1 / 37

MoPark, METS, and More:

MoPark, METS, and More:. Managing the Virtual Future in the Loch Lomond and Trossachs National Park - and learning along the way. Presentation to LIDA 2005 Dennis Nicholson, Director Centre for Digital Library Research, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, Scotland.

hedwig
Download Presentation

MoPark, METS, and More:

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. MoPark, METS, and More: Managing the Virtual Future in the Loch Lomond and Trossachs National Park - and learning along the way. Presentation to LIDA 2005 Dennis Nicholson, Director Centre for Digital Library Research, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, Scotland

  2. Key focus: Interpretive Journeys, multimedia presentations on story of Park’s landscape, history, culture, flora, fauna

  3. Aims wider: Aims wider Not just PDAs: audio-only tours, ‘talking boards’, leaflets, repository of all digital / non-digital resources

  4. Overview [1] • Metadata Options Appraisal • Loch Lomond and the Trossachs National Park • Interreg III Mobility and National Parks Project • MoPark • http://www.mopark.net

  5. Overview [2] • About MoPark and the MOA • MOA to MOA Phase1 (and why) • A look at an Interpretive Journey • Why METS, Rest of the framework • DAMS Version #1 • Next Steps • Experiment and Learn

  6. The best laid plans… • Plan: 8.5 days MOA to feed into: • DAMS design, creation; Create metadata; Manage repository • Reality: Longer, phased MOA: • Lifetime of MoPark; METS-based framework feeding DAMS design and framing detailed MOA • But overall plan vindicated

  7. Current State of Play • Metadata Options Appraisal: • Early work (Phase I) established the need for a phased approach • Phase I complete: • Framework based on METS agreed • Outline requirements for DAMS as regards metadata handling established • Phase II (specifying the detailed requirement) in early stages • Examples of real IJs now exist

  8. Metadata Options Appraisal • Requirement: • To examine – and make recommendations on - the needs of the Loch Lomond and Trossachs National Park as regards the metadata, metadata standards, and metadata management required for the competent handling of digital materials both now and in the future. • To cover three levels of need: MoPark project (Level 1); Extension to other topics and Park areas (Level 2); Wider Park beyond MoPark (Level 3)

  9. What we found: • Sufficient detail available to enable the general needs of the project and Park in respect of digital object metadata and DAMS functionality to be specified. • Specifying the need in detail more difficult at this stage – the need for a phased approach

  10. Why a phased approach? • A need for: • A detailed examination of actual interpretive journeys; components • More staff experience of the associated issues and problems • An in-depth survey other digital objects, their usage, life-cycles.

  11. Phased Approach… • Phase 1: • Would set out a framework within which the full requirement could develop • Propose a flexible development path to facilitate the determination of the full requirement • Phase II • Would implement the development path

  12. Framework • Three elements: • Adopt METS Metadata Encoding and Transmission Standard • Adopt national and international standards relevant to the field. • Cooperate with other key players on inter-repository interoperability

  13. Early Stages of Phase II • Have, are following the framework and the flexible development plan • Have initial METS-based DAMS • Have initial decisions on some attributes and have populated the DAMS with them • Have real IJs, components, and structures; the rest is detail but…

  14. Why METS?; Feel for an Interpretive Journey Inchcailloch – an island on Loch Lomond Cover page of 1st Interpretive Journey; controls

  15. Map of Inchcailloch, click-able option throughout, possible to zoom then navigate, key, challenges, METS

  16. H A BALMAHA PIER 5 4 6 x 2 7 B F E C G D x INCHCAILLOCH x x Numbers refer to interpretive points on plan The Kitchen CLAIRINSH Figure 1: Schematic diagram illustrating Inchcailloch journey Journeys; Stops; Joint stops; different start + end points, Solar boat

  17. Stop features: Highland boundary fault; animated GIF; audio

  18. Once upon a time; dropdowns of animals and sounds, guess the animal from the sound etc

  19. History and industry

  20. Plus: Videos, animations, games, 3D maps and more Etc.

  21. Why METS? • METS: • Designed for complex digital objects • Provides for all of the metadatatypes likely to be required within MoPark and (in time) the Park generally • Sufficiently flexible to allow it to meet the detailed requirements drawn out in Phase II of the appraisal. • Provides a good guide to the areas we need to address

  22. METS Overview; Details; all the metadata types needed

  23. Why METS? • METS provides for: • Descriptive metadata (MARC, Dublin Core etc)at both individual object and composite (i.e. Interpretive Journey) level, • Administrative metadata (technical metadata, rights metadata, analogue source information, digital object files provenance), • Files metadata (for files containing content which comprise the electronic versions of the digital object)

  24. Why METS? • METS provides for: • Structural Map metadata to outline the hierarchical structure of a digital library object such as an Interpretive Journey • Structural Links metadata to allow recording of links between hierarchical levels • Behaviour metadata to allow metadata on ‘executable behaviours’ to be encoded

  25. Why METS? • A Safe Path… • METS framework provides for all of the complex issues faced by MoPark; the Park • It is supported or recognised as important by groups like L of C, JISC, Digital Library Federation, British Library, SLIC • A DAMS built round METS (and MoPark) ought to be flexible enough to meet future Park needs in areas such as FoI, Maps, IPR handling, Educational packages, promotional materials control, outreach

  26. Screen to enter metadata categories, sub-categories, attributes etc

  27. Screen to enter asset types – images, videos, IJ, IJ stops; also composite or not, metadata categories & associated file types

  28. Component objects, buttons for approval process – legality, metadata quality, and so on

  29. Composite objects: stops, full journeys

  30. Screen to enter IJ metadata; most METS top levels

  31. Screen to enter descriptive IJ metadata

  32. Screen to enter IPR and structural map IJ metadata (still embryonic)

  33. What’s next? • Refining the metadata requirement for IJs and other materials – still a major task; finalising descriptions • Writing a procedures and training manual; metadata content standards • Improving DAMS functionality and ergonomics • Identifying huge amount of work that needs to be done in future

  34. MoPark: Experiment & Learn • MoPark didn’t go to plan at MOA level • However, the high-level plan was to use the project to experiment and learn – which is what they have done in the metadata area • A good example of how projects can be valuable preliminaries to major organisational commitments

  35. Further Information • METS website is at http://www.loc.gov/standards/mets/. • Contact: d.m.nicholson@strath.ac.uk • CDLR: http://cdlr.strath.ac.uk/

  36. Questions?

More Related