digital manuscript interoperability
DESCRIPTION
Digital Manuscript Interoperability. SharedCanvas and IIIF in Practice Benjamin Albritton Digital Manuscript Product Manager [email protected] @bla222. Summary: 2010-2013. Funding from Andrew W. Mellon Foundation Initial meeting of scholars and curators – Paris, 2010 - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
DIGITAL MANUSCRIPT INTEROPERABILITYSharedCanvas and IIIF in Practice
Benjamin Albritton Digital Manuscript Product [email protected]@bla222
Summary: 2010-2013• Funding from Andrew W. Mellon Foundation
• Initial meeting of scholars and curators – Paris, 2010
• Digital Manuscript Technical Working Group – 2010-pres.• Data Model: SharedCanvas• Data Sharing Framework: IIIF (International Image Interoperabiity Framework)
DMSTech and IIIF• Bibliothèque nationale de France• British Library• Oxford University• Stanford University• Johns Hopkins University• University of Fribourg (e-codices)• Saint Louis University (T-PEN)• Drew University (DM)• TextGrid• Los Alamos National Laboratory
• Yale University• Harvard University• Cambridge University• ARTstor• Cornell University• Princeton University• Walters Art Museum• National Library of Norway• The National Archives (UK)• … and more
Interoperability – One Definition• Primary Goal:
• Image and metadata sharing across collections and institutions
• “Killer app”: • a single viewer that reads content from multiple repositories
Imagine an image viewer…
With content from any repository…
That lets scholars compare…
And investigate in detail…
http://iiif.io/mirador/
Synopsis• Two primary motivators
• Comparative viewing of images• Viewing of annotations
• Part of the current Stanford-led Mellon grant for Digital Manuscript Interoperability• Goals:
• Support for use-cases at Yale, University of Toronto and Johns Hopkins University
• Comparative viewing for manuscript images in a book, across books, across collections, across repositories
• Support annotation and transcription viewing• Support light-weight annotation creation
How do we do it?
1. Represent the physical object in a common data model (SharedCanvas)
2. Deliver the data via common API (IIIF)
Data Model: SharedCanvas
http://www.shared-canvas.org
How do we do it?
1. Represent the physical object in a common data model (SharedCanvas)
2. Deliver the data via common API (IIIF)http://iiif.io
IIIF API Development and Current Status
• Work driven by real-world use-cases• Scholarly projects and interviews• Personae developed
• http://www.stanford.edu/group/dlss/dms-viewer/personas/• Development work referred back to these use-cases on an ongoing
basis• Confirmed that APIs actually support real needs
• Status• Image API at 1.1 release• Metadata API at 1.0 release
Deliver via API: IIIF
http://library.stanford.edu/iiif/image-api
Implementation• Meeting at Harvard in October 2013
• Eight institutions• Stanford• Yale• Harvard• University of Kentucky (vHMML)• Oxford University• University of Fribourg (e-codices)• Los Alamos National Laboratory• Biblissima (France)
• Goal: 6-8 institutions with:• Mirador installed• Showing content from all other institutions• Prototype ability to add more content• Development contributions?
Result: 9 institutions sharing content
Mirador Development Process• Two-year grant cycle:
• Design• Creation of personas:
• http://www.stanford.edu/group/dlss/dms-viewer/personas/• Creation of mock-ups and wire-frames
• http://www.stanford.edu/group/dlss/dms-viewer/mocks/#1• Development
• Phased development of different components• Comparative image viewing – COMPLETE• Annotation and transcription viewing – IN PROCESS• Annotation creation - FUTURE
• 1.0 public release planned for December 2013• 2.0 public release planned for December 2014• Post-2014: ongoing development of a community of adopters and
committers for this open source project
Next Steps: Image Choice
Next Steps: Image Choice
Next Steps: Annotation viewing
Next Steps: Transcription viewing
Next Steps: Multiple text representations
Next Steps: Workspace Sharing
The Beinecke as Institutional Leader• Technical implementation is relatively easy• Institutional buy-in to share content, and lots of it, is more
of a challenge• The Beinecke could play a leading role as one of the
major North American manuscript repositories• Benefits:
• Increased access to scholarly and public use of the content• Transcription and annotation of Beinecke content• Crowd-supported cataloging• Comparison of Beinecke books with related or comparable books
in other repositories in a single interface