Critique of U.S. federal funding of digitization projects (fwd)

[Zimanyi Magdolna]

Tisztelt MEK-baratok, talan erdekes az alabbi cikk a DIGLIB listarol

 Zimanyi Magda

 KFKI Reszecske- es Magfizikai         Tel:    (+36-1)-395-9242
 Kutato Intezet                        FAX:    (+36-1)-395-9151
 Szamitogep Halozati Kozpont           E-mail: mzimanyi at sunserv.kfki.hu
 H-1525 Budapest 114, Pf. 49           URL: http://www.kfki.hu/~mzimanyi
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------


---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 17:10:05 -0600
From: Alarm <Alarm at MBNET.MB.CA>
Reply-To: Digital Libraries Research mailing list
     <DIGLIB at INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA>
To: DIGLIB at INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA
Subject: Critique of U.S. federal funding of digitization projects

Date:   Mon, 3 Nov 1997 09:28:57 -0500
From:   Jeff Bridgers <jbri at loc.gov>
Reply-To:       LC Employess Internet Discussion List
<LC-INTERNET at loc.gov>
To:     Multiple recipients of list LC-INTERNET
<LC-INTERNET at RS8.LOC.GOV>
Subject:        Cliff Lynch talk on digital library issues

Cliff Lynch talk to the Federal Funders Group
On Wednesday, October 22, Cliff Lynch in his new position as director of
the Coalition for Networked Information (CNI) addressed the Federal
Funders Group regarding his perceptions and concerns regarding what is
going on with the development of digital libraries.  As always his
comments were insightful and I think worth sharing with all of us. I'll
attempt to summarize. Apologies to Cliff for resulting inaccuracies
filtering through me and I hope others in attendance will correct or
amend any points made or overlooked.

Digitization Issues
1)      Investment in Conversion Infrastructure: There is too much
investment in local digital conversion efforts going on. Too many
institutions embarking on digitization projects are purchasing equipment
in order to do the work on site. This is an inefficient use of scarce
resources and funds could be better used by pooling resources into
either consortia or contracting out conversion to vendors.
2)      Preservation of Digital Resources: Too many digital resources
have been created by individuals without strong institutional
committment to maintain and preserve the resource beyond the life of the
original creator. Too many resources wither or die when the faculty
member who created them moves to another institution or retires.
3)      Opportunistic Digitization: Too much digitization seems to
happen opportunistically and from the bottom up. Too often digitization
selections seem to be the pet project of a professor or curator with a
strong interest without institutional review or regard for priorities
for use of limited resources. There is a lack of top level planning to
determine digitization priorities. We haven't seen experts within
disciplines determine the core resources that would be most valuable for
the teaching of that discipline.
4)      The "Scalability" Issue: We have been moderately successful at
creating sites on a small scale but we don't know what will happen as
these libraries grow ever larger. How will we manage/maintain large
sites?
5)      The "Transferability" and "Interoperablity" Issues: Because of
the rapid rate of software development, we face a challenge of assuring
that currently produced resources will be transferable to the software
of tomorrow. How can we assure that resources produced at one site can
be repackaged at another. How can an institution determine intellectual
access record structures and formats that will be usable in the future
and usable by other institutions. Hope lies in non-proprietary
standards.


Access Issues/Metadata/Bibliographic Control
1)      Access More Costly Than Conversion: Conversion costs are going
down making it seemingly more affordable for smaller institutions yet
the costs of providing intellectual access and description remain high.
2)      Appropriate Level of Description: What is the appropriate level
of intellectual description necessary to enable access to resources by
differing audiences? When are item level records necessary? When are
aggregate descriptions adequate? There is precious little in terms of
usage studies to inform decisions.
3)      Primary Content Within Secondary Context: Many digital libraries
don't include mechanisms to make it possible to refer to the content.
It is difficult for those preparing secondary sources to refer to
primary sources. This situation is made worse by the problem of URLs
that go bad if resources are moved on the server.


        --Jeff Bridgers
        National Digital Library Visitors' Center
        Library of Congress


Ted Winter                           e-mail: twinter at utsva.edu
William Smith Morton Library             phone: 1-804-278-4346
Union Theological Seminary in Virginia     fax: 1-804-278-4375