Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Presented at Cultural Heritage, Creative Tools & Archives, National Museum of Denmark, Copenhagen (26-27 June 2013) This paper reviews the user tools currently in use by Irish Cultural Heritage organisations. We highlight that key challenges for those providing user tools are associated with issues of preservation and sustainability of digital tools, and argue that for cultural heritage organisations the provision of digital tools is as important as providing access to the digital content stored, harvested and aggregated. This review draws on qualitative interviews carried out by the Digital Repository of Ireland (DRI) in order to inform requirements specifications, policy statements, user guidelines and best practices.
Citation preview
Dr Sharon Webb Requirements Analyst, Digital Repository of Ireland (An Foras Feasa, NUIM)
Dr Aileen O’CarrollPolicy Manager, Digital Repository of Ireland (IQDA, NUIM)
Conference: Cultural Heritage, Creative Tools & Archives, National Museum of Denmark, Copenhagen (26-27 June 2013)
Digital heritage tools in Ireland - a review
Objectives of this presentation/paper
Introduction to DRI
DRI Stakeholder engagement and requirements
Cultural heritage tools - a review
Challenges - preservation & sustainability
Conclusion
What/Who is DRI?
The Digital Repository of Ireland is an interactive national trusted digital repository (TDR) for contemporary and historical, social and cultural data held by Irish institutions.
It is a four-year exchequer funded project, comprising of six Irish academic partners - RIA, NUIM, TCD, NUIG, DIT & NCAD.
Current Status
Prototype of repository (HYDRA)
Open Access to Metadata Statement
DRI to mint DOIs
International Report (follows National one)
In progress: Metadata Task Force, IP/copyright
Task Force.
DRI Stakeholder Engagement & Requirements
Stakeholder interviews served two purposes - requirements elicitation and policy development (understand the domain - the “problem”).
We asked about current practices in (“analogue” and digital) archiving.
Interviews captured core DRI requirements (from the content providers perspective) but more importantly helped foster relationships (and “trust”).
Caring for Digital Data - Cultural Institutions
Caring for Digital Data - Archives
Caring for Digital Data - Universities & Academic
Caring for Digital Data - Research Institutes
Aileen O’Carroll & Sharon Webb, Digital Archiving in Ireland - national survey of the humanities & social sciences (2012).
Launched at DRI’s Autumn Workshop (2012).
Content provider’s view point
DRI’s core business requirement - a TDR (& all the functional requirements that satisfy this).
Content providers want assurances that DRI is sustainable e.g. can provide sustainable access to ingested content (long-term preservation).
“Trust” cannot be over-stated (techno-social).
Content provider’s view point
Need to reduce barriers to sharing/ingesting data into DRI.
• Support multiple metadata standards
• Support multiple data types
• Ingest (command line as well as web form)
• Export functionality
• Access controls
Developed “with” the community & not just “for”.
But...Content provider’s view point is one perspective...
...we (DRI) and they (CHI) need to engage the [digital] audiences (...the end user) and reduce “barriers to engagement”. (Prince, 2013).
Access to data is not enough given significant increases in user expectations.
We asked about current digital tools supplied, as well as future tools/developments.
Content users (and end user tools).
Interviewees discussed the provision of digital tools to “reach, converse with, enthuse and promote [specific] actions among an audience]”. (Prince, 2013).
Digital tools can include “...websites, social media, email and mobile technologies...” (Prince, 2013).
Digital cultural heritage tools
Cultural Institutions are custodians of our digital cultural heritage
The end-users (the researcher, the net/izen...) are the (target) digital audience for content reuse - they are why we “preserve” these objects.
Focused here on “online” tools (not offline).
Digital cultural heritage tools
Finding aids were cited as the most important “tool”
60% also provided additional tools - annotation software, crowd sourcing tools, network mapping, interactive maps, online exhibitions, interactive guides, educational tools, various visualisation for query results, mobile apps...
”
“
Digital cultural heritage tools
RTÉ Archives
Irish Museum of Modern Art
National Library of Ireland
National Gallery of Ireland - user created exhibitions (light box).
“
”
Digital cultural heritage tools - multiple channels
All interviewees were cognisant of the need to manipulate, and use, multiple digital channels to optimise user engagement.
For example, National Library of Ireland and Military Archives use Flickr Commons (among other social media sites).
Use of multiple channels enrich the collection & enables the users (citizens, diaspora) to feel part of the national, historical narrative.
Digital cultural heritage tools - multiple devices
Mobile app development (developing mobile friendly services)
• Augmented reality (Ireland Under Siege)
• Library Catalogues
This provides “content in the right channels for the audience” - reflecting changes in user habits and usage patterns (web traffic and device usage).
Digital cultural heritage tools - visualisations
Tools mentioned so far focus on reuse & repurposing of image, text, audio & moving image.
But numerical, geo-spatial & statistical data sets:
• Mapping Interfaces
• Mapping visualisations/tools (AIRO, CCL)
Also 3-D objects, timelines.
Digital cultural heritage - sharing cultural data
Challenges
Much of these tools consider and deal with “digitised” material. (Cultural v’s Research Institutions)
Entering a new phase for digital cultural heritage material - born digital (& digital only) material - storage as well as rendering challenges.
Computational, data analysis tools - big data (big humanities not only big science), pattern matching, data mining.
Challenges
Long-term preservation means sustainable access - it must consider the form as well as the functionality of the object.
Need to preserve the tools that make sense of data sets, digital objects, etc. but also the user generated content.
These tools become part of our digital cultural heritage - part of national, historical narrative & public interaction & engagement.
Challenges
Defining the user communities so that tools are developed to meet an appropriate need, at an appropriate scale.
Future developments - IKIWISI (I’ll know when I see it)!
Challenge to DRI - An interactive TDR to satisfy both the content providers and the content users (“prod-users”).
Resources - funding & technical.
Thank you for your attention.
Any questions, comments....
