By Andrew K. Pace
American Libraries Columnist
andrew_pace@ncsu.edu
By Andrew K. Pace
American Libraries Columnist
andrew_pace@ncsu.edu
Head of Information Technology
North Carolina State University Libraries, Raleigh
Column for September 2006
It’s hardly original to suggest that one of the goals of a digital library is to collect, describe, preserve, and provide access to (usually) digital content. In this context, the goal of Institutional Repositories seems less lofty—that is, primarily to collect and preserve the intellectual output of one’s own institution.
Once getting used to the idea that the term itself is capitalized (perhaps to make it easier to refer to them as IRs), it’s even less original to make fun of the concept’s awful name, but that horse left the barn a long time ago. The only possible way to rescue IR from its moniker is to productize the service and call it something else. Another way would be to just start building repositories.
Round and round we go
I’ve often argued that the nature of library technology discussions and problems is circular; iterative would be a nicer way to put it, so that we do not feel like we are constantly chasing our tails. Many of the debates heard 20–30 years ago about microfilm and preservation have replayed themselves in debates over digital preservation. Discussions about IR are reminiscent of the inadequacies of the online catalog and its inability to deal with anything other than monographic content. What does one put in a repository?
IRs have allowed libraries to turn their attention to the digital collection and the description and preservation of, and access to, all the stuff with which the catalog cannot deal very well—scholarly articles, theses and dissertations, pre-prints, post-prints, and the like. Institutional Repositories tend to distinguish themselves by being primarily the focus of academic libraries. Moreover, most IRs require a module that supports self-submission or publication by that institution’s scholars. Many organizations further distinguish IRs from more broadly defined “digital repositories,” that is, all the rest of the stuff—locally held collections, digitally born materials, etc.—that require systems for search and retrieval.
Confused yet? Just wait. Some draw yet another distinction, the line between IRs and digital asset management systems: The latter don’t necessitate a “collection”—every digital object represents a discrete item. Did I mention that e-books (and their associated media files, distinct chapters, and complicated digital rights management) are a whole ’nother wad of gum? Don’t even get me started on records management systems.
Common ground
The thing is, from a technology perspective, this shouldn’t be as complicated as it has become. (Easy for me to say.) The question that systems librarians asked about the ILS 10 years ago—“Why can’t the catalog accommodate all these new resources?”—rings true today in the common groan, “How can there not be one solution for all this digital stuff?”
Many vendors would love to tell you that there is. ILS vendors waded cautiously into the digital repository waters before IRs were firmly on the scene. A well-established IR community primarily based on open source software applications, such as DSpace and FEDORA, has given vendors a great opportunity to commercialize the service for organizations that lack the resources to support “free” software.
SirsiDynix (when it was still Sirsi) slightly rebranded its digital collections database, Hyperion, as the Hyperion Digital Media Archive. The addition of Dynix added Horizon Digital Library, powered by PTFS digital archiving solutions, to the portfolio of choices offered by the combined company. A hosted solution is also available. As part of a large rebranding effort that started this summer, Endeavor Information Systems recently replaced ENCompass for Digital Collections with its revamped repository software, Curator.
Innovative Interfaces and Ex Libris continue to rely on their own robust systems. Innovative has several options for managing digital assets with MetaSource and its suite of harvesting, metadata schemes, and media management tools. They also introduced Symposia as an IR solution last year. Ex Libris continues to improve Digitool with a firm commitment to digital library standards and interoperability. VTLS has taken a much different approach with its embrace of the open source tool
FEDORA to create VITAL, which was recently chosen by Oxford University Library Services.
Secondary publishers and middleware providers want in on this action as well. ProQuest, posited as the “quick-and-easy” way to build an Institutional Repository, created Digital Commons@, powered by Berkeley Electronic Press or “bepress.” Bepress is also used by the very popular Escholarship Repository initiated by the California Digital Library for the University of California system, housing over 13,000 papers.
On its way to building a database of digital content for libraries, Ebrary hit upon the idea of marketing its sophisticated platform to organizations for managing their digital assets. OnDemand is used by several organizations, including Stanford University, McGraw-Hill, and American Libraries. OnDemand could even have potential as an IR platform.
After all is said and done, I’m having one of those clear-as-mud moments. Suffice it to say that there might just be a couple of dozen ways to skin a cat—and I will likely get in trouble for not pulling out every feline pelt here. IRs are a challenge for libraries, as are digital repositories and asset management systems. We’re not really used to doing a lot of collecting and hosting of digital resources without the publisher or platform middleman.
For many libraries, the problem is what to do first—build the collections or buy/build something to store them in. Investing in digital resource software can sometimes feel like building a garage years before you buy a car to put in it. If you’re building the car, though, a garage will certainly help.
Contracts and agreements
West Palm Beach (Fla.) Public Library, replacing Auto-Graphics Impact/Verso.
Clovis-Carver (N.Mex.) Public Library, upgrading from Galaxy; Franklin-Springboro (Ohio) Public Library, replacing SirsiDynix’s Dynix Classic; Greenville (Ohio) Public Library, upgrading from Galaxy; Hardin County (Ohio) District Library, upgrading from Galaxy; Plattsmouth (Nebr.) Public Library, replacing Follett.
Announcements
Pasco County (Fla.) Library System, replacing SirsiDynix DRA Classic.
Alliances and acquisitions