The Collections UofT Repository and Enterprise Content Management


Published on

Presentation given on 6 May 2014 at the Toronto-Ryerson-York Universities Libraries Conference (#TRY2014) by Kelli Babcock, Sara Allain, Karen Suurtamm, Danielle Robichaud, and Ken Yang.

Describes the Collections UofT platform (Drupal, Islandora, Fedora) and presents three use cases - the UofT Archives, the St Michael's College/Henri Nouwen fonds, and the University of Toronto Scarborough OAI-PMH.

Published in: Technology, Education
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

The Collections UofT Repository and Enterprise Content Management

  1. 1. Sara Allain, Special Collections Librarian, UTSC Library Kelli Babcock, Digital Initiatives Librarian, UTL ITS Danielle Robichaud, Archives Assistant, John M. Kelly Library, USMC Karen Suurtamm, Archivist, UTARMS Ken Yang, Digital Humanities Application Programmer, UTL ITS
  2. 2. Presentation Overview 1. Introducing the Collections UofT platform (Kelli) 2. Use case: UTARMS (Karen) 3. Use case: Nouwen family photograph albums (Danielle) 4. Use case: using OAI-PMH to share metadata (Sara)
  3. 3. What is Collections UofT?
  4. 4. What is Collections UofT? Enterprise Content Management Approach ● Problem: How best to manage our digital projects/digital assets while leveraging limited resources? ● One possibility: a repository inspired by the “enterprise content management” framework ● An enterprise content management approach offers guidelines for the architecture and management behind a repository, rather than simply a technical solution
  5. 5. Enterprise Content Management Enterprise Content Management comprises the strategies, processes, methods, systems, and technologies that are necessary for capturing, creating, managing, using, publishing, storing, preserving, and disposing content within and between organizations. ECMs and Institutional Repositories: The Case for a Unified Enterprise Approach to Content Management Malcolm Wolski, Natasha Simons and Joanna Richardson, 2013
  6. 6. Enterprise Content Management
  7. 7. Collections UofT: the system
  8. 8. Collections UofT: an Islandora sandwich Top layer: Drupal Middle bits: Islandora tools Bottom layer: Fedora commons
  9. 9. Collaborator Multi-Sites ● ● ● ● ● ● etc...
  10. 10. Metadata Conundrum
  11. 11. Enabling collaboration
  12. 12. Islandora and the U of T Archives Karen Suurtamm, Archivist U of T Archives & Records Management Services (UTARMS)
  13. 13. Our digitized content ● Lansdale fonds ○ Total: 50,000 ○ Digitized: 27,000 ○ Online: 3,500 ● Photos ○ Total: 250,000+ ○ Online: 2000 ● Published material ○ Total: 2400+ titles ○ Online: 14 titles; 57,000 pages ● Textual records ○ Total: 11,000+ m ○ Online: barely anything
  14. 14. Heritage site ● Initiated by President’s office ● Created by ITS; launched 2012 ● Scope: U of T history ● Material from repositories across U of T ○ UTARMS ○ Fisher ○ UTSC ○ UTM
  15. 15. Benefits of Heritage Site ● Increased exposure ● Search and browse across repositories ● Easy browsing/searching for internal use ● Faceted browsing ● Multimedia: photographs, documents, maps, drawings, films, books ● Increased collaboration
  16. 16. Exhibits
  17. 17. Chronology
  18. 18. Social media
  19. 19. Limitations of Heritage ● Strict mandate/scope ● Another ‘place’ to look for things ● Not linked back to our website and archival descriptions ● Little control over how our material displays
  20. 20. Collections: U of T Archives multi-site ● Central space : decentralized workflow ● More control over collection display ● Own look/feel for our page ● Can build our own menu items: About, Contact, How to cite, etc. ● Content is unlimited in scope
  21. 21. Islandora for Archives: Benefits ● Supports multiple formats ● Open source ○ Can build/add/adapt ○ Room to grow/change ○ community/collaboration ● Pairing with other software ○ Exhibits (Timeline etc) ○ Preservation (Archivematica) ○ Description (AtoM)
  22. 22. Islandora for Archives: Challenges ● Communicating that ‘this isn’t everything’ ● Use of the term ‘collections’ ● Metadata: balancing cohesion and autonomy with other professions/sectors ● Preserving/communicating context ● Preserving/communicating hierarchical arrangement
  23. 23. Nouwen Family Photograph Albums Page 38 of Album 16 Danielle Robichaud Archives Assistant John M. Kelly Library USMC
  24. 24. Meet the Nouwens Maria and Laurent J.M. Nouwen’s 25th wedding anniversary (April 1956) P6133 Page 28 of Album 1
  25. 25. Project Overview ● 18 photograph albums donated in 2012 ● 650 pages with more than 4000 photographs ● Funding was provided for the digitization and description of the albums ● Online access key component of agreement ● Albums compiled by the Nouwen family and Henri Nouwen
  26. 26. Page 12 of Album 18
  27. 27. Page 6 of Album 12
  28. 28. Page 20 of Album 5
  29. 29. Page 21 of Album 3
  30. 30. Why Collections U of T? ● Higher profile for USMC Collections ● Allows for centralized online dissemination with built-in IT support ● Access to academic audience ● Collections U of T collaborators as built-in community of practice
  31. 31. Challenges ● Photograph albums don’t align with the Book or Large Image Content models ● Resources, time and knowledge required for site customization and configuration ● Archival descriptive standards vs Dublin Core basic elements
  32. 32. Solution: Thinking Out Loud
  33. 33. How Do You Solve a Problem Like UTSC? ● The DSU at UTSC has its own Islandora ○ We use it in different ways than ITS ○ Not an institutional repository but an organic digital scholarship tool that we need to be able to experiment with ● But we think it’s important to contribute!
  34. 34. Learn to Share! ● Create a search interface that will find our stuff via Collections UofT without the effort of ingesting it twice ● OAI-PMH: Open Archives Initiative Protocol for Metadata Harvesting
  35. 35. Metadata Harvesting via OAI-PMH UTSC metadata available via Islandora OAI module Collections UofT harvester Request made via HTTP Dublin Core XML gathered via OAI-PMH Metadata made available via Collections UofT site
  36. 36. Pros and Cons of OAI-PMH Advantages: ● Relatively easy ● Minimal duplication of ingest effort ● No loss if UTSC decides to change how we use Collections UofT Issues: ● User interface changes ● Only harvests simple Dublin Core ● Out of date - ATOM, ResourceSync, or LOD could do this better
  37. 37. Questions? Contact us Sara:, @archivalistic Kelli:, @kelllib Danielle:, @danielleganza, @UTArchives Ken:, @kenyangzj