Digital Medieval Manuscripts

1,132 views

Published on

Part of a three-part presentation on IIIF, SharedCanvas, and the medieval manuscript use-case. Given at DLF2012.

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

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
1,132
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
259
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
14
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • Can’t acquire each new resource through human interactions
  • , repositories provide the “killer carrot” not the “killer app”
  • New information for existing resourcesLine locations on image, line breaks in text
  • Digital Medieval Manuscripts

    1. 1. DIGITAL MEDIEVALMANUSCRIPTSA Use-Case for an Interoperable Digital LibraryInfrastructureBenjamin AlbrittonStanford University Librariesblalbrit@stanford.edu@bla222
    2. 2. Overview• Background• Current State: A World of Silos• Medieval Manuscripts: The Complex Use-Case• Toward a Digital Manuscript Commons
    3. 3. BackgroundAndrew W. Mellon Foundation funded numerous manuscriptdigitization projects over several decadesAll had in common: • Inability to share data across silos to satisfy scholarly use • Inability to leverage existing infrastructure • No sustainability model for data or accessGoal: • Interoperability between repositories and tools
    4. 4. Image Repositories• A “standard model”• Lots of images• Descriptive metadata• Silo interfaces • Built-in tools • No way to access outside “stuff” for comparison • Mediates use • Expensive to maintain
    5. 5. Current State: A World of SilosDIAMM Parker on the Web e-codices And so on…
    6. 6. Silos: What you can do • Access data from a single repository • Use the tools that repository supports • See images in the way that repository allows • See curated descriptions of the material • See approved additional material • Search and browse within a single repository
    7. 7. Silos: What you can do • Access data from a single repository • Use the tools that repository supports • See images in the way that repository allows • See curated descriptions of the material • See approved additional material • Search and browse within a single repository
    8. 8. Silos: What you can do • Access data from a single repository • Use the tools that repository supports • See images in the way that repository allows • See curated descriptions of the material • See approved additional material • Search and browse within a single repository
    9. 9. Silos: What you can do • Access data from a single repository • Use the tools that repository supports • See images in the way that repository allows • See curated descriptions of the material • See approved additional material • Search and browse within a single repository
    10. 10. Silos: What you can do • Access data from a single repository • Use the tools that repository supports • See images in the way that repository allows • See curated descriptions of the material • See approved additional material • Search and browse within a single repository
    11. 11. Silos: What you can do • Access data from a single repository • Use the tools that repository supports • See images in the way that repository allows • See curated descriptions of the material • See approved additional material • Search and browse within a single repository
    12. 12. Silos: What you can’t do • Access data from any other repositories • Use any other tools • See images any other way • Contribute or correct descriptions (often) • Add additional material or comments (often) • Search across repositories unless federated search has been implemented
    13. 13. Silos: What you can’t do • Access data from any other repositories • Use any other tools • See images any other way • Contribute or correct descriptions (often) • Add additional material or comments (often) • Search across repositories unless federated search has been implemented
    14. 14. Silos: What you can’t do • Access data from any other repositories • Use any other tools • See images any other way • Contribute or correct descriptions (often) • Add additional material or comments (often) • Search across repositories unless federated search has been implemented
    15. 15. Silos: What you can’t do • Access data from any other repositories • Use any other tools • See images any other way • Contribute or correct descriptions (often) • Add additional material or comments (often) • Search across repositories unless federated search has been implemented
    16. 16. Silos: What you can’t do • Access data from any other repositories • Use any other tools • See images any other way • Contribute or correct descriptions (often) • Add additional material or comments (often) • Search across repositories unless federated search has been implemented
    17. 17. Silos: What you can’t do • Access data from any other repositories • Use any other tools • See images any other way • Contribute or correct descriptions (often) • Add additional material or comments (often) • Search across repositories unless federated search has been implemented
    18. 18. Medieval Manuscripts:The Complex Use-Case • What is a Manuscript? • What is its relation to a digital facsimile? • What is the relation of a transcription of a facsimile to the original object? • What is the relation of commentary on the facsimile to the original object? • Who uses these objects? • How do users interact with the facsimile? • What information is important? Walters Ms. W.188, Book of Hours in Dutch (fol. 16r)
    19. 19. Medieval Manuscripts:The Complex Use-Case • What is a Manuscript? • What is its relation to a digital facsimile? • What is the relation of a transcription of a facsimile to the original object? • What is the relation of commentary on the facsimile to the original object? • Who uses these objects? • How do users interact with the facsimile? • What information is important? Walters Ms. W.188, Book of Hours in Dutch (fol. 16r)
    20. 20. Medieval Manuscripts:The Complex Use-Case • What is a Manuscript? • What is its relation to a digital facsimile? • What is the relation of a transcription of a facsimile to the original object? • What is the relation of commentary on the facsimile to the original object? • Who uses these objects? • How do users interact with the facsimile? • What information is important? Walters Ms. W.188, Book of Hours in Dutch (fol. 16r)
    21. 21. Medieval Manuscripts:The Complex Use-Case • What is a Manuscript? • What is its relation to a digital facsimile? • What is the relation of a transcription of a facsimile to the original object? • What is the relation of commentary on the facsimile to the original object? • Who uses these objects? • How do users interact with the facsimile? • What information is important? Walters Ms. W.188, Book of Hours in Dutch (fol. 16r)
    22. 22. Medieval Manuscripts:The Complex Use-Case • What is a Manuscript? • What is its relation to a digital facsimile? • What is the relation of a transcription of a facsimile to the original object? • What is the relation of commentary on the facsimile to the original object? • Who uses these objects? • How do users interact with the facsimile? • What information is important? Walters Ms. W.188, Book of Hours in Dutch (fol. 16r)
    23. 23. Medieval Manuscripts:The Complex Use-Case • What is a Manuscript? • What is its relation to a digital facsimile? • What is the relation of a transcription of a facsimile to the original object? • What is the relation of commentary on the facsimile to the original object? • Who uses these objects? • How do users interact with the facsimile? • What information is important? Walters Ms. W.188, Book of Hours in Dutch (fol. 16r)
    24. 24. Medieval Manuscripts:The Complex Use-Case • What is a Manuscript? • What is its relation to a digital facsimile? • What is the relation of a transcription of a facsimile to the original object? • What is the relation of commentary on the facsimile to the original object? • Who uses these objects? • How do users interact with the facsimile? • What information is important? Walters Ms. W.188, Book of Hours in Dutch (fol. 16r)
    25. 25. Working with Surrogates
    26. 26. Uses of Manuscript FacsimilesParker Library, CCCC 61(fol. 1v)
    27. 27. Manuscript InformationParker Library, CCCC 61(fol. 1v)
    28. 28. Common Problems and Challenges• Transcription, Annotation, and other activities• Disbound or rebound manuscripts• Manuscripts with flaps, folds, or other structures• Manuscript fragments• Dispersed leaves• Secondary literature “about” the object• Related manuscripts in separate repositories• International teams of users
    29. 29. Common Problems and Challenges• Transcription, Annotation, and other activities• Disbound or rebound manuscripts• Manuscripts with flaps, folds, or other structures• Manuscript fragments• Dispersed leaves• Secondary literature “about” the object• Related manuscripts in separate repositories• International teams of users
    30. 30. Common Problems and Challenges• Transcription, Annotation, and other activities• Disbound or rebound manuscripts• Manuscripts with flaps, folds, or other structures• Manuscript fragments• Dispersed leaves• Secondary literature “about” the object• Related manuscripts in separate repositories• International teams of users
    31. 31. Common Problems and Challenges• Transcription, Annotation, and other activities• Disbound or rebound manuscripts• Manuscripts with flaps, folds, or other structures• Manuscript fragments• Dispersed leaves• Secondary literature “about” the object• Related manuscripts in separate repositories• International teams of users
    32. 32. Common Problems and Challenges• Transcription, Annotation, and other activities• Disbound or rebound manuscripts• Manuscripts with flaps, folds, or other structures• Manuscript fragments• Dispersed leaves• Secondary literature “about” the object• Related manuscripts in separate repositories• International teams of users
    33. 33. Repository to Repository Interactions Parker: CCCC 410 – De speculatione musice• One-off sharing• Human-brokered• But: • Expense • Not scalable • What if: • A text repository wants images for all MSS of its texts? • An image repository wants texts for all its images? CHMTL: 1970, Corpus scriptorum text of De speculatione musice
    34. 34. But what about…• Other resources “about” an object or text• … stored and served in other places• … that you might not know about• How to build extensible facsimiles?
    35. 35. Toward a Digital Manuscript CommonsThe Problem:• Medieval projects as “curated and comprehensive” efforts• Technical and social silos• Expensive to maintain• Difficult to extend
    36. 36. Toward a Digital Manuscript CommonsThe Goal:• Toward a “commons” of distributed resources• Aggregation of information and extensibility vs. “curated and comprehensive”• New approaches to what can be done with digitized and born-digital material
    37. 37. Designing Modular Repositories and Tools Image Image Transcription Annotation Discovery Tool X? Analysis Viewer Image Viewer Discovery Metadata (Canonical) Image Data (Canonical)
    38. 38. Interoperability• Expose resources to shared tools and repositories• Enhance resources• Exposure is low cost• Shared tools let other people make your stuff better• Specialists build the domain-specific tools
    39. 39. CHMTL text + Parker image in T-PEN
    40. 40. Re-presented with text in side-by-sideview…
    41. 41. … or overlaid
    42. 42. Examples of other resources attached tothe facsimile • User-generated comments (public and private) • Audio performances of notated music • Overlaid text transcription • Also: • Data sets • Mark-up • Base image choices
    43. 43. Building the Commons• Content providers: • Use common data model: SharedCanvas • Use common image API: IIIF• Make use of distributed resources to support new projects • Aggregation and extensibility vs. “curated and comprehensive”• Front-end branding with back-end interoperability• Shared development costs instead of “reinventing the wheel” • Esp. viewers and discovery interfaces• Have manuscripts in your collection? Join the conversation: dmscommons@lists.stanford.edu
    44. 44. Participants• Repositories: • Stanford University Libraries • Yale University • e-codices • British Library • Bibliothèque national de France • Oxford University Libraries• Tools: • T-PEN (Saint Louis University) (http://t-pen.org/TPEN) • DM (Drew University) (http://ada.drew.edu/dmproject/)• Data model and APIs • SharedCanvas (http://www.shared-canvas.org) • IIIF (http://lib.stanford.edu/iiif)• Thanks to: • The generous support of the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation • Participants in the DMS Technical Council

    ×