1. © LNB 2007 Inga Grīnfelde The National Library of Latvia LIBER/EBLIDA Copenhagen, October 25, 2007

2. Formation of Letonica  Sustainability  Standards & common quality criteria Turning point (2001- 2002)  Part of long-term government cultural policy  Stronger common lobby for funding  Leadership (NLL)

3. Director Indexing & Cataloging (Vocabularies & thesauri)... Collections & Preservation (content and scanning) Scanning Special Collections IT Department (Systems design) Web archiving

4. DirectorLetonica Project administrator Collections & Preservation (content and scanning) Scanning Special Collections IT Department (Systems design) Web archiving

5. Major Library Regional Library Local library Local museum Local archive National Museum National Archive Letonica Competence Center R & D

6. Pros  More (but not entirely) predictable  Common standards  Common preservation strategy and platform (DOM) Data self-correction and solutions to bit-rot  Common lobbying  National registry  Compliance with EDL ideology on a local scale  Common copyright space  More multimedia educational content

7. Cons  Different supervising agencies  Influence of local political climate  Varying degree of preparedness and knowledge  Fear of the “joint pocket”  Personal ambitions  Cumbersome work on standards and specifications  Compromises on content

8. Pilot  Latvia Lost  > 30 partners  Standard agreements  Common platform (DOM)

9. Thank you! Q & A inga.grinfelde@lnb.lv