Operational ADL at UCSB

Creating an operational ADL within the UCSB Library started in 1996. The objective was to create a new information environment for the servicing of spatially referenced digital data via the Web. It was also an objective to link the ADL and library online catalog so users could move transparently between the two information systems. A group of library and systems people were brought together to discuss issues of functional interoperability e.g., what library processes lent themselves to both the analog and digital information environments; service requirements; collection development strategies; and production systems for adding data objects, and their meta, into ADL.

Issues that have arisen in making the transition from traditional to digital libraries are:

• Tensions and adjustments - as part of the campus community - supporting information services for both traditional and digital data, tensions between traditional and high technology users.

  Most of those who have tried to use ADL have been excited About its services. However when version 0 was released to the UCSB some tensions surfaced from a few in two communities. The first, were those concerned about digital data overshadowing traditional library materials. This came mostly from the humanist but some social scientist and a few hard-scientist also expressed concerns. The second area of tension was from those who felt they were ill equipped to deal with digital information due either to a lack of equipment and networking or a lack of knowledge in the use of the computing environment. The ADL user evaluation group is tracking both of these and other related areas.

• Library infrastructure - adjustments within the library culture, the adding of new types of skill sets, selling digital formats to traditionalist, and achieving a realistic balance between the digital and traditional material collections.

  Although some library employees were excited about participating in ADL there were unexpected tensions that surfaced. Some staff was concerned about their jobs being eliminated or their duties changed to a point that would effect pay classification. Others felt slighted that they were not consulted during the ADL operational process. Some, seeing new skill types being introduced into the library structure, e.g., systems and programming staff who were making comparable wages, saw their influence within the library being diluted. As time has passed, some of these issues seem to be fading but will most likely will not go away completely in the near future.

• User, including library staff, education. This includes new tools, the steep learning curve for practical digital data use and integration.

  These are issues being discussed in the ADL user-evaluation group but a plan for developing a requirement has not been developed. As ADL matures and more use is made of the collections either from the standpoint of adding content or using its services, a requirement for educating both user and archivist. Identification of tools to both add to and use ADL should be part of this requirement.

• Changes in the libraries internal methods of information service and processing, fitting new technologies into traditional frameworks, adjusting the dollar priorities within campus information services.

• Collection building: tensions between digital and traditional collection building, and the issue of access to local and remote archives.

As time has passed, progress has been made in integrating ADL into library operations. Two and one-half positions have been allocated to operational ADL for data loading, scanning and geospatial referencing and system programming. Client service paradigms are under development and production-line operations are taking form. Other goals that have been set are:

Linking ADL to the library catalog with the intent of allowing users to move between the two system services.

Identifying research collections currently inaccessible to library users and making them available via ADL.

Providing linkages to other local collections of data via library services such as ADL.

• Data conversion within Libraries is and will continue to be an issue for a long time to come. Operational ADL is hiring two persons for this function. They will be equipped for converting analog imagery to digital formats of those areas most used by UCSB clients. They will also convert other digital data thought to be important to local users.

• Criteria on what to convert from analog to digital must remain a local archive option. Resources for digitizing collections will most likely come form existing budgets. In ADL the operational part of ADL will concentrate on those data objects that are in high demand, in danger of deterioration, and will fit within the allocated human and machine resources available.

• How to digitize: in-house services vs. outsourcing. Several private firms were contacted and asked to submit proposals for scanning imagery. Each proposing firm was given the same sample set of data and asked to scan the items to the same specification. Costs of small and large collections were to be considered. The quality of the scans submitted varied widely as did digital formats and delivery media. After reviewing the proposals it appeared that the break even point for digitizing in-house was about 5000 items. When digitizing of large numbers of objects, it became clear that the cost incurred for equipment, upkeep, and staff would be less that outsourcing to private vendors.