Institutional repositories, digital asset management, and digitization


Published on

Published in: 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

Institutional repositories, digital asset management, and digitization

  1. 1. Stewarding Your Institution’sScholarly, Historical, and Cultural Heritage (SHCH) June 4, 2010 Kent Gerber Digital Library Manager, Bethel University
  2. 2.  Harness and apply our institution’s internal knowledge assets • Broaden their reach • Extend their value • Actively steward them through the whole Digital Lifecycle
  3. 3.  Each College and University is a rich source of valuable intellectual content in digital and analog form. • Theses & Dissertations • Faculty Work • Institutional & Departmental Publications • Symposia • Lectures and Community Events • Art Galleries and Special Collections • Teaching Resources • Images for Teaching and Research • Data Sets
  4. 4.  Facing a digital dark age • Easier personal storage allowed anyone to save their materials but important objects are being lost to:  Community member attrition  Technological obsolescence  Lost opportunities to share or contribute to the larger community – Collections in a silo  Changing locations of important objects  Short-term storage limits
  5. 5.  Striving to accomplish our mission: • CCCU  “To advance the cause of Christ-centered higher education and to help our institutions transform lives by faithfully relating scholarship and service to biblical truth.” • Bethel  “prepares graduates to serve in strategic capacities to renew minds, live out biblical truth, transform culture, and advance the gospel.”
  6. 6.  Ifour intellectual objects are not widely available then we are not accomplishing our missions Forinstance, no CCCU institutions are in major registries of SHCH materials: • ROAR, • OpenDOAR, • WorldCat?
  7. 7. • WorldCat? • This could be available full-text and is the case in many institutions
  8. 8.  Ifour mission is to steward the information resources of our community then we need to do better It is crucial that we both: • Wisely and dependably steward our SHCH resources • Contribute them to the larger bodies of SHCH materials
  9. 9.  Not new themselves but new to smaller Master’s and Baccalaureate institutions InstitutionalRepositories Digital Asset Management Digitization • These three concepts contribute to the body of SHCH items in complementary and sometimes overlapping ways
  10. 10. “Services and infrastructure surrounding digital collections of the intellectual assets of an institution”Service examples: Permanent, durable location More easily searched and discovered Access control Better context for materials held in the IR Able to measure use of materials for a variety of purposes (downloads/views)
  11. 11.  Subset of Content Management Grew out of broadcast and marketing industries • Digital Assets are more complex:  Need descriptive metadata; especially non-text items i.e. audio, video, images  Intended for reuse  Rights must be managed Library Difference • Most items are meant to be shared
  12. 12.  Converting analog or physical items into a format that can be understood and used by computers • Large body of SHCH items that were never digital but are still important pieces for research • Some items are very fragile and unique  need special treatment  some items may end up as the only instance of the item.
  13. 13.  BothIT and Libraries steward digital information but there are some differences to note • Scholarly, Historical and Cultural Objects are meant to last a long time and are used in a wide variety of ways. • Some objects are the only of their kind and need special care and consideration • Priorities of sharing and protecting information • Standards for interoperability and discovery
  14. 14.  Subject Repositories • Physics - • Social Sciences - Rise of Knowledge Management in 90’s and maturity of Digital Asset Management led institutions of Higher Education to create their own
  15. 15.  Varies by Institution but there are: • Five Core Features • Six Core Functions Notjust a storehouse of objects but a service
  16. 16.  Digital Content Community driven & focused Institutionally supported Durable and permanent Accessible Content Gibbons, 2004
  17. 17.  Material submission Metadata application Access Control Discovery support Distribution Preservation Gibbons, 2004
  18. 18. Worldwide
  19. 19. United States – 100+ by 2007, over 200 now in 2010
  20. 20.  Must Understand the larger context • Require more context for scholarly purposes • Require more context for preservation purposes • Require more context in anticipation of distribution to broad location (global) • Requires more context for reuse Metadata!Content Management System alone is not sufficient!
  21. 21.  Scholarly Information is a niche according to the business world
  22. 22.  Software Options  Open source  Dspace, Eprints, Fedora  Proprietary  Digital Commons, CONTENTdm
  23. 23.  Platform Choice • Software features • IT Department Support for Customization and Software Upgrades
  24. 24. Open Source: Dspace (partnered with Fedora in the DuraSpace organizaiton) Fedora EprintsProprietary: Digital Commons by bepress CONTENTdm by OCLC DigiTool – by ExLibris (other ILS vendors have some modules like this)
  25. 25.  Link to Dspace visual diagram of system by Dynamic Diagrams “Visualizationshows how a repository is built from individual content files, organized into collections, and made accessible to researchers”.
  26. 26.  Storage Space • Needed for preservation of digital materials • Permanent location for dependable reference
  27. 27.  Interoperability • Common Metadata Scheme – Dublin Core  Joint effort between Computer Scientists and Librarians • Protocol for Sharing Between Systems – Open Archives Initiative  Supported by the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation, the Coalition for Networked Information, the Digital Library Federation, and from the National Science Foundation (IIS-9817416 and IIS-0430906).
  28. 28.  Conceptual Level for Systems • Open Archival Information System (OAIS)  Developed by NASA  Accepted as an ISO Standard in 2003  Optimized for Preservation and Access
  29. 29.  At the individual institution level: • Make sure that we are doing all the items on the cycle • Provide Digital Asset Management through an Institutional Repository • Establish a Digital Assets Committee • Follow the Standards • Share Cost and Maintenance Responsibilities
  30. 30.  At the group level: • NITLE provides a shared repository  The National Institute for Technology in Liberal Education (NITLE) helps liberal arts colleges and universities integrate inquiry, pedagogy, and technology. With more than 140 liberal arts institutions in its Network, NITLE works to enrich undergraduate education and strengthen the liberal arts tradition. • Doesn’t this sound familiar?
  31. 31.  Cross-campus team is necessary to track and manage these assets. Typical team consists of members of Library, Information Technology, Instructional Technology, Web Services, Faculty
  32. 32.  Example from Yale University: ODAI is charged with:developing a digital information management strategybuilding digital collections and build technical infrastructure in a coordinated and collaborative manner across the entire campus.Programs include the development and deployment of: large-scale digital asset management systems, long-term preservation repositories for Yale digital content in all formats, cross-collection search capabilities to enable discovery of collections hosted by numerous departments and many other innovative initiatives.
  33. 33. Recent Study in 2009 identified 50 Masters & Baccalaureate Institutions with an implementation
  34. 34.  Implemented (holds a variety of items and available on the Web) • Bethel University (MN) - CLIC • Calvin College • Northwestern College (MN) - CLIC • Olivet Nazarene University • Asbury Theological Seminary • Baylor University • Cedarville University through OHIOLink • Mount Vernon Nazarene University through OHIOLink not CCCU but of note: Hope College Planning?Informal inquiry over listserv resulted in 10 institutions in the planning process
  35. 35.  Mostinstances in smaller institutions are provided by some group effort: • State Collaboration • Mission-oriented collaboration  NITLE (Dspace)  LASR (Dspace) • Regional Collaboration  CLIC (Contentdm)  HELIN (Digital Commons)
  36. 36.  Becauseof teaching focus probably have more student work than faculty work
  37. 37.  Fulfill these needs that integrate with : • “small but significant collections of locally valued information resources, will have the aggregated power to have an impact [on scholarly access and preservation]” (Rogers-Urbanek, 2008) • Best Example: • Codex Sianaticus 
  38. 38.  Dspace @ MIT Digital Commons @ University of Nebraska-Lincoln CONTENTdm @ Claremont Colleges • Or Ball State Bethel University Digital Library Calvin College Hekman Digital Archive
  39. 39.  Brantley, P. (2008, March/April). Architectures for collaboration: Roles and expectations for digital libraries. Educause Review, 43(2). Accessed May 28, 2010 from ArchitecturesforCollaborationR/162676 Furlough, M. (2009). What we talk about when we talk about repositories. Reference & User Services Quarterly, 49(1), 18-32. Goodyear, M., & Fife, R. (2006, March/April). Institutional repositories: An opportunity for CIO campus impact. Educause Review 41(2). 10-11. Markey, K., St. Jean, B., Soo, Y. R., Yakel, E., & Kim, J. (2008). Institutional repositories: The experience of masters and baccalaureate institutions. Portal: Libraries & the Academy, 8(2), 157-173. Rogers-Urbanek, J. (2008). Closing the repository gap at small institutions Sennema, G. (2004). Developing a digital archive with limited resources. OCLC Systems & Services, 20(2), 76-81. doi:10.1108/10650750410539086 Soo, Y. R., Jean, B. S., Yakel, E., Markey, K., & Jihyun, K. (2008). Perceptions and experiences of staff in the planning and implementation of institutional repositories. Library Trends, 57(2), 168-190. Walsh, T. R., & Hollister, C. V. (2009). Creating digital archive for students research in a credit library course. Reference & User Services Quarterly, 48(4), 391-400. Xia, J., & Opperman, D. B. (2010). Current trends in institutional repositories for institutions offering masters and baccalaureate degrees. Serials Review, 36(1), 10-18. doi:DOI: 10.1016/j.serrev.2009.10.003