MoPark, METS, and More:

Managing the Virtual Future in the Loch Lomond and Trossachs National Park - and learning along the way.

Presentation to LIDA 2005

Dennis Nicholson, Director

Centre for Digital Library Research,

University of Strathclyde, Glasgow,

Scotland

Key focus: Interpretive Journeys, multimedia presentations on story of Park’s landscape, history, culture, flora, fauna

Aims widerNot just PDAs: audio-only tours, ‘talking boards’, leaflets, repository of all digital / non-digital resources

Aims wider:

Overview [1]

Metadata Options Appraisal Loch Lomond and the Trossachs

National Park Interreg III Mobility and National

Parks Project MoPark http://www.mopark.net

Overview [2]

About MoPark and the MOA MOA to MOA Phase1 (and why) A look at an Interpretive Journey Why METS, Rest of the framework DAMS Version #1 Next Steps Experiment and Learn

The best laid plans…

Plan: 8.5 days MOA to feed into: DAMS design, creation; Create

metadata; Manage repository Reality: Longer, phased MOA:

Lifetime of MoPark; METS-based framework feeding DAMS design and framing detailed MOA

But overall plan vindicated

Current State of Play

Metadata Options Appraisal: Early work (Phase I) established

the need for a phased approach Phase I complete:

Framework based on METS agreed Outline requirements for DAMS as regards

metadata handling established

Phase II (specifying the detailed requirement) in early stages

Examples of real IJs now exist

Metadata Options Appraisal Requirement:

To examine – and make recommendations on - the needs of the Loch Lomond and Trossachs National Park as regards the metadata, metadata standards, and metadata management required for the competent handling of digital materials both now and in the future.

To cover three levels of need: MoPark project (Level 1); Extension to other topics and Park areas (Level 2); Wider Park beyond MoPark (Level 3)

What we found:

Sufficient detail available to enable the general needs of the project and Park in respect of digital object metadata and DAMS functionality to be specified.

Specifying the need in detail more difficult at this stage – the need for a phased approach

Why a phased approach?

A need for: A detailed examination of actual

interpretive journeys; components More staff experience of the

associated issues and problems An in-depth survey other digital

objects, their usage, life-cycles.

Phased Approach…

Phase 1: Would set out a framework within

which the full requirement could develop

Propose a flexible development path to facilitate the determination of the full requirement

Phase II Would implement the development

path

Framework

Three elements: Adopt METS Metadata Encoding

and Transmission Standard Adopt national and international

standards relevant to the field. Cooperate with other key players

on inter-repository interoperability

Early Stages of Phase II

Have, are following the framework and the flexible development plan

Have initial METS-based DAMS Have initial decisions on some

attributes and have populated the DAMS with them

Have real IJs, components, and structures; the rest is detail but…

Why METS?; Feel for an Interpretive Journey

Inchcailloch – an island on Loch Lomond

Cover page of 1st Interpretive Journey; controls

Map of Inchcailloch, click-able option throughout, possible to zoom then navigate, key, challenges, METS

G

F E

D

C

B

4

2

x

7

6

5

x

x

x

INCHCAILLOCH

CLAIRINSHThe Kitchen

BALMAHA PIER

Figure 1: Schematic diagram illustrating Inchcailloch journey

Numbers refer to interpretive points on plan

A

H

Journeys; Stops; Joint stops; different start + end points, Solar boat

Stop features: Highland boundary fault; animated GIF; audio

Once upon a time; dropdowns of animals and sounds, guess the animal from the sound etc

History and industry

Plus: Videos, animations, games, 3D maps and more

Etc.

Why METS?

METS: Designed for complex digital objects Provides for all of the metadata types

likely to be required within MoPark and (in time) the Park generally

Sufficiently flexible to allow it to meet the detailed requirements drawn out in Phase II of the appraisal.

Provides a good guide to the areas we need to address

METS Overview; Details; all the metadata types needed

Why METS?

METS provides for: Descriptive metadata (MARC, Dublin Core

etc) at both individual object and composite (i.e. Interpretive Journey) level,

Administrative metadata (technical metadata, rights metadata, analogue source information, digital object files provenance),

Files metadata (for files containing content which comprise the electronic versions of the digital object)

Why METS?

METS provides for: Structural Map metadata to outline the

hierarchical structure of a digital library object such as an Interpretive Journey

Structural Links metadata to allow recording of links between hierarchical levels

Behaviour metadata to allow metadata on ‘executable behaviours’ to be encoded

Why METS?

A Safe Path… METS framework provides for all of the

complex issues faced by MoPark; the Park It is supported or recognised as important

by groups like L of C, JISC, Digital Library Federation, British Library, SLIC

A DAMS built round METS (and MoPark) ought to be flexible enough to meet future Park needs in areas such as FoI, Maps, IPR handling, Educational packages, promotional materials control, outreach

Screen to enter metadata categories, sub-categories, attributes etc

Screen to enter asset types – images, videos, IJ, IJ stops; also composite or not, metadata categories & associated file types

Component objects, buttons for approval process – legality, metadata quality, and so on

Composite objects: stops, full journeys

Screen to enter IJ metadata; most METS top levels

Screen to enter descriptive IJ metadata

Screen to enter IPR and structural map IJ metadata (still embryonic)

What’s next?

Refining the metadata requirement for IJs and other materials – still a major task; finalising descriptions

Writing a procedures and training manual; metadata content standards

Improving DAMS functionality and ergonomics

Identifying huge amount of work that needs to be done in future

MoPark: Experiment & Learn

MoPark didn’t go to plan at MOA level

However, the high-level plan was to use the project to experiment and learn – which is what they have done in the metadata area

A good example of how projects can be valuable preliminaries to major organisational commitments

Further Information

METS website is at http://www.loc.gov/standards/mets/.

Contact: d.m.nicholson@strath.ac.uk CDLR: http://cdlr.strath.ac.uk/

Questions?