survey of research libraries on aggregation of digital content kathy sadler, ucl plenary board...
TRANSCRIPT
Survey of Research Libraries on Aggregation of Digital Content
Kathy Sadler, UCL
Plenary Board MeetingBratislava, 8 May 2010
Purpose of the survey
Designed in association with LIBER to serve 3 purposes:
Provide a snapshot of aggregation activity and attitudes across Europe
Help inform development and sustainability of the EuropeanaTravel aggregator
Help inform the strategies of LIBER and Europeana
12 questions covering these topical areas:
Aggregation activity at country level
Europeana-feeding aggregators : Participation and Expectations
Perceived aggregation needs
Attitudes towards paying for aggregation services
Aggregation at country level
Survey emailed to all LIBER members and results reported December 2009
Report deliverable available from Outcomes area of EuropeanaTravel website
39 responses from 25 countries
62% academic and university libraries
38% national, regional libraries or represent national bodies
22 countries described at national level
14 described countries have a national cultural or cross-domain aggregator
5 countries are aggregating research or journals
Material based aggregations eg multimedia, manuscripts
Participation in existing aggregation services
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
Athena
BAM
Bernst
ein
BHL-Eur
ope
cIMeC
Cultur
aIta
lia
DIGM
AP
DISM
ARC
Ebooks
onDem
and
Europe
an F
ilm G
atew
ay
Europe
ana
Europe
ana
Conne
ct
Europe
ana
Loca
l
Europe
ana
Trav
el
EUScree
n
Gallic
a
Geheu
gen
van
Neder
land
HISPANA
INA.fr
JUDAIC
A
kultu
ra.h
r
Kulturp
ool
LNB
Mem
oria
Slov
aca
MIC
HAEL
Neum
ann
Kht.
NKP
Scran
The
Europ
ean
Archi
ve
The
Europ
ean
Libra
ry
Re
sp
on
de
nts
Already contribute Could contribute
Missing Aggregators
12 respondents suggested aggregators not supplied in the list on the survey
17 aggregators named
• 5 are national aggregators for country of origin
Several scientific and research aggregators named
• DRIVER and DART-EUROPE suggested several times
• Influence of research libraries amongst respondents
• Potential interest in Europeana expanding its cultural heritage remit
Reasons for non contribution to aggregation services
13; 13%
29; 27%
15; 15%
6; 6%
19; 19%
7; 7%
8; 8%
5; 5%We are already considering joining /negotiating to join
We were not aware of the aggregator inquestion
We have decided not to join
Technical reasons / lack of technicalresources
Lack of other resources
Policy decision
Copyright issues
Other issues
Reasons for non contribution (cont/d)
Interest in Europeana from beyond its existing partners
An academic library said:
“Europeana (all flavours): We tried badly to contact them in order to provide our OAI data but nothing happened”.
A library outside the EU said:
“We understood that this was only open to participants within the framework of a EU funded project that Swiss institutions could not join. If this is not the case, we would be interested.”
Decision not to contribute is often a policy decision
Someone else may be responsible for feeding the aggregator
Alternative routes may be preferred (eg TEL, other aggregators)
What do you see as the main benefits of participation in aggregation for your institution?
11; 13%
7; 9%
4; 5%
3; 4%
5; 6%
5; 6%
4; 5%5; 6%
2; 2%
6; 7%
7; 9%
5; 6%
1; 1%
17; 21%Broader access
Building internal skills
Engagement with Europe
Enhanced value of collection
Increased usage
Material benefits
New services for user base
Partnerships, collaboration and sharing
Prestige
Promotion
Quality of search portal
Strategic development
Trust and stakeholding in the aggregator
Visibility (both materials and institution)
If you participate in any aggregators, what additional or improved outcomes would your institution like to see?
10; 32%
5; 16%
3; 10%
3; 10%
3; 10%
2; 6%
2; 6%
3; 10%
Linguistic enhancements
Search enhancements
Extended aggregation
Extended content
Europeana-specific improvements
Addressing copyright and IPR issues
Harvesting from smaller institutions
Other
Which of the potential benefits of Europeana are most attractive to you?
21; 13%
31; 20%
19; 12%
16; 10%
20; 13%
17; 11%
6; 4%
17; 11%
9; 6% Cross-domain coverage
International exposure for your collections
Multilingual search
Bringing together digital content in differentformats
New distribution channel for your content, gainsmore traffic
Effective promotion of the content by Europeana
Ability to get back enriched metadata e.g. withlanguage knowledge in metadata
Ability to give access to other resources to yourusers
Ability to make use, via a webservice, of contentfrom others in your own portal
Proposals for New Aggregations
16 suggestions made by 10 respondents
Most common theme is Research• Content from academic and research libraries (eg cultural material)
• Research activity, research data and published results
• Aggregation from existing portals eg DART-Europe
New Europe-wide aggregations proposed in these areas: • Art
• History of technology
• Social sciences/humanities
Existing aggregations suggested to channel into Europeana:• Manuscripts
• Early printed books
Only 1 respondent gave unqualified “yes”
11 gave an unqualified “No”
6 already pay TEL, CERL or other memberships and don’t want to pay again
5 agree in principle - but not much or not in present economic circumstances
Benefits must be demonstrated in advance (increased traffic or resource savings)
Digitisation is costly in itself
OAI is “open” and thus aggregation should be free
YES
NO
NO RESPONSE
Would your institution be willing in principle to pay to participate in aggregation services?
If you are interested in the development of new aggregation services, how would you envisage that their development
and sustained running would be funded?8; 9%
4; 5%
13; 15%
22; 25%
25; 28%
15; 17%
1; 1%
Our institution would contribute tothe funding
The aggregator’s portal shoulddisplay advertisements
Private sponsorship
National government funding
EU funding opportunities
Funding from Europeana
Other
Conclusion
• Wide interest in aggregation in general across Europe
• Respondents appreciate the benefits of wider exposure
• Enthusiasm for Europeana and its related projects
• Many potential contributors of digital content
• Several ideas for new aggregations
• Research is a common theme
• Respondents are generally unwilling to pay to support
aggregators
