Similar articles

Abstract: Information seekers are generally on their own to discover and use a research library’s growing array of digital collections, and coordination of these collections’ development and maintenance is often not optimal. The frequent lack of a conscious design for how collections fit together is of equal concern because it means that research libraries are not making the most of the substantial investments they are making in digital initiatives. This paper proposes a framework for a research library’s digital collections that offers integrated discovery and a set of best practices to underpin collection building, federated access, and sustainability. The framework’s purpose is to give information seekers a powerful and easy way to search across existing and future collections and to retrieve integrated sets of results. The paper and its recommendations are based upon research undertaken by the author and a team of librarians and technologists at Cornell University Library. The team conducted structured interviews of forty-five library staff members involved in digital collection building at Cornell, studied an inventory of the library’s more than fifty digital collections, and evaluated seven existing open Archives Initiative (OAI) and federated search production or prototype systems. The author will discuss her team’s research and the rationale for their recommendations to: present a cohesive view of the library’s digital collections for both browsing and searching at the object level; take a programmatic (rather than project-based) approach to digital collection building; require that all new digital collections conform to library-developed and agreed-upon OAI best practices for data providers; and implement organizational structures to sustain the library’s digital collections over the long term.

[1] Brinck, T., Gergle, D., Wood, S.D., 2002. Usability for the Web. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco.

[2] Calhoun, K., 2004. Catalogs and Portals: Models and Tools for Discovery and Access. Presented at the “Portals Puzzle” Program, ALCTS Catalog and Form and Function Interest Group, June 27, 2004, Orlando, Florida, p.12-13. http://dspace.library.cornell.edu/handle/1813/1482.

[3] Cornell University Library, 2004. An Integrated Framework for Cornell University Library Digital Collections: High-level Requirements and Internal Implementation Issues. http://www.library.cornell.edu/staff-web/integrated_frameworks/Digital_Collections_Frame-work_Repo-rt8Final.pdf.

[4] Cornell University Library, 2005a. Digital Collections. http://www.library.cornell.edu/about/digital_collections.html.

[5] Cornell University Library, 2005b. CUL Integrated Framework. http://gould2.mannlib.cornell.edu:8080/confluence/display/CULIF/Home.

[6] DLFNSDL (Digital Library Federation and National Science Digital Library), 2005. OAI Best Practices Working Group. http://oai-best.comm.nsdl.org/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OAI_Best_Practices.

[7] Frost, W.J., 2004. Do we want or need metasearching? Library Journal, 129(6):68. http://www.libraryjournal.com/article/CA405394.html?display=searchResults&stt=001&text=metasearching.

[8] IMLSDCC (Institute of Museum and Library Services, Digital Collections and Content), 2003. IMLS DCC Collection Description Metadata Schema. http://imlsdcc.grainger.uiuc.edu/CDschema_overview.htm.

[9] Kenney, A.R., Rieger, O.Y., Entlich, R., Hillmann, D., Hoyt, P., Kozak, G., Lynch, T., Turner, T., Personius, L., 2001. Preserving Cornell’s Digital Image Collections: Implementing an Archival Strategy. IMLS Project Report. http://www.library.cornell.edu/imls/IMLS-CULfinalreport2.pdf.

[10] Kott, K., 2005. DLF Aquifer: Tapping New Sources for Scholarship. CLIR Issues, 45. http://www.clir.org/pubs/issues/issues45.html#dlf.

[11] Kurth, M., Ruddy, D., Rupp, N., 2004. Repurposing MARC metadata: using digital project experience to develop a metadata management design. Library Hi Tech, 22(2):153-165.

[12] Luther, J., 2003. Trumping Google? Metasearching’s promise. Library Journal, 128(16):36-39. http://www.libraryjournal.com/index.asp?layout=article&articleid=CA322627&publication=libraryjournal.

[13] NISO Framework Advisory Group, 2004. A Framework of Guidance for Building Good Digital Collections. 2nd Edition. National Information Standards Organization, Baltimore, MD. http://www.niso.org/frame-work/framework2.html.

[14] Nielsen, J., 1993. Usability Heuristics. In: Usability Engineering. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco, p.135.

[15] OAIS (Reference Model for an Open Archival Information System), 2002. Blue Book. Issue 1. NASA, Washington DC, p.4-15. http://ssdoo.gsfc.nasa.gov/nost/www-classic/documents/pdf/CCSDS-650.0-B-1.pdf.

[16] Sullivan, R., 2004. Why is Google so Fast? Marketing Monitor, January 13. http://www.searchengineposition.com/info/Articles/GoogleFast.asp.

[17] Tennant, R., 2004. Bitter Harvest: Problems & Suggested Solutions for OAI-OMH Data & Service Providers. California Digital Library. http://www.cdlib.org/inside/projects/harvesting/bitter_harvest.html.

[18] The European Library, 2005. About Us. http://www.theeuropeanlibrary.org/portal/index.htm.

[19] van Veen, T., Oldroyd, B., 2004. Search and Retrieval in the European Library. D-Lib Magazine, 10(2). http://www.dlib.org/dlib/february04/vanveen/02vanveen.html.

[20] ZING, 2005. Z39.50 International: Next Generation. http://www.loc.gov./z3950/agency/zing/.