|
Summary of the Distributed Open Digital Library Design Event Of the Digital Library Federation Capital Hilton Hotel, Washington, D.C. 8 October 2003 The following persons attended: Peter Brantley, director of technology, California Digital Library Sayeed Choudhury, associate director, Library Digital Programs, The Johns Hopkins University Richard Detweiler, interim president, Council on Library and Information Resources Dale Flecker, associate director of the University Library for planning and systems, Harvard University Richard Lucier, librarian, Dartmouth College Wendy Lougee, university librarian, University of Minnesota Clifford Lynch, executive director, Coalition for Networked Information Carol Mandel, dean of libraries, New York University Deanna Marcum, associate librarian of Congress for library services, Library of Congress John Mark Ockerbloom, digital library planner, University of Pennsylvania Merrilee Proffitt, program officer, Research Libraries Group David Seaman, director, Digital Library Federation Clay Shirky, Internet consultant and adjunct professor, Interactive Telecommunications Program, New York University Abby Smith, director of programs, Council on Library and Information Resources Winston Tabb, dean of university libraries, The Johns Hopkins University Karin Wittenborg, university librarian, University of Virginia Lee Zia, lead program director, National Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics Education Digital Library Program, National Science Foundation. Also invited but unable to attend were Lorcan Dempsey, vice president for research, OCLC, and Jerry McDonough, digital library development team leader, New York University. Prior to the meeting, these background readings were distributed: Digital Library Aggregation Services: A Report to the Digital Library Federation, prepared by Martha L. Brogan, consultant, September 2003 Draft Framework for a Distributed Open Digital Library, prepared by the Digital Library Federation Distributed Library Initiative Committee, 27 May 2003. Introduction Ms. Lougee opened the meeting as co-chairperson and facilitator with Ms. Marcum. Using slides, she explained that the meeting's purpose was to refine, for presentation to the Steering Committee of the Digital Library Federation, a proposal to create a distributed open digital library (temporarily designed by the acronym DODL). The library would be "distributed," she said, by leveraging federated collections, without unsustainable overhead, and taking federation to the next level; and the library would be "open" by enabling users to download content into local systems for integration with other resources and recombinant uses. The library would be user-focused by providing richer and less frustrating access to, and interaction with, shared content, and by making holdings easier to access, manipulate, enrich, and incorporate into academic and pedagogical practices, services, and tools. The library also would be library-focused by fostering interdependence at the data level between libraries, improving the economics of production, improving service though a highly functional, layered service model, and allowing integration of content for customized audiences. In the past, Ms. Lougee continued, libraries have shared content at a superficial level. The DODL would promote a large aggregation of content rather than thematic projects. It would need mechanisms for co-developing services and tools and would need a framework to incorporate rights for free and protected resources. The DODL goals would be to create a framework for shared activity, to catalyze collaboration among shareholders, to develop extensible architecture, to generate, facilitate, and evaluate use, and to engage potential funding agencies. Concerns about Participation Ms. Wittenborg began the discussion by remarking that, while the DLF has done wonderful work in such areas as standards development, the content digitized so far has been a trickle, and scholars are demanding much more. Noting that not every institutions will participate in the DODL, she urged that believers in it move forward with it despite obstacles, and that participation not be limited to DLF member institutions. Mr. Lucier agreed, but called for more work on the process of getting library directors to buy into the DODL concept. Content issues, which are key, he said, are insufficiently emphasized in the draft proposal, which now is not compelling. A strong though not necessarily large core of DLF members needs to move ahead and achieve some success within a reasonable time. Mr. Tabb, noting that institutions may participate in the DODL in different ways, asked for a better explanation in the document of what institutions may bring to the DODL and what they are being asked to agree to do. Institutions that cannot or will not contribute need reassurance that DLF members do not have to do so. Mr. Seaman reminded the group that, earlier, DLF members reached a general consensus that, generically, DODL was worth doing, even if some institutions are not ready to contribute. In response to a suggestion by Mr. Lucier that concerns about DODL be identified, the following emerged:
Observations followed that the concerns seemed small, but people needed positive reasons to put them aside; that the concerns are similar to those that arose when OCLC and RLG began; and that people have assumed that the things they do on their own could somehow, magically, come together. Can commitment to federation be sustained? Concerned that no decision would be made, Mr. Tabb called for discussing how, not whether, to develop the DODL. Ms. Smith suggested that concerns could be allayed if the focus of the DODL's development is on users, on the advancement of learning, and on convincing libraries that their investments will not be lost. Consensus was fairly high within the DLF that libraries could provide better user service by sharing collections, Mr. Seaman said; and Ms. Mandel remarked that getting support for building local content is easier if it is seen as contributing to a larger project. Other participants reiterated that institutions could take part in phases without be required to make an initial contribution, but that an educational challenge exists: institutions need to see clearly what a commitment to the DODL would mean. Mr. Lynch said that making tangible what DODL participation means to institutions will require recognition that the DODL collection needs a critical mass or users will not come to it; so consensus will be needed about subject matter to which institutions will give priority for digitization. Mr. Flecker expressed uncertainty about whether the DODL would be a place to come to or, instead, a facilitator for the use of digital objects in various services. User Perspectives The group then turned to a session on user perspectives, moderated by Ms. Smith. She remarked that all libraries serve users, who will look elsewhere if they do not find credible, authentic, persistent, and accessible resources. Users are less concerned than libraries about branding resources. Closer collaboration in the DODL's development is needed with scholars, though their interest tends to be limited. They assume that the content they desire is available and want convenient access to it. In the ensuing discussion, observations were made that scholars do not want to go to multiple sites to find content they need, that they do not regard building readily accessible digital resources as part of their job, that much content has been built in respond to individual professors' requests, which makes some scholars feel that substantial content already is available, and most tend to be naïve about what will be required to build a substantial digital library for the future. Mr. Lucier said that the development document does not need to be compelling to scholars but to DLF members. Scholars already think that libraries have the capacity for a DODL. We know what we have to do, he continued, but we don't know where we are with the technology, what the milestones should be, and which institutions can lead in developing the technology that will make possible compelling services of use in making access easier. Ms. Smith said that, in service delivery, libraries can asset leadership and do branding, and the compelling argument is that contributors of content to the DODL will get back from it access to a larger pool of material of benefit to their own faculties and students. Mr. Brantley asked how the group was conceiving the kinds of digital content to be developed. Would the DODL provide scholars with shared databases as well as manuscript texts and images? Would the DODL make possible a richer kind of content access? A discussion followed about whether, as once proposed, the DODL should start with content for scholars in the humanities, who are underserved, but for whom some of the larger collections digitized by DLF members have been developed. The DODL could focus on some subject area in great demand, Ms. Wittenborg suggested, then pick a project and seek expert advice about its feasibility and cost. Mr. Choudhury observed that technical requirements differ for different kinds of content formats, and that humanists and scientists differ in the materials they use. He asked, are we drafting a call for proposals, to be financed from the DLF capital fund? Others responded that costs cannot now be calculated because the DODL document does not spell out what the DODL will need, but is more an identification of the high-level, functional things the DLF wishes to achieve, a framework for the parts, from which calls for proposals might be developed. If an attainable next step were to be identified, then one could determine which institutions within the DLF were capable of carrying it out, and whether the capital fund (which Mr. Seaman said contains approximately $604,000) could be used for such a purpose. Mr. Tabb proposed stipulating that the DODL's content scope be the humanities, as currently defined by the National Endowment for the Humanities. Others agreed that much humanities content already has been digitized, that there is user demand for it, that concentrating on it could be phase one with the understanding that other fields might be included later, that much content still would be needed, but that a first project could be started in the humanities, with specified goals for what exactly it would provide historians, for example, by the end of the DODL's first three years. Service Considerations At this point, the group turned to service considerations in a session moderated by Mr. Shirky. He described work under way for the National Digital Information Infrastructure and Preservation Program headed by the Library of Congress. He elucidated the importance of metadata development for interoperability between information systems and institutions and identified difficulties posed by metadata differences, emphasizing differences between "described data," which are determined by human judgment, and "derived data," which can be obtained with little human judgment. He introduced some cautions about expecting to transfer and preserve data long-term without semantic loss, about the feasibility of centrally collecting content to store as opposed to helping originating organizations do it, and about the inverse relationship between the size of a network and the richness of metadata that it can handle. He distinguished between back-end interoperability, in which participating institutions share data, and front-end interoperability, in which data appears unified to users rather than from multiple sources. With which kind of interoperability would the DODL start, or would it explore both? Additional considerations arose in the ensuing discussion. Should the DODL begin as a research project or a production project, in which the DLF would take advantage of "low hanging fruit," using already digitized content. Will tradeoffs be necessary between content aggregation and presentation in the DODL's development? What are the minimum, affordable requirements for shareable content? Is Borrow Direct (a program in which Ivy League universities use e-mail to provide rapid book borrowing and delivery service) a useful model? What lines of development have the best chance currently of producing progress? How can the DODL's technological needs best be explained to decision makers? Mr. Shirky and Mr. Brantley described current difficulties in transmitting metadata and in verifying the identity of digital objects transmitted between institutions. Others suggested that the user needs a "storefront" (like an ATM) for accessing content, with search capability as the core function, and with some degree of results presentation so that users could see if they want what they have found. Mr. Ockerbloom additionally described technical needs but suggested starting with what digital librarians already know how to do and adding functionality. Differences of opinion emerged about whether, in the first phase, the DODL should show anything to users that they cannot "repurpose locally," and whether users of the DODL should be allowed to know if content items exist to which access is denied. Librarians present argued for "total openness" with scholars, who "want to know what's there" regardless. Differences of opinion also arose about whether the DODL should be seen as focused on content or on transference. Some thought that simply developing means of exchanging content was insufficient without a concept of who and what the content was for, and that the DODL needed enough content to have meaningful impact on scholarship and learning. Digitize material now available may not be what scholars most need. Others thought that collection building could and would continue, but that the DODL needed to find ways to transfer and share it more deeply. Some participants spoke of DODL possibilities as ranging from simply building a catalog of content available now ("a project of use, not discovery") to creating an entirely new interface for content sharing, which would require research to deal with hard technical issues. Consensus seemed to emerge that whichever focus were paramount, both content and transference needed development, and that the time had come to move beyond pilot projects. What Next? After lunch, the discussion resumed with Ms. Marcum as moderator. What, she asked, is the most productive thing to work on? Mr. Lucier suggested that the political process is critical, that the Steering Committee would need to trust that major issues had been dealt with and practical steps identified. Three things are important, he said: (1) we want to move the DLF to a next step of development so that it remains meaningful; (2) this will result in a larger body of content of importance to humanities scholars; and (3) we will create tools to share content so that people can interact with the content more deeply. Ms. Wittenborg agreed that this would need explaining to the Steering Committee before the next DLF meeting. In the ensuing discussion, views were expressed that a development project would be more meaningful than a research project, that there is a need to share content in the humanities, that meaningful access to what already has been digitized could be valuable, and that bodies of content such as the American Memory collection at the Library of Congress are available to work on. Technologists in the group, however, expressed concern that the initial scope of the DODL project seemed to be getting enlarged and amorphous, and wondered whether institutions are even willing to share. Mr. Flecker and Mr. Lynch suggested that analysis is needed of what sharing means; moving objects between systems raises many questions, particularly if one institution is trying to speak to another's users; and currently institutions have no way to match up how they describe their collections. Also, the degree of difficulty varies with format and academic field. Sharing, said Mr. Lynch, may need to be more than cross-institutional delivery; creating a collective resource to which people can contribute is different from resource distribution. Mr. Detweiler suggested working on some particular body of content to begin collaborative development. Ms. Mandel called for a series of explorations of functions such as browsing and presentation that digital librarians already know need work. Technological Considerations The group then turned to a session on technology, moderated by Mr. Lynch. He said that he had heard three different things that the DLF should be doing. (1) The DLF is in a good position to explore, without great cost, assumptions about what is needed for the DODL and which aspects the DLF can deal with, including whether needed tools are in scope for the DLF or should be left to the market place and the academic discipline groups to develop. (2) The DLF could develop a big, highly functional content system, a universal catalog, requiring common agreements and resource choices. (3) The DLF could undertake a digitization program for systematic collections development. Additionally, DLF libraries could produce a federated service by coupling their physical catalogs with a digitize-on-demand service for scholars, who would request the digitization of materials of use to them. Is the problem now, Mr. Lynch asked, one of content availability or of content "find-ability"? Mr. Shirky noted that "search-ability" involves issues both of delivery and of policy. The DODL might start by identifying the simplest thing that could possibly work, which would be something combining open policy with ease of delivery. In the ensuing discussion, participants said that re-purposing content is difficult within institutions' systems, let alone between them, but that external connections can encourage internal connections; and that most digital material used by DLF institutions do not come from them, so a DODL collection would need to extend beyond them. Mr. Flecker said that two levels of development, undertaken in parallel, would be useful: (1) building up simple access, and (2) exploring the sharing of objects, format by format and discipline by discipline. Mr. Lynch suggested that the Coalition for Networked Information might collaborate with the DLF in exploring "deep sharing" requirements. Others suggested that workshops could be valuable to deal with issues in the second developmental area, that technology issues could be dealt with first and then policy issues, that exploratory work could start in a discipline with relatively simple digital objects, and that American history and literature offered an existing pool of content and an identifiable body of users. Whatever the approach, Mr. Seaman said, the need now is not to produce another year of reports but to learn by doing. Mr. Tabb recommended two complementary tracks, one towards creation of a national digital humanities library covering all of the humanities, and the second towards creation of a DLF portal for user access. Ms. Mandel, while recommending that the DODL not be called a national library, suggested making digital collections expansion a third track and involve scholar-partners. Mr. Lucier said that collections development was an integral component of overall DODL development and that international partners would be necessary to provide enough content. Ms. Proffitt described how content is being made available in a free Web service through the "Cultural Materials" project of the Research Libraries Group, with which Ms. Mandel suggested collaboration. Mr. Shirky wondered if a DLF portal would compete with DLF members' portals, and who would take the calls from DLF portal users. In response to other questions about whether the DLF would have to run a portal, Mr. Lynch suggested that a finding system could be developed without administration by the DLF itself. Ms. Proffitt suggested that such a system would need an authoritative storefront. Alternative views received expression about whether to call the DODL a Humanities Digital Library with a collections component, a finding system, and partners beyond the DLF, or a Digital Library for the Humanities, or Digital Resources for the Humanities. Also debated was whether any such aspiration was too high for now, misleading people into expecting its completion soon. Instead, the DLF might embark on an initiative to develop just a finding system for a digital humanities library, but that aspiration seemed to some too low. The group in general agreed, however, that development of collections and a finding system were linked. After a brief discussion of whether to stress content sharing or not in explaining the DODL concept, suggestions were made to engage one or more consultants to describe specifications for each part or, alternatively to establish implementation committees of DLF library directors who could bring in technical people or other consultants. After additional comments about process, Ms. Marcum and Ms. Lougee, as co-chairs, concluded that the design committee would use what it had heard at this meeting to decide what to take to the DLF Steering Committee, and would consult further with individuals in the group in shaping the proposal. The meeting was then adjourned. Respectfully submitted, Gerald George, recorder 13 October 2003
|
Copyright © 2004 by the Digital Library Federation
Last updated:
