Creating an Integrated Digital Library Based on the Fedora Platform

1
Creating an Integrated Digital Library Based on
the Fedora Platform

• David Kennedy
• Developer
• Susan Schreibman
• Assistant Dean
• University of Maryland Libraries

2
http//lib.umd.edu/digital
3
(No Transcript)
4
Vision
5
Sustainability
6
Extensible framework
7
System Goals

• Multiple collections
• Multiple object types
• Cross searchability of collections
• Not every object in a collection
• Opening up repository to many users in the
  library

8
(No Transcript)
9
(No Transcript)
10
(No Transcript)
11
(No Transcript)
12
Organizational Issues

• Institutional support
• Time allowed to develop the system
• Off the shelf vs Fedora type system
• Team

13
Digital Initiatives Core

• Full Time Staff Members
• Sean Daugherty interface specialist
• Gretchen Gueguen project manager
• Paul Hammer developer
• Ann Hanlon project manager
• David Kennedy developer
• Kate Murray audio-visual archivist
• Jennifer O'Brien Roper metadata Danica Thomas adm
  support
• Ben Wallberg developer

• Graduate Students
• Tanya Clement
• Tony Ross
• Katie Salay

14
Development Timeline

• Jan 2005 DCR begins
• April 2005 Fedora development begins
• Sept 2006 Jim Henson Works completed
• Dec 2006 Treasury of Worlds Fair Art
  Architecture done
• Winter 2007 Maryland AlbUM available in live
• Finding Aid collection integrated into Fedora
• Spring 2007 1st 400 Films_at_UM completed
• Integrated interface launched
• Autumn 2007 2nd batch Films_at_UM completed (300
  films)
• 1st 100 Prange books in test

15
Fedora

• Open source digital repository
• Developed at UVA and Cornell
• Now supported by Fedora Commons

16
Fedora

• Service oriented architecture
• Functionality exposed as web services
• Fedora object model
• Datastreams (content, metadata)
• Disseminators (services, behaviors)
• Relationships between digital objects
• Object oriented

17
Fedora _at_ UMD

• Laying the groundwork (Jan 05-Fall 06)
• Henson, Worlds Fairs
• Collection specific design decisions
• Boutique interfaces
• Growth, maintenance (Fall 06-Present)
• New projects
• Single public interface
• Administrative interface

18
Infrastructure

• Metadata
• Content model
• Web services
• Public interface/skins
• Development of API
• Admin interface

19
Metadata
20
UM Digital Repository Metadata Standard
Description

• Hybrid standard
• University of Maryland Descriptive Metadata
  (UMDM)
• Customized DTD
• Rigorous minimum standard
• Common base of granular data
• MODS

21
UM Digital Repository Metadata Standard
Local Standard

• Required base elements

Coverage Place Coverage Time Media Type Physical
description
Culture Description Subject Title
PID Relationships Repository Rights

• Optional base elements

Identifier Agent
Language Style
22
UM Digital Repository Metadata Standard - METS

• Wrapper for all objects
• METS record for every object contains
• Header
• File Section
• Structural Map
• Structural Links
• Behavior Section

23
UM Digital Repository Vocabularies General
Descriptive

• Terms created as needed
• Culture
• nationality, ethnic, regional, organizational,
  Etc.
• Style
• architectural, literary, musical, etc.

24
UM Digital Repository Vocabularies Name
Authority

• Existing terms
• LC Name Authority File
• Getty Thesaurus of Geographic Names
• Creating terms
• Name Authority Cooperative Program

25
http//lib.umd.edu/dcr/?page_id38
26
UM Digital Repository Vocabularies Subject

• browse terms
• Defined independent of any project
• Applied to all objects, regardless of collection
• Intentionally general
• Only two levels of specificity
• Experimented with locally derived list based on
  LC Call Number Scheme

27
Browse-able Categories

• Architecture, Landscape, Historic Places
• Broadcasting Communications
• Civil Rights Civic Engagement
• Education
• Agriculture, Environment, Conservation, the
  Natural World
• Fine Arts
• Government, Law, Politics

• Economics, Business, Commerce, Labor
• Literature, Print Culture
• Performing Arts, Music
• Personal Family Lives
• Religion
• Science Technology
• Sports, Recreation
• War, Military
• Womens Studies

28
Content Model

• How is it stored in Fedora?
• Consistency between content types

29
Content Model
UMDM
DM
METS
AM
AM
AM
AM
UMAM
image
UMAM
UMAM
UMAM
image
image
image
30
Web services

• Created web services for our internal work
• Services behaviors
• Index and search
• Handle manager

31
Public interface/skins

• Consistent display
• Customized per collection

32
Public interface/skins
33
Public interface/skins
34
Public interface/skins

• Development efficiency
• Same base code for all projects

35
Development of API

• Java classes
• Digital object classes
• AM object classes
• Metadata classes
• Rules and validity
• When is metadata valid?
• When is a digital object complete?

36
Admin interface

• Staff to manage their own collections
• Patron requests
• Web interface
• Simple to use
• Maintain flexibility
• Maintain specificity in metadata

37
Admin interface

• Still in development/testing
• Metadata editing
• Managing content
• Uploading content items
• Defining relationships

38
Admin interface
39
Lessons learned/Challenges

• Editing metadata
• Authentication
• Archival storage
• Proofing of objects/metadata
• Time vs effort

40
Where we are at

• Have established the fedora architecture
• Can deliver video/full text (EAD/TEI)/images
• Composite book objects
• Beginning development to deliver audio files
• 5 boutique collections with all objects fully
  federated
• 2 content-based collections federated only at the
  collection level

41
Where we are at

• 3 gateways/tools federated at the collection
  level
• 100 Prange books (1000 images) available in Test
• Administrative interface just about ready for
  robust beta testing
• In Live
• 800 films / 2000 images / 40 TEI / 600 EAD /
  350 gig

42
How to Get in Touch

• http//lib.umd.edu/digital
• sschreib_at_umd.edu
• davekenn_at_umd.edu