Transcript Ministerial NEtwoRk for Valorising Activising in digitisation The MINERVA framework Good Practices in Digitisation Cultural websites quality principles Antonella Fresa Budapest, 11 November 2004

Ministerial NEtwoRk for Valorising Activising in digitisation
The MINERVA framework
Good Practices in Digitisation
Cultural websites quality principles
Antonella Fresa
Budapest, 11 November 2004
The MINERVA framework
The MINERVA project is the operative
section of a wider framework made up
with the Lund Principles, the LUND
Action Plan and the National
Representatives Group (NRG)
Lund Meeting – 4th April 2001
Representatives and experts from the
Member States gathered in order to identify
ways in which “a coordination mechanism
for digitisation programmes across the
Member States” could be put in place
to stimulate European cultural content
on global networks.
National Representatives Group
The NRG is made up of officially nominated experts
from each Member State:
• to coordinate digitisation policies and programmes;
• to facilitate the adoption and implementation of the
Lund Action Plan;
• to monitor progress regarding the objectives
encapsulated in the Lund Principles.
National Representatives Group
The NRG meets every 6 months to share national
experiences under the aegis of the presidency in turn.
The “rolling agenda”
In order to guarantee the
continuity of the initiatives
undertaken, the past, present and
future presidencies of the EU
commonly define the so-called
“rolling agenda”.
The MINERVA project
MINERVA is the operative arm of the
National Representatives Group.
It is a network of
Member States’ ministries / agencies,.
financed by the European Commission,
in the frame of the IST Programme.
Original Partners
• Italy, coordinator (Ministero per i Beni e le Attività
Culturali)
• Belgium (Ministère de la Communauté française)
• Finland (University of Helsinky)
• France (Ministère de la Culture et de la
Communication)
• Spain (Ministerio de Educaciòn, Cultura y Deporte)
• Sweden (Riksarkivet)
• United Kingdom (The Council for Museums,
Archives and Libraries)
New Members of Minerva Plus
Greece
Austria
Germany
Ireland
Portugal
Russia
and
Czech Republic
Hungary
Malta
Slovenia
Estonia
Poland
Israel
MINERVA mission
The network has been created to:
 to discuss, correlate and harmonise activities carried
out in digitisation of cultural and scientific content;
 for creating agreed European common
recommendations and guidelines about:
– digitisation,
– metadata,
– long-term accessibility,
– preservation.
Activities
• to contribute to the creation of a broad consensus
on the European framework derived from the eEurope initiative;
• to contribute to start up new national programmes
of digitisation of cultural heritage;
• to contribute to create a process of institutional
collaboration among the presidencies of the
European Union;
• to create new opportunities of cooperation among
the members of the network.
The Charter of Parma
Art. 1 Intelligent use of new technologies
Art. 2 Accessibility
Art. 3 Quality
Art. 4 IPR and privacy
Art. 5 Interoperability and standards
Art. 6 Inventories and multiligualism
Art. 7 Benchmarking
Art. 8 Cooperation at national, European and international levels
Art. 9 Enlargement
Art. 10 Building the future together: at the forefront of the
knowledge society
How MINERVA works
• Networking activities (workshops, on-line
training, WEB site, newsletter,
benchmarking, cooperation with other
projects, enlargement of the network)
• 4 Working groups at European level
• Publications (guidelines, reports,
handbooks, brochures)
Digitisation Cluster
Cooperation among European cultural projects:
• sharing knowledge and exchanging experience;
• promoting results (studies, reports, guidelines);
• adopting common standards and agendas;
• avoiding duplication of activities and wasting of
resources among projects;
• merging efforts together to maximise the impact of
the individual projects;
• creating a larger community of users.
Projects participating to the
Digitisation Cluster
BRICKS
CALIMERA
DELOS
DIGICULT FORUM
EMII-DCF
EPOCH
ERPANET
Euromed Heritage II
EVA
HEREIN
MINERVA
MUSICNETWORK
PRESTOSPACE
SCRAN
Network enlargement
The instruments:
• Membership agreement
To formalise the participation of Ministries from
other countries in the MINERVA network
• Co-operation agreement
To formalise the participation of interested
organisations (Universities, private companies,
cultural institutions, etc., in the MINERVA Users
Group
The Working Groups
• Inventories, discovery of digitised content, multilingual issues
– Multilingualism and thesaurus
• Interoperability and Service Provision
– Business Models
• Identification of user needs, content and quality framework for
common access points
– Small cultural institutions
• Identification of good practices and competence centres
– Cost reduction
Publications
Minerva publishes handbooks and guidelines on
digitisation, edited by its working groups, and
an annual progress report of the NRG:
• 1st and 2nd Progress Reports of the National
Representatives Group (2002 and 2003)
• Technical Guidelines
• Good practice handbook
• Quality criteria for cultural web applications
The good practice handbook
Provides useful information to the establishment,
execution and management of digitisation
projects.
It is a reasoned organisation of lessons learnt by the
analysis of the data collected across Europe until
May 2002.
The Handbook is enriched with on-line
complementary information, and in particular a
selection of existing guidelines on digitisation.
The structure of the Handbook
Introduction and background (Lund Principles
and the Minerva project)
10 Practical lessons learnt and information
collected by the Minerva project best practice
team. A collections of practical ‘rules of thumb’,
to be considered by organisations who are
establishing, executing or managing digitisation
projects in the cultural sphere.
Practical Guidelines
The material is broken down in accordance with
the stages in the digitisation life-cycle.
Each guideline description is structured as:
- Title,
- Issue definition, which sets the scene and
introduces the problem(s) addressed,
- Pragmatic suggestions,
- Notes or commentary.
Practical Guidelines
Digitisation project planning
Selecting source material for digitisation
Preparation for digitisation
Handling of originals
The digitisation process
Preservation of the digital master material
Meta-data
Publication
IPR and copyrigth
Managing Digital Projects
One example:
Digitisation project planning
This is the first step in any digitisation project.
Time spent on planning will pay dividends in the easier
management and execution of the project.
Lessons learnt:
- the reasons for the project
- human resources
- research
- risks
the first lesson learnt in Digitisation Project Planning
The Reasons for the Project
Pragmatic suggestions:
- concrete, explicit and documented aims
- realistic when compared with available
resources
- Steps of the project validated against its aims
- Clear justification for the project from an
institutional point of view
the second lesson learnt in Digitisation Project Planning
Human Resources
Pragmatic suggestions:
- Ensure sufficent staff to carry out the project
- Assign staff to each task
- Identify training requirements
- Carry out training by using software and
hardware which will be used during the project
- Aim at small core of skilled dedicated staff
(rather than large group of ‘occasional’ staff)
the third lesson learnt in Digitisation Project Planning
Research
Pragmatic suggestions:
- Research into other projects which are addressing
similar issues
- it helps in avoiding mistakes and puts project team in
contact with others who have completed similar
projects giving the opportunity to learn from their
experience
- It adds credibility and enhances the results of the
project
the fourth lesson learnt in Digitisation Project Planning
Risks
Pragmatic suggestions:
- Intellectual Property Rights management
- Guaranteeing that source material is not corrupt
and has been produced by authorised
institutions
- Authenticity
- Financing of the project
- Level of skill in the project
MINERVA 10 Quality Principles
for cultural websites
Commentary and explanations
Hanbook
The 10 Pinciples
transparent
effective
maintained
accessible
user-centred
responsive
multi-lingual
interoperable
managed
preserved
Structure of the Handbook
Supporting information associated to each
principle:
•A commentary, providing interpretation, background information
and motivation for the principle
•A set of criteria to be used to assess whether or not a website is
compliant with the principle
•A checklist, based on the criteria, to be used in assessing the website
•A set of practical and pragmatic tests and questions for the
website owner to gain further insight into the compliance of his site
How to use the guide
The importance of each principle varies with the
life-cycle stage of the project
Principles Priority Matrix
stages of the life-cycle are the same as for the
Minerva Good Practice Handbook and the
Minerva Technical Guidelines
considering that this document is concerned
with websites, rather than digitisation projects
Stages of the website life cycle
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Website Planning
Website Design
Content Selection
Digitisation Process
Storage and Preservation of the Digital Master
Material
Metadata Capture
Website Implementation
Online Publication
Ongoing Maintenance
The “scoring”
For each principle-stage pair, a value
between 1 and 3 is provided:
• 1 – Low priority
• 2 – Mid priority
• 3 – High priority
The matrix
Plan
Design
Content
Select
Digitise
Store &
Preserve
Masters
MetaData
Capture
Implement
Online
Publish
Ongoing
Maintain
Transparent
2
3
1
1
1
1
3
3
2
Effective
2
3
3
1
1
2
3
3
2
Maintained
2
1
2
2
1
1
1
3
3
Accessible
3
3
1
2
1
1
3
1
1
User-centred
2
3
1
1
1
1
3
1
2
Responsive
2
2
3
1
1
1
2
3
3
Multi-lingual
3
3
2
2
1
1
3
2
1
Interoperable
3
3
1
3
2
3
3
2
2
Managed
1
1
3
1
2
1
1
1
1
Preserved
1
1
2
3
3
3
1
1
2
Most critical stages
•
•
•
•
Website planning
Website design
Website implementation
Online publication
Maintenance of the site should not compromise on quality
in the future
Multi-linguality and Interoperability are very
important: they must be planned into a site, and cannot be
‘bolted on’ later
Two examples
Multi-linguality
Interoperability
Multi-linguality – introduction and
VII Quality Principle:
commentary
” A quality website must be aware of the importance of multi-linguality by
providing a minimum level of access in more than one language”
Websites are a means for the public to access online cultural heritage.
Language can be an important barrier to access.
The website owner should focus on providing as much as possible of the
website in as many (and as popular) languages as possible.
At a basic level: outline of the content and purpose of the website in at least
one other official language of the EU.
Multi-linguality should be planned at the earliest stage of website design.
Multi-linguality - criteria
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Some site content should be available in more than one language
Sign language may be supported
Non-EU languages spoken by immigrant communities supported
Site identity and profile information should be available in as many
languages as possible
The core functionality of the site (searching, navigation) should be
available in multiple languages
Ideally, static content (images and descriptions, monographs, other
cultural content) should also be available in multiple languages
Switching between languages should be easy
The site structure and layout should not vary with language – site
design and user interface language should be logically separate.
Multi-linguality should be driven by a formal multi-linguality policy
Site elements should be reviewed in terms of the multi-linguality
policy.
Steps should be taken if site elements are not as multi-lingual as they
should be.
Multi-linguality- check list
Yes/ No/ n.a.
Some site content available in more than one language
□
□
□
Some site content available in sign language
□
□
□
Some site content available non-EU immigrant languages □
□
□
Site identity and profile available in more than 1 language □
□
□
Site core functionality available in more than 1 language □
□
□
Static content available in more than one language
□
□
□
Simple switching between languages
□
□
□
Site structure and user interface independent of language □
□
□
Multi-linguality policy exists & drives multi-lingual aspects □
□
□
Multi-linguality reviews take place on site
□
□
□
Multi-linguality – practical test
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
Does the site have any multilingualmulti-lingual content ?
Does the site identity and profile material appear in more than one
language ?
Is there any material presented in sign language ?
Is there any material presented in non-EU languages which are used
by immigrant populations ?
Is the site’s non-static information available in multiple languages ?
Is the static (cultural) information available in more than one
language ?
Is the site structure logically separate from the language in use ?
Was multi-linguality planned into the site from the very start ?
Does the site have a stated multi-linguality policy ?
Is the site reviewed against such a policy ?
Interoperability – introduction and
commentary
VII Quality Principle:
“
A quality website must be committed to being interoperable within cultural networks to
enable users to easily locate the content and services that meet their needs”.
How he individual website can interface with other cultural websites and with entities, such as
cultural portals.
The focus here is on standards, which may cover areas such as (but not restricted to):
•
Meta-data
•
Website technologies
•
Harvesting
•
Distributed Search
The details of any interfaces that the site exposes for interoperability purposes should be fully and
clearly documented, to facilitate subsequent integration into distributed cultural resources.
Discoverability: a site must make clear, to automated search engines and tools as well as to the human
user, what it contains and the services or content that it offers.
This document give the most cursory of information regarding the standards needed for interoperability.
Consultation of other resources, such as the Minerva Technical Guidelines is recommended.
Interoperability - criteria
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Research into standards and best practice should have taken place
before site design began.
The site should have been designed using the relevant standards.
The meta-data model should comply with relevant international
standards and may comply with Dublin Core and/or DC.Culture.
The website technologies should use only standard XHTML, HTML and
XML. JavaScript is acceptable but not formally recommended.
Proprietary extensions are deprecated.
Disclosure functionality should use a standard technology such as the
OAI protocol.
Distributed search of site itself may use page-level META tags, a site
map and/or a site search tool.
Distributed search of catalogues and databases may use Z39.50 or
SRW/SRU.
A site-level metadata profile should exist.
External interfaces should be clearly documented.
Interoperability- check list
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Standards and best practice research took place before site design
Site design uses relevant standards where appropriate
Meta-data uses Dublin Core or DC.Culture
Website uses no proprietary HTML extensions
Disclosure functionality uses OAI
Distributed database or catalogue search uses Z39.50 or SRW/SRU
Distributed site search possible
Distributed site search using META tags possible
Distributed site search uses a site tool with a remote interface
Discoverability profile exists
Discoverability profile uses appropriate standard
All external interfaces documented
Yes/ No/ n.a.
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
Interoperability – practical test
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Was desk research carried out before website design began ?
Did this focus on relevant standards ?
What standards were identified as most relevant ?
Is the meta-data model based on Dublin Core ?
If not, why not ?
Does the website work with any browser ?
Is disclosure functionality implemented using OAI harvesting ?
If not, why not ?
Does the website have a site-level metadata profile ?
Is distributed site searching implemented ?
Is distributed catalogue and/or database searching possible ?
If it is, can it be searched remotely ? And is the remote searching
method the standard in use, in the expected interoperability
partners ?
Key messages
Quality must be planned into a website
from the start
The user is critical – involve him at
every stage
Relationships with other online
resources (interoperability) and with
future resources (long term
preservation) must be given due
thought
For further information:
www.minervaeurope.org
Antonella Fresa – MINERVA Technical Coordinator
[email protected]
Thank you