CIDL News

CIDL News #13, December 2006
ISSN 1488-2000

On the Agenda

CIDL and Alouette Canada: Joint Committee
Montebello Summit 2006: Toward a national digital information strategy

Correspondents in this issue:

Bill Maes, Dalhousie University Libraries, Observations from LAC Summit Montebello 2006
Michelle Landriault, CIDL Coordinator, CIDL Chair Bill Maes addresses Access 2006: "Digitization is about content, content, content"
Chris Petter, University of Victoria, Report on CIDL 2005 Metadata Survey Results Deane Zeeman, Library and Archives Canada, Thoughts on CIDL Metadata Survey Results

CIDL and AlouetteCanada: Joint Task Force

In October 2006, the CIDL and AlouetteCanada steering committees agreed to establish a joint task force to review framework options for governance of and membership in AlouetteCanada. The goal is to identify a sustainable model for AlouetteCanada that will have broad appeal to the Canadian cultural heritage sector, thus attracting both CARL and non-CARL members from the CIDL community, as well as archives, museums and other communities.

It is anticipated that this may provide the mechanism for the evolution of CIDL into AlouetteCanada. In turn, this momentum will encourage collaboration, and support the effective digitization of Canada's documentary heritage. CIDL's Digital Canada numerique vision will help to inform and support these discussions. Under review are a number of international organizational models.

The joint task force members from AlouetteCanada: Brian Bell (Director), Ernie Ingles (University of Alberta Library), Tim Mark (CARL) and John Teskey (University of New Brunswick); and from CIDL: Gwen Ebbett (University of Windsor Library), Johanna Wellheiser (Toronto Public Library) and Bill Maes (Dalhousie University Library). Ralph Manning of Library and Archives Canada has observer status.

The task force held its first meeting October 30, and will continue meetings in November and December. Plans are for a draft proposal to be prepared for early 2007.

Top of Page

Observations of the Montebello Summit 2006:
Towards a Canadian Digital Information Strategy

Bill Maes University Librarian
Dalhousie University Libraries Chair,
Canadian Initiative on Digital Libraries

CIDL Chair Bill Maes represented CIDL at the Library and Archives Canada Summit: "Toward a Canadian Digital Information Strategy" held December 5 and 6, 2006 at the Chateau Montebello, Québec.

While there is too much information contained in the many Summit presentations to convey in a brief report, I did find that a couple of the messages were significant:

1. Where digital strategies appeared to be successful (Library of Congress, Bibliothèque et Archives nationales du Québec, National Library of New Zealand) and reinforced by concrete actions, that success could largely be attributed to support from government: both financial and in principle. Such support is currently lacking in Canada.

2. While we are focused upon traditional approaches to preservation and access in devising a strategy for a digital Canada, the current generation is living online and meeting their information needs very successfully and innovatively -- mostly oblivious to the resources and strategic musings of Canada's memory institutions.

This last point was re-emphasized by Mike D'Abramo, Account Manager, Youthography in his presentation, "Culture in transition, understanding Canadian youth and the way they interact with their culture." Inevitable conclusion: we must stop thinking we are in control.

The National Summit, held on December 5 and 6, 2006 at Chateau Montebello, Québec, began with presentations from Ian Wilson, Librarian and Archivist of Canada; Lise Bissonnette, President and CEO, Bibliothéque et Archives nationales du Québec; Dr. Michael Geist, Canada Research Chair in Internet and E-Commerce Law, University of Ottawa; William LeFurgy, Digital Initiatives Project Manager, Library of Congress, and Penny Carnaby, National Librarian and Chief Executive, National Library of New Zealand.

The remaining and major part of the Summit was focused upon trying to advance the strategic principles, elements and actions emanating from the four 2006 regional consultations, and this in turn generated more questions. Facilitator Jim Mitchell summarized some key points emanating from these discussions:

• a strategy for a digital Canada is needed, not a digital strategy for Canada;
• there is an important distinction between "distributed" and "decentralized" in envisioning a national strategy;
• a national strategy should operate under the concept of shared leadership-the federal government should do only the things it can do;
• copyright legislation needs to look forward and does not reflect today's realities;
• a national strategy must respect the diversity of both access and the different approaches of the institutions represented;
• we cannot afford to wait for visionary leadership;
• the vision of a national strategy must reflect what is unique to Canada;
• there is a need to take immediate action;
• government needs to be involved.

Some key and largely unanswered questions from the Summit were:

• What research concerning preservation and access needs to be done in Canada?
• Are our current organizations and governance models up to the task of devising and implementing a strategy for a digital Canada?
• Aside from artifacts and publications etc., what is the experience we need to capture and preserve? (e.g., the presentation of speeches in the speaker's voice and not simply the text of the speech)
• Is this important to Canada, and who decides?

There were 103 attendees at the Summit including organizers and invited speakers. There was representation from libraries (municipal, provincial, federal, university), education, museums, archives, publishers, history organizations, digital communities, publishers, legal, cartography, science, audio-visual, film, broadcast and funding agencies. A Summit report is expected to be prepared by LAC before the end of January, 2007.

Top of Page

"Digitization is about content, content, content"
CIDL Chair Bill Maes addresses Access 2006

Michelle Landriault Coordinator
Canadian Initiative on Digital Libraries

Ottawa - CIDL Steering Committee Chair Bill Maes (University Librarian, Dalhousie University) was last to speak on the Access 2006 panel, October 12. His message quickly caught everyone's attention.

He began by stating that just as real estate is about "location, location, location;" we should not forget that digitization is about "content, content, content." He raised Google's recent purchase of YouTube with its billion uploads per month. "It's all well and good to have visions, but UTube did not have ten years of discussion on infrastructure," Bill said and drew a laugh from the knowledgeable audience.

Meanwhile, Maes added, "The digitization of Canada's collections is not happening while we are all at the table talking about visions." He suggested that another ingredient to the Canadian culture digitization delay is the near absence of Canadian Heritage finance.

He reminded everyone that the visions being expressed - today - are not new, they have been around for 10 years. As a CIDL founder, Maes read the 10-year-old CIDL raison d'être that addressed the vision of common standards, preservation, access, open source tools. Maes stated that CIDL will encourage AlouetteCanada to develop infrastructure, but will also push for a critical focus on content. "Alouette needs to address content: how we deal with it and get people to come to it. We need to look at how we can get Canadians to use Canadian material," he said. As a positive example of achieving Canadian content on the web, Maes pointed out that CIDL was instrumental in obtaining initial funding for the Our Roots project.

Maes gave credit to past CIDL chair Brian Bell who took the lead, following the 2004 CIDL Winnipeg Meeting, in the development of Digital Canada numérique (DCn): a national digital strategy that encompasses a broad range of Canadian memory organizations.

Maes went on to explain that just as CIDL was on the edge of moving to the more inclusive DCn, CIDL was trumped by CARL's creation of AlouetteCanada, made possible by an extraordinary tithing of CARL members. Although AlouetteCanada may have eclipsed CIDL, Alouette needs the credibility of a grassroots movement such as CIDL. CIDL, he said, may ask its members to pass over their trust to Alouette should inclusivity be expanded.

"CIDL encourages Alouette to be inclusive, and to do it now before it drafts its vision," said Maes. He linked the goal of widened inclusivity to Alouette's separation from CARL, although CARL financing would stay at the core. He continued, "Alouette must distance itself from CARL sooner rather than later. It will take many players to get our materials up on the web. CIDL will achieve its end through Alouette, if Alouette stays true."

Maes ended by encouraging everyone to find the money they needed to "get your content out there." His presentation was well received.

Digital Canada numérique
www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/cidl/040021-406-e.html

AlouetteCanada
www.alouettecanada.ca/about-e.php

Top of Page

CIDL: In discussion with AlouetteCanada since June 2006

CIDL recognizes that within the Canadian digitization community this is a time of transition and an opportunity to clarify roles. We continue to explore opportunities for the creation of Digital Canada numérique, or integration with other established and emerging initiatives.

A key CIDL role is to encourage collaboration among Canadian libraries and memory institutions to improve digtization services to Canadians. In that vein, CIDL has been active in discussions with AlouetteCanada (formerly the Open Canada Digitization Initiative) to advance the effective digitization of Canada's documentary heritage.

On Monday June 19, 2006, CIDL Chair Bill Maes (Dalhousie University Library), Vice-Chair Johanna Wellheiser (Toronto Public Library), and Steering Committee member Magdalene Albert (canadiana.org) met in Toronto with Carole Moore, Chair, Alouette-Canada Steering Committee; John Teskey, President, Canadian Association of Research Libraries and Tim Mark, Executive Director, CARL. Also in attendance were Katherine McColgan, Project Coordinator, AlouetteCanada and Michelle Landriault, CIDL Coordinator.

Bill Maes summarized the meeting in a June 26 letter to Carole Moore: "I believe the meeting was very informative and productive for both parties. My understanding of the outcomes of the meeting is:

AlouetteCanada will consider a seat for CIDL on the Steering Committee.

AlouetteCanada will consider formal CIDL representation on the Technical Committee.

CIDL will focus on issues relating to metadata and support AlouetteCanada through a continuation of this activity.

CIDL is prepared to offer AlouetteCanada assistance with its communications and marketing through further collaborative development of its Inventory of Canadian Digital Initiatives, web forum, newsletter and existing network of members.

I hope these points reflect your understanding of the outcomes of the meeting and that upon further discussion within AlouetteCanada and CIDL we can move forward with their implementation.

"CIDL wishes AlouetteCanada every success and is prepared to offer whatever assistance it can to make its vision a reality. "It is a vision not unlike the original and continuing vision CIDL shared with its members so many years ago. Hopefully, AlouetteCanada can achieve the necessary momentum and support to provide Canada with its rich cultural heritage in digital form, accessible to all."

Subsequent to the June 19 meeting, CIDL Vice-chair Johanna Wellheiser (Toronto Public Library) was named the CIDL representative on the AlouetteCanada Steering Committee. CIDL also has a representative on the AC Technical Committee.

Top of Page

Report on 2005 CIDL Metadata Survey Results

Chris Petter Special Collections
University of Victoria
Member, CIDL Metadata Working Group

The 2005 Metadata Survey generated a high rate of return from CIDL members, 32/56, which indicates a high awareness of the importance of the issues surrounding metadata. The response by language was 31 English-based and one French-based institution.

Provincially, there is activity across Canada with a spike in Ontario followed closely by British Columbia. Regional representation is almost equally divided between east and west.

Amongst institutions, the bulk of activity (50%) appears to be taking place within higher-learning, especially at the university level. Others included Canadiana.org, Bibliocentre and Ontario Library Service North.

When it comes to using metadata, 53% of the English-based institutions are using a standard. This is still only 16 of 31 institutions and much lower than anticipated.

This begs the question, "Why?" Part of the answer may be that presently most metadata training is in-house. There is no coordinated national, provincial or regional strategy to educate or train librarians in metadata standards.

With fragmentary implementation of various standards across Canada, the greatest need appears to be for leadership, coordination and communication.

The lack of resources for metadata creation makes this an important priority. An equally important finding of this survey is that only 50% of members are even collecting metadata at all. This means that most Canadian digital projects are exposed only through search engines like Google.

It also suggests that the Department of Canadian Heritage grant system may not be easily accessible to our smaller institution members; and also suggests that this holds true for archives.

Among those using metadata (17 library respondents) there appears to be a fair level of knowledgeable librarians and experience.

It appears that only 11/32 (or 36%) have the resources for generating metadata, and only 17/32 can provide their own metadata training. However, not many are aware of the importance of metadata profiles. Metadata appears in most cases to be created only to fulfill the internal institutional needs or mandates.

Of those using metadata, 76% use Dublin Core, while 17.6% use METS and 5.9% use CANCORE. Some institutions use more than one standard and others are unable to find any adequate standard. Regionally, only Alberta and British Columbia use METS.

Many small- and medium-sized institutions lack the resources to take on metadata standards and production. This means that about 50% of institutions appear to be doing digitization without any metadata being collected in a consistent fashion. As to the purposes of using metadata, description ranked highest and digital rights management was lowest.

This lack of awareness of the importance of metadata profiles within the CIDL community, despite the use of some form of Dublin Core, indicates that opportunities for interoperability are currently limited. Resources need to be found for both digitization and for training.

The survey results tell us that one-third of the metadata-users use an application profile. This awareness of application profiles within the metadata-user community, although still relatively low, does auger well for future collaboration and interoperability.

Better than expected are those using their own application profiles. Regional workshops on this important aspect of metadata would be helpful.

The fact that only 20% of those surveyed allow harvesting clearly indicates the need for training. Exposure of the metadata is the whole point of collecting it in the first place.

With the exception of theses, there appears to be little sharing of data. Images Canada was not mentioned once. Although there is a lot of support for the idea of a national portal, there is little evidence that librarians are facilitating its development through their metadata practices.

On the other hand, it is encouraging to see that 94.1% support collecting metadata for a CIDL portal; and there is 100% support for organizing a portal by category. In contradiction, is the low participation level of 26% amongst the survey respondents in reporting to the Inventory of Canadian Digital Initiatives.

If funding is channeled to projects, there should be a condition attached to the grant that all project descriptions are to be entered into the Inventory, and hopefully one day into the Digital Canada numérique Portal.

There is little availability for resource discovery at even the collection level, let alone the item level. Perhaps some librarians are placing their trust in commercial web search engines. But almost all in the survey recognize the need for a National Portal of Heritage Information. However, it must be stated that many libraries are digitizing Education, Humanities, Law, Social Sciences, Science and Engineering - as much as, or more than Local History. The national portal will need to be broad.

It is intriguing that as many as 65% of the respondents have developed in-house tools. Some 50% of respondents reported that their tools are designed for both multiple partners and availability for sharing. This is promising and bears further investigation.

There is 100% support for open source tools for metadata creation. The varied types of metadata being created makes for a rather large mandate to encompass images, text, theses, geospatial, learning objects etc. A question for further discussion is 'How do we prioritize?' (Note: The low number of survey respondents who consider objects embedded in newspapers does not currently support making this a high priority.)

While there is no doubt that open source tools scored extremely high; it remains incongruous that preservation and digital rights management ranked lowest in importance among those presently creating metadata.

Top of Page

Thoughts on the CIDL Metadata Survey Results

Deane Zeeman Acting Manager, Metadata Strategy and Services
Library and Archives Canada
Member, CIDL Metadata Working Group

My overall impression is that there is a need for leadership; people are all over the map and there is not much consistency. This will mean that interoperating across repositories is seriously compromised.

Interesting that people are in favour of a single portal - but they will have a lot to do to standardize in order to make this a reality. Portals are not a magic box!

And, as usual, it seems that the biggest barrier to moving forward is lack of resources and support. On the other hand, it will be more possible to obtain the necessary support if the players can prove they want to work together by getting the standards and practices more aligned (things they could do without a huge investment).

I'm really surprised by the people who indicated that they are not cataloguing/describing their digital objects. Without description, the investment in digitalizing is wasted! Looks to me like there is a big sustainability issue to address (not good enough to take the money and run which is what - in my opinion - digitizing without describing amounts to).

While the survey was an excellent tool for increasing awareness in the Inventory of Canadian Digital Initiatives, it did not generate an increase in submissions.

CIDL Metadata Survey: Key Questions

Are you currently using a Metadata Standard? If yes, please indicate which Metadata Standard?
Are you currently using a Metadata Application Profile? If yes, for what type of digital collection have you created the application profile, or are you using an existing one?
If you are using an existing Metadata Application Profile, indicate which one.
How many resource descriptions have you created using metadata? For what kinds of materials? In what subject areas?
What type of software are you currently using? If in-house tool, describe.
Is your institution willing to let others use this software?
Is this tool designed for multiple partners to share?
Workflow - Who is responsible for capturing metadata? Is capture now part of your institutional work flow?
How long has your institution been using metadata?
Which best describes your use of metadata?
Description, Administration, Technical, Preservation, Digital Rights Management
Do you expose your metadata through OAI-PMH so it can be harvested by a metadata harvester?
Are you interested in a CIDL initiative to provide a single portal for Canadian heritage metadata?'
Would you like to see portals organized by category?
During metadata creation do you give appropriate, full treatment for 'objects' such as images embedded within compound types of formats such as newspapers, so that the image could be harvested and searched through format specific portals (e.g. Images Canada)?
What other infrastructure would you like to see to support digitization?
Would you be interested in using open source, standards based tools that feed into these national portals for the creation of metadata of your digital collections, if they were provided as a low cost or free service through the library community?
Are your projects described in the Canadian Inventory of Digital Initiatives?

Top of Page

Brian Bell named director of AlouetteCanada

On October 16, 2006 Carole Moore, Chief Librarian, University of Toronto and Steering Committee Chair for AlouetteCanada announced the appointment of Brian Bell as Director of the AlouetteCanada open digitization initiative. The position is a secondment for a one-year term. Bell, former chair of CIDL (2004-2006) is Director of E-Services Development at Oakville Public Library.

"I am delighted to make this announcement," stated Moore. "Brian Bell brings the strengths and talents that we need to undertake this ambitious and exciting initiative. Brian is a consensus and team builder with a sound knowledge of what technology can help accomplish. His past experience will be a great asset, as will his knowledge of the field and many of the players. I would also like to acknowledge the commitment to a shared vision that has led Oakville Public Library to agree to release Brian to develop this important initiative for the benefit of all Canadians."

CIDL heartily congratulates Bell and looks forward to future discussions.
AlouetteCanada www.alouettecanada.ca/about-e.php

Top of Page

Blog on ...

Are you blogging about digitization issues? Are you working on new tools? Treading water in unchartered standards? Send CIDL News your blog address cidl-icbn@lac-bac.gc.ca. For example:

Mark Jordan: Simon Fraser University
Digitizationblog http://digitizationblog.interoperating.info/
A focus on digitization and related activities (such as electronic publishing) in libraries, archives, and museums, and intended to be a source of news relevant to people who manage and implement digitization projects. Read about Mark's ongoing development of a general purpose digital library content management system (DLCMS) based on Drupal.

Top of Page

The Inuit Through Moravian Eyes
Moravian presence in coastal Labrador documented

Inuit through Moravian eyes , a joint project among the libraries of the University of Toronto, Memorial University of Newfoundland and Labrador, and Université Laval, was made possible in part through the Canadian Culture Online program of Canadian Heritage. The site documents the history of the Moravian missionary settlements. It highlights the interaction between the congregation and the Inuit of coastal Labrador.

The website includes digital reproductions of about 6,000 pages of textual material and 1,000 photographs related to the missions in Labrador. The site also includes rare manuscript maps of northern Labrador and drawings, plans and paintings of the missionary settlements. It also provides access to approximately one hour of audio and video recordings of Moravian choral and brass band music. The collection is accompanied by bilingual metadata for discovery and retrieval of information. Users can search and browse the digital collection.

The richness of the Moravian-Inuit records lends itself to the creation of a wide variety of interactive and supplementary learning materials.

Top of Page

How was CIDL formed? Who initiated the idea?

CIDL was created in 1997 as a result of a consultation process on the state of digitization in Canadian libraries. It was "early days" and the National Library of Canada (Library and Archives Canada) wanted to capture information on questions such as who was involved in digital activities, interoperability, standards and best practices. A major outcome of that consultation was the decision by the participants, 25 libraries, to form CIDL as a coordinating organization of members with a mutual interest in digital activities related to libraries.

What are the key results and accomplishments from CIDL?
CIDL developed a national vision for digitization building on some of the following elements:

End-user focus for digital content development;
Mutual benefit and value respecting unique strengths and responsibilities;
Cross-sectoral collaboration;
Cost-effective development of digital content;
Decentralized governance and delivery;
Open access to digital resources.

CIDL was instrumental in securing significant Department of Canadian Heritage funding for the major initiative on local histories led by the University of Calgary and Université Laval: Our Roots/Nos racines.

CIDL maintains the Inventory of Canadian Digital Initiatives.

CIDL holds Open Meetings to discuss digitization challenges.

CIDL undertook a national Metadata Survey in 2005.

CIDL has been active in a number of national consultations including those on E-Theses, Newspapers, the Canadian Metadata Forums, and Access conferences.

CIDL developed and offered courses and seminars on digital activities.

CIDL sponsors members to attend major conferences and workshops through learning bursaries, thereby increasing the competencies of libraries and other institutions to undertake digital activities.

CIDL provides annual support to selected conferences that promote Canadian digitization standards such as the LAC Metadata Forum, and the Access conferences.

What are the current CIDL projects?

As a result of the 2004 CIDL Open Meeting, CIDL developed a vision for a cooperative national approach to digitization that included training, open source tools, standards, preservation and the development of centres of excellence. That vision is "Digital Canada numérique" and was proposed to the membership in 2006.

In 2005, CIDL carried out a national survey on the use of Metadata Standards.

In 2005, CIDL analyzed the Inventory of Canadian Digital Initiatives and reported on the 'who, what, when, where' of Canadian digitization efforts.

A 2004 CIDL working group reviewed the Canadian Culture Online mandatory technical standards set out in their application forms. In 2005, the working group made recommendations, and in the 2006-2007 fiscal year a number of the CCOP required technical standards were appropriately adjusted.

What is LAC's role in CIDL?
LAC maintains an arms-length relationship with CIDL ; however, in lieu of membership fees, LAC provides administrative and secretariat support for CIDL activities including workspace, systems support.

Top of Page

CIDL News #13 December 2006

ISSN 1488 2000
Editor: Michelle Landriault, CIDL Coordinator

This publication is issued twice a year by the Canadian Initiative on Digital Libraries (CIDL). Published articles are copyright to the individual authors. Send queries or submissions to: cidl-icbn@lac-bac.gc.ca

Canadian Initiative on Digital Libraries
550 boulevard de la Cité, Room 3-12
Gatineau QC  K1A 0N4

Top of Page