2. Southeastern Digital Libraries: An Overview of Current Projects and Future Trends Toby Graham Director, Digital Library of Georgia Catherine M. Jannik Digital Initiatives Manager, Georgia Institute of Technology Robert H. McDonald Associate Director of Libraries, Florida State University Anthony D. Smith Coordinator for Digital Initiatives, University of Tennessee Copyright P. Toby Graham, Catherine M. Jannik, Robert H. McDonald, and Anthony D. Smith, 2005. This work is the intellectual property of the authors. Permission is granted for this material to be shared for non-commercial, educational purposes, provided that this copyright appears on the reproduced materials and notice is given that the copying is by permission of the authors. To disseminate otherwise or to republish requires written permission from the authors.

3. Digital Library of Georgia http://dlg.galileo.usg.edu

4. IRs and Scholarly Communication Provide a critical component in reforming the system of scholarly communication-a component that expands access to research, reasserts control over scholarship by the academy, increases competition and reduces the monopoly power of journals, and brings economic relief and heightened relevance to the institutions and libraries that support them… Raym Crow, The Case for Institutional Repositories: A SPARC Position Paper, 2002 http://www.arl.org/sparc/IR/ir.html

5. IRs and Scholarly Communication Institutional repositories can provide an immediate and valuable complement to the existing scholarly publishing model, while stimulating innovation in a new disaggregated publishing structure that will evolve and improve over time. Raym Crow, The Case for Institutional Repositories: A SPARC Position Paper, 2002 http://www.arl.org/sparc/IR/ir.html

6. What is SMARTech? A set of services for the management and dissemination of the institution’s digital materials. An organizational commitment to the stewardship of these materials, long-term preservation if warranted, organization, access, distribution. Clifford A. Lynch, Institutional Repositories: Essential Infrastructure for Scholarship in the Digital Age, ARL Bimonthly Report 226, February 2003. http://www.arl.org/newsltr/226/ir.html

8. Populating SMARTech Began with the idea of self-submission of faculty work Evolved into library submission of digital output of campus units and… Harvesting from other repositories and… Will include library submission of faculty work and hopefully… Self-submission of faculty work

9. Campus Collaboration Aerospace Systems Design Laboratory Office of Information Technology OIT

10. Purpose of the Repositories ECE and HCC Digital Libraries (DSpace) –Course captures –Subject specific repositories –Ephemeral materials –Incomplete research materials ETDs (VT ETD-db and DSpace) –Graduate student output (now in SMARTech) ASDL (DSpace) –Knowledge management OIT –Data warehousing/storage infrastructure

11. The Library as Aggregator SMARTech –Repository of record for campus –Serendipitous discovery across disciplines –Long term access and dissemination –Portal to other campus repositories

12. Future Directions Federating Campus Repositories Federating State Repositories-GALILEO Knowledge Repository Hosted Open Access Journals

13. Digital Preservation 2 Southeastern Digital Preservation Networks: MetaArchive Digital Preservation Network –Part of the LoC National Digital Information Infrastructure and Preservation Program –http://www.digitalpreservation.govhttp://www.digitalpreservation.gov ASERL ETD Preservation Network

14. MetaArchive NDIIPP Network Auburn University Emory University Ga Tech Va Tech University of Louisville Florida State University

15. MetaArchive Project Summary Six partner institutions will collaborate with LoC on a three year $1.3 million effort to develop a cooperative for the preservation of digital content with a particular content focus: Southern Culture and History

16. Project Goals/Questions Conspectus of digital content held by the partner sites Harvested body of the most critical content to be preserved (3 terabytes) Model cooperative agreement for ongoing collaboration Distributed preservation network infrastructure based on the LOCKSS software.

17. LOCKSS Lots of Copies Keep Stuff Safe (Software) Stanford University Project (Open Source) http://www.lockss.org In short this software will share and store data across a network and can automatically detect whether the copy at each end is valid.

18. LOCKSS Diagram Referenced from http://lockss.stanford.edu/works/how_it_works.htmhttp://lockss.stanford.edu/works/how_it_works.htm

19. Project Timeline Feb 2005: Conspectus complete May 2005: SW/HW tests complete Aug 2005: Initial archiving complete Feb 2006: Cooperative model analysis complete Aug 2006: All subsequent project harvests complete Jan 2007: All project goals complete

20. Preservation Network Effective digital preservation succeeds by distributing copies of content in secure, distributed locations over time This preservation network is based on a leading preservation software for distributed archiving (LOCKSS), establishing from the beginning a distributed means of replicated archives

21. The M Word - Metadata Gathering Stage (What can We Build On?) –DCMI - Dublin Core Collection Description Application Profile –UKOLN/RSLP Collection Description Metadata Schema –Western States Dublin Core Metadata Best Practices –IMLS/NLG/UIUC Collection Description Metadata Schema –LOCKSS Program Proposed Metadata –NISO Metasearch Collection Description Group http://www.metaarchive.org/pdfs/conspectus_md_2005.html

22. ETD Preservation Network Now in Planning Stages – 6/2005 Goal: –Offer Collaborative Digital Preservation to Electronic Theses and Dissertations Now – Southeastern Research Libraries Later – National Network for ETD Preservation Test Participants: –ASERL | Florida State Univ. | GaTech | LOCKSS Program | Univ. of Kentucky | Univ. of Tennessee | Vanderbilt Univ. | VaTech

23. OAI Data Sharing – Providers and Services  How the Open Archives Initiative Protocol for Metadata Harvesting (OAI- PMH)… …is making the world a nicer place to live

24. OAI Data Sharing – Providers and Services As a Librarian, 1.I’m very interested in the information seeking behavior of information users. 2.I’m interested in bridging the gap between user-need, and the body of external knowledge that gets expressed in the literature.  In order to do this in the new digital environment, …Good Resource Discovery Tools are a must

25. OAI Data Sharing – Providers and Services Some Barriers to Resource Discovery within a Digital Environment: 1.“Hidden Web” was not being indexed by major search engines (Google)  1 billion – visible, 550 billion – hidden (M. Bergman 2001) 2.Limited exposure to scholarly work due to copyright restrictions  Scholars typically seek high exposure to their work

26. OAI Data Sharing – Providers and Services As we move toward greater reliance on digital resources: 1.OAI-PMH (http://www.openarchives.org) is providing an effective low-cost solution to resource discovery.http://www.openarchives.org  Many of the major information agencies have adopted OAI-PMH as a method to “expose” important information resources that reside in “hidden” or “deep” repositories

27. OAI Data Sharing – Providers and Services Open Archives Initiative Protocol for Metadata Harvesting (OAI-PMH)  Data Providers administer systems that support the OAI protocol as a means of exposing metadata  A university ETD Program – http://etd.utk.eduhttp://etd.utk.edu  Service Providers use metadata harvested via the OAI protocol as a basis for building value-added services.  Networked Digital Library of Thesis and Dissertations (NDLTD) - http://www.ndltd.org/ http://www.ndltd.org/ Protocol Version 2.0 of 2002-06-14 Document Version 2004/10/12T15:31:00Z http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/openarchivesprotocol.htm

28. OAI Data Sharing – Providers and Services

30.  OAI-PMH is a relatively new service with some barriers that are yet to be negotiated: 1.Limitations on Selective Harvesting:  Currently, can only select by date stamp and defined sets 2.Aggregating metadata from heterogeneous sources is challenging:  By its very nature the aggregation of metadata is likely to produce unsatisfactory user experiences unless significant modification of metadata as well as targeted services are developed. -Shreeves and Kirkham, 2004 Rebel Fort on the Marrietta Road, north of the City, Atlanta, Ga., ca. 1864 Civil War Treasures from the New-York Historical Society, [Digital ID, nhnycw/ad ad16008]

31. OAI Data Sharing – Providers and Services 1.To help overcome the barrier for creating effective aggregator services:  OAI Best Practices Working Group established to address this concern. 2.In an effort to overcome the lack of a “deep Web” presence within major search services:  The University of Michigan’s Oaister aggregation service is now being harvested by Yahoo: –Oaister is currently harvesting over 5 million OAI records from 480 institutions and also exposes them to Yahoo for harvest. –The result is the ability to do keyword searching using Yahoo, taking full advantage of a rich metadata record for resource discovery.

32. Questions PPT Available Online at: http://www.sedlc.org/presentations/eduse2005