Introduction to digital libraries - definitions, examples, concepts and trends (2016 version)
OlafJanssenNL
23,525 views
234 slides
Nov 24, 2013
Slide 1 of 234
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
About This Presentation
This presentation gives an introduction to digital libraries.
It first explores different defintions of the phrase "Digital Library".
It then looks at 11 real life examples of digital library websites (slides 44-112), including Europeana, Google Books, Flickr the Commons, Delpher, Wikis...
This presentation gives an introduction to digital libraries.
It first explores different defintions of the phrase "Digital Library".
It then looks at 11 real life examples of digital library websites (slides 44-112), including Europeana, Google Books, Flickr the Commons, Delpher, Wikisource, The Memory of the Netherlands and Project Gutenberg. Each of these DLs is assessed against five different criteria (concepts, properties)
- Content/User experience
- Cultural heritage domain (libraries, archives, museums, AV-institutions)
- Controlled / run by
- Content providing parties
- User involvement
Many references are made to Web2.0-concepts from Tim O'Reilly's article http://www.oreilly.com/pub/a/web2/archive/what-is-web-20.html
From these 11x5 = 55 datapoints 6 trend plots are drawn (slides 116-166) to show "what is hot" and "what is not" in the current DL-landscape. Key slide summarizing this = no 168
Finally, some strategies for content & brand distribution of DLs are being discussed (SEO, Wikipedia, social & ego networks) , as well as some financial trends in DLs
This presentation was given by Olaf Janssen (National Library of the Netherlands - KB) as a lecture for students of the master's course "The Library" at Leiden University, most recently on 3-11-2016.
Size: 19.67 MB
Language: en
Added: Nov 24, 2013
Slides: 234 pages
Slide Content
Lecture for the course “The Library” at Leiden University, 3-11-2016
Olaf Janssen, National Library of the Netherlands [email protected] - @ookgezellig - slideshare.net/OlafJanssenNL
Introduction to digital libraries
Definitions, examples, concepts and trends
Lecture for the course “The Library” at Leiden University, 3-11-2016
Olaf Janssen, National Library of the Netherlands [email protected] - @ookgezellig - slideshare.net/OlafJanssenNL
Introduction to digital libraries
Definitions, examples, concepts and trends
± 45 min ± 45 min
Hi,
I’m Olaf Janssen
I’m the Wikipedia (& open data) Coordinator
of the KB
Wikimedia coordinator???
I initiate and coordinate collaboration between
the (staff, collections, data, knowledge, networks of the) KB
1.Basic understanding of what a digital library is
2.Understanding of some basic concepts and trends
over time in digital libraries
3.Understanding how these trends relate to “2.0”
How does my talk fit in the overall course?
In my talk:
digital
In my talk:
front-end/UX of
digital libraries
In my talk:
Online/web
At the end of
my talk
In my talk:
Online/web
http://oreilly.com/web2/archive/what-is-web-20.html
Web2.0 key concepts
Tim O’Reilly (2005)
What is Web 2.0: Design Patterns
and Business Models for the Next Generation of
Software
1. The long tail
2. Data is the next Intel Inside
3. Users add value
4. Network effects by default
5. Some rights reserved
6. The perpetual beta
7. Software above the level of a single device
8. Cooperate, don't control
Slide taken from http://www.slideshare.net/edsonm/michael-edson-let-us-go-boldly-into-the-future
Tim O’Reilly (2005)
What is Web 2.0: Design Patterns
and Business Models for the Next Generation of Software
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_2.0
Not history of all the web,
only the web in library
context
digital libraries (DLs)
First things first
What is a
digital library
(there is no unique definition..)
but let’s
give it a shot…
-aa
-aa
“a library in which collections are stored in
electronic media formats […] and accessible via
computers.
The electronic content may be stored locally, or
accessed remotely via computer networks.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_library
“[..] at Stanford University, some discussion was held as to
what did we mean by the term "digital library“”. [..]
it would be valuable [..] to document a common
understanding of the term, but agreed that […] we could
not and would not aim for a general consensus.
The term "Digital Library" has a variety of potential
meanings,
ranging from a digitized collection of material that
one might find in a traditional library
through to the collection of all digital information along
with the services that make that information
useful to all possible users.
[..] the following definition was proposed: The Digital
Library is:
–The collection of services
–And the collection of information objects
–That support users in dealing with information objects
–And the organization and presentation of those
objects
–Accessable directly or indirectly via electronic/digital
means
The Digital Library Reference Model (2011)
(273 pages!)
“…a potentially virtual organisation, that comprehensively collects,
manages and preserves for the long depth of time rich digital
content, and offers to its targeted user communities [..] according to
comprehensive codified policies."
Source: The Digital Library Reference Model
-aa
-aa
-aa
“Digital libraries are organised collections of digital
content made available to the public.“
* Such as https://www.ischool.utexas.edu/~i385d/readings/Borgman-1999-What_Are_Digital_Libraries.pdf
Let’s summarize the
red key phrases
we’ve just seen...
too
textual,
vague,
abstract
Is
?
No worries, let’s look at
11 real life examples of digital libraries
to improve our understanding
too
textual,
vague,
abstract
No worries, let’s look at
11 real life examples of digital libraries
to improve our understanding
Is
?
E-lev-en?!!??
Yes, sorry…. I really need some critical mass here,
each example will become a ‘datapoint’ for making
some trend plots later on
(I will them brief, you can study them in more detail later…)
too
textual,
vague,
abstract
No worries, let’s look at
11 real life examples of digital libraries
to improve our understanding
Is
?
E-lev-en?!!??
Yes, sorry…. I really need some critical mass here,
each example will become a ‘datapoint’ for making
some trend plots later on
(I will them brief, you can study them in more detail later…)
too
textual,
vague,
abstract
No worries, let’s look at
11 real life examples of digital libraries
to improve our understanding
Is
?
E-lev-en?!!??
Yes, sorry…. I really need some critical mass here,
each example will become a ‘datapoint’ for making
some trend plots later on
(I’ll keep them brief, you can study them in more detail later…)
4 cultural heritage domains
1. Library: publications
•Focus on metadata, with user ratings & tags
•No full-texts
•Tiny visuals (book covers from Amazon)
Rating & tags
Members add metadata
(110M books so far)
Members add book reviews
(2.9M so far)
2. LibraryThing
Librarything.com Social Web2.0 library catalogue
•Content/UX: Raw metadata-oriented (no full-texts, poor
visuals)
•Content domain: library (books)
•Run by: commercial company (40% Amazon)
•Content partners: user community (Web2.0)
•User involvement: very strong: “Contribute & share your
metadata, ratings, tags, covers, reviews” (Web2.0)
2. LibraryThing
Librarything.com Social Web2.0 library catalogue
•Content/UX: Raw metadata-oriented (no full-texts, poor
visuals)
•Content domain: library (books)
•Run by: commercial company (40% Amazon)
•Content partners: user community (Web2.0)
•User involvement: very strong: “Contribute & share your
metadata, ratings, tags, covers, reviews” (Web2.0)
Further reading
•http://carl-acrl.org/ig/carlitn/9.07.2007/LTFL.pdf
•http://docs.lib.purdue.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2534&context=atg
•http://www.librarything.com/zeitgeist
•Run by: non-commercial institution (KB, since 2015)
•Content partners: none (own collection)
•User involvement: none; “See what we DBNL have”
(Web1.0)
Further reading
•van Stipriaan, Rene. "Future proofing Dutch literature-Rene van Stipriaan
answers questions about the Digital Library for Dutch Literature, how it was
started and why users like it." Research Information 41 (2009): 13.
5. Google Books
books.google.com
Focus on full-text
Joint effort
1. Many big libraries (incl.
KB) as content partners
Joint effort
2. Partner Program:
authors & publishers
5. Google Books
books.google.com
’The world's most comprehensive index
of full-text books’
•Content/UX: Full-texts: e-books & e-magazines
•Content domain: library (books)
•Run by: commercial company (Google)
•Content partners:
* Many institutional - big libraries worldwide
(eg. KB, Oxford, Stanford, Harvard), and publishers
* Individual authors
•User involvement: weak, users can contribute book reviews
(“Web1.1”)
Further reading
•https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Books_Library_Project
•http://liber.library.uu.nl/index.php/lq/article/download/URN%3ANBN%3ANL%3AUI%3A10
-1-113624/8371
•http://newsbreaks.infotoday.com/nbreader.asp?ArticleID=16307
6. Project Gutenberg
gutenberg.org
Over 53,000 free ebooks
Focus on full-text
(ebooks)
self.gutenberg.org
Free public domain e-books
•Content/UX: Full-text e-books
•Content domain: library (books)
•Run by: not-for-profit company (foundation, PGLAF)
•Content partners: Institutional (publishers)
•User involvement: some; users can contribute own books
(self.gutenberg.org) (“Web1.5”)
•Run by: User-community, supported by not-for-profit organisation
(Wikimedia Foundation)
•Content partners: user community (Web2.0)
•User involvement: very strong: “Contribute, improve, share & re-
use texts” (Web2.0)
Further reading
•https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Wikisource:Community_portal
8.Memory of the Netherlands
Geheugenvannederland.nl
22 results for ‘dansles’
Focus on non-hi-res image,
but metadata still manifest
“visual catalogue”
Joint effort
•Hosted by KB
•84 content partners (GLAMs)
Memory of the
Netherlands
7.Memory of the Netherlands
Geheugenvannederland.nl
8.Memory of the Netherlands
Geheugenvannederland.nl
Dutch cultural heritage media database
•Content partners: Institutional – 1,000s of European GLAMs
•User involvement: none; “See what we have” (Web1.0)
Further reading
•pro.europeana.eu
•https://liber.library.uu.nl/index.php/lq/article/download/URN%3ANBN%3ANL%3AUI
%3A10-1-113558/8239 (background reading from 2009)
10. Flickr The Commons
flickr.com/commons
Joint effort
10s content providers
worldwide
Random images
Focus on visual,
page doesn’t feel “metadata-y”
Source of image
Web2.0
“Wisdom of the crowd”
Crowd-curation
Folksonomy
10. Flickr The Commons
flickr.com/commons
Web2.0
“Wisdom of the crowd”
Crowd-curation
Folksonomy
Crowd-curated open photo archive
•User involvement: some; users can contribute comments, tags
etc., but no photos (“Web1.5”)
Further reading
•http://www.loc.gov/rr/print/flickr_report_final.pdf
•http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/19/technology/internet/19link.html?_r=1&partner=permalink
&exprod=permalink
•Vaughan, J. (2010). Insights into the Commons on Flickr. portal: Libraries and the Academy,
10(2), 185-214. http://digitalscholarship.unlv.edu/lib_articles/123 + PDF
•Content/UX: Rights-free ultra hi-res images,
metadata “under the hood”
•Content domain: museum
•Run by: non-commercial institution (Rijksmuseum)
•Content partners: none, own RM collection
•User involvement: some, via Rijksstudio: users can create
Pinterest-like boards, incl. user-curation (“Web1.5”)
Further reading
•http://mw2013.museumsandtheweb.com/paper/rijksstudio-make-your-own-
masterpiece/
OK, so far for the 11 DL-examples….
I did not choose them randomly…
Let’s use their properties as input
for some plots…
BREAK
1.Content/Presentation/UX
What does the DL look & feel like?
Metadata-oriented
Classic catalogues
No images
Raw metadata in your face
1.Content/Presentation/UX
What does the DL look & feel like?
Metadata-oriented
Classic catalogues
No images
Raw metadata in your face
“Dressed up
catalogues”
Mix of metadata
and visual
1.Content/Presentation/UX
What does the DL look & feel like?
Metadata-oriented
Classic catalogues
No images
Raw metadata in your face
Visually oriented
(hi-res) Images in your face
Metadata “under the hood”
“Dressed up
catalogues”
Mix of metadata
and visual
“all about
full-texts”
1.Content/Presentation/UX
What does the DL look & feel like?
KB Catalogue
Metadata-oriented
Classic catalogues
No images
Raw metadata in your face
“Dressed up
catalogues”
Mix of metadata
and visual
“all about
full-texts”
Visually oriented
(hi-res) Images in your face
Metadata “under the hood”
Metadata-oriented
Classic catalogues
No images
Raw metadata in your face
“Dressed up
catalogues”
Mix of metadata
and visual
“all about
full-texts”
Visually oriented
(hi-res) Images in your face
Metadata “under the hood”
KB Catalogue
Metadata-oriented
Classic catalogues
No images
Raw metadata in your face
“Dressed up
catalogues”
Mix of metadata
and visual
“all about
full-texts”
Visually oriented
(hi-res) Images in your face
Metadata “under the hood”
KB Catalogue
Flickr The Commons
“Dressed up
catalogues”
Mix of metadata
and visual
“all about
full-texts”
Metadata-oriented
Classic catalogues
No images
Raw metadata in your face
Visually oriented
(hi-res) Images in your face
Metadata “under the hood”
KB Catalogue
Flickr
The Commons
Flickr
The Commons
“Dressed up
catalogues”
Mix of metadata
and visual
“all about
full-texts”
Metadata-oriented
Classic catalogues
No images
Raw metadata in your face
Visually oriented
(hi-res) Images in your face
Metadata “under the hood”
KB Catalogue
Rijksmuseum/studio
KB Catalogue
Rijksmuseum
/studio
“Dressed up
catalogues”
Mix of metadata
and visual
“all about
full-texts”
Metadata-oriented
Classic catalogues
No images
Raw metadata in your face
Visually oriented
(hi-res) Images in your face
Metadata “under the hood”
Flickr
The Commons
KB Catalogue
Rijksmuseum
/studio
“Dressed up
catalogues”
Mix of metadata
and visual
“all about
full-texts”
Metadata-oriented
Classic catalogues
No images
Raw metadata in your face
Visually oriented
(hi-res) Images in your face
Metadata “under the hood”
Flickr
The Commons
Europeana
Collections
KB Catalogue
Rijksmuseum
/studio
“Dressed up
catalogues”
Mix of metadata
and visual
“all about
full-texts”
Metadata-oriented
Classic catalogues
No images
Raw metadata in your face
Visually oriented
(hi-res) Images in your face
Metadata “under the hood”
Flickr
The Commons
Europeana
Collections
KB Catalogue
Rijksmuseum
/studio
“Dressed up
catalogues”
Mix of metadata
and visual
“all about
full-texts”
Metadata-oriented
Classic catalogues
No images
Raw metadata in your face
Visually oriented
(hi-res) Images in your face
Metadata “under the hood”
Flickr
The Commons
Europeana
Digital Library for
Dutch Literature
KB Catalogue
Rijksmuseum
/studio
“Dressed up
catalogues”
Mix of metadata
and visual
“all about
full-texts”
Metadata-oriented
Classic catalogues
No images
Raw metadata in your face
Visually oriented
(hi-res) Images in your face
Metadata “under the hood”
Flickr
The Commons
Europeana
Collections
Digital Library for
Dutch Literature
KB Catalogue
Digital Library for
Dutch Literature
LibraryThing
Europeana
Collections
Rijksmuseum
/studio
“Dressed up
catalogues”
Mix of metadata
and visual
“all about
full-texts”
Metadata-oriented
Classic catalogues
No images
Raw metadata in your face
Visually oriented
(hi-res) Images in your face
Metadata “under the hood”
Flickr
The Commons
KB Catalogue
Digital Library for
Dutch Literature
LibraryThing
Europeana
Collections
Rijksmuseum
/studio
“Dressed up
catalogues”
Mix of metadata
and visual
“all about
full-texts”
Metadata-oriented
Classic catalogues
No images
Raw metadata in your face
Visually oriented
(hi-res) Images in your face
Metadata “under the hood”
Flickr
The Commons
Memory of the
Netherlands
KB Catalogue
Digital Library for
Dutch Literature
LibraryThing
Europeana
Collections
Rijksmuseum
/studio
“Dressed up
catalogues”
Mix of metadata
and visual
“all about
full-texts”
Metadata-oriented
Classic catalogues
No images
Raw metadata in your face
Visually oriented
(hi-res) Images in your face
Metadata “under the hood”
Flickr
The Commons
Memory of the
Netherlands
Delpher
KB Catalogue
Digital Library for
Dutch Literature
LibraryThing
Europeana
Collections
Memory of the
Netherlands
Rijksmuseum
/studio
“Dressed up
catalogues”
Mix of metadata
and visual
“all about
full-texts”
Metadata-oriented
Classic catalogues
No images
Raw metadata in your face
Google books
Project
Gutenberg
Wikisource
Visually oriented
(hi-res) Images in your face
Metadata “under the hood”
Flickr
The Commons
Delpher
2. Domain of content
Which CH-domain(s) contribute to the DL?
2. Domain of content
Which CH-domain(s) contribute to the DL?
Archives
documents
Libraries
publications
Museums
artefacts
2. Domain of content
Which CH-domain(s) contribute to the DL?
Archives
documents
Cross-domain
Content from libraries,
museums and archives
Libraries
publications
Museums
artefacts
Cross-domain
Content from libraries,
museums and archives
Rijksmuseum
/studio
KB Catalogue
LibraryThing
Google books
Digital
Library for
Dutch
Literature
Project
Gutenberg
Libraries
publications
Museums
artefacts
Archives
documents
Cross-domain
Content from libraries,
museums and archives
Rijksmuseum
/studio
Delpher
KB Catalogue
LibraryThing
Google books
Digital
Library for
Dutch
Literature
Project
Gutenberg
Wikisource
Libraries
publications
Museums
artefacts
Archives
documents
Cross-domain
Content from libraries,
museums and archives
Rijksmuseum
/studio
Delpher
KB Catalogue
LibraryThing
Europeana
Collections
Memory of the
Netherlands
Flickr
The Commons
Google books
Digital
Library for
Dutch
Literature
Project
Gutenberg
Wikisource
Libraries
publications
Museums
artefacts
Archives
documents
Cross-domain
Content from libraries,
museums and archives
Rijksmuseum
/studio
Delpher
3. Geo scope
What’s the geographical scope of the DL content?
International National
Dutch
3. Geo scope
What’s the geographical scope of the DL content?
Continental
European
Local/regional
Memory of the
Netherlands
Rijksstudio
Digital Library for
Dutch Literature
International Local/regional National
Dutch
Continental
European
Delpher
Europeana
Collections
Memory of the
Netherlands
Rijksstudio
Digital Library for
Dutch Literature
International Local/regional National
Dutch
Continental
European
Delpher
LibraryThing
Europeana
Collections
Flickr
The Commons
Google books
Project
Gutenberg
Wikisource
International Local/regional National
Dutch
Continental
European
Memory of the
Netherlands
Rijksstudio
Digital Library for
Dutch Literature
Delpher
4. Collaboration between
content partners
Who provides content & value for our DL?
Institutional content
“We do it ourself, we
show off our own content”
(no partner content,
no user generated content)
4. Collaboration between
content partners
Who provides content & value for our DL?
Institutional content
“We do it ourself, we
show off our own content”
(no partner content,
no user generated content)
4. Collaboration between
content partners
Who provides content & value for our DL?
Partner content
“We add value by collaboration,
we need & show content from
our institutional partners”
User content
“We are nothing without
contributions from our users”
Institutional content
“We do it ourself, we
show off our own content”
(no partner content,
no user generated content)
4. Collaboration between
content partners
Who provides content & value for our DL?
Partner content
“We add value by collaboration,
we need & show content from
our institutional partners”
Web2.0: “Users add value”
KB Catalogue
Rijksmuseum
/studio
User content
“We are nothing without
contributions from our users”
Institutional content
“We do it ourself, we
show off our own content”
(no partner content,
no user generated content)
Digital Library for
Dutch Literature
Partner content
“We add value by collaboration,
we need & show content from
our institutional partners”
KB Catalogue Europeana
Collections
Memory of the
Netherlands Rijksmuseum
/studio
User content
“We are nothing without
contributions from our users”
Institutional content
“We do it ourself, we
show off our own content”
(no partner content,
no user generated content)
Digital Library for
Dutch Literature
Partner content
“We add value by collaboration,
we need & show content from
our institutional partners”
Delpher
KB Catalogue
LibraryThing
Europeana
Collections
Memory of the
Netherlands
Wikisource
Rijksmuseum
/studio
User content
“We are nothing without
contributions from our users”
Institutional content
“We do it ourself, we
show off our own content”
(no partner content,
no user generated content)
Digital Library for
Dutch Literature
Partner content
“We add value by collaboration,
we need & show content from
our institutional partners”
Delpher
KB Catalogue
LibraryThing
Europeana
Collections
Memory of the
Netherlands
Wikisource
Flickr
The Commons
Rijksmuseum
/studio
User content
“We are nothing without
contributions from our users”
Institutional content
“We do it ourself, we
show off our own content”
(no partner content,
no user generated content)
Project Gutenberg
Digital Library for
Dutch Literature
Google books
Partner content
“We add value by collaboration,
we need & show content from
our institutional partners”
Delpher
5. Control
Who decides how the DL develops?
Institution(s)
in control
and (very) nervous about
user contributions
5. Control
Who decides how the DL develops?
User-controlled
The community is in control,
no need for institutions
Web2.0: “Radical trust”
Users can contribute, we trust them,
but institution/company keeps control
Users can contribute, we trust them,
but institution/company keeps control
KB Catalogue
Europeana
Collections
Digital Library for
Dutch Literature
Memory of the
Netherlands
Delpher
User-controlled
The community is in control,
no need for institutions
Institution(s)
in control
and (very) nervous about
user contributions
Users can contribute, we trust them,
but institution/company keeps control
KB Catalogue
Wikisource
Europeana
Collections
Digital Library for
Dutch Literature
Memory of the
Netherlands
User-controlled
The community is in control,
no need for institutions
Institution(s)
in control
and (very) nervous about
user contributions
Delpher
Users can contribute, we trust them,
but institution/company keeps control
KB Catalogue
Wikisource
Europeana
Collections
Digital Library for
Dutch Literature
Memory of the
Netherlands
Flickr
The Commons
LibraryThing
User-controlled
The community is in control,
no need for institutions
Rijksmuseum
/studio
Institution(s)
in control
and (very) nervous about
user contributions
Project Gutenberg
Google books
Delpher
6. Openness
Can users retain, reuse, revise, remix, redistribute the DL content?
CONCEPT PAST PRESENT
Content –
Presentation - UX
Metadata in your face
- “Raw” library catalogue
- No / low-res images
Objects in your face
- Full-texts & OCR
- Hi-res images
- Metadata “under the hood”
Collaboration
between institutions
Single institution
Institutions do it themselves, no
partners
Multiple institutions, networks
Institutions realize they stand stronger
with partners in networks
Collaboration
between domains
Single domain
Institutions collaborate within own
domain
Single & cross-domain
Institutions also collaborate outside own
domains, are aware of added value cross-
domain approach can bring
Geo-scope of DL Local
Scope is local (regional, national),
unaware of bigger world
‘Global village’
Local initiatives & services are aware of
the bigger world, and their roles within it
User contribution Institutions add content & value
- 1-directional institutional broadcasting
- Users are passive consumers
Users also add content & value
- Users are creators
- Harnassing collective intellligence,
crowd-curation, folksonomy
Control Institution(s) in control
The wishes of our users are scary and
complex, we know what’s best for them
Open
- We propagate sharing & remixing our
content, as far as legitimate rightholders
are not harmed
- Creative Commons
1.0 1.0 1.0
2.0 2.0 2.0
CONCEPT PAST PRESENT
Content –
Presentation - UX
Metadata in your face
- “Raw” library catalogue
- No / low-res images
Objects in your face
- Full-texts & OCR
- Hi-res images
- Metadata “under the hood”
Collaboration
between institutions
Single institution
Institutions do it themselves, no
partners
Multiple institutions, networks
Institutions realize they stand stronger
with partners in networks
Collaboration
between domains
Single domain
Institutions collaborate within own
domain
Single & cross-domain
Institutions also collaborate outside own
domains, are aware of added value cross-
domain approach can bring
Geo-scope of DL Local
Scope is local (regional, national),
unaware of bigger world
‘Global village’
Local initiatives & services are aware of
the bigger world, and their roles within it
User contribution Institutions add content & value
- 1-directional institutional broadcasting
- Users are passive consumers
Users also add content & value
- Users are creators
- Harnassing collective intellligence,
crowd-curation, folksonomy
Control Institution(s) in control
The wishes of our users are scary and
complex, we know what’s best for them
Open
- We propagate sharing & remixing our
content, as far as legitimate rightholders
are not harmed
- Creative Commons
1.0 1.0 1.0
2.0 2.0 2.0
OK, now we have at least
some understanding of
basic concepts and trends
in DLs…
In terms of
we’ve just looked at…
Let’s now look at
3 less directly visible
ingredients of DLs
strategy
What I’m trying to say here:
Digital libraries don’t just run by themselves.
It takes
organisation, management & strategy
to build them, keep ‘m running and make ‘m
grow….
Let’s take a look at (only)
two trends
in these fields…
Trend 1. Content & brand distribution
↓ Less “Come to daddy”
↑ More “Dressing up as pandas”
http://communist812.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/come-to-daddy-2.jpg
Many GLAMs still expect people to visit
their little, geeky, not-so-sexy DL-sites, to there
consume their DL-content, services &
brand
http://communist812.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/come-to-daddy-2.jpg
Many GLAMs still expect people to visit
their little, geeky, not-so-sexy DL-sites, to there
consume their DL-content, services &
brand
They have to make an awful lot of
noise (=institutional marketing) to
draw people into their little boutiques
On the modern web
(nearly all) DL-sites are niche market
“boutiques” with relatively local or
specialized audiences
… but honestly, often
they’re just too small
for that..
http://communist812.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/come-to-daddy-2.jpg
We (ie. GLAMs) expect people to take the
trouble to leave their trusted online
hang-outs to visit our little, geeky, not-so-sexy
DL-site, to consume our DL-content &
brand
We have to make an awful lot of noise
(=institutional marketing) to try to
make people like our little, geeky, not-so-sexy
DL-site & brand
At the same time, GLAMs know the big,
cool, popular platforms & communities
normal people use in their daily lives
Mass markets
“Department stores”
with global audiences
(head of long tail)
At the same time, GLAMs know the big,
cool, popular platforms & communities
normal people use in their daily lives
Because they realize most normal people
won’t take the trouble to come to their little,
geeky, not-so-sexy DL-site,
Most people go to
department stores
instead of boutiques
At the same time, GLAMs know the big,
cool, popular platforms & communities
normal people use in their daily lives
Because they realize most normal people
won’t take the trouble to come to their little,
geeky, not-so-sexy DL-site, they have to find a …
At the same time, GLAMs know the big,
cool, popular platforms & communities
normal people use in their daily lives
Because they realize most normal people
won’t take the trouble to come to their little,
geeky, not-so-sexy DL-site, they have to find a …
Cunning trick!
They “dress up as pandas” to seamlessly
fit into the existing platforms, communities
and workflows, so they can
more easily distribute their niche DL-
content, services & brand to global
audiences
They set up in-store
boutiques!
Some dressing up styles of GLAMs
1.Search engine optimisation
(dressing up to be liked by Google)
•Collaboration with Wikipedia
(dressing up to be liked by curious people)
•Social content sharing (Flickr, Pinterest..)
(dressing up to be visually liked)
•Ego networks (Facebook, Twitter ..)
(dressing up to be seen & gossiped about)
•Offering APIs
(dressing up to be liked by businesses & developers)
Some dressing up styles of GLAMs
http://fc01.deviantart.net/fs71/i/2013/118/2/4/google_in_a_dress_by_wingsade-d63g1ce.png
Further reading
•What is SEO? - http://searchengineland.com/guide/what-is-seo
•What’s the problem? - http://jpwilkin.blogspot.nl/2011/01/our-hidden-digital-libraries-july-27.html
•SEO and metadata - http://eprints.rclis.org/13518/1/AD_Google.doc.pdf
•Best paractices - http://www.libsuccess.org/Search_Engine_Optimization_%28SEO%29
1.Search engine optimisation
(dressing up to be liked by Google)
2.Collaboration with Wikipedia
(dressing up to be liked by curious people)
•Social content sharing (Flickr, Pinterest..)
(dressing up to be visually liked)
•Ego networks (Facebook, Twitter ..)
(dressing up to be seen & gossiped about)
•Offering APIs
(dressing up to be liked by businesses & developers)
Some dressing up styles of GLAMs
http://partnersinexcellenceblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/curious.jpg
Research on the use of Wikipedia in the
Netherlands 2015
https://nl.wikimedia.org/wiki/Bestand:Rapportage_Motivaction_Lezers.pdf
Research on the use of Wikipedia in the
Netherlands 2015
https://nl.wikimedia.org/wiki/Bestand:Rapportage_Motivaction_Lezers.pdf
“Which source do you use most for finding factual information?”
•62% Google
•30% Wikipedia
•??% books & libraries
Research on the use of Wikipedia in the
Netherlands 2015
https://nl.wikimedia.org/wiki/Bestand:Rapportage_Motivaction_Lezers.pdf
“Which source do you use most for finding factual information?”
•62% Google
•30% Wikipedia
• 1% books & libraries
World War 2
Dutch
Parliament
Dutch writers
Onderzoek onder lezers Wikipedia 2015
https://nl.wikimedia.org/wiki/Bestand:Rapportage_Motivaction_Lezers.pdf
“80% of Dutch people use Wikipedia”
(Digital) libraries can reach big audiences
by exposing their materials on Wikipedia
Acèh Afrikaans Alemannisch አማርኛ Aragonés Ænglisc ةيبرعلا ܐܝܡܪܐ ىرصم অসমীয়া
Asturianu Aymar aru Azərbaycanca Башҡортса Boarisch Žemaitėška Беларуская
Беларуская (тарашкевіца) Български भोजपुरी Bamanankan ব়াাংল়া བོད་ཡིག Brezhoneg
Bosanski Буряад Català Mìng-dĕ̤ng-ngṳ̄ Cebuano Chamoru ᏣᎳᎩ یدروک Čeština
Словѣньскъ Чӑвашла Cymraeg Dansk Deutsch Zazaki ް ސަބިހެވިދ Ελληνικά Emiliàn e
rumagnòl English Esperanto Español Eesti Euskara یسراف Suomi Võro Føroyskt Français
Arpetan Nordfriisk Furlan Frysk Gaeilge 贛語 Gàidhlig Galego یکليگ Avañe'ẽ ગુજરાતી
Gaelg 客家語/Hak-kâ-ngî תירבע हिन्दी Fiji Hindi Hrvatski Kreyòl ayisyen Magyar Հայերեն
Interlingua Bahasa Indonesia Interlingue Iñupiak Ilokano Ido Íslenska Italiano 日本語
Lojban Basa Jawa ქართული Kongo Қазақша Kalaallisut ភាសាខ្មែរ ಕನ್ನಡ 한국어 Перем
Коми Къарачай-малкъар Ripoarisch Kurdî Коми Kernowek Кыргызча Latina Ladino
Lëtzebuergesch Лезги Limburgs Lumbaart Lingála ລາວ Lietuvių Latgaļu Latviešu Basa
Banyumasan Malagasy Олык марий Baso Minangkabau Македонски മലയാളം
Монгол मराठी Bahasa Melayu ینور
ِ
ز Nāhuatl Napulitano Plattdüütsch Nederlands
Nedersaksies नेपाली नेपाल भाषा Norsk nynorsk Norsk bokmål Novial Nouormand Occitan
ଓଡ଼ିଆ Ирон ਪੰਜਾਬੀ Papiamentu Picard Deitsch Norfuk / Pitkern Polski Piemontèis یباجنپ وتښپ
Português Runa Simi Rumantsch Romani Română Armãneashce Русский Русиньскый
संस्कृतम् Саха тыла Sardu Sicilianu Scots Sámegiella Srpskohrvatski / српскохрватски
සිංහල Simple English Slovenčina Slovenščina Gagana Samoa Shqip Српски / srpski
Sranantongo Sesotho Seeltersk Basa Sunda Svenska Kiswahili Ślůnski தமிழ்
తెలుగుТоҷикӣ ไทย Türkmençe Tagalog Tok Pisin Türkçe Татарча/tatarça Українська ودرا
Oʻzbekcha Vèneto Vepsän kel’ Tiếng Việt Volapük Walon Winaray Wolof 吴语 IsiXhosa
שידִיי Yorùbá Zeêuws 中文 文言 Bân-lâm-gú 粵語
Wikipedia covers 292 languages
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia/Versions
Wikipedia in German
This images is used
on many
Wikipedias
Wikipedia in French
Wikipedia in Bavarian
Wikipedia in Hungarian
Wikipedia in Russian
Wikipedia in Chinese
Wikipedia in Korean
This baker image is not the only image from KB that is used on
Wikipedia.
Using Wikipedia, these images are seen all over the world
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:CountryWorldMap_LangaugeVersionsWikipediaContainingKBImages_30092013.png#file
This maps shows the countries (red) in which Wikipedia articles containing images related
to the National library of the Netherlands (KB) have been consulted (dd 30-9-2013)
Some statistics on the KB manuscripts
(*)
As said, this site contains
11.141 images
*http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:GLAM/Koninklijke_Bibliotheek_en_Nationaal_Archief/Resultaten/KPIs/KPI8/CasestudyKBManuscripten#Impact_Wikipe
dia_:_casestudy_KB-manuscripten (in Dutch)
On this KB-site, these 11.141 images are
requested 11K times per month (1 req per img)
Of these 11.141 images,
(only) 163 are used in
Wikipedia articles
On Wikipedia, these 163 images are requested
779K times per month (4777 req per img)
Some statistics on the KB manuscripts
(*)
x 4777
BANG!!
1.Search engine optimisation
(dressing up to be liked by Google)
2.Collaboration with Wikipedia
(dressing up to be liked by curious people)
3.Social content sharing (Instagram, Pinterest, Flickr...)
(dressing up to be visually liked)
•Ego networks (Facebook, Twitter ..)
(dressing up to be seen & gossiped about)
•Offering APIs
(dressing up to be liked by businesses & developers)
Some dressing up styles of GLAMS
http://tweakers.net/ext/f/ABh9LXs58VV9cBY3VnMBvbLf/full.jpg
http://www.pinterest.com/britishlibrary
https://www.instagram.com/nypl/
Library of Congress @ Flickr
1.Search engine optimisation
(dressing up to be liked by Google)
2.Collaboration with Wikipedia
(dressing up to be liked by curious people)
3.Social content sharing (Flickr, Pinterest..)
(dressing up to be visually liked)
4.Ego networks (Facebook, Twitter ..)
(dressing up to be seen, gossiped and liked)
•Offering APIs
(dressing up to be liked by businesses & developers)
Some dressing up styles of GLAMS
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-fGneNjF84zM/TZTAzh8wd6I/AAAAAAAAGCc/jWh3C5gk6LI/s1600/gossip1.jpg
Screenshot of my Twitter feed dd 02-11-2016
“seamlessly fit into people’s
exisiting workflows”
Mouth-to-mouth gossip
about Delpher.nl
Mouth-to-mouth gossip
about Delpher.nl
Trend 2. Digital library funding
Trend 2. Digital library funding
Less Public
More Private & social
- Public-private partnerships
- Sponsoring
- Crowdfunding
Trend 2. Digital library funding
Less Public
More Private & social
1. Public-private partnerships
2. Sponsoring
3. Crowdfunding
Astrid Verheusen,The Library - Digitisation, 30 October 2014, slide 26
Beer card: http://assets.catawiki.nl/assets/2012/5/11/4/7/d/47d64100-7dc7-012f-8f22-005056960006.jpg
1. Public-private
partnerships
Astrid Verheusen,The Library - Digitisation, 30 October 2014, slide 26
Beer card: http://assets.catawiki.nl/assets/2012/5/11/4/7/d/47d64100-7dc7-012f-8f22-005056960006.jpg
1. Public-private
partnerships
Deals with Google
and Proquest are
worth 63M€
2. (Corporate) Sponsoring
Rijksmuseum
2. (Corporate) Sponsoring
Rijksmuseum Annual Report 2012, p 98
3. Crowdfunding
“Cooperation of normal people who pool their money
together to support efforts initiated by others”
https://blog.flattr.net/2012/04/project
-gutenberg-taps-into-crowdfunding//