1. UCSD Libraries Portal Project: Building a Database-Driven Web Content Management System Sharecase, 3/28/2001 Esmé Cowles and Laura Galvan-Estrada

2. Why we did this  Sites were difficult to use, no consistent navigation or graphic identity  Organized according to our physical and department structure  Rudimentary or non-existent search capabilities  Duplication of work  Because we had to

3. Site from user point of view  Consistent navigation and design  Home page features core resources  Roger - local catalog  Sage - our database-driven application  CDL/Melvyl - UC-wide catalog/databases  Library Services - hours, policies  Let's take a look!

4. Sage  Not an acronym  Multiple ways to access  Browse subject hierarchy  Full-text search  Specialized pages  All built from database of author-chosen resources

5. Database  Sybase database  Resources  Subjects and subject hierarchy  Types  Custom fields  Roger Integration  E-Journal records retrieved from proprietary system in XML  Converted to SQL and updated in database

6. Subject Browse  Java Servlets and server-side includes  Hierarchy of subjects and E-Journals built from database  Custom fields allow any combination of resources to be displayed in a hierarchy

7. Search Engine  Highly customized Netscape Compass  Understands Sage subjects and types and links back to browse pages  Different categories of resources  Sage records (from Database)  E-Journals (from Roger via Database)  Library Services pages  Other pages (Pointed to by Sage records)

8. Other Pages  Hours Pages  Used XML since data is very hierarchical  Distributed data entry  Static Pages  Reverse proxy from other machine where authors have accounts  Formatting  Chopped into small HTML fragments  Use rsync to keep intranet and public server synchronized

9. Author tools  Managing resources  Resource editor  Author profiles  Link checking  Review date notification  Link grabbing  Statistics  Database and webserver  Dynamic page-building

10. Social aspects  Different libraries had very different practices  Looking like members of the same family  Webmaster meetings  Portal teams - no one can escape  Support from the top  Selling it to the organization

11. Design and Usability  Graphics  Graphics by outside graphic designer  Involved web content providers  Different sites need to look "related"  Usability testing  Learned from other UCs and useful books  Paper/terminology  Online prototypes  Iterative testing

12. Future development  California Digital Library  Search tool enhancement  Customization  Personalization

13. Infrastructure improvements  Scalability and fault-tolerance  Linux  Clusters  Oracle

14. Questions?