1. Western Waters Digital Library
Building a Multi-State Aggregated Collection Using CONTENTdm®
Carol Hixson
Head of Metadata and Digital Library Services
Knight Library, University of Oregon
Kenning Arlitsch
Head of Information Technology
Marriott Library, University of Utah
CNI Task Force Meeting
December 6, 2004

2. Overview Led by Greater Western Library Alliance (GWLA) Funded by IMLS
Objectives:
Begin developing comprehensive information resource
Establish a viable technical infrastructure
Serve as a collaborative model
Initial river basins focus:
Platte, Colorado, Rio Grande, and Columbia
Begin developing comprehensive information resource that will eventually include information of all kinds: legal, technical, scientific, historic; and all formats: photographs, documents, maps, audio/video, datasets, etc. IMLS proposal focuses on government surveys, homestead and user rights, compact agreements, reclamation, and state regulatory water issues.
CNI Task Force Meeting
December 6, 2004

3. Overview (cont’d) Geographically distributed collections
12 of 30 GWLA institutions currently participate
Each site runs CONTENTdm server
CONTENTdm Multi-Site Server at Univ. of Utah
harvests only metadata
creates aggregated index for single site search
results link out to remote sites
Balancing local control vs. central usability
CNI Task Force Meeting
December 6, 2004

4. Current Participants Arizona State U. Brigham Young U.
Colorado State U.
Oregon State U.
University of Arizona
University of New Mexico
University of Oregon
University of Nebraska
University of Nevada-L.V.
University of Utah
University of Washington
Washington State U.
CNI Task Force Meeting
December 6, 2004

5. CNI Task Force Meeting
December 6, 2004

6. CNI Task Force Meeting
December 6, 2004

7. CNI Task Force Meeting
December 6, 2004

8. CNI Task Force Meeting
December 6, 2004

9. CNI Task Force Meeting
December 6, 2004

10. CNI Task Force Meeting
December 6, 2004

11. CNI Task Force Meeting
December 6, 2004

12. CNI Task Force Meeting
December 6, 2004

13. CNI Task Force Meeting
December 6, 2004

14. CNI Task Force Meeting
December 6, 2004

15. CNI Task Force Meeting
December 6, 2004

16. Challenges Metadata* Searching aggregated metadata*
Selection of content
Communication*
Technology
Consortia funding models
CNI Task Force Meeting
December 6, 2004

17. Metadata Challenges
Project participants have agreed to follow the Western States Dublin Core Metadata Best Practices, version 2.0
The standards provide considerable latitude for some elements
Some participants are harvesting from legacy collections that were created without reference to these standards
Underlying CONTENTdm is mapping to Dublin Core –simple and qualified.
Dublin Core itself provides a lot of latitude in application of its standards,
which is why there are application profiles being developed for a variety
of communities. Even within DC, there is confusion between different
elements and overlap. A prime example is Contributor vs. Creator.
The definitions for these two elements use a lot of overlapping
terminology – and it begs the question of why one would even need
to distinguish between these roles in an element set which calls itself
“Core.” Locally, a site administrator makes decisions on the use of
these elements. In a consortial setup, with 11 or more participating
sites, such local decisions on a basic core element
can affect the effectiveness of searching across collections.
The Western States document gives considerably more
guidance on how to map different types of information to
various Dublin Core elements. However, there is still considerable
latitude in input standards for various fields.
In addition, some participants are harvesting from
legacy collections created without reference to those
collections, resulting in inconsistent values being
supplied in the same field.
We have set up a metadata task force to help us try to
resolve some of these challenges. The group is
led by me and Nancy Chaffin of(Colorado State), this
group also includes Kayla Willey (BYU), Brad Eden (UNLV),
and Terry Reese (Oregon State).
CNI Task Force Meeting
December 6, 2004

18. Different Application of Metadata Standards
Digitization Specifications
Mandatory and repeatable
Not mapped to a Dublin Core element
Refers to a variety of standards
Lot of local latitude in:
labeling field
input standards
One of the required fields for Western Waters is one that the Western States
document labels Digitization specifications. It is not mapped to any DC element,
yet it is required and repeatable. The field says to use the field to record technical
information about the digitization of the resource. It lists a number of strongly
recommended elements for this area (which can be put into one single field
or several separate fields), including: file size, quality, compression, extent of
master file; as well as a number of recommended elements such as creation
hardware and software, preferred presentation, object producer, operating
system, checksum value, and creation methodology.
At UO, we capture the different bits of information in several distinct fields
and we often map the distinct bits to a DC element. This still complies with
the project guidelines. Utah also captures the same type of data, but in
different fields and with different input conventions for those fields. There is
huge variation in the amount and presentation of this information – including
whether it’s available for public display or not. We’re both in
compliance with the standards we’re using but have applied those standards
in very different ways.
Is this important? hard to say, at this point.
CNI Task Force Meeting
December 6, 2004

19. Application of Metadata Standards (Cont’d)
Date.Original and Date.Digital
Both fields are mandatory (when applicable)
Western States Best Practices document gives clear guidance
Both map to Dublin Core Date
Both say to follow W3C – Date Time Format
yyyy-mm-dd ( for July 16, 1897)
This is the first issue that the metadata group worked on because we considered it low-hanging fruit –
in that the standards were clear and didn’t provide latitude.
Nevertheless, the legacy data from some of the harvested collections doesn’t conform. Some of those
sites (like OSU) have or plan to convert their legacy data so that it fits in with the standards. Others are
less willing to do so.
Does it matter? The data is currently searchable, regardless of the format. Might it matter depending on
other search interfaces or system upgrades? Possibly.
CNI Task Force Meeting
December 6, 2004

20. DC Mapping and Aggregated Searching
This slide illustrates one of the major metadata challenges – the difficulty of aggregated searching.
One of the most challenging searching challenges is on Subject.
This slide shows the underlying DC mapping for subject within the UO’s WWDL collection.
Note that there are five different fields mapped to DC Subject. In the local UO collection,
we have built search interfaces that allow us to create more meaningful searches.
CNI Task Force Meeting
December 6, 2004

21. UO’s Local Site http://libweb. uoregon. edu/catdept/digcol/wwdl/index
Here’s the top page for entry into UO’s local site.
CNI Task Force Meeting
December 6, 2004

22. Local Customized Search Interfaces
Locally, we can create separate search interfaces for the different types of subject. So, the fact that we use
both LC and TGM terms is not a problem in our local site. They are in separate fields and we have built search interfaces to reflect that.
CNI Task Force Meeting
December 6, 2004

23. Local Customized Search Interfaces
This is one of the customized search interfaces we’ve developed at UO.
On the central site, however, such customization and separation of distinct types of subject data is not possible
CNI Task Force Meeting
December 6, 2004

24. No Mapping to Encoding Schema
One of the challenges for the aggregated searching is that the software does not allow
for mapping to encoding Schema. CONTENT does allow for mapping to qualified DC but
does not extend that to encoding schema. If it did, that would provide some assistance for
libraries using different source vocabularies. At the moment, there is considerable redundancy
and contradiction between TGM and LCSH. In an aggregated search, this can produce confusing search results.
CNI Task Force Meeting
December 6, 2004

25. Inconsistent Search Results
If one searches on subject within the aggregated site on the TGM term “Afro-Americans” there is only one
result. If one happens to search on African-Americans, the LCSH term, there are 8 results (fortunately still
including the single result found with the TGM search.)
The Western States standards recommend only that libraries use a controlled vocabulary, but doesn’t specify either the source vocabulary or the way it should be utilized.
CNI Task Force Meeting
December 6, 2004

26. Inconsistent Search Results (cont.)
     
Developing effective search mechanisms and granularity across collections is complicated, and requires strict adherence to metadata standards. Yet, there is great variation in local practice – all reflecting carefully
thought-out needs at the local level.
For instance, searching on the subject term Bonneville Dam (Or. and Wash.) – which is the strict LC
form for this name of the dam, produces no search results. There are many records in the
collection that have this term mapped to subject.
However, searching on Bonneville Dam Oregon and Washington does return results, including
those from the UO collection. ContentDM treats OR as a Boolean operator and not as a word
so using the standard LC abbreviation for the state of Oregon would not suit us. Other sites
are following LC and AACR2 strictly.
We also break place names into a separate field on our local site and spell out all states
fully, rather than using the LC/AACR2 abbreviations. Other sites do not.
We are all in compliance with the Western States document but have made very local decisions.
Reaching consensus on subject fields would be extremely difficult – yet this has an enormous impact
on aggregated searching.
There is also considerable variation in how terms are applied. Some apply broader as
well as specific terms (since the software doesn’t support any hierarchical linking) and
others try to follow traditional library cataloging philosophy of only using the most specific terms
that match the item. Doing a search on Columbia River in the aggregated site retrieves 407
hits, many of which are of images that do not show the river itself. How do you resolve issues
like that and still move forward on building the joint collection? Do we really want to try to
replicate the MARC/AACR2 environment with different standards-setting bodies and strict compliance?
Is it necessary to do that? I say no. Others would disagree.
CNI Task Force Meeting
December 6, 2004

27. Communication GWLA direction and oversight WWDL communication forums
Executive Board/Library directors (30)
Digital Projects Task Force
WWDL communication forums
Electronic discussion list
Monthly reports and conference calls with project coordinators
Semi-annual meetings at ALA
Online repository for reports, standards, minutes, etc.
Consortia are fragile
Misunderstandings arise as result of misinformation
Are problems result of software, our metadata, our interfaces?
Issues/concerns/opinions must be voiced openly
Good communication is crucial in large consortia projects. GWLA is a large organization and interested subgroups include the Executive Board, the 30 library directors themselves, and the digital projects task force.
The daily management of the WWDL itself includes several communication forums, including an electronic discussion list, monthly phone calls with the project coordinators, monthly reports, and meetings at ALA conferences.
Despite these opportunities misunderstandings sometimes result, and often they are due to misinformation that is repeated without verification. Are the problems we’re experiencing the result of the software, our application of metadata, or the interfaces we build? Issues and concerns such as these must be voiced openly because consortia are inherently fragile.
CNI Task Force Meeting
December 6, 2004

28. Opportunities Widening use of metadata standards
Collectively digitize more types of material
Develop consensus on methods for presenting different types of material
Improve CONTENTdm software by providing consortia feedback to DiMeMa Inc.
CNI Task Force Meeting
December 6, 2004

29. Contact Information
Website – Presentation -
Carol Hixson, Head of Metadata and Digital Library Services
Knight Library, University of Oregon
(541)
Kenning Arlitsch, Head of Information Technology
Marriott Library, University of Utah
(801)
Adrian Alexander, Executive Director
Greater Western Library Alliance
(816)
CNI Task Force Meeting
December 6, 2004