1. Jodi Allison-Bunnell, Alliance
So, What’s the Plan? Aggregating Unique Digital Content at the Alliance
Ann Lally, UW
Julia Simic, UO
Kyle Banerjee, OHSU
Jodi Allison-Bunnell, Alliance

2. Topics Overview of initiative
Alliance’s Dublin Core metadata standards
UW’s experience with metadata cleanup and DPLA
Metadata sample and review project
Oregon Digital’s experience with metadata cleanup and MWDL
Outcomes by end of year
Q&A

3. Overview of Initiative
Jodi’s section starts here

4. Initiative Overview First new program offering under CCD!
Implement Alliance Dublin Core Metadata standards
Extend harvester infrastructure to accept OAI sets of digital objects with contract programmer
Develop appropriate training and support with contract Metadata Applications Librarian and working group
Aggregate unique digital objects from Alliance institutions
Set up a single pipe from the harvester to Alliance Primo
Develop objectives for digital object search, display, and navigation in Primo
Prepare 50,000 digital objects
Apply to become a DPLA hub for Alliance members by the end of FY17
Here’s an overview of the initiative. It was Approved by Council 2016 March
Funded with Oregon LSTA grant and Alliance membership funds

5. Here’s a picture of what the infrastructure looks like

6. Relationship to CCD FY17 Goals
Goal: Continue development of infrastructure, approaches, and support to aggregate Alliance digital content
Goal: Facilitate a coordinated approach to discovery of unique collections in the Alliance Primo environment

7. Alliance’s Dublin Core Metadata Standards
Ann’s section starts here

8. Alliance Dublin Core Requirements
Required
Required if applicable
Optional
Identifier
Date
Type
Title
Rights
Creator
Relation
Spatial
Language
Source
Subject
Description
Required
Required if applicable
Optional
Identifier
Date
Type
Title
Rights
Creator
Relation
Spatial
Language
Source
Subject
Description

9. Data challenges Missing mandatory fields Rights often not present
“Required if applicable” fields typically missing except for Creator
Ambiguous/Redundant fields
Especially problematic with Identifier
Fields in noncompliant format
Often not possible to fix without changing meaning (e.g. ambiguous or range Date)
Other agreements prevent compliance
Rights statement often cannot simply be mapped to standard list because of existing agreements
Value typically not stored where required
Spatial values most likely to be component of Subject

10. UW’s Experience with Metadata Cleanup and DPLA

11. Quick Review
UW’s experience with metadata remediation
Sasquatch Scale

12. Looking at Alliance collections 1
Software
Collections
CONTENTdm
Digital Commons
DSpace
Omeka
8 collections
7 organizations
Digitization undertaken

13. Looking at Alliance collections 2
Titles and Identifiers were always present
Rights and Type were absent most often
DSpace records were the most troublesome
Instances of system-generated data in the wrong fields [ex: Type in Format field]
Required
Identifier
Date
Type
Title
Rights

14. Metadata Sample and Review Project
Kyle’s section starts here

15. Oregon Digital’s Experience with Metadata Cleanup and MWDL
Julia’s section starts here

16. Oregon Digital
Shared platform for UO and OSU Libraries digital collections (92 collections, ca. 325,000 items)
Regularization of Rights statements in
CONTENTdm until Hydra Migration
Unification of fields/predicates across all collections
QDC + predicates from many other schema
RDF and Linked Data
Massive metadata cleanup/normalization

17. 2015-2016: Get Oregon Digital into DPLA
Mountain West Digital Library (MWDL)
Mostly CONTENTdm collections
MWDL Metadata Guidelines and Dublin Core Metadata Profile
Map all our fields/predicates to QDC
OAI work on our part
Required fields
Mandatory if applicable
Date
Description
Format
Identifier
Rights
Subject
Title
Type
Conversion Specifications
Creator

18. Challenges Tools Identify empty required fields and fill them
Repeated field delineation
OD Sets vs. MWDL Collections
Dates and Rights
Tools
MWDL Required Data Checker (OAI)
Scraping/Analyzing our own data (Excel)
Scripts for mass editing (Ruby)
EDTF date format
RightsStatements.org statements

19. Examples Oregon Institute of Marine Biology Slides and Photographs
Empty Description field = “Item from the OIMB 35mm slide collection”
Empty Subject field = Marine biology
Doris Ulmann ( ) Photographs, 1920s-1934
Empty Creator field = Doris Ulmann
Empty Date field = 1920/1934 (inclusive collection date)
Oregon Percent for Art
Empty Subject field = Public art
Empty Type field = Image
African Political Ephemera and Realia Project
Empty Rights field = Unknown, soon to be Copyright Undetermined

20. Outcomes by End of Year
Back to Jodi

21. Project Outcomes
Alliance institutions committed to the required portions of the DC metadata standard
At least 50,000 digital objects from 20 institutions cleaned up, aggregated, and presented in Primo
At least 25 institutions submit at least one OAI set to the harvester
Priority end users satisfied with objectives for digital objects search, display, and navigation in Primo
Application to become DPLA hub completed

22. Actions for Alliance Institutions
Participate in metadata sampling project in July-August
Respond to Working Group appointment call
Appointments made late July
Participate in training opportunities
Submit at least one OAI set to harvester
Participate in development of end user objectives
Metadata sampling will ask your CCD rep for two things:
--A collection of the simplest/cleanest metadata
--Something you think we can’t handle: The most challenging, messy or irregular collection

23. Q&A