1	Digital Library Repository Development at the UVa Library
2	Repository Project History 1999 – UVa Library Digital Library Research and Development reads an article about Fedora^TMand begins a test implementation with Cornell University. 2001 – DL R&D and Cornell receive a Mellon Foundation grant to develop Fedora into an open source tool. 2003 – Fedora 1.0 is released; implementation begins on the UVa Library Digital Library Repository; a "Phase 1" prototype is internally released for review. 2004 - DL R&D and Cornell receive a new Mellon Foundation grant to continue Fedora development; UVa Central Digital Repository is prepared for on-grounds release.
3	What is Fedora? Flexible, Extensible, Digital Object Repository Architecture A modular architecture built on the principle that interoperability and extensibility is best achieved by the integration of data, interfaces, and mechanisms (executable programs) as clearly defined modules. A Digital Asset Management architecture upon which many types of digital library systems might be built.
4	Fedora Data Objects
5
6	What Fedora is Not Fedora is not "done" – the development process is ongoing. Version 2.0 is due at the end of this year. The second grant-funded project goes through 2007. Fedora is the underlying architecture for a digital repository, not a complete management, indexing, discovery, and delivery application.
7	What is Fedora to the UVa Library? Fedora by itself is not the UVa Library's Digital Library system - Fedora is the "plumbing" for the Central Digital Repository. The definition and implementation of specific UVa systems using Fedora was a separate project from the development of Fedora.
8
9	What was Needed for Development? The creation and documentation of new holistic standards for production. Functional requirements for discovery and delivery. Analysis of collections and the development of content models describing various configurations of media and metadata files coupled with required behaviors for administrative purposes and in an end-user interface. A new unified interface design across collections. The implementation of new software tools and scripts for all aspects of production and delivery.
10	New Specifications A Metadata Steering Group was formed to review all the applicable metadata formats and document use guidelines. Specifications were set for the production of new digital images: Art, architecture, or cultural documentation images 24-bit color or grayscale pages images Bitonal page images A new local extension of the TEI DTD for marking up Electronic Texts was developed, along with encoding guidelines. Specifications were set for the transition to and use of EAD (Encoded Archival Description) 2002.
11	What was the Effect? Even with the development of multiple content models and production standards, objects created as recently as one year earlier required migration. Updates to encoding practice Enrichment of some metadata – subjects, authority normalization Re-generating some deliverable media files An assessment and prioritization process is being tested to review objects, assess metadata enrichment and media processing needs, and prioritize migration projects alongside new production.
12	Repository Development Process In summer 2003 a "Phase 1" prototype was developed to test functionality and look and feel. The prototype included: Electronic texts from the Library's Special Collections: Two editions of the Lewis and Clark Journals. Illustrated volumes on Westward Exploration. Over 100 volumes from the Early American Fiction project. Art, Architecture, and Cultural Documentation Images: Regional Virginia architecture. Architecture and landscape architecture in Barcelona. National Museum of American Art Catlin American Indian paintings. A selection of ethnographic and archeological objects from UCLA's Fowler Museum.
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21	Repository Development Process Over 130 Phase 1 comments from Library staff were distilled into 23 recommendations in four categories: User Interface General User Functionality Image-specific Functionality Text-Specific Functionality The recommendations were ranked by a number of Councils, Committees, and Working Groups to develop a prioritized list.
22	Repository Development Process The priorities included: Cross-collection search across all formats. A choice of simple or advanced search available across or within the format types. The ability to limiting searching to a single virtual collection. The ability to browse all objects in a virtual collection. Improved manipulation of images. A "Shopping Cart" to collect items into personal portfolios.
23	Repository Development Scope Processes to convert legacy images, electronic texts, and finding aids to current standards. Processes for the "ingest" of images, electronic texts, and finding aids into the Repository. A unified interface and graphic design. A cross-collection search for images, electronic texts, and finding aids together. Full-text searches for the electronic texts and the finding aids.
24	Repository Development Scope Development of programs to display or download objects in as defined in the content models. An ImageViewer that supports zooming, panning, rotation, and other on-the-fly image manipulation. A Digital Object Collector Tool for users to create personal portfolios of objects and generate slide shows or electronic reserve websites that include pointers to the images and metadata in the Repository. The slide shows and electronic reserves deliver the images wrapped in the ImageViewer. Later releases will be generalized to support the collection of other object types.
25	Repository Status The Repository is in its first experimental year. The Repository is still under development and subject to updates that may selectively affect functionality and availability. The next steps for the process are an evaluation of the production workflows, and usability testing with groups of Library staff, faculty, and students. Feedback will inform the development of the "Phase 3" Repository that will be based on more automated workflows and potentially include additional content models and format types.
26	The Demo http://www.lib.virginia.edu/digital/collections/
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37