Section 3: Equipment and Software

Hardware

• Server Management

  • DLXS Servers
    • UT Libraries currently maintains servers using DLXS and will continue to do so in the future.
    • Necessary migration of files within DLXS will be completed by the UT Libraries' DLC staff.
  • ContentDM servers
    • Option 1: UT’s Office of Information Technology
      • Tiffani has had a preliminary discussion with Chris Hodge (Email: chodge5@utk.edu) about this option. Given that other local institutions have also expressed an interest in having OIT provide hosting services for their digital collections, having VV included in the mix may be enough to make it worthwhile for OIT to undertake.
    • Option 2: An existing ContentDM site(s) assume this responsibility. Ken will talk with ContentDM sites around the state to determine the feasibility of this option.

       

• Server Configuration Options

  • Server configuration decisions are closely tied to which institution(s) is selected for maintaining the server(s).

  • Two options have been used by other statewide programs:

    • Purchase server software and 50 acquisition station licenses. This would put the burden of maintaining the server software (and possibly quality control?) on one institution. Indiana State Library has just started using this option.

    • Housed in a central location, the Multi-Site Server requires minimal setup and maintenance and is transparent to remote participating organizations. Participating organizations build and maintain local CONTENTdm collections as usual and Multi-Site Server Administrators simply designate which collections will be indexed by the Multi-Site Server.

• Digital Preservation

  • Do we still want or need digital preservation beyond the grant materials?

Software

• Open Source

  DLXS (from ADS report, Sept 29, 2007)

  • Background -- Currently using open-source software (DLXS)

    • The UT Digital Library Center (DLC) began using Digital Library eXtension Service (DLXS) in 2001 as a means of providing public access to its digital library collections. DLXS was developed by the University of Michigan and the program has been active since 1996. There are currently twenty-four research institutions around the world using DLXS to deliver digitized content. The DLXS prospectus can accessed at: http://www.dlxs.org/about/prospectus.html or for additional information, send e-mail to: dlps-info@umich.edu. This report provides pros and cons of using DLXS for web delivery of Volunteer Voices digitized collections. 

   

  •  Advantages

    • UT DLC has several years of experience developing collections using DLXS for a number of federally-funded IMLS grant projects.  Collections are in a format (XML) and scheme (MODS) that can be sustained on a long-term basis due to the use of an open standard.

    • DLXS allows for advanced metadata schemes (MODS, TEI, EAD) that provides a means of a full-text markup language and the ability to associate individual items with a standard finding aid record.  These features give users greater control of the discovery process by providing:

      • The ability to perform full-text searching of documents using Text Encoding Initiative (TEI)* tagging language.  TEI allows specific tagging that allows DLXS to perform actions on document sub-elements.  It also is an established standard that will easily migrate to newer content management systems in the future.
      • DLXS was designed to accept and deliver Encoded Archival Description (EAD)*, a widely adopted metadata standard in the archival community, used to describe archival collections by holding institutions.  Users can search collection-level records to identify a number of important facts about the collection as well as the holding institution.  EAD is a well established standard and will also migrate to newer content management systems in the future.  The use of well-established standards is an important aspect of a sustainable digital library program. 
    • UT Libraries currently has a commitment to use DLXS.  DLC is exploring alternative delivery systems (Fedora) for future use, however any decision to use another solution will require DLC migrate DLXS content to the newer content management environment.  
    • Most of the administrative suite of tools used by the project (AdminDB, Image Gallery, MODS Template) were designed to meet the SPECIFIC needs of the Volunteer Voices project.  ContentDM uses integrated back-end tools that may not offer specific requirements needed by Volunteer Voices.  This could mean that certain compromises will need to be made.  

   

  • Disadvantages

    • DLXS does not provide the necessary tools giving non-programmers the ability to contribute content.  The DLC developed a suite of software tools to serve this purpose although sustaining a locally-developed infrastructure will present significant challenges for DLC. 

    • Currently DLC only has one staff with the experience needed to build new collections using DLXS.  

    • DLC is considering other delivery systems for its future collection building.  This would require Volunteer Voices content as well as workflows be reworked. 

      • Staffing
      • Time
      • Workflow
      • Training 

StreetPrint Engine 3.0

Greenstone

• Advantages
  • Free Download
  • Dublin Core
  • Handles text, images, audio, video
  • Exceptionally easy to create collections
  • Uses PHP and MySQL
  • Easy to modify code
  • Easy to customize
  • Has comment tool built in
  • Can add as many DC fields as desired
• Disadvantages
  • Free Download
  • Dublin Core
  • No cross collection searching currently available
  • Must download separate application files for new collection (unless programmer can fix)
  • C

• Proprietary (from KM report, August 2007)

  • Background -- Proposed to switch to ContentDM
    • Although DLC put forth a tremendous amount of effort to make DLXS work in a distributed environment, we have found that the continued use of it would hinder our efforts to make Volunteer Voices sustainable. One alternative is to move from DLXS to ContentDM after the grant period ends in late 2008. Although the advantages of this move outweigh the disadvantages, questions remain about the ease with which records can be migrated, which institution(s) will take over the server responsibilities, and how purchase/maintenance costs will be funded.

   

  • Advantages
    • The strain on DLC staff will be reduced. The DLC could focus on the digital preservation component of Volunteer Voices.
    • Four of the digitization centers (Austin Peay, TLSA, MTSU, SETDA) are already using ContentDM. Not only should this make the transition to ContentDM for Volunteer Voices more workable, it spreads knowledge of the key software for the project across the state. Nashville Public Library and Appalachian Digital Library also use ContentDM.
    • The technical bar is much lower for ContentDM than for DLXS. ContentDM’s reputation for being easy to use, both for contributing institutions and endusers, has been confirmed by personal communications with staff from three collaborative digitization programs.
    • ContentDM has a large customer base and an active user’s group. There are over 800 members on the ContentDM listserv.
    • Data entry and processing should be simpler and quicker.
      • For instance, unlike DLXS, ContentDM allows copy/pasting.
      • Uploaded files are available as soon as they are approved and indexed by an administrator. This process would be quicker and require less manipulation by staff than has been the case with DLXS.
      • Both of these features should help attract and keep institutions as content partners.
    • On the face of it at least, it appears that training people how to enter metadata would be simplified.
    • Project staff and partners have not been pleased with the DLXS public interface. ContentDM, in contrast, offers an interface that is more intuitive, particularly for novice users. Many users will already be familiar with the ContentDM interface because of large number of ContentDM collections that are available. Need to determine: how have sites customized for the K-12 endusers?
    • Navigation problems in DLXS would require DLC time to fix, would not be an issue with ContentDM. But other navigation issues with ContentDM may arise.
    • Metadata can appear with full-size images, which makes it easier for the user to identify the contributing institution.

   

  • Disadvantages
    • Server maintenance would have to be taken over by an organization (OIT at UT or possibly one of the institutions running ContentDM for their own collections) that has not planned for that role. However, we can explore the options for making this change over the next year and a half.
    • Uncertainty about buy-in for annual maintenance costs. Who would pay these costs? Financial support from TennShare or TEL, as the latter is still so tightly linked to commercial databases.
    • A new team of digitization trainers will need to be formed. This could be a positive development, however, given the desire to get more people across the state involved.
    • The advanced text searching features of DLXS* are not present in ContentDM. At least 2 institutions (e.g., UVermont.) have cited the relatively weak text searching functionality of ContentDM as a reason for not selecting it. We need to explore this apparent weakness to make sure that it will not prevent Volunteer Voices efforts to serve its users (e.g., K-12 teachers/students).
      • Staffing
      • Time
      • Workflow
      • Training

 

*NOTE: Volunteer Voices is not currenlty using EAD or TEI.

 

Return to Sustainability Report

• Advantages
  • Free Download
  • Dublin Core
  • Handles text, images, audio, video
  • Exceptionally easy to create collections
  • Uses PHP and MySQL
  • Easy to modify code
  • Easy to customize
  • Has comment tool built in
  • Can add as many DC fields as desired
• Disadvantages
  • Free Download
  • Dublin Core
  • No cross collection searching currently available
  • Must download separate application files for new collection (unless programmer can fix)
  • Code has some bugs