accessCeramics: digital image collection using Flickr

Mark Dahl's and Jeremy McWilliams' presentation on accessCeramics was probably the most inspirational session that I attended at Educause09. I am an unashamed fan of Flickr and its possibilities and Mark and Jeremy explained just how they used it to its full potential. Many of us should be following their brilliant example as it shows just how an institution can use a Web 2.0 service to facilitate a collaborative project. You can see all 53 slides for yourself in the presentation link above. These cover: the history of the project, how they did it, who was involved, cataloguing issues, enhancements, lessons learned, gains, costs and future plans. And they are now using Twitter (@accessCeramics) as their news feed: another great idea.

Having been involved in a more traditional (i.e. expensive, never ending, painful and frustratingly complex) DAM program in a large museum recently that used commercially sourced software, I found slide #48 particularly illuminating. Yes, they had hurdles too, but nowhere near the issues endemic in the traditional models.

Recently, we've started discussions about a community-based project to develop a special collection as part of the UTS Library. We will certainly be looking very closely at accessCeramics.

Information Online 2009: some observations

This isn't going to be comprehensive. It is just a few observations that I came away with from Information Online 2009. As I gave a pre-conference workshop and a keynote address, I think it is probably up to others to make more detailed observations. I believe that my keynote address has been recorded and will eventually be podcast somewhere, so I'll link to that when I read about it. The photos used above (by Neerav Bhatt) are some of the more interesting slides that I used in my presentation.

I was a tad annoyed that many in the audience got hooked up about a minor point that I made. I said that we should not obsess so much about metadata. I think we've talked and debated so much about it for so long now (with very little real progress) that we just need to start making other things happen without waiting for it to be "perfected". It is I believe, with Copyright and "stakeholder consultation", used as an excuse not to progress things. If Flickr, Google, Amazon or iTunes had waited for us to agree on a schema they'd still not exist. I said a lot of other things, but all the metadata crusaders got hooked up on that wee point and missed all of the others. Typical.

A number of points I made and that were also made by Paul Hagon of NLA and happiness guru Liz Lawley were later re-inforced in other keynotes by Laura Campbell of the Library of Congress and the futurist, Andy Hines. (I'm very glad that we didn't have to listen to anyone banging on about a new management theory from their recent MBA.)

I took some rough notes at Laura's keynote address:

Keynote 21 January 2008 – Strategic Directions and Initiatives (on the Library of Congress’ last 20 years)

Strategies
1. Increasing access – American Memory, Thomas (workings of Congress) & their Learning Page – to general public and education audience (this to me was quite similar to our history in opening and broadening public access at the AWM, albeit on a smaller scale). They, like us needed to broaden access to be relevant. They have 110 million online users and 2 million onsite users (we have about 850,000 visitors).
2. Expanded offerings to new channels: embracing new partners & new sectors. Global Gateway – vast foreign collections. eg. the national newspaper program. Can search 1,000s of newspapers. 1 mill online now(?). Flickr Commons pilot – 3,000 images offered (Depression photos) – 10.4 million views in a few months – inviting user annotations and descriptions – all captured. Viewership up. They also arrangement with You Tube.
3. Networks – NDIIPP & WDL – changing work in the future:

• National Preservation Program (NDIIPP) - $100m in 2000. Guided by NDSA Board (all 27 of them). The Preserving Digital Heritage report in 2002 mapped out strategy for distributed network of trusted partners (never to be centralised). Goals – included at-risk content, identification of tools & partners, developing a strategy. 130 partners because even LoC can’t collect everything. Infrastructure addressed to share content. Had eight consortia groups for geospatial, political business/economics, cultural, public & social services data. They have 70 Tb of data. Partners include: universities, broadcasters, commercial enterprises, states, federal agencies, new businesses, tech companies, and other national libraries. Also IIPC – the international internet preservation consortium. 37 member libraries working on this now. they resisted temptation to start with by-laws and got on with accomplishing it. A sensible way to move forward. Now have 248 Tb and they are expecting 650 Tb by 2013. Laura: “Taking early action allows you to learn by doing!”. She also put up a slide about them being catalytic, collaborative, engaging multiple platforms, leveraged networks, shared resources.
  

• WDL – prototype launched with UNESCO a couple of years ago. No "show-runners" – all their own content. 25 partners now. You can browse by locations, type, time, institution, etc. – for books, manuscripts, maps photos, film and sound (more audiovisual than anything else); heaps of intelligent search (via annotations, curator videos, etc.); multi-lingual (translator services). Memory packages are available. They've set up a mirror site at Alexandria. See their online concept video (it is pretty good). (Prototype and Concept videos available here.)
  

Final comments from Laura: it is not the technology that is the hard part, it is the human element. That will never change. She also mentioned making choices about what work you are in. She said her early work at the LoC was "triage", then pushing out content, and now building on all of that and embracing networks, and solutions. They did consult some wise gurus about the future to learn about the driving forces of the future. “Creative collaboration is the key to future invention and innovation.” Not a perfect story, but a lot to be said for real collaboration – not easy, but a lot to be said for it when it works.

I didn't take many other notes that I can pass on right now. I took some notes from Andy Hines' presentation, but left them at home today on another laptop.

I did like what the State Library of Victoria is doing to connect with students, principally using their Inside a Dog website. Great stuff.

Oh, I almost forgot: Libraries Australia (courtesy of Paul Hagon) have now started their own Ning site, so check it out.

Digitisation for dummies

This is great. Brewster Kahle speaks well and from experience. It isn't an academic theory. I like the way he breaks down the challenge into a manageable, fund-able, do-able program. Some other observations that made me clap and cheer wildly:

• Boston Public Library's "free to all" statement that is carved in stone & that of the Carnegie Library "Free to the People" (do we really want to be different when we push our content online?);
  
• producing the best we have to offer;
  
• not sending stuff you love to India for scanning (we didn't either);
• aiming at US$0.10 per page, or as he says the same cost as Xeroxing;
• not scanning pages that will end up looking like a fax (or worse still a print-out from microfilm) - scan in colour for the look of the book;
• the convergence of, on one side the library world (starting with out-of-Copyright and out-of-print material) and on the other side the publishers (eg. Amazon) starting with what is currently in print; and
  
• favouring public (free, universal access) over private (locked up) digitisation programs (me too).

So, watch this for yourself. Even if you are not looking at digitising books, there is a lot in it. TED.com hits the mark yet again.

Digital content & social media

A while back I was in Melbourne again to deliver a couple of talks. The prime reason was a keynote for the 2008 SPERA (rural education) conference and I also talked to members of VALA one night on much the same subject matter.
I've uploaded the presentation (using Apple's Keynote for the first time) to SlideShare, but as they are still sorting out a new way to bring hyperlinks with uploaded presentations, I thought I'd shove a quick post in my blog along with all of the URLs and some explanatory notes, so here it is (I've even corrected most of the typos!).

Digitisation, Digital Preservation & Web2.0 at the Australian War Memorial

View SlideShare presentation or Upload your own. (tags: social_media awm)

Notes and hyperlinks for some of the slides

Slide 4:
http://www.awm.gov.au/diaries/ww1/ This is our current major project and the diaries of all of the Australian units that served in the First World War are being uploaded progressively as we complete the scanning and checking.
http://www.awm.gov.au/database/collection.asp This is our online collection access system and users can search it for almost 300,000 digital images and catalogue records for art works, photographs, relics, and personal manuscripts in our museum collection.

Slide 13:
This slide highlights a few examples of the ways we’ve started using Web2.0 features to "tour the web" and put our content out well beyond our home website, reaching bigger social networks and engaging new audiences at the curatorial level.
http://www.awm.gov.au/podcast/index.asp RSS underpins much of Web2.0, by allowing the public to select their subscriptions and then have them delivered to them on a regular basis. The links takes you to our podcasts page. Podcasts were our first foray with Web2.0 and RSS.
http://apps.new.facebook.com/artshare/ We have just gone live with ArtShare - a program developed by Brooklyn Museum to allow for selected art works to be featured on Facebook profile pages.
http://blog.awm.gov.au/awm/2008/03/19/hmas-sydney/ The blogs have been the simplest, easiest to use model that has allowed our curators their own voice on the web about our collections and their work. Previously all content was much more formal, using institutional voice. WordPress is used by the Memorial and some of our staff use Blogger (externally, eg. this blog).
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Canberra-Australia/Australian-War-Memorial/7244252524
Facebook plunges us into growing social networks with more reach than we have and allows us to communicate with those who are more comfortable in that space. People seem more comfortable and relaxed in their feedback.
http://www.flickr.com/groups/awm/ & http://www.flickr.com/photos/australianwarmemorial/
Flickr is also a two-way process allowing us to share images with everyone and to learn from the public’s visual pointers to their interests in us.
http://www.youtube.com/user/AustWarMemorial YouTube is another vital way to engage a large audience interested in the moving image. We think it is important to re-use our content and provide interpretation of it on that large network.
http://www.pictureaustralia.org/ We’ve long been a major contributor to Picture Australia, a fantastic portal to cultural images from NLA. It is a great model for further collaborative projects along the same lines.
http://www.ning.com/ We use Ning internally as a social network platform to share ideas, learn about social media, discuss proposals and to help move projects forward.
http://www.awm.gov.au/research/browse.asp And we’ve started using del.icio.us social bookmarking to leave "muddy footprint trails" across our large website for content that isn’t well exposed or that easy to find. We are still learning what del.icio.us can do for us.

Slide 14:
http://www.flickr.com/commons We have been in touch with Flickr Commons and images from our collection are likely to be added on 11/11/08.
http://creativecommons.org/international/au/ We are seriously looking at CreativeCommons attributions to cover content that we’ve developed for our presence on the web, so as to enable its appropriate re-use.
http://buddypress.org/ As we use WordPress as our blogging platform, we will probably take a good look at BuddyPress when it goes live later in 2008. It may extend our blogs to become more of a hosted social network.
http://yourarchives.nationalarchives.gov.uk/index.php?title=Home_page Your Archives (from TNA in the UK) might offer us a good model to facilitate public contributions and a bit of personalisation relating to our archival collections.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QR_Code QR codes might be used by us in several ways to facilitate the provision of packets of information to mobile devices with cameras in and the required software. We are looking at this now.
http://www.awm.gov.au/encyclopedia/index.asp Currently we maintain our own military history encyclopedia and it is a pretty big drain on our own resources to keep adding new content, so maybe migrating the content to Wikipedia.org (and helping to manage it) or hosting a wiki where the community could contribute will work for us.
http://go.footnote.com/thewall/ We really like this mash-up that is related to the US Vietnam Veterans Memorial and we are trying to trial much the same thing with our Roll of Honour. Our trial will probably focus on the Korean War panels.

Preservation, Web 2.0 and chamber orchestras (2) - following the lead of the Australian Chamber Orchestra with our cultural digitisation programs

This is most of the text for my recent "provocative paper" at the 2008 Museums Australia Futures Forum in Canberra. The rest of the text was made up as I talked to the slides I used, so if you wanted to hear them you should have come the the forum. My slides are now up on Slideshare (see the post above).

The Australian Chamber Orchestra (ACO) brings old music to life with their live performances. Sometimes they challenge the audience with new interpretations or even "mash-ups" of old and new music. Museums succeed in giving their own well-interpreted performance when they go beyond just shovelling huge amounts of scanned material on the web. I think it is a bit like the ACO breathing new life into old music.

Parallels (does anyone know a neater way to include a table in Blogger?):

Orchestras	Museums
Instruments, music	Collections
Performances	Exhibitions & curatorial interpretation
Tours & media broadcasts	Touring exhibitions and content on new online networks
Recorded music	Digitised collections

I think there is a further parallel in what the public expects from both orchestras and museums: a professional, engaging and enthusiastic performance. I think the ACO is a better example than a full scale symphony orchestra as it is easier for curators to identify with the artistic leadership given by Richard Tognetti, who usually leads the ACO from his violin, than the more formal orchestra conductor waving a baton from a podium.

Museum curators need to manage and care for the collections resulting from our digitisation programs just as we manage our physical collections and museum curators need to be interpreting our online content by playing "our own instruments". That interpretation needs to be delivered in many different ways. I don't think we can just assume the public will find and use it on our rather static websites. Blogs, Flickr groups, social networks and applications like Art Share on Facebook, You Tube videos, podcasts or downloadable audio guides are just a few examples of the relatively new means curators should be using to draw attention to our digitisation programs and collections. They're a little like touring exhibitions or broadcast performances, on the internet.

We need to recognise that digitisation of cultural material for preservation is also good for access. Digital assets created and acquired by digitisation initiatives must be managed and preserved. I believe that the provision of free and open access to the digitised collections of public cultural institutions is also an essential part of the process.

Using new online technologies, we can now facilitate the addition of public descriptions to these files. We can even collaborate with the public in the development of online exhibitions. But, I would not go as far as to say that simply allowing our users (or the audience to use the orchestra analogy again) to generate most of the supposed content of our websites is going to please anyone. If we use the new technologies and social networks primarily to allow users to make comments all over our online catalogues then that is the same as the ACO (or any orchestra) inviting those who have paid to attend a concert to get up on stage and have a go themselves. I believe the public want and deserve more from us than just engagement and conversation. We are being paid for our professional skills in museums, libraries and archives and have an obligation to digitise our collections and provide well-interpreted access to them online as well as other rich content for our websites, just as the ACO performs its music on stage.

I am certainly a keen advocate for social networking and going beyond “metadata” and traditional forms of museology, but there is something more fundamental to do before that kind of "window-dressing" becomes the top priority. We still need to be developing and interpreting fundamental digital collection content.

Some of my colleagues attended the first national Summit on Digital Collections in Adelaide in 2006, but despite a draft National Framework being circulated, not much has since changed. So what we have are some words on a page, but no music yet and certainly no instruments to play it with.

What do we need now? I believe we need some kind of national centre of excellence that is capable of encouraging us in the digitisation of cultural materials. But it should also provide research, advice, and facilitate collaboration, cooperation and training. Perhaps it could also coordinate a shared digital repository service (like CAN) for the poorer institutions who cannot afford their own digital storage.

Much of the advice and research is also available online from UK, US and European sites but the situation overseas is vastly different from our own environment and culture. We have different funding models, differing public expectations, different uptake and spread of broadband and mobile coverage and in many cases our national cultural institutions are well ahead of our overseas counterparts. There is nothing in Australia that meets our specific needs or is close enough geographically for us to have shared conferences, seminars and workshops without paying far too much money on overseas travel.

There are many examples of individual Australian digital initiatives that would be the envy of many overseas institutions. A quick list includes the National Library’s Pandora web archive, the Stable Tasmanian Open Repository Service, the Victorian Electronic Records Strategy, Picture Australia, and massive digitisation programs from the Australian War Memorial and the National Archives of Australia. Currently, something like a large shared digital repository and research service is really only being progressed in the Australian university sector for academic material in projects such as ARROW (led by Monash University) and Demetrius (at ANU). There is nothing like this in the Australian cultural sector.

Maybe we just need to set up an Australian partner centre under one of the international organisations, but we also need some local presence or we will all just keep moving forward in an uncoordinated manner and using vastly different file formats, standards, and even different preservation metadata. Sadly, I think too few institutions are planning for their digital future by setting up trusted digital repositories for their growing collection of digital assets. In the end, if the world decides that the only real digital repository is a certified “Trusted Digital Repository”, that is audited to standards being developed in the US (by OCLC/RLG and NARA) and Germany, will anyone in an Australian cultural institution have had a say in developing that audit checklist? That will make everything more difficult than it needs to be in the future. The “music” might be lost and even if it isn’t, we might not be able to play it.

New rules for media or online museum communications?

I read these new rules for media first on Tony Walker's fantastic blog ABC Digital Futures and then went straight to the original source - Mark Glaser at Mediashift.

Mark's rules might at first seem only relevant to journalists and such, but the mere fact that museums are now engaged in online communications using their websites means that the rules also apply to us in a general sense. So, what I'll do is take Mark's rules and offer a museum perspective on what they mean for us more specifically. (Apologies to both original sources for a tad of borrowing.)

1. The Audience Knows More Than the Journalist: Rather than being a one-to-many broadcast, museums now must understand that they are just part of a much larger conversation that is networked and constantly evolving. So, replace "Journalist" with "Curator" (or historian, etc.) and you get the message. Our audience probably also has something valuable to contribute. A great topical example is the post we put up regarding HMAS Sydney’s recent discovery and the community’s contribution to that story. It has proved very popular and offered a perspective that we simply could not provide alone.

2. People Are in Control of Their Media Experience: The people are taking control and watching, and listening to what they want when they want. Making sure that we, in museums, provide content that is suitable for multiple platforms and entry points is critical. Increasingly, we will need to provide an option for content suitable for consumption on mobile devices.

3. Anyone Can Be a Media Creator or Remixer: But it still takes skills to use those tools and stand out from the millions of others who are doing the same thing. In a way, museums already do stand out as trusted sources of high quality content, but we need to balance what we do with regard to Rule #1 to ensure our position is not compromised here. As I've said here before, the big advantage we have is the content we can generate and provide online, particularly through our digitisation programs. Just facilitating conversations using fancy new technologies probably isn't going to be enough for us to sustain an audience.

4. Traditional Media Must Evolve or Die: The evolution that traditional museums must make online is not just in adding new features; we must change our mindset, ideas and methods to new ways. Many of our old processes are now completely irrelevant or redundant in this environment and hanging onto them has seen others bypassing us and finding new ways to search our content and collections, describe it, promote it, provide access to it, etc. Many traditional research journals are now either dead or dying and in Australian we’ve seen the death of the formerly popular Bulletin magazine. Maybe we need to look at some of our more traditional publications and move them online too. We also need to think up and use different methods for commerce in the online environment if we need to charge for services provided.

5. Despite Censorship, The Story Will Get Out: This isn’t just about censoring news stories; it also applies to new technologies like peer-to-peer file-sharing. Maybe we need to see these new technologies more as potential friends, than enemies. A good example is LOCKSS which uses peer-to-peer technology (as I understand) to safely share and store digital assets.

6. Amateur and Professional Journalists Should Work Together: The reality now is that professional curators/historians and amateur collectors, enthusiasts and historians can learn from each other and the new social media platforms not only allow this to happen, they facilitate the conversations much more readily.

7. Journalists Need to Be Multi-Platform: Museum professionals need to learn how to make best use of a host of skills to reach different audiences. I think most of us need to be familiar with digital cameras, scanners, digital recording equipment, and online technologies such as wikis, blogs, social bookmarks, RSS, tagging, mashups, social networks & collaborative technologies. We can’t just expect to engage with physical visitors nor those who come directly to our web front page.

I reserve the right to add more examples and thoughts to this post as they arise.

Digitisation masterclass slides now online

I've now uploaded the slides for the recent masterclass that I gave to Slideshare. It took several uploads because in order to re-present these slides on their site Slideshare does a bit of manipulating that changes some of the features I had used in PowerPoint. So, I needed to take two presentations down, rework them and upload them again.
Keep in mind that there are 38 slides, but they were used over an entire day, so there is a lot of discussion you are missing. The slides are best read in concert with the Slideshow Transcript that appears at the bottom of the Slideshare screen - a feature often missed by new users. Also, Slideshare appears not to have been able to pick up all of the embedded hyperlinks used in some slides. Again, they are included in the Slideshow Transcript at the bottom of the screen.
Happy viewing!

No post = no audience; no content = shallow conversation?

Hmmm, no posts here recently, but it is because I've been pretty busy preparing a "masterclass" on digitisation for the ARK Group as half of a two day workshop earlier this week called "Revolutionising Library Management". My half was all about digitisation from a library manager's perspective - not so much the technical side and stuff like colour management, the explanation of vector images and the mechanics of various metadata schemas.

Normally, I'd share my presentation on Slideshare (and I may still do that), but currently I think I've been a bit too heavy on the borrowing of content from the Digital Curation Centre, Cornell University, NISO and the Technical Advisory Service on Images. I found their online guidelines and tutorials to be really, really useful during the masterclass to illustrate various aspects of the content that I covered. I also find Jill Hurst-Wahl's blog Digitization 101 to be a great way to stay up-to-date, but I don't always agree with what she has to say. (The other problem is that Slideshare doesn't really handle links within slides that well and my presentation contains a lot of those.)

I began by linking my part of the event to the earlier half on Web 2.0, by saying that without digitised content, most museum or cultural institution websites are pretty shallow, so you can use as many new Web 2.0 applications as you like, but your audience will probably get bored by the lack of new and rich digitised content. So maybe the brave new world that is emerging for us online now has digital content, context (see my previous post about what curators should provide online) and the new conversations facilitated by new social media. A lot of museums are doing one or two of these three things, some are doing all three, but have any of us really got the balance right yet?

So, on now to the digitisation stuff . . .

I began by pointing out a few key messages that struck me while I was building the content for my day: dynamism; preservation, playing; management & planning; and compromise. I was glad that I threw them all up on some butcher's paper because I kept referring to them all day long, even though I had the obligatory power point slides to keep things moving in a certain direction. This is what they mean:

• DYNAMISM: digitisation is a dynamic field and there are no set or concrete answers. While I was researching new research papers emerged on the use of JPEG 2000 and the digital curation cycle and I had to touch on both of those.


• PRESERVATION: There are some who don't believe or understand the essential link between any digitisation program and preservation. But it is there and it is there in two forms. Firstly because we do digitise as a preservation strategy. In our institution we have preserved documents and images that could only have been saved using digital techniques. Thermal papers meant historic documents were disappearing before our eyes and acetate syndrome was destroying rare photos. There is also an often disregarded preservation benefit in giving access to digital surrogates which prevents or minimises the risk involved in allowing physical access to rare, fragile or unique collection items. Secondly, whatever you create through digitisation programs or projects needs to be preserved: through a curatorial life cycle, just like other collections do, but with different requirements as applicable to digital objects and collections.


• Learning by PLAYING: Adults learn best by doing (at least in my experience) - sorry, but I think it is true and this is my blog. I've also been involved in digitising archival and museum materials for a long time now and I reckon we've learned more through our projects than any courses any of us have ever undertaken. So my motto would be "start now and learn by doing". The chances are the authorities will probably go for hardened criminals like mass murderers before they come after you, so you've got a bit of time up your sleeve.


• MANAGEMENT & PLANNING: A lot of useful material of late about digitisation has been indicating the importance of abiding by sound project management principles and using appropriate planning methodologies in your initiatives. This greatly assists us when the authorities (decision makers and purse holders) come after us or don't understand what it is we are doing and why we are doing it.


• COMPROMISE: This comes up continually in our projects and you won't see it in any of the theories emanating from academia and various standards organisations. The fact is that hardly anyone I know in this field meets all the criteria and principles that are mapped out for them or even mapped out by them. All the practitioners have made compromises somewhere, whether it be in metadata, file formats, digital preservation, QA, storage, evaluation, reports or many other critical elements of digitisation.

That's all for now, but you can check out my del.icio.us bookmarks (see the tags on the right of this post) for some new an other really useful sites on the same subject.

Data management and the curation continuum: how the Monash experience is informing repository relationships

Andrew Treloar, Director, Australian National Data Service Establishment Project, Monash University
Cathrine Harboe-Ree, University Librarian, Monash University
Abstract:
Repositories are evolving in response to a growing understanding of institutional and research community data and object management needs. This paper (building on work already published in DLib, September, 2007) explores how one institution has responded to the need to provide management solutions that accommodate different object types, uses and users. It introduces three key concepts. The first is the curation continuum, which identifies a number of characteristics of data objects and the repositories that contain them. The second divides the overall repository environment based on these characteristics into three domains (research, collaboration and public), each with associated repository/ data store environments. The third is the curation boundary, which separates each of the three domain types.
This one was really aimed at the academic environment, but I hoped that there would be something for us to learn here too. I think it was beneficial. I have the pdf file for those more interested.
The core of Andrew's presentation was his slide on the Data Curation continua identified so far:

Object:
Less Metadata <-> More Metadata
More Items <-> Fewer Items
Larger Objects <-> Smaller Objects (different reqts)
Objects continually updated <-> Objects static
Management:
Researcher Manages <-> Organisation Manages
Less Preservation <-> More Preservation
(eg. no commitment to those presentations being around forever on Slideshare)
Access:
Closed Access <-> Open Access
Less Exposure <-> More Exposure
(His paper also stresses the importance of going well beyond access into exposure and discoverability using a range of techniques such as OAI-PMH, RSS feeds, search engine spidering and federated search.)

How does this continua help them map out their Repository requirements? That is where their three different environs came to life.
From the paper's conclusion (as this is of some relevance to our DAMS/Mediabin):
When the ARROW philosophy was initially conceived it was thought that a single institutional repository that was integrated, interoperable and flexible would provide the best platform to support teaching and research at Monash. The single common repository approach, while initially attractive, has been found to suffer from a range of implementation challenges and fails to provide adequate management solutions for data generated by researchers over the entire research lifecycle. These challenges can be best addressed when considered in terms of the data curation continua. The ARROW, DART and ARCHER projects have seen the evolution of this concept into a more nuanced understanding of the different types of content that would need to be managed, and the different audiences and uses for that content. This has led to an acceptance that multiple, albeit interoperable, repositories would be better. One set of decisions about what to do for each of the continua leads to three different sorts of repository domains. Monash University is calling these research (DART), collaboration (ARCHER) and public repositories (ARROW) respectively. A further management concept, the curation boundary, provides a mechanism for determining when and how objects can be moved between the domains.

We may not always need to use something like these three stages and currently we just use two – private (museum staff only) and public (web). It could be, however, that we will soon require a medium stage where we are more open to collaborative ventures and cooperative creation of our digital collections. Perhaps that also comes in via tagging of public assets?
As knowledge about institutional and data management repositories evolves over the next few years, these ideas will be further explored, by Monash and many other institutions. I guess what he was saying is why apply the one set of rules to everything if not everything is to be kept/preserved forever – perhaps as objects cross the curation boundaries, different rules can be applied by workflow? A good example would be the generation and attachment of metadata?
Andrew is now setting up the ANDS.
During questions, both Catherine and Andrew talked about developing the new people needed to take such projects forward. It is a growth area for librarians, but there are not a lot around who have the full compliment of both IT and IM skills. Data management and other curatorial skills will be required for us (for the ECM system).

It was worth the trip just to hear this bloke

Repositories Through the Looking Glass
(Keynote)
Andy Powell, from Eduserv Foundation (an educational charity based in Bath)
This presentation had a lot of useful views for us as we approach the new philosophy of our whole ECM environment.
So far (and at this conference) digital repositories seem mostly on the academic agenda in university libraries. Not much seems to be recognised regarding the challenges facing cultural institutions, so maybe we can learn something from the academic experience?
Powell has some cynical views re repositories.
He started by giving us his background with Dublin Core – he has been involved from early days, esp re web based metadata generation tool development. (The Abstract Model was discussed zzzzzzzzz.)
Then he moved on to JISC Info Environment – again aimed largely at the tertiary and further education environment. Most UK digital repositories are based in this environment. They use all the expected standards, but the environment has missed or ignored the Web and this is missing from most digital library spaces, particularly web architecture.
Eduserve has worked with the UK Science Museum and they started by modeling the infrastructure behind the repository (similar to what we have done with ECM). They have built (i.e. developed) a repository for them that they called a Web Content Management (WCM) system.
Serving stuff on the web still missing from JISC Road Maps. He was very positive about open access and what it will do to scholarly publishing – it isn't an "if", but a "when" – it will happen!
Repositories (to date) are mostly focussed on deposit, not servicing the web. WCMs are essential if they are to be used. Concepts such as search engine optimization are essential (not just having federated search within the environment).
He briefly touched on the "REST" architectural style – it focusses on resources and global identifiers.
Is the focus just to be on the institutional repositories or a global environment?
Web 2.0 means: the new "prosumer", remote applications, social-ness & exposed APIs; plus diffusion (eg. blogs, etc.) and "concentration" (via Lorcan Demsey's recent writings at OCLC) – hosting services that are global in scale, eg. Flickr, Technorati and maybe del.icio.us? He mentioned those using Amazon S3 hosting. Social networks are critical, particularly for research purposes and this needs global services.
Future – what would a web 2.0 repository look like? He said it would look like Slideshare Not many in the audience seemed to be using it. You can share, embed, tag, favourite, etc. Other attributes he suggested: a high quality web based document viewer; tagging; visible to Google; RSS; Amazon S3 (infra-structural services); social groups ability; global in scale. BUT – it doesn't support preservation, complex workflows and doesn't expose rich metadata – so what? Are they really needed (in this system)? How can these needs be met without destroying everything? I think that is the problem we have made for ourselves with some of our CMS - wanting them to be all things to all users and forgetting their most critical tasks.
One way forward may well be using SWAP – scholarly works application profile. Used to described eprints – scholarly works/publications held in repositories. They used FRBR – functional requirements for bibliographic records. (See also this Demsey blog post.)Simple Dublin Core (the metadata standard/protocol) doesn't do this – it is all about relationships, not just a flat structure description. But it may all be too complex in the end. Can we just encourage users to tag, vice deep formal cataloguing that nobody ever sees and few outside the institution ever use? This has effectively distorted much of our work (in the AWM) that seems lost to any users, even on our own site. Rich cataloguing records are locked away inside some of our CMS and NEVER exposed on the web. THIS IS FUNDAMENTALLY WRONG!
We need to learn more from Web 2.0 about what works on the web as most repositories are not working (particularly re sharing on the web). They are not marrying up with the social networks that researchers actually use. Slideshare gets by with almost no formal metadata, just by using tags and links between resources.
Open access is important – making content available on the web. Policy needs to reflect this. We still focus on deposit, not putting resources on the web.
Andy's clossing message was for us to think about resource orientation, not services – digital libraries ignore this at their peril.
Questions & further discussions:
Warwick Cathro (NLA) suggested that institutional repositories can account for needs such as preservation and richer identification (which is what we are aiming at to some extent), but Powell said that that world has not yet been built, at least not in the UK. Building the social layer is beyond that model.
Physicists seem to be sharing their knowledge and research in arXiv.org and they maintain their affiliations.
Why do we still publish as PDF – it is like still working on paper, why not XHTML – embedded links and micro-formats. It runs counter to the mainstream web. Citation is another huge area and is still at odds with how it works on the web yet even WordPress allows for this with an app.
Stuart Weibel from OCLC suggested that researchers are too lazy and won't do what is needed re deposit and identification of resources. But Powell remains optimistic that the low cost of sharing a presentation on slideshare brings massive benefits in terms of knowledge sharing. It is intuitive and obvious and can work with little encouragement. It is a second best to say “you must do this”. Systems must be more intuitive than that! (I think this is a key message for us and the new practices and protocols we will be setting up and using within our ECM.)
Re future of scholarly publishing, Powell said that Open Access is just an inevitable change. We see it in the music industry already. Researchers can make their stuff free on the web. Yes, people will still want to buy and want to publish in journals. Maybe they'll be different, but something will change. National funding bodies seem unable to fund global networks for researchers, so publishers are starting to step into that space, building “Facebooks” for researchers. What impact will blogging have on this – probably an increasing one.
[My apologies for this long post, but this is the one paper not yet provided to us online or via the CD we received at Rego. I had to take these rough notes during his presentation. I thought it was pretty relevant to us as we approach ECM implementation.]