The MINERVA framework The MINERVA framework Good Practices in DigitisationGood Practices in Digitisation

Cultural websites quality principlesCultural websites quality principlesAntonella FresaAntonella Fresa Budapest, 11 November 2004Budapest, 11 November 2004

Ministerial NEtwoRk for Valorising Activising in digitisation

The MINERVA project is the operative section of a wider framework made up with the Lund Principles, the LUND

Action Plan and the National Representatives Group (NRG)

The MINERVA framework

Lund Meeting – 4th April 2001 Representatives and experts from

the Member States gathered in order to identify ways in which “a

coordination mechanism for digitisation programmes across the

Member States” could be put in place

to stimulate European cultural content

on global networks.

National Representatives GroupThe NRG is made up of officially

nominated experts from each Member State:

• to coordinate digitisation policies and programmes;

• to facilitate the adoption and implementation of the Lund Action Plan;

• to monitor progress regarding the objectives encapsulated in the Lund Principles.

National Representatives GroupThe NRG meets every 6 months to share

national experiences under the aegis of the presidency in turn.

The “rolling agenda”

In order to guarantee the continuity of the initiatives undertaken, the past, present and future presidencies of the EU commonly define the so-called “rolling agenda”.

The MINERVA projectMINERVA is the operative arm of

the National Representatives Group.

It is a network ofMember States’ ministries /

agencies,. financed by the European

Commission, in the frame of the IST Programme.

Original Partners• Italy, coordinator (Ministero per i Beni e le

Attività Culturali)• Belgium (Ministère de la Communauté

française)• Finland (University of Helsinky)• France (Ministère de la Culture et de la

Communication)• Spain (Ministerio de Educaciòn, Cultura y

Deporte)• Sweden (Riksarkivet)• United Kingdom (The Council for

Museums, Archives and Libraries)

New Members of Minerva PlusGreece Czech

RepublicAustria HungaryGermany MaltaIreland SloveniaPortugal Estonia

PolandRussia and Israel

MINERVA missionThe network has been created to:The network has been created to: to discuss, correlate and harmonise

activities carried out in digitisation of cultural and scientific content;

for creating agreed European common recommendations and guidelines about:

– digitisation, – metadata, – long-term accessibility,– preservation.

Activities• to contribute to the creation of a broad

consensus on the European framework derived from the e-Europe initiative;

• to contribute to start up new national programmes of digitisation of cultural heritage;

• to contribute to create a process of institutional collaboration among the presidencies of the European Union;

• to create new opportunities of cooperation among the members of the network.

The Charter of ParmaArt. 1 Intelligent use of new technologiesArt. 1 Intelligent use of new technologiesArt. 2 AccessibilityArt. 2 AccessibilityArt. 3 QualityArt. 3 QualityArt. 4 IPR and privacyArt. 4 IPR and privacyArt. 5 Interoperability and standardsArt. 5 Interoperability and standardsArt. 6 Inventories and multiligualismArt. 6 Inventories and multiligualismArt. 7 BenchmarkingArt. 7 BenchmarkingArt. 8 Cooperation at national, European and Art. 8 Cooperation at national, European and

international levelsinternational levelsArt. 9 EnlargementArt. 9 EnlargementArt. 10 Building the future together: at the Art. 10 Building the future together: at the

forefront of the knowledge societyforefront of the knowledge society

How MINERVA works• Networking activities (workshops,

on-line training, WEB site, newsletter, benchmarking, cooperation with other projects, enlargement of the network)

• 4 Working groups at European level• Publications (guidelines, reports,

handbooks, brochures)

Digitisation ClusterCooperation among European cultural projects:• sharing knowledge and exchanging experience; • promoting results (studies, reports, guidelines); • adopting common standards and agendas; • avoiding duplication of activities and wasting of

resources among projects; • merging efforts together to maximise the impact of

the individual projects; • creating a larger community of users.

Projects participating to the Digitisation Cluster

BRICKSCALIMERADELOSDIGICULT FORUMEMII-DCFEPOCHERPANET

Euromed Heritage IIEVAHEREINMINERVAMUSICNETWORKPRESTOSPACESCRAN

Network enlargementThe instruments:

• Membership agreementTo formalise the participation of Ministries from other countries in the MINERVA network

• Co-operation agreementTo formalise the participation of interested organisations (Universities, private companies, cultural institutions, etc., in the MINERVA Users Group

The Working Groups

• Inventories, discovery of digitised content, multilingual issues– Multilingualism and thesaurus

• Interoperability and Service Provision– Business Models

• Identification of user needs, content and quality framework for common access points– Small cultural institutions

• Identification of good practices and competence centres– Cost reduction

PublicationsMinerva publishes handbooks and

guidelines on digitisation, edited by its working groups, and an annual progress report of the NRG:

• 1st and 2nd Progress Reports of the National Representatives Group (2002 and 2003)

• Technical Guidelines• Good practice handbook • Quality criteria for cultural web

applications

The good practice handbook

Provides useful information to the establishment, execution and management of digitisation projects.

It is a reasoned organisation of lessons learnt by the analysis of the data collected across Europe until May 2002.

The Handbook is enriched with on-line complementary information, and in particular a selection of existing guidelines on digitisation.

The structure of the HandbookIntroduction and background (Lund

Principles and the Minerva project)

10 Practical lessons learnt and information collected by the Minerva project best practice team. A collections of practical ‘rules of thumb’, to be considered by organisations who are establishing, executing or managing digitisation projects in the cultural sphere.

Practical GuidelinesThe material is broken down in

accordance with the stages in the digitisation life-cycle.

Each guideline description is structured as:

- Title,- Issue definition, which sets the scene

and introduces the problem(s) addressed,

- Pragmatic suggestions,- Notes or commentary.

Practical GuidelinesDigitisation project planningSelecting source material for digitisationPreparation for digitisationHandling of originalsThe digitisation processPreservation of the digital master materialMeta-dataPublicationIPR and copyrigthManaging Digital Projects

One example: Digitisation project

planningThis is the first step in any digitisation project.Time spent on planning will pay dividends in

the easier management and execution of the project.

Lessons learnt:- the reasons for the project- human resources- research- risks

the first lesson learnt in Digitisation Project Planning

The Reasons for the ProjectPragmatic suggestions:- concrete, explicit and documented aims- realistic when compared with available

resources- Steps of the project validated against

its aims- Clear justification for the project from

an institutional point of view

the second lesson learnt in Digitisation Project Planning

Human ResourcesPragmatic suggestions:- Ensure sufficent staff to carry out the project- Assign staff to each task- Identify training requirements- Carry out training by using software and

hardware which will be used during the project

- Aim at small core of skilled dedicated staff (rather than large group of ‘occasional’ staff)

the third lesson learnt in Digitisation Project Planning

ResearchPragmatic suggestions:- Research into other projects which are

addressing similar issues- it helps in avoiding mistakes and puts

project team in contact with others who have completed similar projects giving the opportunity to learn from their experience

- It adds credibility and enhances the results of the project

the fourth lesson learnt in Digitisation Project Planning

RisksPragmatic suggestions:- Intellectual Property Rights

management- Guaranteeing that source material is

not corrupt and has been produced by authorised institutions

- Authenticity- Financing of the project- Level of skill in the project

MINERVA 10 Quality Principles for cultural

websites

Commentary and explanations Hanbook

The 10 Pinciples transparent

effective maintained accessible

user-centred responsive multi-lingual

interoperable managed preserved

Supporting information associated to each principle:•A commentary, providing interpretation, background information and motivation for the principle

•A set of criteria to be used to assess whether or not a website is compliant with the principle

•A checklist, based on the criteria, to be used in assessing the website

•A set of practical and pragmatic tests and questions for the website owner to gain further insight into the compliance of his site

Structure of the Handbook

How to use the guide

The importance of each principle varies with the life-cycle stage of the project

Principles Priority Matrix

stages of the life-cycle are the same as for the Minerva Good Practice Handbook and the Minerva Technical Guidelines

considering that this document is concerned with websites, rather than digitisation projects

Stages of the website life cycle• Website Planning

• Website Design • Content Selection • Digitisation Process• Storage and Preservation of the Digital Master

Material• Metadata Capture • Website Implementation • Online Publication• Ongoing Maintenance

The “scoring”

For each principle-stage pair, a value between 1 and 3 is provided:

• 1 – Low priority

• 2 – Mid priority

• 3 – High priority

The matrixPlan Design Content

SelectDigitise Store &

Preserve Masters

Meta-DataCapture

Implement Online Publish

OngoingMaintain

Transparent 2 3 1 1 1 1 3 3 2

Effective 2 3 3 1 1 2 3 3 2

Maintained 2 1 2 2 1 1 1 3 3

Accessible 3 3 1 2 1 1 3 1 1

User-centred 2 3 1 1 1 1 3 1 2

Responsive 2 2 3 1 1 1 2 3 3

Multi-lingual 3 3 2 2 1 1 3 2 1

Interoperable 3 3 1 3 2 3 3 2 2

Managed 1 1 3 1 2 1 1 1 1

Preserved 1 1 2 3 3 3 1 1 2

Most critical stages• Website planning• Website design • Website implementation• Online publication

Maintenance of the site should not compromise on quality in the future

Multi-linguality and Interoperability are very important: they must be planned into a site, and cannot be ‘bolted on’ later

Two examples

Multi-lingualityMulti-linguality

InteroperabilityInteroperability

Multi-linguality – introduction and

commentaryVII Quality Principle:

” A quality website must be aware of the importance of multi-linguality by providing a minimum level of access in more than one language”

Websites are a means for the public to access online cultural heritage.

Language can be an important barrier to access.

The website owner should focus on providing as much as possible of the website in as many (and as popular) languages as possible. At a basic level: outline of the content and purpose of the website in at least one other official language of the EU.

Multi-linguality should be planned at the earliest stage of website design.

Multi-linguality - criteria• Some site content should be available in more than one language• Sign language may be supported• Non-EU languages spoken by immigrant communities supported• Site identity and profile information should be available in as many

languages as possible• The core functionality of the site (searching, navigation) should be

available in multiple languages• Ideally, static content (images and descriptions, monographs, other

cultural content) should also be available in multiple languages• Switching between languages should be easy• The site structure and layout should not vary with language – site

design and user interface language should be logically separate.• Multi-linguality should be driven by a formal multi-linguality policy• Site elements should be reviewed in terms of the multi-linguality

policy.• Steps should be taken if site elements are not as multi-lingual as they

should be.

Multi-linguality- check list

Yes/ No/ n.a.Some site content available in more than one language □ □ □Some site content available in sign language □ □ □Some site content available non-EU immigrant languages □ □ □Site identity and profile available in more than 1 language □ □ □Site core functionality available in more than 1 language □ □ □Static content available in more than one language □ □ □Simple switching between languages □ □ □Site structure and user interface independent of language □ □ □Multi-linguality policy exists & drives multi-lingual aspects □ □ □Multi-linguality reviews take place on site □ □ □

Multi-linguality – practical test

1. Does the site have any multilingualmulti-lingual content ?2. Does the site identity and profile material appear in more than one

language ? 3. Is there any material presented in sign language ? 4. Is there any material presented in non-EU languages which are used

by immigrant populations ? 5. Is the site’s non-static information available in multiple languages ? 6. Is the static (cultural) information available in more than one

language ?7. Is the site structure logically separate from the language in use ? 8. Was multi-linguality planned into the site from the very start ? 9. Does the site have a stated multi-linguality policy ? 10. Is the site reviewed against such a policy ?

Interoperability – introduction and

commentaryVII Quality Principle:

“ A quality website must be committed to being interoperable within cultural networks to enable users to easily locate the content and services that meet their needs”.

How he individual website can interface with other cultural websites and with entities, such as cultural portals.

The focus here is on standards, which may cover areas such as (but not restricted to):• Meta-data • Website technologies • Harvesting• Distributed Search

The details of any interfaces that the site exposes for interoperability purposes should be fully and clearly documented, to facilitate subsequent integration into distributed cultural resources.

Discoverability: a site must make clear, to automated search engines and tools as well as to the human user, what it contains and the services or content that it offers.

This document give the most cursory of information regarding the standards needed for interoperability. Consultation of other resources, such as the Minerva Technical Guidelines is recommended.

Interoperability - criteria• Research into standards and best practice should have taken place

before site design began.• The site should have been designed using the relevant standards.• The meta-data model should comply with relevant international

standards and may comply with Dublin Core and/or DC.Culture.• The website technologies should use only standard XHTML, HTML

and XML. JavaScript is acceptable but not formally recommended. Proprietary extensions are deprecated.

• Disclosure functionality should use a standard technology such as the OAI protocol.

• Distributed search of site itself may use page-level META tags, a site map and/or a site search tool.

• Distributed search of catalogues and databases may use Z39.50 or SRW/SRU.

• A site-level metadata profile should exist.• External interfaces should be clearly documented.

Interoperability- check list

Yes/ No/ n.a.• Standards and best practice research took place before site design □ □ □• Site design uses relevant standards where appropriate □ □ □• Meta-data uses Dublin Core or DC.Culture □ □ □• Website uses no proprietary HTML extensions □ □ □• Disclosure functionality uses OAI □ □ □• Distributed database or catalogue search uses Z39.50 or SRW/SRU □ □ □• Distributed site search possible □ □ □• Distributed site search using META tags possible □ □ □• Distributed site search uses a site tool with a remote interface □ □ □• Discoverability profile exists □ □ □• Discoverability profile uses appropriate standard □ □ □• All external interfaces documented □ □ □

Interoperability – practical test

• Was desk research carried out before website design began ? • Did this focus on relevant standards ? • What standards were identified as most relevant ? • Is the meta-data model based on Dublin Core ? • If not, why not ? • Does the website work with any browser ?• Is disclosure functionality implemented using OAI harvesting ? • If not, why not ? • Does the website have a site-level metadata profile ? • Is distributed site searching implemented ? • Is distributed catalogue and/or database searching possible ? • If it is, can it be searched remotely ? And is the remote searching

method the standard in use, in the expected interoperability partners ?

Key messagesQuality must be planned into a website

from the start The user is critical – involve him at

every stage Relationships with other online

resources (interoperability) and with future resources (long term preservation) must be given due thought

For further information:www.minervaeurope.org

Antonella Fresa – MINERVA Technical Coordinator

fresa@promoter.itThank you