1	Managing the mountain: keys to digital asset management Scott Siddall – Denison University James Shulman – ARTstor Greg Zick – DiMeMa, Inc. Stacy Pennington – Rhodes College
2	Roadmap Brief introduction The content perspective – James The commercial perspective – Greg The open source perspective – Stacy Are the any keys to digital asset management? – Scott
3	Session goals Up-to-date overview of DAM in higher ed Some examples of innovative work An opportunity to ask questions
4	NITLE Symposium, Dec. 2005 Strategic Planning for Digital Assets Management CONTENTdm, MDID, DSpace, Fedora, ARTstor, Luna Insight, Greenstone, more Campus Technology issue for June, 2006 No one has “the sauce ”
5	Major issues Purpose of collection Alignment with mission Need for collaborative planning Selection of unique content Metadata schema Costs and quality of metadata Intellectual property and DRM
6	Major issues Faculty incentives to contribute Searching and sharing strategies Presentation Archiving and preservation Administrative workflow Avoiding data or technology lock-in Scope and institutional repositories
7
8	Questions? Answers?
9	Planning questions - resources What digital collections do you have now and how complete are they? What is the existing staffing complement for a digitization effort? Are there capital and human resources to support an increase in production work? What facilities (scanning, software, storage, backup and bandwidth) are available? What might be the role of outsourcing in the project (hosting, digitization)? Are there any donors or corporate connections on the horizon?
10	Planning questions – goals Is there a unifying goal for the project, or multiple goals? What are the relative proportions of institutional vs faculty collections? Conservatively, what percentage of the faculty collections are unique? What role might student scholarship and creative work play? What other institutional records might be catalogued? How can/should the collection be shared (policies in addition to technologies)?
11	Planning questions - processes Is your academic leadership committed to supporting this effort? What are the possibilities for collaboration? among faculty, IT and library staff What role might students in the majors have in initial metadata creation? Are there regional repositories for specialized collections? Do they share metadata schema? What are the possibilities for federated searching and OAI harvesting?
12	Planning questions - challenges What are the real and perceived barriers to the project? What are/might be the incentives for faculty to contribute? How will faculty projects be prioritized for inclusion? What level of quality can you afford? Is there a campus policy on intellectual property that favors this project? How will the faculty (or institutional) collections be maintained?
13	Major criteria for DAM applications Allows collaborative and distributed collection development/management Basic and advanced searching across collections, across sites (federated searches, virtual collections, stored result sets) Web-based client with easy-to-use interface Common client-side players/viewers Client tools for manipulation, comparison, per-user annotation Support for multiple metadata standards
14	Major criteria for DAM applications Support for many object formats, and developing formats (e.g., jpeg 2000) Support for high-resolution, zoom-in features Supports Unicode text for display and searching URL access to objects Customizable display interface Based on open standards (database, metadata, etc.) Flexible access control list features Standards-based export functions to avoid “lock-in” and promote remote indexing Platform (hardware, operating system) agnostic – server and client
15	Thank you….