DE Conferentie 2007 - Jim Michalko

485 views

Published on

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

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
485
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
54
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
2
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • Good afternoon, I’m Jim Michalko. I’m very pleased to have been invited to join this group. Etc
  • I was asked to focus on digitization – an activity that is more and more important. In fact crucial to our library, archive and museum services. I bring the perspective of what is happening in North America, what I see happening within each of these professional areas and what is playing out across the larger landscape. Because of our mandate in RLG Programs to help institutions collaboratively design their future we have done a variety of work that we hope will challenge and support institutions in changing their practices to concentrate more effectively on the digitization opportunities we have. Today I’ll speak about the kind of environment in which people use information, what kinds of expectations they have and how that matches up with where our institutions are investing resources. Based on that I’ll give you a perspective on the mass digitization projects that are being done in public-private partnerships like the Google effort, try to persuade you that the activity being done in these commercial projects argues for us to concentrate more on digitizing special collections, and then tell you how we’ll have to change our approaches and processes if we really want to bring special collections effectively into the digital flow. In all of my remarks I am indebted to my RLG Programs colleagues, particularly Ricky Erway, Jen Schaffner and Roy Tennant, on whose recent work I am relying.
  • The most important fact is that Information consumer behavior and expectations have altered forever – and that is a worldwide phenomenon independent of particular national cultures. The major trends and characteristics of this new behavior and expectation are listed here: Network level aggregation of demand and supply – There has been has been a radical transformation in how people find and use information over the last five years via major information and communication hubs. Changing patterns of learning, research and information production and consumption. Information will increasingly be created and consumed within integrated environments in the network space rather than as a stand-alone activity. Personal collections and data replication – Whether for personal or educational use, people are growing accustomed to being able to ‘gather, create and share’ digital resources and manage large quantities of digital information. Institutional collections and data replication – This ‘gather, create and share’ model is also visible at the institutional level where the creation, dissemination and curation of a range of institutional research, learning and administrative assets is increasingly seen as central to mission. E-research, e-learning and e-administration are creating serious institutional and system-wide pressures. Customer relationship management – Information suppliers are becoming increasingly efficient and consumers are expecting increasingly high levels of personalized service.
  • Sites that encourage personalization, personal publishing, and building communities are getting the majority of the information consumer’s attention. A look at Alexa.com web traffic rankings shows a pattern of tremendous growth in the last couple of years for those sites in the top 40 that have these characteristics. These are rankings for worldwide traffic. Universities and libraries are generally far down in the rankings. The Library of Congress has a rank of 4,233, Harvard a rank of 1,813, Stanford 1,839. (but the amount of traffic associated with the library is less than 1% of the actual traffic to a university site like Stanford’s.) And they all show a downward trend, contrasting vividly against these social network sites, where the rank keeps going up month to month. Prestigious libraries that do not have an academic campus rank much lower: New York Public Library has a rank of 23,047; the British Library 27,470, the Bibliotheque National de France 22,581, the National Library of Australia 49,396, the National Diet Library 54,978 What do you think your library’s ranking is? What do you think your curve looks like? A large research institution is likely to be well over a thousand; a small liberal arts college is likely closer to 100,000 And most of the curves are on a downward trend Obviously, we have a lot to learn from more successful sites. Incidentally OCLC’s WorldCat.org has an upward trend although it is still far behind in the rankings (US rank is 4,920.
  • Here are the top sites in the Dutch web domain contrasted with those in the United States. They share very similar characteristics – Search and Social Networking sites dominate. These are the places where people do their work; the places where people expect to find and use what they need.
  • This is an image of the 200 most popular web sites. It’s based on the Tokyo subway system map and created by a firm called Information Architects Japan in June 2007. I think this is a great image of where our users really go. And while Google is the most dominant presence, it is not overwhelmingly dominant. Users go to particular sites for particular reasons. Do you see your library in this picture? Any national libraries? The absence of libraries in this context tells us that the information seeking behavior of potential users bypasses the authoritative offerings of libraries in favor of just-in-time information from sources more conveniently embedded in the users’ daily networked lives. Incidentally this map has very detailed logic to it. The ‘subway’ lines represent characteristics so for instance Facebook is at the intersection of the Community, Social News, Technology, Movies and Music lines.
  • To sum up the situation we have to respond to: We’ve moved from a world where Resources were scarce, and attention was abundant To one where Attention is scarce, resources are abundant And at the same time, we’ve moved from a world where The user built workflow around the library’s services To one in which The library must build its services around user workflow. The ability of libraries to compete individually for users’ attention and to deliver solutions to those users, is deeply diminished. When the user is on the web with all its richness it creates a completely different expectation.
  • They expect that they are finding everything. Unfortunately our operations have been configured around managing physical collections not making those collections accessible in the way that they are wanted and currently used. Let’s look at the universe of information materials and how they are managed, in this case, within the library environment.
  • This grid is a representation of the types of materials that are of interest to users and collected in one way or another by libraries. This two by two matrix divides information materials on the vertical axis by their degree of uniqueness – high or low – and on the horizontal axis by the degree of attention and resources – stewardship – given to those materials by the library. Almost all of the library’s attention and resources are devoted to the upper left quadrant – published content which is now being collected in print as well as digital form. Think of electronic journals – this is published content that is ‘born’ digital. Even though we may not take physical possession of it because we subscribe to them via license, we steward that material in the same way we do our print collections. We do invest resources in the lower left quadrant – special collections. This is unique or rare material that is not replicated in other collections. However in general we spend less than 10% of the operating budget on the acquisition and stewardship of these materials. The other quadrants don’t get much of our resources despite their interest and usefulness to research and learning. We do worry a lot about our responsibilities to open web content and institutional content and have done experiments but haven’t made these a standard part of our collecting and stewardship patterns.
  • This grid is a representation of the types of materials that are of interest to users and collected in one way or another by libraries. This two by two matrix divides information materials on the vertical axis by their degree of uniqueness – high or low – and on the horizontal axis by the degree of attention and resources – stewardship – given to those materials by the library. Almost all of the library’s attention and resources are devoted to the upper left quadrant – published content which is now being collected in print as well as digital form. Think of electronic journals – this is published content that is ‘born’ digital. Even though we may not take physical possession of it because we subscribe to them via license, we steward that material in the same way we do our print collections. We do invest resources in the lower left quadrant – special collections. This is unique or rare material that is not replicated in other collections. However in general we spend less than 10% of the operating budget on the acquisition and stewardship of these materials. The other quadrants don’t get much of our resources despite their interest and usefulness to research and learning. We do worry a lot about our responsibilities to open web content and institutional content and have done experiments but haven’t made these a standard part of our collecting and stewardship patterns. Our users expect access to all of these content types. The web has conditioned that expectation. What they expect when you add together all that content is something we’ve been calling the ‘Collective Collection’. I want to discuss how the library community is dealing with each of these quadrants but will spend most of the rest of my time focused on the left hand quadrants of the matrix where we are facing a big issue – mass digitization – and offered a big opportunity – special collections.
  • I’m not going to say anything about Open Web content – so far our approach has been to leave this to the Internet Archive or rely on institutional collecting projects (including some national library activities). I’m not going to say anything about Institutional Content – so far our approach has concentrated on creating institutional repositories that are struggling to play a role in the university culture and become important in the work life of scholars. I am going to propose that we have a big issue with published content. Particularly with the published content that is being digitized as part of public-private mass digitization partnerships. There’s been enormous enthusiasm, controversy and expectations created by the Google partnerships, the Microsoft and Yahoo funding and other digitization ventures with commercial web partners. While we may get a lot out of these individual endeavors as a community we may be missing the bigger picture -- the ultimate goal of a community-wide digital library and functionality that is important to our users. People already expect to get everything via the web, these partnerships confirm their expectations – “Google is digitizing everything aren’t they?” Yet we may be entering into agreements that prevent us from creating a universally accessible digital library. Recently RLG Programs undertook a project to look carefully at the terms and conditions of existing public-private agreements. The report of our investigation (which included assembling over 20 people who had negotiated agreements) will be published in the Nov/Dec D-Lib magazine. Let me give you a preview that focuses on the myths surrounding these agreements. Here’s our major findings.
  • Those who have entered into public/private digitization partnerships them are absolutely sure that they are getting near term value for their local users, but they may be compromising the expected and desired community-wide outcomes. Here’s four big myths and what is really happening: Exclusivity is the main hurdle and though they may claim to be non-exclusive, many of these deals are exclusive for all intents and purposes.  The language states that exclusivity is limited to digital copies, you can do whatever you want with the originals. But practically speaking, the expense involved may well preclude competitors from rescanning the originals. What libraries are investing in here is the digital copy and if we allow strict controls over how we use it, we are compromising our investment. Make no mistake about it, these “free digitizing ” deals cost the participating library a lot – both in staff costs and opportunity costs. We shouldn’t think only in terms of pulling and reshelving resources (and the myriad other direct costs), but of the entirety of what we bring to the table: the decades or centuries invested in selecting, describing, managing, preserving…. It is not just a contribution of books. We not only need to be free to serve the content to our users, but need to be able to define who our users are. If we accept that we can’t aggregate the content with content from other projects and partners, we devalue the investment and role of libraries in amassing and serving content. While the term may be limited, the restrictions aren’t. Many of them (notably ownership and use restrictions) survive after the term of the contract. So while the private partner’s commitments to the library are finite, the use of the digitized materials is limited into the future. I’d urge you to read the report and start a community debate about the agreements. There are ways for this to work for both the commercial partner and the greater public good – the good of research and learning – but concrete steps and informed negotiations must be taken by the public partner.
  • This is a quotation that I think is honest about user expectations and captures our richest opportunity in the digitization arena.
  • The real opportunity lies with moving our special collections into the network environment (and you can extend that logic to include what is in archives and museums since their collections are by definition and design essentially unique materials.)
  • In this world where we’re beginning to imagine having nearly all the books internet accessible, special collections risk marginalization if they are not digitized. At the same time, special collections are moving to the forefront as what distinguishes libraries. As more and more information is online, people will be less inclined to think about what is not. We need to ensure that primary sources are accessible. We do no one favors by standing guard over our unprocessed collections.
  • RLG Programs recently had an event to explore ways to increase the scale of special collections digitization. Over 200 attended and together we identified 8 ways. We published the ideas from that meeting and it is causing lots of discussion. The paper from which I’m summarizing these ideas is called Shifting Gears: Getting into the flow. The paper is available on the RLG website. The conference organizers will share the pointer with you along with my presentation. I want to talk a bit further about each of the ideas that came out of our meeting and where I can will give you some examples. First, focus on Access – for special collections preservation digitization is not as important as digitizing for access. We will always preserve the originals to the best of our ability. Give up on the idea that “we’ll only get one chance to do it, so it’s got to be done right.” Focus on Access Consider this example
  • Here’s two ways of finding the same material. Which do you prefer? What’s compelling?
  • This is the record in the University of California Berkeley library catalog for an important diary related to the settlement of the American West and California in particular – the Donner party.
  • This is the digitized diary as found on an allied web site they have created.
  • This is how some one looking for the diary on Google would find it. It shows up very highly in the search result. The library record is nowhere to be found. The digitized version ranks highly – it can be discovered and it is a compelling experience. I think it’s pretty clear what our users prefer and what they expect. Let me talk briefly about each of the points I made earlier about digitization of special collections.
  • Access vs. preservation—Access wins! We will always preserve the originals to the best of our ability. Give up on “we’ll only get one chance to do it, so it’s got to be done right.” Focus on Access
  • Selection has already been done We’ve spent a lot of time guessing what will be useful to our users; we need to spend more time learning from our users There are three reasonable means to determine what to digitize: Scan as materials are accessioned (they were selected for a reason) Scan on demand. Scan “signposts” and then devote more effort as use and interest warrant.
  • Do it ONCE (then iterate) Do the scanning as an integral part of the initial accessioning and processing. Touch it once. And don’t allow yourself to get further behind. Don’t let newly acquired collections enter directly into the backlog.
  • Programs not projects Embed this mission-essential commitment to digitizing throughout the institution. Because of our boutique project approach of the past, our vast collections are represented by a small number of digital presentations that don’t begin to reflect the breadth of materials in our institutions. All other important processes have budget, staffing and infrastructure, why should digitization be different? Continuing to give these activities “special project” status implies that providing access is not mission-essential.
  • Describing special collections: Take a page from archivists Stop obsessing about items. Embrace descriptions of collections and hierarchies. And stop treating bibliographic records like catalog cards and finding aids like type-written documents. Make them helpful to online users. Here’s a nice example of engaging users in the description of special materials…
  • This is from a site devoted to the history of the Great Lakes in the northern USA. Notice that the site asks users whether they know the names of the crew members in the picture.
  • And, guess what? Somebody out in the web world did and offered it up. That’s compelling and really useful.
  • Quality vs. quantity – Quantity wins! Minimal description will not restrict use as much as limiting access to those who show up in person. Stop the slavish devotion to detail; The perfect has become the enemy of the possible. Here’s an example of something that isn’t perfect or optimal but still very useful.
  • This is a site devoted to the California author Jack London. They have thousands of items devoted to him and his life.
  • Here’s the results of search for one of the woman in his life. When you click on the photo this is what you get…
  • It’s not a great image and could probably have been captured better but is it good enough for a lot of purposes. Absolutely. Can I get in touch and ask for a better one. Absolutely. Would it be useful for the institution to know that this is in demand. Absolutely.
  • Discovery happens elsewhere. Stop hand-crafted sites, designed specifically for a particular collection, Researchers don’t want to have to consult dozens of specialized sites to find what they need. Expose the content to search engines and aggregators, who can reach broad audiences. It is not hard. Make sure you create a site map for your content that can be crawled by the search engines.
  • This is not hard. Every search engine provides instructions on how to create a site map of your material that can be easily crawled. It should be a mandatory step. If you don’t do this you have wasted your time digitizing the material. I want to remind you that creating interest in the object is part of our mission.
  • To bring together my comments about public-private digitization agreements and this emphasis on special collections I observe that Private companies will be increasingly interested in digitizing special collections; we should enter into agreements wisely. Know what you need from a partnership. Make the resulting content open (at least ultimately)
  • Sixth, Emphasize quantity. In the web scale world quantity is more important than quality to ensure attention for your materials. Minimal description will not restrict use as much as limiting access to those who show up in person. Stop the slavish devotion to detail; The perfect has become the enemy of the possible. Seventh, As I said earlier Discovery happens elsewhere and that dictates certain things we should do. Stop hand-crafted sites, designed specifically for a particular collection, Researchers don’t want to have to consult dozens of specialized sites to find what they need. Expose the content to search engines and aggregators, who can reach broad audiences, every collection should have a site map that search engines can crawl and index. Eighth and finally, we should pursue outside funding even while we divert our own resources to digitizing special collections. It is inevitable that Private companies will be increasingly interested in digitizing special collections. Before entering into partnerships you should know exactly what you want and need from a commercial partnership. And whatever we do we should ensure that the resulting content will be openly accessible even if that occurs after some period of exclusivity. ***
  • The measures I’ve just proposed will help special collections begin to keep pace with mass digitization of books. We can hide our treasures in our backlogs or behind custom portals -- or we can push them out into the light of day. Our users expect to find these materials, our institutions want these materials to distinguish them and we should consider their discovery and use in digital form as our responsibility. Thank you for your time. I look forward to working with DEN and our colleagues in other Dutch institutions to bring special collections the attention they deserve. Questions?
  • DE Conferentie 2007 - Jim Michalko

    1. 1. Mass Digitization and Cultural Heritage: Imperative and Opportunity Jim Michalko Vice President RLG Programs Dutch Digital Heritage Rotterdam 12 December 2007 Thanks to Ricky Erway, Jen Schaffner and Roy Tennant for contributions
    2. 2. OVERVIEW
    3. 3. Disclaimer and pre-emptive apology Libraries Archives Museums I’m an American i.e. by definition imperfectly knowledgeable about what is important to Europe… Cultural Heritage
    4. 4. Thesis <ul><li>Digitization of our unique and special collections is an imperative </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Inertia is not a strategy </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Digitization is as much a part of our mission as collecting </li></ul><ul><ul><li>So is disclosure </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Digitization must become one of our standard processes and resourced as a regular and continuing activity </li></ul><ul><ul><li>It is not a project </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Digitization is a high-value activity that creates distinctive institutional impact </li></ul><ul><ul><li>More than lots of other things we do </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Funding must come from redirection of resources </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Not just project monies </li></ul></ul>
    5. 5. To be discussed <ul><li>Current information context </li></ul><ul><li>What our users expect </li></ul><ul><li>Where we are investing our effort </li></ul><ul><li>State of mass digitization projects </li></ul><ul><li>Opportunity for digitization of </li></ul><ul><li>unique and special collections </li></ul><ul><li>A radical change in our approach </li></ul>
    6. 6. Current Expectations <ul><li>Information consumer behaviors </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Network-level aggregation of supply and demand </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Patterns of learning, research, information production and consumption </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Personal collections and data production </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Social networking </li></ul></ul>
    7. 7. 6,657 in Netherlands 184,483 overall traffic rank Social networking - explosion Rijksmuseum Rank 31 9 14 4 2005 2006 2007
    8. 8. Top sites by traffic rank Netherlands United States Shopping site markplaats.nl Directory yahoo.com Social network-music partyflock.nl Search engine msn.com Search engine google.com Video sharing youtube.com Search engine (Microsoft) live.com Social networking hyves.nl Search engine - local google.nl Encyclopedia wiki wikipedia.org Search engine msn.com Search engine (Microsoft) live.com Shopping site ebay.com Social networking site facebook.com Video sharing youtube.com Social networking site myspace.com Search engine google.com Directory yahoo.com
    9. 9. The 200 most successful web sites
    10. 10. Now : Attention is scarce, resources are abundant Then : The user built workflow around institution services Now : The institution must build its services around user workflow Then : Resources were scarce, attention was abundant
    11. 11. This creates the expectation that you can have it all BUT we do not make it accessible the way it is wanted
    12. 12. Collections Grid A framework for representing content Published Content • Books • Journals • Newspapers • Gov. docs • CD, DVD • Maps • Scores <ul><li>Special Collections </li></ul><ul><li>• Rare books </li></ul><ul><li>• Local/Historical newspapers </li></ul><ul><li>• Local history materials </li></ul><ul><li>• Photographs </li></ul><ul><li>• Archives & Manuscripts </li></ul><ul><li>• Theses & Dissertations </li></ul><ul><li>Museum objects </li></ul>Source: OCLC Office of Research 2003 Institutional Content • ePrints/tech reports • Learning objects • Courseware • Local government reports • Training manuals • Research data Open Web Content • Freely-available web resources • Open source software • Newspaper archives • Images digital print HIGH LOW HIGH LOW STEWARDSHIP UNIQUENESS
    13. 13. Collections Grid A framework for representing content Published Content • Books • Journals • Newspapers • Gov. docs • CD, DVD • Maps • Scores <ul><li>Special Collections </li></ul><ul><li>• Rare books </li></ul><ul><li>• Local/Historical newspapers </li></ul><ul><li>• Local history materials </li></ul><ul><li>• Photographs </li></ul><ul><li>• Archives & Manuscripts </li></ul><ul><li>• Theses & Dissertations </li></ul><ul><li>Museum objects </li></ul>Source: OCLC Office of Research 2003 Institutional Content • ePrints/tech reports • Learning objects • Courseware • Local government reports • Training manuals • Research data Open Web Content • Freely-available web resources • Open source software • Newspaper archives • Images digital print HIGH LOW HIGH LOW stewardship uniqueness The Collective Collection
    14. 14. Published Content • Books • Journals • Newspapers • Gov. docs • CD, DVD • Maps • Scores <ul><li>Special Collections </li></ul><ul><li>• Rare books </li></ul><ul><li>• Local/Historical newspapers </li></ul><ul><li>• Local history materials </li></ul><ul><li>• Photographs </li></ul><ul><li>• Archives & Manuscripts </li></ul><ul><li>• Theses & Dissertations </li></ul><ul><li>Museum objects </li></ul>Source: OCLC Office of Research 2003 Institutional Content • ePrints/tech reports • Learning objects • Courseware • Local government reports • Training manuals • Research data Open Web Content • Freely-available web resources • Open source software • Newspaper archives • Images digital print HIGH LOW HIGH LOW stewardship uniqueness Institutional Repositories Public – Private Digitization Partnerships Internet Archive Institutional projects National initiatives
    15. 15. Public-Private Mass Digitization Appearance vs. reality <ul><li>They are non-exclusive deals – </li></ul><ul><ul><li>not really </li></ul></ul><ul><li>The private partner bears all the costs </li></ul><ul><ul><li>not really </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Institutions are free to serve the content to users </li></ul><ul><ul><li>not really </li></ul></ul><ul><li>They are only limited term deals </li></ul><ul><ul><li>not really </li></ul></ul>
    16. 16. “ There’s an illusion being created that all the world’s knowledge is on the web, but we haven’t begun to glimpse what is out there in local archives and libraries . Material that is not digitized risks being neglected as it would not have been in the past, virtually lost to the great majority of potential users.” - Ed Ayers Professor of History and Dean of the College and Graduate School of Arts and Sciences at the University of Virginia – a leading authority on digital scholarship
    17. 17. Published Content • Books • Journals • Newspapers • Gov. docs • CD, DVD • Maps • Scores <ul><li>Special Collections </li></ul><ul><li>• Rare books </li></ul><ul><li>• Local/Historical newspapers </li></ul><ul><li>• Local history materials </li></ul><ul><li>• Photographs </li></ul><ul><li>• Archives & Manuscripts </li></ul><ul><li>• Theses & Dissertations </li></ul><ul><li>Museum objects </li></ul>Source: OCLC Office of Research 2003 Institutional Content • ePrints/tech reports • Learning objects • Courseware • Local government reports • Training manuals • Research data Open Web Content • Freely-available web resources • Open source software • Newspaper archives • Images Public – Private Partnerships Internet Archive Institutional projects National initiatives Institutional Repositories digital print HIGH LOW HIGH LOW stewardship uniqueness THE OPPORTUNITY
    18. 18. Unique and special collections <ul><li>In vanilla world, the institutionally unique becomes more important </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Digital visibility creates use </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Focus on material that </li></ul><ul><ul><li>is unique or rare </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>is in a variety of formats </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>will only be acquired once </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>need only be cataloged once </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>supports our local users </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>will be accessed by remote users </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Scale up digitization to avoid marginalization </li></ul>
    19. 19. <ul><li>How do we achieve large-scale digitization </li></ul><ul><li>for unique and special collections? </li></ul>
    20. 20. <ul><li>Not the way we’ve been doing it! </li></ul>
    21. 21. Unique and special collections Getting into the flow <ul><li>Focus on access </li></ul><ul><li>Stop selecting </li></ul><ul><li>Do some, monitor use, do more </li></ul><ul><li>Programs not projects </li></ul><ul><li>Describe further up the hierarchy </li></ul><ul><li>Emphasize quantity </li></ul><ul><li>Discovery happens elsewhere </li></ul><ul><li>Get funding without compromising </li></ul>
    22. 22. <ul><li>Which do you prefer? </li></ul>
    23. 26. <ul><li>Access vs. Preservation — Access Wins! </li></ul>
    24. 27. Access Wins! <ul><li>No one has been throwing away originals…so preservation needs are best served by them </li></ul><ul><li>Only by surfacing presently ignored collections can we justify their preservation </li></ul><ul><li>Our brave new world shows we can go back do it again </li></ul>
    25. 28. <ul><li>Selection has already been done </li></ul>
    26. 29. Selection Has Already Been Done <ul><li>Capture materials as accessioned </li></ul><ul><ul><li>For important collections, capture it all </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>For others, sample and allow user interest to guide your choices </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Capture on demand </li></ul><ul><li>Capture “signposts” and devote more attention where warranted </li></ul>
    27. 30. <ul><li>Do it Once (then iterate) </li></ul>
    28. 31. Do it Once (then iterate) <ul><li>Capture as you accession (don’t let new acquisitions enter the backlog) </li></ul><ul><li>Compromise on image resolution and metadata as needed to achieve throughput requirements </li></ul><ul><li>Create a single unified process </li></ul><ul><li>Have usage guide any additional effort </li></ul>
    29. 32. <ul><li>Programs not projects </li></ul>
    30. 33. Programs Not Projects <ul><li>Digital capture must be embedded in our basic procedures </li></ul><ul><li>Hand-crafted digital presentations are largely ignored — we must expose our collections systematically in web search engines </li></ul><ul><li>Forget “special projects” — it’s long past time to make this a basic part of our everyday work! </li></ul>
    31. 34. <ul><li>Describing unique and special collections: engage your community </li></ul>
    32. 35. Describing Special Collections <ul><li>Do not describe everything in painstaking detail </li></ul><ul><li>Start with basic description, then… </li></ul><ul><li>… allow serious researchers to contact you for more detail, and… </li></ul><ul><li>… engage your user community with adding to the descriptions </li></ul>
    33. 41. <ul><li>Quality vs. Quantity — Quantity wins! </li></ul>
    34. 42. Quality vs. Quantity <ul><li>The perfect has been the enemy of the possible </li></ul><ul><li>Any access is better than none at all </li></ul><ul><li>Instead of measuring the output of curator/cataloger/archivist we should be measuring impact on users </li></ul>
    35. 46. <ul><li>Discovery happens elsewhere </li></ul>
    36. 47. Discovery Happens Elsewhere <ul><li>People don’t discover our content by coming to our lovingly crafted web sites </li></ul><ul><li>We must work hard at exposing our content to web crawlers, OAI harvesters, and other aggregators </li></ul>
    37. 49. <ul><li>Online access </li></ul><ul><li>- Any kind of online access - creates interest in the real object </li></ul>
    38. 50. Unique and special collections Getting into the flow <ul><li>Focus on access </li></ul><ul><li>Stop selecting </li></ul><ul><li>Do some, monitor use, do more </li></ul><ul><li>Programs not projects </li></ul><ul><li>Describe further up the hierarchy </li></ul><ul><li>Emphasize quantity </li></ul><ul><li>Discovery happens elsewhere </li></ul><ul><li>Get funding without compromising </li></ul>
    39. 51. Published Content • Books • Journals • Newspapers • Gov. docs • CD, DVD • Maps • Scores <ul><li>Special Collections </li></ul><ul><li>• Rare books </li></ul><ul><li>• Local/Historical newspapers </li></ul><ul><li>• Local history materials </li></ul><ul><li>• Photographs </li></ul><ul><li>• Archives & Manuscripts </li></ul><ul><li>• Theses & Dissertations </li></ul><ul><li>Museum objects </li></ul>Source: OCLC Office of Research 2003 Institutional Content • ePrints/tech reports • Learning objects • Courseware • Local government reports • Training manuals • Research data Open Web Content • Freely-available web resources • Open source software • Newspaper archives • Images Public – Private Partnerships Internet Archive Institutional projects National initiatives Institutional Repositories digital print HIGH LOW HIGH LOW stewardship uniqueness THE OPPORTUNITY THE IMPERATIVE
    40. 52. Thank you. Email: michalkj@oclc.org

    ×