1 / 15

Utility of an OAI Service Provider Search Portal

This article discusses the utility and usability of an OAI Service Provider Search Portal that aggregates cultural heritage metadata. It explores strategies for working with heterogeneous metadata and presents the results of a pilot user study with student teachers. The article concludes with recommendations for improving the portal based on user feedback.

tommiel
Télécharger la présentation

Utility of an OAI Service Provider Search Portal

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Utility of an OAI Service Provider Search Portal ________________ JCDL 2003Rice University, Houston, TexasMay 29, 2003____________________By Sarah L. Shreeves, Christine Kirkham, Joanne Kaczmarek, Timothy W. ColeUniversity of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

  2. Univ. of Illinois OAI Metadata Harvesting Project(http://oai.grainger.uiuc.edu) • Funded by Andrew W. Mellon Foundation (2001-2003) • Create & demonstrate OAI harvesting tools • Build portal to aggregated cultural heritage metadata • Initially – For testing purposes • Long-term – As a sustained resource • Investigate using EAD metadata in OAI context • Investigate usability & utility of aggregated metadata

  3. Content of the repository • 1.1 million original Dublin Core records • Representing born-digital and analog resources • 2.5 million including records derived from EAD finding aids • Metadata originating from 39 data providers • Academic & digital libraries, museums, archives • Included metadata from 580 institutions

  4. Challenges of Aggregated Metadata • Variations in use of DC • Many different controlled and local vocabularies in use • Granularity: a record may describe a collection of coins — or one coin

  5. Strategies for working with heterogeneous metadata • Normalize some aspects (dates) using scripts • Build indexes based on type of resource (image, text, physical object), not institution • Derive item-level descriptions from 8,000 EAD finding aids ________________ • Create metadata for interoperability

  6. Original interface • Portal has two search pages—simple (keyword) and advanced.

  7. Pilot user study with student teachers • 23 users in honors-level C&I class • Assignment: Use the site in preparing a lesson plan (high school social studies) __________ • Introduced to “aggregated metadata” concept • Focus group interviews conducted • Students’ papers examined • Transaction logs analyzed

  8. Results 1. Users expected that links in all search results would point to digital objects • Some records point to finding aids • Some records point to collection’s web site • Some records represent analog objects 2. Users unable to make use of search results • Keyword searches produced 1000s of results, unranked • Advanced search (with limits) rarely used 3. Owning institutions accorded equal credibility

  9. What does “online access” mean? • To librarian & curator • To student teacher

  10. Response to test results • EAD-derived records moved to separate portal • All-analog collections excluded • Categories of resource types reduced to 3: • Images and Video • Text, Sheet Music, and Websites • Museums and Archival Collections

  11. Revised interface • Keyword + advanced search on one page • Clarify “online access” • Natural language in Boolean operators

  12. Revised search results • Link goes to finding aid or collection page? “Learn more.” • Link displays object? “View item.” • Subj/Desc expanded

  13. Conclusions • Distinction between portal and data providers unimportant to users • Need better definitions of “online access” • More consistent practice in metadata authoring will help users • Continue testing with users

  14. Related projects • LSTA-funded Yellow Brick Roads: Developing a Digital Shortcut to Statewide Information (http://frasier.library.uiuc.edu) • IMLS Digital Collections and Content(http://imlsdcc.grainger.uiuc.edu) • Build registry of NLG collections with digital content • Build repository of NLG item-level metadata • Research metadata practice & develop models for aggregating metadata from diverse projects • See also http://dli.grainger.uiuc.edu/

  15. Contacts • Univ. of Illinois OAI Metadata Harvesting Project (http://oai.grainger.uiuc.edu) • Timothy W. Cole, Principal Investigatort-cole3@uiuc.edu • Sarah Shreeves, IMLS DCC Project Coordinatorsshreeve@uiuc.edu • Joanne Kaczmarek, Archivist for Electronic Records jkaczmar@uiuc.edu • Christine Kirkham, Graduate Assistantckirkham@uiuc.edu

More Related