Giuseppina Vullo

Quality is associated not only with each class of content or functionality but also with specific information objects or services. Quality is also the degree to which a DL conforms to a specific policy on the goal of a DL. The policy can cover very general guidelines to aspects that are highly technical. Quality is also applicable to either overall or single aspects of any products, services and processes, usually defined in relation to a set of guidelines and criteria. This is often implicit.

Sample of Policy survey participants

German Digital Library, Max-Planck DL, e-prints for Library and Information Science (E-LIS), Europeana,
E-Archivo: Institutional Repository of University Carlos III of Madrid, The European Library (TEL), DRIVER (D-NET) and The World Digital Library (WDL).

Survey focus

Formats, Format compliance checking tools (and results), Metadata standards, Metadata compliance checking tools (and results), Communication protocols, Communication protocol compliance checking tools (and results), Web guidelines/standards in the areas of accessibility, usability, multilingualism, Policies and legal obligations (eg for web standards or Reference Model) in addition to Multi-level guidelines and certifications, User satisfaction, Current interoperations, Quality interoperability and the Reference Model.

Outcomes

• 60% of respondents have validation tools to check Information object format compliance (eg.Pdf/A Validator).
  80% have validation tools to check metadata format compliance (eg. DC Validator).
  50% have validation tools to check communication protocols compliance (OAI/PMH & DRIVER Validators).
• 10% have very complete metadata; 60% complete metadata; 20% sufficiently complete and 10% incomplete metadata.

So what are the barriers to metadata creation?

• Time
• Accuracy
• Missing, too complex or contradictory guidelines
• Not having enough humans involved in the process
• Not understanding its real value, reason and purpose
• Review is required by qualified personnel

Most respondents see interoperability as mainly being technical in focus. Quality aspects are crucial for successful interoperability.

Connections to the Reference Model: some DLs are already using the RM for:

• Design and operation of processes
• Business and organisational models
• Changes of institutional repositories
• Revision of DL policies

Conclusions

• It’s a metadata-centric world.
• Role of guidelines (e.g. DRIVER, MINERVA, etc.), certifications (eg. DINI, Drambora) and validators
• Different meanings of Quality and Interoperability: contexts and objectives
• Lack of formalised and well-analysed policies
• Need to be supported

Engaged participants

Policy permeates the digital library from conceptualisation through to operation, so it needs to be represented at these various levels. A DL.org achievement has been shedding light on what is unexplored territory at global organisational (rather than only technical) level & interdisciplinary research. Two points to bear in mind:

1. Lack of policy formalisation and representation methods in current DLs
2. Time dimension: Handling policy drift over time.

Survey focus

Evaluate policies, strategies, frameworks, programmes, plans, or statements that have been prepared to guide how to develop and exploit aspects of their digital library/digital repository’s information management, exchanging experiences with Open Access Repository community in Europe, including EU initiatives, and in the U.S. The survey focus highlights a number of issues that are shared by experts in both DL.org Working Groups on Policy and Quality.

Sample of respondents – showcasing excellence

California Digital Library (CDL) – Calisphere; Data Archiving & Networked Services (DANS – Netherlands); DRIVER; ELis; Europeana; Liber Liber; Nemertes; National Science Digital Library (NSDL);
Padua@Research; UK Data Archive; University of Chicago Digital Repository; USGS Digital Library.

Questions

Questions focused on Access, Preservation, Metadata, Networks, Collection development, Intellectual property, Authentication, Service level agreements.

Outcomes
Most of the organisations have a written strategy or plan, either as part of a library strategic plan or as independent entity within their organisation. Existing policies have been amended and matched to the policies of other organisations with regard to policy exchange and reuse only in the areas of Preservation, Access, Collection Development and Metadata. All respondents indicated an interest or need to interoperate with peer and smaller/larger organisations, both in the public and private sector. But interestingly few
written policies have been stated as available to regulate this interaction.

Issues to be addressed

• Lack of policy formalisation & representation.
• Limited formal specifications are supported, e.g. for network management, security and privacy.
• Some technical interoperability of policy is possible, but only for very specific and technical cases (e.g.access control via Shibboleth).

Looking ahead
It might make more sense to talk about a “future” status as opposed to ‘solutions’ for policy interoperability.
Active areas for policy interoperability are related to access, authentication and licensing policies. Research should focus on human-machine interaction, e.g. how licensing policy interoperability might be achieved automatically in the near future. Making policies machine-readable would make them easier to manage.

The talk is available on the dedicated web page.

The talk is available on the dedicated workshop page on the DL.org website.