University of Scranton Participation in the PALINET Mass Digitization Collaborative

862 views
785 views

Published on

Presentation at PALINET 2008 conference in Philadelphia, PA

Published in: Spiritual, Technology
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
862
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
3
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

University of Scranton Participation in the PALINET Mass Digitization Collaborative

  1. 1. The University of Scranton Weinberg Memorial Library Participation in PALINET Mass Digitization Collaborative 2008
  2. 2. About Scranton • Mid-sized, private Jesuit university – ~4,000 FT undergrads – ~1,500 PT and graduate • No, we don’t know Jim and Pam! • But we do eat at Cooper’s.
  3. 3. About the Weinberg Memorial Library • Almost 500,000 books • Over 30,000 full text online periodicals • 8 full time faculty librarians • 27 staff members
  4. 4. Why Participate? • Increased access to Library resources – Distance education – Conversion to digital library • Cost • Coordination and help from PALINET – We’re new at this! (especially me)
  5. 5. Our Team • University Archivist – Margaret Craft • Special Collections Librarian – Michael Knies • Systems Coordinator – Mary Kovalcin • Digital Services Librarian – Kristen Yarmey-Tylutki
  6. 6. Our Process • Selection – Books in public domain – Unique or unusual – Harder than we thought!
  7. 7. Book Selection • Pilot – Focus on local history, pre – 1923 – Six books chosen • Production – Local history – University publications? – Course catalogs?
  8. 8. Our Process • Submit Pick/Packing list to PALINET and IA • Set up Z39.50 connection for MARC records – Estimated 8-10 days • Site visit (Princeton) – Books dropped off 9/22 – Most books available online 10/08 – All six books available 10/10
  9. 9. Quality Review – Examined page-by-page PDF, flipbook, and JPEG2000 for all six books – IA gave us plenty of time to review before shipping books back
  10. 10. Quality Review • Results – JPEG2000s good – Full text searching is good – Foldouts aren’t ideal – Derivatives: lose quality in exchange for file size • PDFs: blurry images • Flipbook: illegible text
  11. 11. Quality Review PDF JPEG2000
  12. 12. Quality Review Flipbook
  13. 13. Quality Review • Bottom line/IA response – Recommend PDF for general users • Compromise between detail and file size – Flipbook is still in beta format – Recommend JPEG2000 for researchers • Just like Roy said…
  14. 14. Our Process • What’s next: – Add digital books to catalog – Create digital library collection in CONTENTdm
  15. 15. Marketing and PR • Pilot: – Library blog post – Informing staff and librarians • Production: – Collaborate with PR department – Press release – Postcards
  16. 16. Questions? Kristen Yarmey-Tylutki Digital Services Librarian The University of Scranton Weinberg Memorial Library yarmeyk2@scranton.edu

×