
        • Only exposes Dublin Core
      • Leeds – Curator
        • No URL included
        • Exposes all schemas
      • Leeds – Digitool
        • URL present
        • Exposes all schemas
    Sharing metadata within MIDESS
      • X
      • X
      • X
      •  ?
  • 14.
      • METS used for initial ingest of objects into Fedora at LSE
      • Exported METS objects from DSpace and tried to ingest into Fedora, Curator and Digitool
      • Fedora - ingest failed >> installed “Repository Bridge” software >> still no joy
      • Curator – ingest failed – but software was beta
      • Digitool – ingest failed – certain data in the amdSec section identified as incompatible >> manual edit >> successful ingest
    What did we do? METS
  • 15.
      • The standard is flexible so can be used in many different contexts
      • The standard is so that it cannot, in itself, guarantee interoperability!
      • And when it does, the receiving system must be able to process all the data contained within the object:
        • Different schemas for descriptive metadata
        • Other metadata e.g. preservation or rights
    Some issues in using METS flexible
  • 16.
      • Standards and protocols:
      • What are the implications of handling multimedia objects?
      • What application profiles need developing?
      • What will be the impact of new standards such as OAI-ORE?
      • Repository functionality:
      • What are the service drivers associated with various categories of digital object?
      • What developments are required in repository platforms for proper handling of multimedia?
      • Information architecture and service integration:
      • What are the key issues regarding information architecture which we need to address to meet our users’ needs?
      • How do repositories relate to and integrate with VLEs?
      • How do we integrate multimedia into a national/international information architecture?
    Further work needed on …
  • 17.
      • MIDESS project web-site:
      • http://www.leeds.ac.uk/library/midess/
      • Contact Michael Emly
      • [email_address]
    For further information