INLS 235

Day  3

1/23/2002

 

  1. One Minute Papers

Big Points

      Electronic environment can be leveraged to make libraries more two-way

      DLs are much more than holdings

      Contributors can be (share) responsible/ity for content

Questions

            What does ibiblio do about legal challenges?

            Standards for contributions?

            Can we relinquish evaluation role and still be a library?  Can other eval models be created?

            Business models? For sharia?

            Roles for librarians?

            DL costs and technical requirements?

             

  1. Collection development

User driven vs. collection driven  (all libraries—physical and digital—have elements of both)

            Most public libraries, academic libraries are user driven.

            Many special libraries are collection driven

                        Many DL projects are collection driven  (funding drives much of this)

How do we decide WHAT to include?  (CD policy, the Khoo paper and review policies related to conceptions of DL)

            Content (evaluation? Popularity? Webs of trust?)

            Metadata

How do we decide HOW to provide access?  (e.g., closed/open stacks; search, format, display options)

            I suggest that in today’s state of evolution, DLs have many more decisions about the HOW than physical

 

The acquisition process.  Businesses exist for physical libraries, what about DLs?

IP issues are the strongest constraint on DL development

 

Digitization and management processes (and associated costs) flow from the CD and Acquisition policies and procedures  (See http://www.stoa.org/guides/ for guides to photography/images, GPS coding, QTVR etc.)

 

  1. Compare docsouth, ibiblio, and Perseus DLs

Ibiblio  www.ibiblio.org

Documenting the American South  http://docsouth.unc.edu/index.html

Perseus www.perseus.tufts.edu

 

DS                                                 Ibiblio                                       Perseus

Embedded                          self-contained                           self-contained

Library model                     Internet model                          Hypertext model

  Ed board, strong eval          open                                         ed board+convenience

  standard bib records           minimal metadata, post hoc       custom metadata

  persistence high                  ephemeral                                 persistence promising

Added value minimal           Added value minimal                 Added value high

  Access, indexing, spell        access                                      access, translation, text/images

                                                                                            Custome concordances, tools, maps

 

4. Gates portal RFP (if time)

 

5. Read for next time:

Wactlar, et at., (1999). Lessons learned from building a terabyte digital video library.  IEEE Computer,  32(2), 66-73.

Myers, B., Casares, J., Stevens, S., Dabbish, L., Yocum, D., & Corbett,  A.  (2001). A multi-view intelligent editor for digital video libraries.  Proceedings of JCDL 2001 p. 106-115.  (ACM DL)

Smeaton, A., Murphy, N., O’Connor, N., Marliw, S., Lee, H., McDonald, K., Browne, P. & Ye, J. (2001). The Fischlar digital video system: A digital library of broadcast TV programmes.  Proceedings of JCDL 2002, p 312-13.  (ACM DL)

 

6. One-minute paper

      What was the main point you learned in class today?

What is the main, unanswered question you leave class with today?