- Sivacracy: The Smithsonian Asserts Copyright Control Over Public Domain Photos
- ©ollectanea (Gasaway): Public Domain and Smithsonian Images
Technorati tag: Copyright
a JISC project investigating and developing infrastructural digital preservation services for institutional repositories.The report's executive summary states:
PRESERV has identified a powerful and flexible framework in which a wide range ofFor more information, read the full report.
preservation services from many providers can potentially be intermediated to many
repositories by other types of repository services. It is proposed to develop and test this framework in the next phase of the project.
EMC [yesterday] announced $1 million donation of equipment, products and services to the Smithsonian. EMC information infrastructure technology will play an important role in establishing a common foundation for the digital preservation of – and Internet-based access to -- the Smithsonian's collections and research data.
EMC also announced the EMC Heritage Trust Project, which recognizes and supports projects in local communities around the world that are designed to protect this invaluable information and improve access to it. Any public or private local organization, institution, or any individual, may apply or be nominated for recognition and support. Examples include digital curation of the collections of a local library, museum or historical society; or of a significant private collection of music, letters, or art; or the archives and records of a local business, cultural, or educational institution. EMC Heritage Trust Project awards will include cash grants ranging from $5000 to $15,000.
Nomination forms and complete program details are available at www.EMC.com/heritage_trust. All applications and nominations will be reviewed by a distinguished review committee chaired by Daniel S. Morrow, Chief Historian Emeritus, and founding Executive Director, Computerworld Smithsonian Awards and Computerworld Honors Programs as well as member of the Board of Visitors, School of Information and Library Science, University of North Carolina. Judging will be completed by January 30, 2008 and grant winners notified by February 14, 2008.
Application deadline is November 30, 2007.
Current estimates are that in 2006, 161 billion trillion bytes -- 161 exabytes -- of digital data were generated in the world -- equivalent to 12 stacks of books reaching from the Earth to the sun. In just 15 minutes, the world produces an amount of data equal to all the information held at the Library of Congress. While it is unrealistic to think that we will be able to preserve all the data produced solely in digital form, NDIIPP convenes top experts to help decide which at-risk content is most critical and how to go about saving it.Funding for the program has been cut, so the article's authors (Jim Barksdale and Francine Berman) hope that Congress can be persuaded to restore the program's full funding. As they said:
It would be a national and a global shame if our most valuable born-digital knowledge, like the ancient holdings at Alexandria, were lost forever.
I was very happy to find your blog and other resources about digitization and wondered if I could ask for some advice.Here is my response. If anyone has additional advice or ideas, please leave a comment. Both she and I would appreciate it.
We are a public library in Australia wanting to purchase a digital archiving system. The initial use will be for Local History material and our Museum's collection. We are a longstanding customer of Dynix (nowSirsiDynix) so we would like to get ArchivalWare from PTFS. It looks very suitable for our needs and we can afford it. The vendor has told us that this product is much more feature-rich than Unicorn's Hyperion (Sirsi's product), but we have not evaluated any other products such as CONTENTdm or DigiTool.
I saw that you have been getting familar with these products at various conferences and demonstrations.
I suppose my questions are:
- It is easiest for us to just go with the Dynix-partnered product (at a very good price) as we liked it, we trust the vendor and their support but would you consider this a mistake?
- Would you consider that all 3 products have basically similar features and functions?
ArchivalWare and CONTENTdm are frequently the final two products a project will review before selecting one. ArchivalWare claims that it handle textual documents better than CONTENTdm. The reality is that any product will have its pluses and minuses. PTFS has said that in head-to-head comparisons, their product comes out better than CONTENTdm. That is their point of view. I've not seen an independent test of the two products.
I believe that SirsiDynix announced some changes in February/March, so first I would ask that you contact your SirsiDynix rep and find out the status of the products you're using. I don't want you to select ArchivalWare, if a change at SirsiDynix makes it then a bad decision.
Many of the organizations that I know who are selecting CONTENTdm do so because of (1) others around them are selecting it, (2) they know/assume it will work with other OCLC products, and (3) they believe/trust in OCLC. Of course, the features matter, but then you must look at the "other stuff." I think you're following the same logic. ArchivalWare should integrate with your other SirsiSynix products. You already are using SirsiDynix and trust them (hence you trust their partners).
Feature-wise, every product is similar yet different. Since it will be unreasonable for you to install and try the three products you mention, I would suggest that you look at projects that have used those products and perhaps speak to (e-mail) the people involved. For example, http://www.hrvh.org used CONTENTdm and http://soda.sou.edu/ used ArchivalWare. (I know there are many others, but those two came to my mind quickly.)
You might make some inquiries on library-related discussion lists to see what other opinions are out there. I'll post this notes in my blog and maybe some people will comment there.
The Nylink Annual Meeting ended this afternoon. This morning the keynote was given by Jim Robertson, Director of University Web Services, New Jersey Institute of Technology. His speech was entitled "From the Amazon to the North Pole: Touring Library Services in the Web 2.0 Era." (The presentation will be available here.)
Robertson talked about Amazon.com and the functionality that is available when you look at a book on its site versus the functionality available in a normal library catalogue. Amazon has done a wonderful job of making their pages open for participation. Their pages are 'beginnings' not 'dead ends.' [His annotated screen shots do a nice job of demonstrating this.] They foster community, provide added value and give actionable choices. He mentioned quickly the six characteristics of Web 2.0 (see section 5 here), which are:
Amazon takes advantage of all six characteristics. Most library catalogues do not. Robertson did re-do the NJIT catalogue so that it did some of the things that Amazon did. Unfortunately, server problems forced them to back out those wonderful additions. When the system is migrated to new servers over the summer, he hope to re-do those additions and add in new capabilities that are now possible.
Robertson ended his presentation by created a mythical scenario for the North Pole Community College and how they make their catalogue more responsive. (This presentation has the same slides in it about the NPCC Library.) The bottom line is that creating a better catalogue is not difficult or expensive.
During the Q&A, someone asked about libraries that have created new catalogues that contain Web 2.0 technologies. Two that come to my mind are:
[5/14/2007 : Check out Danbury Library, http://www.danburylibrary.org]
Roy Tennant often speaks on this topic. (BTW He is just moving from CDL to OCLC.)
Robertson said that what we want in a library catalogue is not a system, but a platform and not features, but capabilities.
His presentation included his "manifesto," which I cannot find on his web site. We didn't have a chance to really read it during his talk, so I'm looking forward to see it when his presentation is online.
Finally, I'll end talking about Jim Robertson by giving you one final piece of information from his speech and that is...many young people see Facebook as being the web. Facebook gives them the capabilities that they want for interacting with other people and "stuff." It is how they communicate.
The panel discussion partnered myself with Christine Dowd (Apple Inc.) and John Weber (Skidmore College). Dowd started by showing a Apple video about the future of computing. What was interesting is that the video was actually from 1987. A few things envisioned have been realized, but some are still farther out into the future (although they seem do-able). She noted that young people view technology as being part of their normal environment. Weber called this "digital air." Young people (tweens, teens and college students) view many technologies as being so normal that they are not considered technology. For example, to them, PowerPoint is not technology, nor is a cell phone, iPod, or computer. They are like the air -- expected to be there.
Both Dowd and Weber also talked about gaming and its developing role in education. Gaming engages people and helps them learn. Gaming teaches problem solving. And studies have shown that students who learn a topic through a game, learn the topic much better.
John Weber talked about the Horizon Report which is produced by the New Media Consortium (NMC). The 2007 Horizon Report is available here. The report "highlights six technologies that the underlying research suggests will become very important to higher education over the next one to five years." One of the key things he talked about was the difference between being comfortable with technology and being literate. People are increasingly comfortable, but are they literate? How do we teach them to be literate? Read the Horizon Report for information the technologies to watch (32 pages).
Both Dowd and Weber mentioned virtual worlds and Second Life, so it was appropriate that I spoke last. While they had focused on many different things, I only talked about Second Life. My slide are here.
I'll skip details about the presentation and get to the two questions I always get: (This are my wordings of the questions)
I describe SL as being like a major metropolitan city (e.g., Paris). When you go to Paris, you want to visit the museums, shops, parks, concert halls, etc. So too in SL -- You want to visit museums, educational areas, libraries, malls, parks, theaters, etc. In Paris, you will need to talk to someone for a moment or two in order to find out if it is someone who can help you (or someone you want to hang out with) and it is the same in SL.
I told the group to keep in mind who is already in SL (which include campaign outposts for John Edwards and Hillary Clinton). If they are there, we should be there too, at least to understand what this thing called Second Life is.
Finally, Second Life is one of the 10 web tools that is predicted to influence the 2008 U.S. elections. For a list of the 10 web tools go here. If you don't know what they all are, spend time experimenting with them.
The Fair Use Project at Stanford Law School's Center for Internet and Society seeks to lay the groundwork for artists and academics to use copyrighted work without permission in certain situations.
Digital audio watermarking has been proposed as a new and alternative method to enforce intellectual property rights and protect digital audio from tampering.The 132 page book should be available in July 2007 and will cost $180.
Digital Audio Watermarking Techniques and Technologies: Applications and Benchmarks is a comprehensive compilation of the major theoretical frameworks, research findings, and practical applications. With inclusive coverage of the most authoritative research in the area, Digital Audio Watermarking Techniques and Technologies: Applications and Benchmarks will serve as a vital reference to researchers and practitioners in a variety of disciplines, including engineering, information technology, and digital audio. With value to a diverse range of users, this Premier Reference Source suits libraries in numerous settings.
Helen Clegg & Susan Montgomery. How to write an RFP for information products. Information Outlook. June 2006 (v. 10, n. 6) pp. 23 - 33.Unfortunately, Information Outlook is not readily available on the Internet. SLA members can access through the SLA web site with their member IDs. The article is also available in the WilsonWeb database (Library Literature & Information Science). Many special libraries may also have a copy of this journal.
The Multi-Site Server enables users to query multiple CONTENTdm Servers from a single search interface. Geographically remote organizations can create and maintain their own local collections and at the same time provide users with seamless access to cross collection searching on multiple CONTENTdm servers.This is not just for remote organizations. With many institutions installing CONTENTdm, the Multi-Site Server is a way for them to connect their collections together and create a larger digital presence.