Syndicate content

Printer-friendly version

Send to friend

SI 640 - Digital Libraries and Archives

2,371

views

313

zip downloads

SI 640 landing page image

Image courtesy of the Library of Congress.

Term: Fall 2010
Published: July 8, 2011
Revised: July 20, 2011

This course focuses on the current state of "digital libraries" from a multidisciplinary perspective. Its point of departure is the possibilities and prospects for convergence of professions and cultures around the notion of digital media and content. The course covers the history of the idea of the digital library and the digital archive, especially its manifestation as projects and programs in academic, nonprofit, and research settings, and the suite of policy issues that influence the development and growth of digital libraries and archives. A foundation of core archival principles as applied in digital library and archives settings serves as an intellectual construct supporting the exploration of the related concepts of scholarly communication, digital preservation, cyberinfrastructure, representation, and standards/best practices. Students are expected to master a diverse literature, to participate actively in the discussion of issues, and to take steps, collectively and individually, to advance our understanding of future directions of digital libraries and archives.

Instructor: Paul Conway

dScribe: Alex Askew

Course Level: Graduate

Course Structure: 3-hour lecture, once a week

Syllabus
Document Title Creator Download License
Syllabus Paul Conway AttributionNoncommercialShare Alike

This course focuses on the current state of “digital libraries” and “digital archives” from a multidisciplinary perspective. Its point of departure is the possibilities and prospects for convergence of professions and cultures around the notion of digital media and content. The course covers the history of the idea of digital library and digital archive, especially its manifestation as projects and programs in academic, non‐profit, and research settings, and the suite of policy issues that influence the development and growth of digital libraries and archives. A foundation of core archival principles as applied in digital library and archives settings will serve as an intellectual construct supporting the exploration of the related concepts of organized digital content, metadata schemes, and understanding the user experience. Students will be expected to master a diverse literature, to participate actively in the discussion of issues, and complete individual and group assignments that reinforce understanding of trends and directions of digital libraries and archives.

Objectives

  • Apply key archival principals to a digital library program
  • Understand the development of digital libraries and archives as an international phenomenon
  • Explore the literature, key leaders, and significant digital library/archive programs
  • Establish a broad context for the issues and challenges facing digital libraries and archives, particularly building content, developing metadata frameworks that support preservation and access, and evaluating the digital library experience

Readings

There is no required textbook for the course. Required readings average 150 to 250 pages per week, with optional reading determined by each student’s interests and knowledge, as well as the relevance of a given topic to course projects and final reports. All required readings are either on the World Wide Web (WWW), accessible through the CTools site for the course, or available through University Reserves’ Electronic Reserve Service. http://www.lib.umich.edu/reserves

Resources

Weekly lecture slides, additional resources for class assignments and weekly discussion topics are posted on CTools by the start of class. Students wishing to follow the lecture with the slides can download them from CTools. The CTools Portal URL is: http://ctools.umich.edu

Grade Distribution

  • Class participation 25%
  • Essay and reflection 25%
  • METS analysis 20%
  • MediaWiki Directory 30%

Academic Integrity

Academic honesty and responsibility is fundamental to our scholarly and professional community. Students are responsible for maintaining high standards of conduct while engaged in course work, research, dissertation or thesis preparation, and other activities related to academics and their profession. It is expected that students will abide by the provisions of the Rackham Graduate School Policy Statement on Academic and Professional Integrity:
http://www.rackham.umich.edu/StudentInfo/Publications/GSH/html/APPC.html#1

Students with Disabilities

Any student who feels that he/she may need an accommodation for any sort of disability, please see me during office hours or email me to make an alternative appointment.

Classroom Etiquette

Students are encouraged to bring notebook computers to class and to use them actively as learning tools. Students should:

  • Use laptops for taking notes, conducting research required for activities, and other specific classroom tasks as assigned by the instructor. During class, students should not check e‐mail, chat, IM, play games, or perform other off‐task activities.
  • Engage in class activity as actively as they would in any other class. The computer should not become a barrier to one‐on‐one interaction, but instead should help facilitate the exchange of ideas and engagement in classroom contact. If you know you are not good at multi‐tasking, minimize the use of your notebook in class.
  • Show sensitivity to others. Students should not display screen images and multimedia content that might be distracting or offensive to other members of the class, including wallpapers, screen savers.

Office Hours

Students are strongly encouraged to take advantage of at least one office hour session during the course. The instructor is available and willing to advise on project topics, specialized readings, and contacts in the digital library field.

Assignments

Class Participation (25%)
The overall success of the course depends on the active participation of all members of the class. Class participation is a sizable portion of the grade. Unless excused, students must attend all classes and be prepared to enter into class discussions and to raise questions reflecting their reading and interests. Students are also expected to complete all required readings in advance of class. This is especially important since a portion of the class sessions will be discussions about the readings.

On the first class, each student will sign up with two or three other students to focus deeply on the required readings for a given week. This is an opportunity to read one set of assigned readings more deeply than average, to work collaboratively on identifying themes or critical ideas, and to demonstrate understanding of one component of the course.

All of the students who are “reading leaders” for a given course module will form a panel discussion following the completion of the module, the goal of which is to synthesize the ideas presented in the lectures and discussion, find points of continuity and discontinuity, and to make connections between digital libraries and digital archives. Participation in the panel discussion counts toward the class participation grade.

Essay and Reflection (25%)
This assignment has two parts: a documented essay approximately 2,500 words in length (not counting footnotes) and a 500 word reflection the ideas expressed in the essay. The essay is due on week 5; the additional reflection and any revision of your work is due on week 13. The grade is assigned to the final product, but an interim grade will be provided after the essay itself is submitted.

For the essay, each student must address the following proposition: “The terms ‘digital library’ and ‘digital archive’ are interchangeable.” In your essay you must take a position either for or against the proposition and document your position with secondary literature. You are strongly encouraged to work with the required readings for the first three weeks of the class, but a successful essay will draw on a mix of literature from the archives field and also from the digital library field, which you will find out overlaps in some ways and not in others. The essay must use a minimum of six articles, chapters in books, and other sources; it may be advisable to use more sources.

For the reflection, each student will append a personal reflection on the proposition that is based on ideas and insight gained in the modules of the course that come after the module on definitions. The reflection is an opportunity demonstrate learning in the course (and in this way is a bit of a “final exam) and to speculate on ways in which you may or may not have changed your mind about the nature of digital libraries and archives through the course.

Students may re‐write, augment, and otherwise revise their initial essay to document and demonstrate some of the points made in the reflection. The final “gradable” product is the combination essay and reflection, edited as you see fit. Both the essay and the reflection will be submitted and edited in the course wiki, which is accessed through CTools. Information on using the wiki is provided in a separate handout. The major advantage of the wiki is the sharing of ideas across the class and the opportunity to keep track of edits to the essay and the reflection.

METS and PREMIS Analysis (20%)
This assignment entails deconstructing, annotating, and augmenting a Metadata Encoding and Transmission Standard (METS) record for an item located in the Online Archive of California (OAC). The purpose of the assignment is to learn how the elements of a simple METS record work together and demonstrate how PREMIS data would be used to document changes to the item over time. Specific instructions on accessing the METS records for OAC items are provided in a separate document. The assignment involves searching in OAC for a set of items that contain rich METS records, saving the record locally, annotating that METS record to describe the major components of the METS record and track those components to the METS standard itself, and adding additional data to the METS record drawn from the PREMIS data dictionary (2.0) and appropriate documentation. The net result of the assignment is demonstration of the capability to “read” a METS record, explain it, and change it in meaningful ways.

During the first week of class, a demonstration of searching and retrieving in OAC will provide an entre to the extensive collections. By the second week of class, students will provide the instructor with a list of between 4 and 6 items from OAC that are appropriate for the assignment. The specifics of reading, interpreting, and augmenting METS records are provides as part of the module on metadata for digital libraries. The document containing the annotated and augmented METS record is due during week 11.

Most of the resources needed to complete the assignment are listed in the readings for weeks 8 and 9. Additional information is included on the CTools site for the course under \Resources\Assignments.

Media Wiki Directory (30%)
At present, no directory of digital libraries and digital archives exists. The purpose of this assignment is to work through, collaboratively, what such a directory might contain. Students will create and edit entries for digital libraries and digital archives, using the conventions of wiki writing pioneered by Wikipedia. MediaWiki is the open source software platform that was developed for Wikipedia. SI640 students will use a dedicated instance of MediaWiki provided by the University of Michigan. http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/MediaWiki The wiki is closed to the general public during the term but may be opened after the semester ends.

Each student will create and edit three entries in the Media Wiki Digital Library and Archive Directory and edit at least one entry created by other students in the class. One entry must be for a digital library or archives created and managed by a government entity, either a US state or a national government agency anywhere in the world, including but certainly not limited to the United States. One entry must be for a non‐governmental or non‐profit organization in the United States, including digital libraries and archives created by universities, non‐profit consortia, and non‐government organizations. A third entry is a grab‐bag, giving you flexibility to choose a commercial site or a second governmental or non‐profit organization.

The criteria for choosing a digital library or archive for an entry are in part derived from the definitions developed in the class. The site should have substantial digital content available for use by the general public or by designated communities. The site should be “maintained” and “well documented,” both of which are subjective concepts.

Each entry will follow the general style of Wikipedia, but contain the following six sections:

  • overview, a one paragraph description of the site
  • history, background on the origins and development of the site, including possibly information on the intended audiences for the site
  • content, description of the scope and characteristics of the content of the site
  • metadata, description of the metadata that is exposed to users and the metadata schemas that exist in background.
  • interface and tools, description of the look and feel of the site and any tools present to support use of all kinds
  • references (to documentation on the site, including internal documents mounted on the site)and links (to websites, including the main gateway for the site itself plus any other relevant websites mentioned in the entry.

Grading of the assignment is based on the quality of the analysis (depth of thought, accuracy of writing, style) and the level of effort expended on the project, including demonstration of mastery of the MediaWiki tools and authoring conventions, number of substantive edits made to your and other students’ work, and the creative use of internal and external links to tie the entries together. The entries may be illustrated as appropriate with examples of content or screenshots. The entries may be internally linked to other entries on the Media Wiki Directory.

This class project carries three deadlines. The first one (seek 4) is submission of the name of and a link to the digital libraries that each student proposes to analyze. The second deadline (week 8) is the initial creation of entries, roughed in as appropriate. The third deadline (week 15) is the completion of all writing and editing, at which time the wiki will be frozen for grading and assessment.

Learning Objectives
  • Apply key archival principals to a digital library program
  • Understand the development of digital libraries and archives as an international phenomenon
  • Explore the literature, key leaders, and significant digital library/archive programs
  • Establish a broad context for the issues and challenges facing digital libraries and archives, particularly building content, developing metadata frameworks that support preservation and access, and evaluating the digital library experience
Reading List
Document Title Creator Download License
Reading List Paul Conway AttributionNoncommercialShare Alike

Digital Libraries and Archives – Definitions

The first course module explores various perspectives on the idea of libraries and archives, digital or otherwise, establish a shared definition of a digital library, and frame this definition within the broader notion of “convergence culture,” the functional convergence of libraries, archives, and museums, and the emergence of a worldwide cyberinfrastructure. The module also covers the major sources of information on digital libraries and archives.

Week 1 (7 September) – Definitions: Evolution and Context

Required Readings

Borgman. [2000] “Is It Digital?” Gutenberg to Global Information Infrastructure, Chapter 2, pp. 33‐52. [CTools]

Dempsey. [2006] “The (Digital) Library Environment: Ten Years After.”
http://www.ariadne.ac.uk/issue46/dempsey/

Jenkins. [2006] Convergence Culture: Where Old and New Media Collide. Introduction, pp. 1‐24. [CTools]

Lagoze. [2005] “What Is a Digital Library Anymore, Anyway? Beyond Search and Access in the NSDL.” http://www.dlib.org/dlib/november05/lagoze/11lagoze.html

Zorich, et al. [2008] “Beyond the Silos of the LAMs: Collaboration among Libraries, Archives, and
Museums.”OCLC, pp. 10‐15. Skim remainder. http://www.oclc.org.proxy.lib.umich.

Resources

Bearman. [2007] “Digital Libraries.” Annual Review of Information Science and Technology 41.
Information Today, Inc. [CTools]

Fox, & Urs. [2002] “Digital Libraries.” Annual Review of Information Science and Technology 36.
Information Today, Inc. [CTools]

PADI: Preserving Access to Digital Information. http://www.nla.gov.au/padi/

What’s New in Digital Preservation: http://www.dpconline.org/newsroom/whats‐new

Week 2 (14 September) – Definitions: The Archival Dimension

Required Readings

Garrett & Waters. [1996] Preserving Digital Information. http://www.clir.org/pubs/abstract/pub63.html [CTools]

Gilliland‐Swetland. [2000] Enduring Paradigm, New Opportunities: The Value of the Archival Perspective in the Digital Environment. http://www.clir.org/pubs/abstract/pub89abst.html

It’s About Time: Research Challenges in Digital Archiving and Long‐term Preservation. [2003] National Science Foundation & Library of Congress., read pp. i‐xix, skim remainder. [CTools]
http://www.digitalpreservation.gov/partners/resources/pubs/index.html

Levy. [1998] “Heroic Measures.” http://www.acm.org/pubs/citations/proceedings/dl/276675/p152‐levy/ [CTools]

Ross. [2007] “Digital Preservation, Archival Science and Methodological Foundations for Digital
Libraries” http://www.ecdl2007.org/Keynote_ECDL_SROSS.pdf [CTools]

Resources

Flecker. [2000] “Harvard’s Library Digital Initiative: Building a First Generation Digital Library
Infrastructure.” D‐Lib Magazine 6 (November 2000). http://www.dlib.org/dlib/november00/flecker/11flecker.html

Fox. [1993] Digital Library Sourcebook. http://fox.cs.vt.edu/DLSB.html

JISC: Joint Information Systems Committee. http://www.jisc.ac.uk/

Keller, Reich, and Herkovic. [2003] “What is a library anymore, anyway?”
http://www.firstmonday.org/issues/issue8_5/keller/index.html

Lavoie and Dempsey. [2004] “Thirteen Ways of Looking at…Digital Preservation.”
http://www.dlib.org/dlib/july04/lavoie/07lavoie.html

Lynch. [2000] "Authenticity and Integrity in the Digital Environment."
http://www.clir.org/pubs/reports/pub92/lynch.html

National Digital Information Infrastructure Preservation Program.
http://www.digitalpreservation.gov/index.html

Rusbridge. [2006] “Excuse Me… Some Digital Preservation Fallacies?”
http://www.ariadne.ac.uk/issue46/rusbridge/

Week 3 (21 September) – Definitions: Cyberinfrastructure

Required Readings

American Council of Learned Societies. [2006] Our Cultural Commonwealth.
http://www.acls.org/cyberinfrastructure/cyber.htm

Berman and Brady [2005] “Final Report: NSF SBE‐CISE Workshop on Cyberinfrastructure and the SocialSciences,” http://vis.sdsc.edu/sbe/

National Science Foundation. [2003] Revolutionizing Science and Engineering Through
Cyberinfrastructure. http://www.nsf.gov/od/oci/reports/toc.jsp

NSF Cyberinfrastructure Council. [2006] NSF’s Cyberinfrastructure Vision for 21st Century Discovery. http://www.nsf.gov/od/oci/ci‐v7.pdf

Resources

Data Document Initiative. http://www.ddialliance.org/index.html

National Science Foundation. Cyberinfrastructure Office. Reports and Workshops Relating to
Cyberinfrastructure and Its Impacts. http://www.nsf.gov/od/oci/reports.jsp

Digital Content – Creation and Management

In spite of the fact that the manufacture of paper continues unabated, we are living in a digital world. This module explores alternative scenarios for describing the landscape of digital content, using as a point of departure a seminal 2003 (+ 1999 and 2009 versions) study that attempts to measure the volume of information created annually. The module also presents a handful of case studies to demonstrate the variety of digital content and how such content “lives” and is represented in digital libraries and archives.

Week 4 (28 September) – Content: Frameworks for “How Much?”

Required Readings

Borgman. [2007] “Disciplines, documents, data,” in Scholarship in the Digital Age, Chapter 8, pp. 179‐226. [CTools]

Conway. [2008] “Modeling the Digital Content Landscape in Universities.” Library Hi Tech 26 (3): 342‐358. [CTools]

How Much Information? [2009] Report on American Consumers. Global Information Industry Center, UCSD. http://hmi.ucsd.edu/howmuchinfo_research_report_consum.php

Lyman and Varian. [2003] How much information? 2003.
http://www2.sims.berkeley.edu/research/projects/how‐much‐info‐2003/

O’Toole. [1994] “On the Idea of Uniqueness.” American Archivist

Resources

Digital Library Federation. Registry of Digital Masters. http://www.diglib.org/collections/reg/reg.htm

Digital Library Federation. DLF Aquifer. http://www.diglib.org/aquifer/

Levy. [2003] “Documents and Libraries,” in Bishop, et al. Digital Library Use, Chapter 2, pp. 25‐42.
[CTools]

Week 5 (5 October) – Content: Transformations and Representations

Required Readings

Bolter & Grusin. [1996] “Remediation.” Configurations 4.
http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/configurations/v004/4.3bolter.html [CTools]

Chapman. [2003] “Managing Text Digitization.” Online Information Review 27 (1): 17‐28. [CTools]

Cohen. [2006] “Transgenic Deformation: Literary Translation and the Digital Archive.” MLA Convention Presentation. http://www.whitmanarchive.org/about/articles/anc.00165.html

Dalbello. [2004] “Institutional Shaping of Cultural Memory: Digital Library as Environment for Textual Transmission.” Library Quarterly. [CTools]

Holz. [2006] “Technologically Enhanced Archival Collections: Using the Buddy System.” Journal of
Archival Organization 6. [CTools]

Resources

California Digital Library. Online Archive of California. http://www.oac.cdlib.org/

California Digital Library. Online Archive of California. Technical Information.
http://www.cdlib.org/inside/projects/oac/tech.html

Library of Congress. American Memory. http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/index.html

Library of Congress. American Memory. Technical Information.
http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/about/techIn.html

Walt Whitman Archive. http://www.whitmanarchive.org/

Walt Whitman Archive. About the Archive. http://www.whitmanarchive.org/about/index.html

Barney et al. [2005] “Ordering Chaos” Library and Linguistic Computing. [Whitman] [CTools]

Chandler. [2002] "Museums in the Online Archive of California (MOAC): Building Digital Collections Across Libraries and Museums," First Monday
http://firstmonday.org/issues/issue7_5/chandler/index.html [OAC]

Crow. [2002] "The Case for Institutional Repositories: A SPARC Position Paper."
http://www.arl.org/sparc/IR/ir.html.

Folsom. [2007] “Database as Genre: The Epic Transformation of Archives.” PMLA 122.5 [CTools]

Lynch. [2003] "Institutional Repositories: Essential Infrastructure for Scholarship in the Digital Age." http://www.arl.org/resources/pubs/br/br226/br226ir.shtml

Lynch and Lippincott. [2005] “Institutional Repository Deployment in the United States as of Early 2005.” http://www.dlib.org/dlib/september05/lynch/09lynch.html

Markey et al. [2007] Census of Institutional Repositories in the United States: MIRACLE Project Research Findings. CLIR pub 140. See, particularly, Executive Summary and Literature Review.
http://www.clir.org/pubs/abstract/pub140abst.html

Rusbridge. [2005] “Information Life Cycle and Curation.” PowerPoint. [CTools]

Smith. [2001] Strategies for Building Digitized Collections.
http://www.clir.org/pubs/abstract/pub101abst.html

Waters. [2006] “Managing Digital Assets in Higher Education.”
http://www.arl.org/resources/pubs/br/br244.shtml

Week 6 (12 October) – Content: Large‐Scale Repositories

Required Readings

Gevinson, A. [2010] [Quality Assessment Summary], adjunct to “Ghostlier Demarcations,” in CLIR 2010. http://www.clir.org/pubs/reports/pub147/sumGevinson.pdf [CTools]

Henry and Smith. [2010] “Ghostlier Demarcations.” CLIR [CTools]

Rieger, O. (2008). Preservation in the Age of Large‐Scale Digitization: A White Paper. Washington, DC: Council on Library and Information Resources. http://www.clir.org/pubs/abstract/pub141abst.html

Wheatley. [2004] Institutional Repositories in the Context of Digital Preservation.
http://www.dpconline.org/graphics/reports/index.html

York, J.J. (2010). “Building a Future by Preserving Our Past: The Preservation Infrastructure of HathiTrust.” IFLA paper preprint. [CTools]

Week 7 (19 October) – Study Break

 

Metadata for Digital Libraries and Archives

What you see isn’t necessarily what you get. This module explores the distinction between the user interface and the underlying structure of information used to describe, structure, and administer a digital archive or repository. The module covers the origins and development of METS (Metadata Encoding and Transmission Standard), PREMIS (PREservation Metadata Implementation Strategies), and OAI (Open Archives Initiative) and its kin.

Week 8 (26 October) – Metadata: Getting to METS

Required Readings

EU‐NSF Working Group on Metadata. Metadata for Digital Libraries: a Research Agenda. [1999]
http://www.ercim.org/publication/ws‐proceedings/EU‐NSF/metadata.html

Gartner. [2008]. "Metadata for Digital Libraries: State of the Art and Future Directions.” JISC TechWatch Report, TSW0801. http://www.jisc.ac.uk/whatwedo/services/techwatch/reports/horizonscannin...

McDonough [2006] “METS: standardized encoding for digital library objects,” International Journal on Digital Libraries 6(2):148‐158. [CTools]

Resources

METS: Metadata Encoding and Transmission Standard. http://www.loc.gov/standards/mets/

METS Primer. http://www.loc.gov/standards/mets/METSPrimerRevised.pdf

METS Overview & Tutorial. http://www.loc.gov/standards/mets/METSOverview.v2.html

Week 9 (2 November) – Metadata: OAIS and PREMIS

Required Readings

Caplan and Guenther. [2005] “Practical Preservation: the PREMIS Experience.” Library Trends
http://www.loc.gov/standards/premis/caplan_guenther‐librarytrends.pdf

Dappert and Enders. [2008] "Using METS, PREMIS and MODS for Archiving eJournals" DLib Magazine, (September/October) http://dlib.org/dlib/september08/dappert/09dappert.html

Guenther. [2008] "Battle of the Buzzwords: Flexibility vs. Interoperability When Implementing PREMIS with METS" DLib Magazine, July. http://www.dlib.org/dlib/july08/guenther/07guenther.html

Higgins and Semple. [2006] OAIS Five‐year Review. http://www.dcc.ac.uk/events/oais‐fyr‐2006/.

Lavoie. [2004] Open Archival Information System: Introductory Guide.
http://www.dpconline.org/graphics/reports/index.html

Resources

OAIS. [2002] Reference Model for an Open Archival Information System (OAIS). CCSDS 650.0‐B‐1, Blue Book (the full ISO standard). http://public.ccsds.org/publications/archive/650x0b1.pdf.

PREMIS: Preservation Metadata Maintenance Activity. http://www.loc.gov/standards/premi

Week 10 (9 November) – Metadata: OAI, ORE and Federation

Required Readings

"Repository to Repository Transfer of Enriched Archival Information", Priscilla Caplan, DLib Magazine, November/December 2008 http://www.dlib.org/dlib/november08/caplan/11caplan.html

McDonough, Jerome. “Structural Metadata and the Social Limitation of Interoperability: A
Sociotechnical View of XML and Digital Library Standards Development.” Proceedings of Balisage: The Markup Conference 2008.

OAI for Beginners – Tutorial. http://www.oaforum.org/tutorial/

Lagoze and Van de Sompel. [2007] Compound Information Objects: The OAI‐ORE Perspective. ORE Technical Committee. May 2007. http://www.openarchives.org/ore/documents/CompoundObjects‐200705.html

Resources

Open Archives Initiative. http://www.openarchives.org/

Van De Sompel Briefing (10 min.). [2009] Object Reuse and Exchange (ORE): A Quick Overview [10 min. video]. YouTube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6KUgCN2HLL8

The Open Archives Initiative Protocol for Metadata Harvesting.
http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/openarchivesprotocol.html

Implementation Guidelines for the Open Archives Initiative Protocol for Metadata Harvesting.
http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/guidelines.htm

OAIster. http://www.oclc.org/oaister/

User Experience in Digital Libraries

This module is focused on the use of digital libraries and archives, particularly efforts to evaluate their value and impact, the evolution of tools for using, viewing, and manipulating digital content (beyond search and retrieval), and the fundamental role that trust/credibility plays in the viability of the digital library paradigm.

Week 11 (16 November) – User Experience: Evaluation

Required Readings

Borgman. [2003] “Designing Digital Libraries for Usability,” in Digital Library Use: Social Practice in Design and Evaluation, pp. 117‐168. [CTools]

Goncalves, et al. [2007] “What is a good digital library? A quality model for digital libraries,” Information Processing and Management 43: 1416‐1437. [CTools]

Saracevic. [2005] “How Were Digital Libraries Evaluated?” [CTools]
Snow, et al. [2008] “Considering the User Perspective: Research into Usage and Communication of Digital Information. D‐Lib Magazine. http://www.dlib.org/dlib/may08/ross/05ross.html

Week 12 (23 November) – User Experience: Trust and Collaboration

Required Readings

Green & Gutmann. (2007) "Building partnerships among social science researchers, institution‐based repositories and domain specific data archives," OCLC Systems & Services, Vol. 23 (1): 35 – 53. [CTools]

Kelton, et al. [2007] “Trust in Digital Information,” JASIST 59 (3): 363‐374. [CTools]

TRAC: Trustworthy Repositories Audit & Certification: Criteria and Checklist.
http://www.crl.edu/content.asp?l1=13&l2=58&l3=162&l4=91

Van de Sompel, et al. [2004] “Rethinking Scholarly Communication,” D‐Lib Magazine 10 (9).
http://www.dlib.org/dlib/september04/vandesompel/09vandesompel.html

Week 13 (30 November) – User Experience: Tools Grab Bag

This session is an opportunity for demonstration and discussion of digital library tools for viewing,
manipulating, and otherwise making use of digital library content. No required readings this week.

Week 14 (7 December) – Summation: Sustainability

The final week of the course focuses on long‐term sustainability, particularly new attention being given to business models and the economics of sustainability. This week is a final chance to re‐consider some of the archival theories underpinning future digital library development.

Required Readings

Assmann, A. [2008] “Canon and Archive,” in Cultural Memory Studies, edited by Astrid Erll and Ansgar Nunning. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. [CTools]

BRTF. [2010] Sustainable Economics for a Digital Planet: Ensuring Long Term Access to Digital
Information: Final Report of the Blue Ribbon Task Force on Sustainable Digital Preservation and Access. Read Chapter 1, Purpose, and Chapter 5, Recommendations. Skim remainder. [CTools]

Lavoie. [2008] “The Fifth Blackbird: Some Thoughts on Economically Sustainable Digital Preservation.” DLib Magazine 14. http://www.dlib.org/dlib/march08/lavoie/03lavoie.html

 

Schedule
Document Title Creator Download License
Schedule Paul Conway AttributionNoncommercialShare Alike

Week 1 (7 September) – Definitions: Evolution and Context
Deadline: Choose week for discussion leadership

Week 2 (14 September) – Definitions: The Archival Dimension
Deadline: Choose collection for METS analysis

Week 3 (21 September) – Definitions: Cyberinfrastructure
Guest speaker:

Week 4 (28 September) – Content: Frameworks for “How Much?”
Panel Discussion: Definitions
Deadline: MediaWiki entries submitted

Week 5 (5 October) – Content: Transformations and Representations
Deadline: Essay submitted

Week 6 (12 October) – Content: Large‐Scale Repositories
Guest speaker: Jeremy York (HathiTrust)

Week 7 (19 October) – Study Break

Week 8 (26 October) – Metadata: Getting to METS
Deadline: MediaWiki entries established
Panel Discussion: Content

Week 9 (2 November) – Metadata: OAIS and PREMIS

Week 10 (9 November) – Metadata: OAI, ORE and Federation

Week 11 (16 November) – User Experience: Evaluation
Deadline: METS analysis submitted
Panel Discussion: Metadata

Week 12 (23 November) – User Experience: Trust and Collaboration

Week 13 (30 November) – User Experience: Tools Grab Bag

Week 14 (7 December) – Summation: Sustainability
Deadline: Essay reflection submitted
Panel Discussion: User Experience

One week after final class session (14 December)
Deadline: MediaWiki entries complete

About The Instructor

Paul Conway

About Paul Conway
Paul Conway is an associate professor in the School of Information. His research interests include the challenges of representing and interpreting audio, visual and textual resources in digital form, extracting knowledge from large-scale image databases, and modeling the use of archives in interdisciplinary scholarship in the humanities. Conway has extensive teaching and administrative experience in the archives and preservation professions. Before joining the Michigan faculty in 2006, he held administrative positions at Duke University, Yale University, the National Archives and Records Administration, and the Society of American Archivists. He began his career as an archivist at the Gerald R. Ford Library on the U-M North Campus. Conway has made major contributions over the past 30 years to the literature on archival users and use, preservation management, and digital imaging technologies. In 2005, Conway received the American Library Association's Paul Banks and Carolyn Harris Preservation Award for his contributions to the preservation field. He currently serves on the Editorial Board of American Archivist and is a Fellow of the Society of American Archivists. more...

  • Ph.D. in information and library studies, University of Michigan
  • MA in history and administration of archives, University of Michigan
  • BA in history, Indiana University
Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported
This Work, SI 640 - Digital Libraries and Archives, by Paul Conway is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike license.