 |
 |
I keep meaning to spend some time to write a message with some good examples and explanations of what we are doing, but I'm not sure when I'll have time so I'm just going to send out this quick note for now. We are in the last phase of long migration from a mod_perl/AxKit/swish-e/DLXS based system to XTF, so I'm not sure of the best examples to show for all of this. Also, all the object viewers are being redesigned. http://oac.cdlib.org/ is the best example of a site powered (mostly) by the new platform. The results from the image search all go to METS pages. http://ark.cdlib.org/samples4.html has up to 20 random examples of METS from each of the PROFILEs that are in use on our system right now. Its designed to help in the QA of the transition, but it might be interesting to folks. The results from this search seem a little strange; but if you do an image search for copyright on OAC http://content.cdlib.org/search?style=oac-img&type-join=or&type=image+cartographic+mixed&fieldList=text+keywords&keyword=copyright You will see some examples of sub-object level MD showing up in the snippets. The 'better' examples of this (with full MODS at the sub object level) are still in the pipeline, but will probably be live by the end of the year. There are lots of ugly details I'm glossing over, but hopefully that gives you somewhere to start. -- Brian On Tue, 2005-11-29 at 11:17, Jody DeRidder wrote: > Hi, Brian (and others!) > > Thank you for your leads, and your considered thoughts. We are looking for > options for METS viewers and search/retrieval of mixed formats with > descriptive metadata. If possible, we would like to use (or build on) open > source software, so any suggestions you may have for what's available would > be welcome. > > In addition, we would love to see how your search/retrieval/display > interface works, so we can better judge what we want as an end product for > our own collections. Could you send a link or two as examples of what your > current interface has to offer? (I notice CDL has several > collections/services, and would like to know where to look to see what you > consider to be the best examples.) > > Melanie here is indeed developing METS with child metadata, (and child > OCR'd text for search & retrieval of textual images) and we struggle to > work out how best to deliver. :-) The software we are currently testing > may not be a workable solution. > > Thanks for any and all leads and suggestions! > > --jody > University of Tennessee > > > > > What we have done at CDL in our access repository based on xtf.sf.net is > > sort of like your option 3... The system we are using was designed for > > full text searching. If an object has a TEI or an EAD that is indexed, > > then the METS is mostly ignored at indexing. If the object is something > > like a photo scrapbook or a simple image with no TEI or EAD, then METS > > is indexed. The top level DMD (actually we cheat and assume the first > > DMD with xmlData is for the parent object) is turned into the dublin > > core metadata for the METS document as a whole; and where there is more > > DMD -- that is all indexed as if its the text of the document. This > > way, a metadata+text keyword search will find hits on words in the deep > > metadata and we will see "snippets" in the search results because our > > search results think they are hits in the text of the textsless > > document. I may be able to get it so that clicking on the faux-text hit > > in the snippet will open up the page viewer to the page where the hit is > > in the metadata. > > > > Some people have objected that this approach blurs the line between > > content and metadata because metadata is in the "text" index. I think > > this is only a temporary solution, ideally you could search across > > different levels of discovery granularity, and limit to specific fields > > at any level. > > > > Also, most of our METS are at the level of the individual item / photo / > > album with one descriptive record for the whole entity. One reason we > > went to METS was because people were not satisfied with searching EAD > > finding aids and having to dig down the description of subordinate > > components (dsc) to find the digitized item. They wanted an item level > > search of all the digital objects. Now that we have started to accept > > submissions of more complex METS, we are seeing more and more cases > > where significant portions of the dsc hierarchy has been moved to the > > METS structMap -- and we have the same issue of people wanting to search > > / retrieve on different levels of the hierarchy, because most of the > > item level cataloging is buried in deep metadata. > > > > -- Brian > > > > On Mon, 2005-11-21 at 06:46, mfeltner wrote: > >> I am working on a small cultural heritage collection that features a few > >> scrapbooks and photo albums from the early to mid-1900s. This collection is > >> the first at our institution to utilize METS for complex objects. Given how > >> new we are to METS, we're still feeling out how to make best use of it -- as > >> well as cope with the limitations of our digital content management > >> software. > >> > >> For each scrapbook/album, I am creating METS records featuring two levels of > >> descriptive metadata: (1) a parent DMD for the object as a whole; and (2) > >> child DMDs for the many individual photos/drawings on the pages. Our grant > >> project is particularly fortunate to have a historian on board, which has > >> allowed us to create rich descriptive records for most individual photos in > >> albums and scrapbooks. Perhaps the most important feature of these records > >> is > >> the identification of people in photos. These names are obviously best > >> captured in the child DMD for each photo, rather than the parent DMD. > >> > >> I am curious how others working with similar materials are utilizing the > >> many > >> descriptive metadata records within a single METS file. I would like to see > >> these records exploited to their fullest capacity for search and discovery, > >> but am unsure what would be the best scenario to make that happen. Our > >> system > >> breaks METS objects into their many component objects. What this means for > >> resource discovery is that child objects as well as parent METS objects are > >> searched and retrieved. So a search that matches a child DMD will retrieve > >> that component image file and child DMD, as well as the entire METS object > >> and > >> parent DMD. For those of you dealing with complex, image-based materials > >> like > >> albums and scrapbooks, how are you allowing your many DMDs to be searched > >> and > >> retrieved? > >> > >> Given our specific software in mind, it looks as if our collection may have > >> at > >> least three options: > >> > >> 1. Allow only parent DMDs to be searched/retrieved through resource > >> discovery, > >> but allow child DMDs to be viewed as the user pages through the METS object > >> as > >> a whole. > >> > >> This kind of functionality might be possible if we can deactivate > >> search/retrieval of child DMDs in our software. According to this scenario, > >> the child DMDs would *not* function as *access* points, but could provide > >> additional information if a user finds a particular photo/drawing for which > >> he/she would like more detail. One particular problem this raises is the > >> inability/difficulty of finding photos of specific people that are located > >> in > >> albums/scrapbooks through the search interface. For example, if one > >> searches > >> Roosevelt and a scrapbook contains a picture of Roosevelt, but that name is > >> only captured in a child DMD, resource discovery will not retrieve that > >> image > >> or scrapbook. > >> > >> 2. Allow both parent and child DMDs (and corresponding objects) to be > >> searched > >> and retrieved. > >> > >> This is the current functionality supported by our software. Using the > >> previous example of searching Roosevelt, this would result in both the > >> specific image of Roosevelt being retrieved (with this record indicating > >> that > >> this child object is part of a particular scrapbook), as well as the > >> scrapbook > >> as a whole. Even if the relationship to the parent is specified in the > >> child > >> DMD, do you think this could be confusing for users? > >> > >> 3. Allow both parent and child DMDs to be searched, but retrieve only the > >> parent METS object. > >> > >> Actually, I'm not even sure if this is possible in our software, but we can > >> always ask for enhancements, right? > >> > >> Using the Roosevelt example again, this would result in the full scrapbook > >> being retrieved for this query. The parent DMD for the scrapbook, however, > >> mentions nothing of Roosevelt, so this might result in confusion/frustration > >> for the user. They might interpret this as a false hit or otherwise get > >> tired > >> of paging through the scrapbook looking for a needle in a haystack, as it > >> were. > >> > >> Unfortunately, our software does not include functionality that would allow > >> the scrapbook to be retrieved but opened to the particular page on which > >> Roosevelt is pictured. This, to me, would be the best option, as access to > >> the individual item would be preserved, but the item would also never be > >> viewed outside its original context within the scrapbook. > >> > >> Any comments/feedback on these options would be greatly appreciated. Do any > >> of these three sound better/worse than the others? Can anyone think of > >> alternative scenarios that would better utilize our metadata and facilitate > >> access to important pieces of a whole? > >> > >> Many thanks, > >> Melanie > >> > >> -------------- > >> Melanie Feltner-Reichert > >> Digital Coordinator > >> IMLS Funded Digital Collection: > >> "From Pi Beta Phi to Arrowmont" > >> John C. Hodges Library > >> University of Tennessee > >> Knoxville, Tennessee > >> Email: [log in to unmask] > >