1. COOPERATIVE DIGITIZATION: POSSIBILITIES, PITFALLS AND PROSPECTS ALABI Conference June 3, 2010 – Georgetown, KY

2. Introductions  Kathy Hillman, Director of Special Collections  Doug Weaver, Department of Religion  Eric Ames, Digital Collections Consultant

4. Doug Weaver  What led to Baylor’s interest in cooperative digitization?

5. Why should we consider cooperatively digitizing Baptist materials?  Access  Preservation  “Union Catalog”  Some or all of the above

6. What types of Baptist materials should we consider?  Heavily used Baptist materials accessible only in print or on microform (older SBC annuals, journals, reference books, etc.)  Items from significant Baptist gatherings  Panoramic and other photographs  Archival and other items of historical importance

8. Expectation

9. Reality

10. Potential pitfalls  Metadata  Who does it, how much?  Waning of initial enthusiasm  Minimize by “beginning with the end in mind”  Orphaned projects  Project complete, but caretaker(s) no longer involved  Context  Key consideration, often overlooked

11. Resources: Things to keep in mind  Inventory Control System  Loan and donation management  Digitization equipment & location  Metadata schema  File formats and standards  Storage and backup  Digital preservation  Public access  Production of collateral materials

12. Resources for collaboration  Who scans?  Who creates metadata?  Who does quality control?  Where does content live?  Who maintains the content in the years to come?

13. Option 1: Distributed model  Who scans?  Member institutions at the institutional level  Who creates metadata?  Member institutions at the institutional level  Who does quality control?  Member institutions at the institutional level OR  Central authority control  Where does content live?  Central solution – a hosted CONTENTdm site OR  Individual pages (“silos”) serviced by a central search function (Most difficult to implement) OR  Group-operated site like Blue Host.com

14. Option 2: Centralized model  Who scans?  Centralized service provider  Who creates metadata?  Central authority control OR  Member institutions at the institution level  Who does quality control?  Central authority control OR  Member institutions at the institution level  Where does content live?  Central solution – a hosted CONTENTdm site OR  Individual pages (“silos”) serviced by a central search function (Most difficult to implement) OR  Group-operated site like Blue Host.com

15. Option 3: Blended approach  Who scans?  Member institutions (less complex items) AND  Outsourced provider AND  Central service provider (complex, fragile, rare, etc.)  Who creates metadata?  Member institutions (basic information) AND  Central authority/panel of experts (context, detailed metadata)  Who does quality control?  Member institutions (low level, initial pass) AND  Central authority (high level, final approval)  Where does content live?  Central solution – a hosted CONTENTdm site OR  Individual pages (“silos”) serviced by a central search function (Most difficult to implement) OR  Group-operated site like Blue Host.com

16. Various project solutions

17. Conclusions  Scanning is easy; everything else is not  Identifying potential collections up-front is very important  A range of options available  Lessons from BU’s experience

19. Big questions  Will your institution participate?  What is the purpose of this collaboration?  Access  Preservation  Union catalog  Some or all of the above  What material will you digitize?  Why is it important?  Who owns the copyright?  Is it organized and described NOW?

20. Discussion points  How can institutions participate?  Who is responsible for upkeep?  Underlying costs  “Branding” online content  Ultimate authority for collection(s)  How would we start?

22. Contact information  http://contentdm.baylor.edu http://contentdm.baylor.edu  Kathy Hillman, Director of Special Collections kathy_hillman@baylor.edu  Doug Weaver, Department of Religion doug_weaver@baylor.edu  Eric Ames, Digital Collections Consultant eric_ames@baylor.edu eric_ames@baylor.edu

23. What we’ve learned  Staff time and an inventory system are necessary to handle materials and data  Metadata is more than physical description  Backups are not digital preservation  Optical discs are not acceptable media for backup  Many copies are safer (LOCKSS)  High-resolution files require TBs worth of space