1
|
|
2
|
- 1999 – UVa Library Digital Library Research and Development reads an
article about FedoraTM and begins a test
implementation with Cornell University.
- 2001 – DL R&D and Cornell receive a Mellon Foundation grant to
develop Fedora into an open source tool.
- 2003 – Fedora 1.0 is released; implementation begins on the UVa Library
Digital Library Repository; a "Phase 1" prototype is
internally released for review.
- 2004 - DL R&D and Cornell receive a new Mellon Foundation grant to
continue Fedora development; UVa Central Digital Repository is prepared
for on-grounds release.
|
3
|
- Flexible, Extensible, Digital Object Repository Architecture
- A modular architecture built on the principle that interoperability and
extensibility is best achieved by the integration of data, interfaces,
and mechanisms (executable programs) as clearly defined modules.
- A Digital Asset Management architecture upon which many types of digital
library systems might be built.
|
4
|
|
5
|
|
6
|
- Fedora is not "done" – the development process is ongoing.
- Version 2.0 is due at the end of this year.
- The second grant-funded project goes through 2007.
- Fedora is the underlying architecture for a digital repository, not a
complete management, indexing, discovery, and delivery application.
|
7
|
- Fedora by itself is not the UVa Library's Digital Library system -
Fedora is the "plumbing" for the Central Digital Repository.
- The definition and implementation of specific UVa systems using Fedora
was a separate project from the development of Fedora.
|
8
|
|
9
|
- The creation and documentation of new holistic standards for production.
- Functional requirements for discovery and delivery.
- Analysis of collections and the development of content models describing
various configurations of media and metadata files coupled with required
behaviors for administrative purposes and in an end-user interface.
- A new unified interface design across collections.
- The implementation of new software tools and scripts for all aspects of
production and delivery.
|
10
|
- A Metadata Steering Group was formed to review all the applicable
metadata formats and document use guidelines.
- Specifications were set for the production of new digital images:
- Art, architecture, or cultural documentation images
- 24-bit color or grayscale pages images
- Bitonal page images
- A new local extension of the TEI DTD for marking up Electronic Texts was
developed, along with encoding guidelines.
- Specifications were set for the transition to and use of EAD (Encoded
Archival Description) 2002.
|
11
|
- Even with the development of multiple content models and production
standards, objects created as recently as one year earlier required
migration.
- Updates to encoding practice
- Enrichment of some metadata – subjects, authority normalization
- Re-generating some deliverable media files
- An assessment and prioritization process is being tested to review
objects, assess metadata enrichment and media processing needs, and
prioritize migration projects alongside new production.
|
12
|
- In summer 2003 a "Phase 1" prototype was developed to test
functionality and look and feel.
- The prototype included:
- Electronic texts from the Library's Special Collections:
- Two editions of the Lewis and Clark Journals.
- Illustrated volumes on Westward Exploration.
- Over 100 volumes from the Early American Fiction project.
- Art, Architecture, and Cultural Documentation Images:
- Regional Virginia architecture.
- Architecture and landscape architecture in Barcelona.
- National Museum of American Art Catlin American Indian paintings.
- A selection of ethnographic and archeological objects from UCLA's
Fowler Museum.
|
13
|
|
14
|
|
15
|
|
16
|
|
17
|
|
18
|
|
19
|
|
20
|
|
21
|
- Over 130 Phase 1 comments from Library staff were distilled into 23
recommendations in four categories:
- User Interface
- General User Functionality
- Image-specific Functionality
- Text-Specific Functionality
- The recommendations were ranked by a number of Councils, Committees, and
Working Groups to develop a prioritized list.
|
22
|
- The priorities included:
- Cross-collection search across all formats.
- A choice of simple or advanced search available across or within the
format types.
- The ability to limiting searching to a single virtual collection.
- The ability to browse all objects in a virtual collection.
- Improved manipulation of images.
- A "Shopping Cart" to collect items into personal portfolios.
|
23
|
- Processes to convert legacy images, electronic texts, and finding aids
to current standards.
- Processes for the "ingest" of images, electronic texts, and
finding aids into the Repository.
- A unified interface and graphic design.
- A cross-collection search for images, electronic texts, and finding aids
together.
- Full-text searches for the electronic texts and the finding aids.
|
24
|
- Development of programs to display or download objects in as defined in
the content models.
- An ImageViewer that supports zooming, panning, rotation, and other
on-the-fly image manipulation.
- A Digital Object Collector Tool for users to create personal portfolios
of objects and generate slide shows or electronic reserve websites that
include pointers to the images and metadata in the Repository. The slide shows and electronic
reserves deliver the images wrapped in the ImageViewer. Later releases will be generalized to
support the collection of other object types.
|
25
|
- The Repository is in its first experimental year. The Repository is
still under development and subject to updates that may selectively
affect functionality and availability.
- The next steps for the process are an evaluation of the production
workflows, and usability testing with groups of Library staff, faculty,
and students.
- Feedback will inform the development of the "Phase 3"
Repository that will be based on more automated workflows and
potentially include additional content models and format types.
|
26
|
- http://www.lib.virginia.edu/digital/collections/
|
27
|
|
28
|
|
29
|
|
30
|
|
31
|
|
32
|
|
33
|
|
34
|
|
35
|
|
36
|
|
37
|
|