GAMA - Europeana en de digitale ontsluiting van cultureel erfgoed

1,276 views

Published on

Emile Bijk,
Europeana Meeting, Belgium
16 December 2009

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

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
1,276
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
66
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
2
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

GAMA - Europeana en de digitale ontsluiting van cultureel erfgoed

  1. 1. Europeana en de digitale ontsluiting van cultureelerfgoed Http://www.gama-gateway.eu/
  2. 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
  3. 3. 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
  4. 4. 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
  5. 5. 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
  6. 6. „[…] projects such as GAMA are complexorganisations in which companies withdifferent cultures, approaches and interestsjoin forces and know-how to achieve commongoals.“Annex I ECP_2006_DILI_510029 GAMADoW, p. 38 7
  7. 7. 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
  8. 8. 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
  9. 9. Threats and Opportunities Perceived Threats •Losing identity •Standardization •Losing influence/ rights to works •Risking conflicts with artists •Organisational overhead of public funding 10
  10. 10. 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
  11. 11. 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
  12. 12. STARTING: BEST PRACTICE REVIEW 13
  13. 13. BEST PRACTICE REVIEW WIREFRAMING BASED ON MINIMUM SET OF METADATA 14
  14. 14. LOOK & FEEL 15
  15. 15. FIRST PROTOTYPE ON MINIMUM SET OF METADATA OF ‘EARLY’ ARCHIVES 16
  16. 16. SECOND PROTOTYPE 17
  17. 17. 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 availablevs.Title/Author 18
  18. 18. 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
  19. 19. INTERNAL & EXTERNAL TESTING & EVALUATION • Performance • Usability (density of layout; identity) • Data integrity (testing adapters) • Functionality (bugs, issues) • Interpreting end-user evaluations 20
  20. 20. 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
  21. 21. “All partners are committed in the exploitingthe project’s results […]GAMA is registered as a non-profitorganisation, committed to extend theuserbase and participating archives,Fees are providing funds for maintenanceAnnex I ECP_2006_DILI_510029 GAMADoW, p. 6 + 7 22

×