Dudczak, Adam

English

PSNC Institutional Repository

Access IT Training Portal which gives access to European cultural heritage http://europeana.eu Information comes from: Museums Archives Libraries Audiovisual collections Europeana functional specification distinguishes five group of future users: General User School Child Academic User (both students and teacher) Expert Researcher Professional user e.g. librarian, archivist, etc.  Each group has different skills and needs Different objectives: Looking for an answer to particular question Looking for entertainment One thing all end-users have in common  They want access to the Europeana full content through search and browse Other user activities may include: View and download a film footage Copy and paste information for a paper they are writing Create sets of preferred items Study details of high resolution reproduction of cultural object Upload a personal item Enrich the description of materials through tagging Other user activities may include (2): Search for information using simple/advanced/predefined queries Sharing information with friends Getting notifications about new objects from given thematic area Browsing through time dimension - timeline External applications will be able to access Europeana through set of public APIs e.g. content provider may get tags for their objects from Europeana Europeana will store objects’ metadata thumbnail link to content in original context First prototype version was enabled on 20.11.2008 Now Europeana gives access to over 5 million of digital objects distribute all over the Europe Europeana is a metadata directory access to the contents of the digital objects is made on the websites of their origin Main way of financial support for this initiative are projects co-funded by the European Commission Previously under eContentPlusprogramme Now CIP ICT-PSP - Theme 2: Digital Libraries1. European Digital Library – services2. European Digital Library – aggregating digital content in Europeana3. European Digital Library – digitising content for Europeana4. Open access to scientific information 5. Use of cultural heritage material for educationAthenaAPEnetBiodiversity HeritageLibraries EuropeEUScreenEuropeanFilmGatewayEuropeanaLocalEuropeanaTravel Musical Inst.Museums Online JudaicaEuropeanaThe European LibraryEuropeanaConnectEuropeana v.1.0ArrowPrestoPrimeEuropeana Ongoing projects Technical/organizational▪ Europena v1.0 ▪ Should result in a production-ready version of Europeana▪ Europeana Connect▪ Development of technologies necessary for the Europeana▪ PrestoPRIME▪ Long-term preservation of audiovisual materials Ongoing projects Content providers▪ APEnet – national archives▪ ATHENA – museums (national level)▪ BHL – Europe – biodiversity heritage library▪ EUscreen – TV materials▪ Europeana Connect – audio materials▪ Europeana Local – materials from local and regional institutions▪ Europeana Travel – travel, tourism, …▪ Judaica Europeana – influence of Jewish culture on European cities▪ EFG – movies/cinemaMore information at: http://group.europeana.eu/Rhine release Danube releaseEuropeana Version 1.0 Full services and functionalities Greater content Summer 2010       ▪ Rhine Release - 10 million items 2011▪ Danube Release - expect to double content 2012▪ 25 million items▪ Further growing content Prestigious initiative Endorsement from European Commission Erasmus Award 2009 Knowledge exchange with professional network Metadata standards Best practices Technological innovation Popularity among users   User survey results:▪ Loyal user base (60% of respondents visiting the site more  than 5 times); ▪ Overall positive ratings for Europeana features and functions Reaching out to users  Remain relevant Put content where people are Open up your marvelous collections Content remains within your organization Increase traffic to your site User interest in viewing items in original context 75% of Europeana user survey respondents thought it very useful to view the searched object in its original context.   Online User Survey 6-26 May 2009 3,204 completed Replies from 54 countries - 53% of replies from five countries Almost everyone expects to visit the site again –less than 1% says they will not revisit Main route to Europeana is from a paper or journal (47.4%), second most popular is a link from another web site (21%) Personal research is dominant reason (72.9%)• Majority rate features and functions as “good” or “excellent”. Around a third of all respondents only rate the general features and functions as “average”.Site navigation Good/excellent AveragePoor/verypoor 100Search functions Good/excellent AveragePoor/verypoor100Presentation ofresultsGood/excellent AveragePoor/verypoor100Ease of access tocontentGood/excellent AveragePoor/verypoor100 Content at launch: 4.7 million items from every domain, every EU member 3,500,000 images: photos, paintings, drawings, postcards, posters 1,000,000 texts: books, newspaper articles, manuscripts, letters 82,000 videos: movies, documentaries, TV broadcasts, public information films 14,000 sounds: cylinders, 78rpm discs, radio, field recordings Choose a metadata aggregator Map your metadata to Europeana Semantic Elements schema Normalize the metadata Test the metadata with Europeana Publish the metadata in the „production” version of EuropeanaContent level(…)Local/regional level(1000s)National level(10ths)European level(1)Europeana Information SpaceNational archives(APEnet)National libraries(TEL)Aggregatedrepositories(EuropeanaLocal)ArchivesCollections and objectsLibariesCollections and objectsMuseumsCollections and objectsNational museums(ATHENA)Millions of objectsEuropeanaContent providersMetadata aggregatorsEuropeanaContent providersMetadata aggregators According to the present version of Europeana Outline Functional Specification tasks for the aggregator are:1. To gather the information about content providers and their information systems2. To gather the metadata of objects that should be visible in Europeana3. To remove duplicates, clean-up the metadata, normalize it and enrich it4. To confirm the accessibility of digital objects5. To expose the aggregated metadata for Europeana via the OAI-PMH protocolhttp://dev.europeana.eu/public_documents/EDLnet%20D2.5_Outline_Functional_Specifications20090301_version%201.7_consWithoutHistory_lossless.pdf Metadata schema required by the Europeana Current version  is 3.2.2, 18/01/2010 http://version1.europeana.eu/c/document_library/get_file?uuid=c56f82a4-8191-42fa-9379-4d5ff8c4ff75&groupId=10602  Metadata Mapping & Normalisation Guidelines for the Europeana Prototype  Version 1.2.1, 18/01/2010 http://version1.europeana.eu/c/document_library/get_file?uuid=58e2b828-b5f3-4fe0-aa46-3dcbc0a2a1f0&groupId=10602 ESE ver. 3.2.2 consists of:A. 15 Dublin Core elements+ 22 Dublin Core qualifiers / termsB. 11 Europeana-specific elements Majority of elements from group A should be harvested from aggregated digital library Some of these elements may be extracted/mapped from other elements It depends on the metadata standards used in particular digital library Majority (all?) of elements from group B may be extracted from A group elements or is obvious Title  Alternative Creator Subject Description  Table of Contents Publisher Contributor Date  Created Issued Type Format  Extent Medium Identifier Source Language Relation  isVersionOf; hasVersion;  isReplacedBy; replaces;  isRequiredBy; requires; isPartOf; hasPart;  isReferencedBy; references;  isFormatOf; hasFormat; conformsTo isShownBy; isShownAt (Europeana) Coverage  Spatial Temporal Rights Provenance (DC Terms) Please note that the DC and Europeananamespaces both have Type and Languageelements When making mapping decision, providers are also asked to consider how their data will perform in response to „who, what, where and when” questions Elements whose values will be provided by Europeana User tag▪ tag created by a user through the Europeana interface Language▪ language assigned to the resource with reference to the Provider Year▪ This is a 4 digit year in the Gregorian calendar (e.g. 1523), which is derived by Europeana from date values in the source metadata. Country▪ Country name URI▪ This is a record identifier for the object in the Europeana system. hasObject▪ Indicates the availability of thumbnails of digital objects for the Europeanasystem to understand and process them. Elements gathered from providers Unstored▪ Everything that was not mapped to other fields Object▪ Link to miniature/sample of an object Provider▪ Provider of this object (aggregator)▪ Name of institution should be placed in dc:source Type▪ Object type, one of: Text, Image, Video, Sound Required elements: europeana: provider, type, isShownAt orisShownBy Strongly recommended elements: dc: title, creator, contributor, date dcterms: alternative, created, issued Recommended elements: dc: coverage, description, language, publisher, source, subject, type dcterms: spatial, temporal, isPartOf Additional elements: dc: format, identifier, rights, relation dcterms: extent, medium, provenance, conformsTo, hasFormat, isFormatOf, hasVersion, isVersionOf, hasPart, isReferencedBy, references, isReplacedBy, replaces, isRequiredBy, requires, tableOfContents See examples from Annex A in “Metadata Mapping and Normalisation Guidelines for Europeana Prototype” Map as many as possible of the original source elements to the available ESE elements If it is not possible to map the source element to an appropriate ESE element then leave it unmapped or consider using europeana:unstored If possible use one of the more specific dcterms refinements  Remember that the semantic of the source term have to clearly correspond to the narrower term The persistent link to digital object and/or full information page should be given as a URL These may need to be constructed from metadata values and information external to the metadata. If it is difficult to decide which ESE element to map a source term to, consider how best to meet expectations of the user and the functionality of the system Where there are multiple values for the same element repeat the element for each instance of the value To ensure that your data will be meaningful when displayed in the new context consider adding a prefix or suffix.  e.g. “100 x 200” could become “100cm x 200cm” Currently, the Europeana portal cannot use BC, BCE or BP dates  Such dates should be retained in the mapped metadata (e.g. dc:date) in order to be present for future development of the portal. Date should be machine readable Textual time periods will display in a result list but cannot be represented in the Timeline or Date facet and should also be provided as numeric dates <localtimeperiod>17th century</localtimeperiod>  Transform and map also as <dc:date>1601</dc:date> and <dc:date>1700</dc:date> This element should be used to state the language of the digital object and should be repeated if the object has more than one language If there is no language aspect to the object (for instance, a photograph) then the element should be ignored The use of RFC 4646 is highly recommended Best practice is to use ISO-639-1 or ISO-639-2 Europeana recommends that the name of the content holder should be recorded using dc:source Thanks to this Europeana will show this information in the brief record display If multiple instances are to be provided containing different values it is suggested that they should be provided in a consistent order  Always put the name of the content holder first <dc:source>The British Library</dc:source>  <dc:source>ISBN 1-86197-612-7</dc:source> Resorces from Polish digital libraries are available in Europeana since 11th December 2009  More than 340 000 objects at the moment How it was done? According to the present version of Europeana Outline Functional Specification tasks for the aggregator are:1. To gather the information about content providers and their information systems2. To gather the metadata of objects that should be visible in Europeana3. To remove duplicates, clean-up the metadata, normalize it and enrich4. To confirm the accessibility of digital objects5. To expose the aggregated metadata for Europeana via the OAI-PMH protocolhttp://dev.europeana.eu/public_documents/EDLnet%20D2.5_Outline_Functional_Specifications20090301_version%201.7_consWithoutHistory_lossless.pdf To collect information about providers and their delivery systems Name and logo of a digital library, its website URL and the address of the OAI-PMH interface for digitized objects and objects planned for digitization Detailed description with list of participatinginstitutions Sample objects Basic statisitics To gather the metadata of objects that should be visible in Europeana Done with the OAI-PMH▪ In most cases we require the OAI-PMH interface▪ In really special cases we can do it in different way (e.g. Polish Internet Library) Now we harvest only Dublin Core Simple▪ Works on new national metadata schema started in September 2009 To remove duplicates, clean-up the metadata, normalize it and enrich Two types of duplication:▪ Duplicated metadata records describing the same digital object▪ Digital objects being a representation of the same physical object▪ Makes sense mostly in the context of libraries, where there may be several, practically identical  editions of the same book In museums and archives each object is unique De-duplication in the DLF is based on the metadata comparison with some similarity threshold▪ Around 0.2% of aggregated objects makes the list of the „potential duplicates”▪ Similar mechanisms are used for the prevention of duplicated digitization To remove duplicates, clean-up the metadata, normalize it and enrich On the DLF level there are automatically built dictionarieson the basis of aggregated metadata▪ Separately for each metadata element▪ Separately for each metadata language Differences between the metadata from various digital libraries have negative impact for the searching possibilities of the end-users That is why the metadata normalization is so important The basic analysis shows which elements are crucial and which should be easy to clean-up▪ The analysis was done in April 2009 on the metadata of 214 254 aggregated objectsDC elementNo. of uniquevaluesNumber of associationsAverage no. of occurrencesformat 39    209 789    5 379,2    language 195    210 529    1 079,6    type 822    211 816    257,7    rights 1 192    246 093    206,5    coverage 66    2 390    36,2    publisher 18 002    310 764    17,3    contributor 12 979    83 464    6,4    subject 78 440    438 871    5,6    relation 9 292    48 319    5,2    date 47 581    209 589    4,4    identifier 6 426    27 666    4,3    description 43 657    180 391    4,1    source 16 996    52 506    3,1    creator 21 908    67 503    3,1    title 210 745    227 039    1,1     Format In 99% of descriptions: MIME type▪ e.g. text/html, image/x.djvu Language In most cases: ISO 639-2 (pol, ger, lat, fre etc.) Sometimes one value „pol, ger” instead of „pol”, „ger” Rights Name of the institution which holds the original object Type …Values for „Type” (top 20)Number of objects with thevalue% of aggregatedobjects% of aggr. obj. (afterclean-up)czasopismo 44 709    20,9% 33,8%gazeta 32 921    15,4% 31,3%gazety 23 119    10,8%Czasopismo 20 965    9,8%książka 12 503    5,8%Gazeta 11 098    5,2%pocztówka 5 768    2,7%czasopisma 4 962    2,3%text 4 452    2,1%grafika 3 863    1,8%fotografia 3 596    1,7%artykuł z czasopisma 3 164    1,5% 2,6%artykuł 2 455    1,1%Czasopisma 1 710    0,8%dzienniki urzędowe 1 516    0,7%stary druk 1 222    0,6% 1,1%starodruk 1 221    0,6%rysunek 1 094    0,5%rękopis 1 062    0,5%mapa 1 028    0,5%Sum 85,1% 68,9% To remove duplicates, clean-up the metadata, normalize it and enrich Basic enrichment can be the creation of the Europeana specific metadata elements from :▪ Other Dublin Core fields▪ Additional information▪ e.g. used DL software – standard link structure Dates patterns analysis Basic measurement: length of DC:date value Top ten values covers 98,09% of all objectsLength No. Of occurences %4 92 606    44,03%10 82 182    39,07%9 12 833    6,10%6 5 133    2,44%11 4 772    2,27%5 2 420    1,15%13 2 038    0,97%7 1 975    0,94%8 1 484    0,71%16 866    0,41% Dates patterns analysis Looking for a pattern – step 1 Top ten patterns cover 93,79% of all objectsPattern No. Of occurences %DDDD 92 402    43,93%DDDD!DD!DD 81 162    38,59%DDDD!DDDD 9 029    4,29%!DDDD! 4 350    2,07%!ca DDDD! 3 219    1,53%!DDDD!DDDD! 2 208    1,05%DDDD! 1 783    0,85%DDDD!DD 1 354    0,64%!ante DDDD! 924    0,44%DDDD!D!DDDD 836    0,40% Dates patterns analysis Looking for a pattern – step 1 Top ten dc:date patterns covering 92,59% of all objectsPattern No. of Occurences %DDDD 92 402    43,93%DDDD.DD.DD 62 710    29,82%DDDD-DD-DD 18 287    8,69%DDDD-DDDD 8 935    4,25%[DDDD] 4 327    2,06%[ca DDDD] 3 208    1,53%[DDDD-DDDD] 2 202    1,05%[ante DDDD] 924    0,44%DDDD. 906    0,43%DDDD.DD 840    0,40%0500100015002000250030003500400045005000102213001343136913941411142514451458147114851497150915211533154515571569158115931605161716291641165316651677168917011713172517371749176117731785179718091821183318451857186918811893190519171929194119531965197719892001Basic attempts to identify date patternallowed to cover 98,32% of all objects

How to (and why) prepare a repository for Europeana?

http://lib.psnc.pl/Content/247/06-europeana.pdf

How to (and why) prepare a repository for Europeana?

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

PSNC Institutional Repository