ESMP Database Feasibility Study - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

1 / 9
About This Presentation
Title:

ESMP Database Feasibility Study

Description:

What Does It All Mean? The feasibility study was to look into: ... Surely the main reason for museums is to publicise and encourage access to collections. ... – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:48
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 10
Provided by: ang68
Category:

less

Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: ESMP Database Feasibility Study


1
ESMP Database Feasibility Study
  • What does it all mean?
  • What was actually found?
  • Recommendations of the report
  • DRDT Conclusions
  • DRDT Solutions

2
What Does It All Mean?
  • The feasibility study was to look into
  • First and foremost, the receptiveness of all the
    ESMP partners into having a combined database
    covering all the members' collections
  • The preferred options for such a database
    publicly accessible or otherwise
  • What databases and types were already in place
  • Briefly look at ways of combining and publishing
    them (what software is available, the cost and
    ease of use).

3
What Was Found?
  • Main Conclusions (75 partners responding)
  • All in favour of sharing expertise in
    documentation
  • Large majority in favour of sharing collections
    management systems (15 yes, 10 neutral, 4 no)
  • Large majority in favour of allowing public
    access to these records (20 yes, 9 neutral, 2 no)
  • As the anecdotal evidence we'd gathered
    beforehand had pointed to there is overall
    support for public access to an online database.

4
Recommendations of the Report
  • Spectrum compliance
  • The database should follow Spectrum standards
  • Use of existing, published terminology to
    describe items in the collections
  • Sensible too in use by a large number of
    partners
  • Software solutions
  • Two approaches
  • Incremental Updates not ideal.
  • Always online the most sensible approach

5
Recommendation Points
  • Sharing of Expertise in documentation
  • Regardless of whether the partnership wants a
    shared online database they should be working
    towards having their data in standard formats.
    The report concludes that new databases created
    by the partners be complaint with as many
    (non-conflicting) standards as possible
  • Sharing of Collections Management Systems
  • The report suggests buying in as additional users
    to existing proprietary systems currently in use
    by the partners such as Ad-Lib.
  • The second suggestion of the report is a central
    server containing a combined database. The report
    suggests buying into a new proprietary database
    solution to gain business support.

6
Populating a Shared Database
  • Two methods for populating an online shared
    database
  • Museums with their own databases export their
    data to the online database occasionally
  • The online database itself occasionally queries
    the museums' own databases and pulls the new
    information out.

7
Our Conclusions?
  • Our Recommendation
  • If the partners want a proven product and do not
    see the need for all the features of a database
    such as the ELMS one yet still want to be able to
    develop their own database and sites eventually
    then the Open Source, CollectiveAccess has it. If
    a partner wants to develop it themselves then it
    can run on any system not just Windows or
    Windows servers and can happily run across an
    internal network (or Virtual Private Network)
    without being 'online'
  • If new databases are being set-up then standards
    compliance should be integrated from the outset
  • If there's not going to be one overall database
    then we'd recommend individual online ones anyway
    again using CollectiveAccess. Surely the main
    reason for museums is to publicise and encourage
    access to collections.

8
The Cost?
  • Costs for one, big, partner-wide database
  • One whopping big group or cloud of servers (big
    yearly payments)
  • with masses of (preferably mirrored) disk-space
  • with masses of RAM.
  • Lots and lots of expert time to convert
    individual partner databases many partners have
    more than one database (This would be a one off
    once done then new additions added to the online
    one)
  • Some time and not too much money to create a good
    looking site around the database (only
    irregularly to stop the design looking too dated
    and to add new emerging possibilities).

9
A Less Costly Solution
  • ESMP partners with their own online
    CollectiveAccess databases
  • Most of the partners could manage with 30/year
    hosting each
  • Eventually CollectiveAccess hopes to enable Open
    Search on their databases
  • When this happens it would be very simple to
    provide one search website for all the partners
    which would be set up to look at the data in all
    the partners individual websites
  • Of course there would still be an element of time
    needed to suck the data from existing databases
    and populate a configured CA one
  • There's still an element of design to be done to
    the accompanying websites e.g. 2 or 3 days at _at_
    250/day for someone who really knows what
    they're about.
Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
About PowerShow.com