TechCall_07mar2016

Agenda

• Artworks in BHL! Bianca Crowley
  BHL Collections Committee needs to get feedback from Tech Team on the Artworks issue. We have loaded 2 samples into beta and are putting a document together revolving around 5 different options for how to proceed. Ideally, we would like a brief statement of the TT’s reaction to each option. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1QSKtThQBMxqSLCUstoc_TsWLiKuCp8BRkoSxpEAs18c/edit?usp=sharing.
• Joel will relay some information from SI's central IT regarding 508 Accessibility compliance and SI sites.
• Tech Team Updates / Questions

NOTES
Martin, Joel, Bianca, Carolyn, Mike, Trish
Regrets: Susan Lynch

Artworks & BHL - Bianca
Collections Committee has outlined Pros and Cons for 5 options for incorporating artworks into
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1QSKtThQBMxqSLCUstoc_TsWLiKuCp8BRkoSxpEAs18c/edit#

Regarding “artworks,” BHL could...
1. ...reconfigure its “book-like” item model to include artworks as a new content type
2. ...maintain its “book-like” item model and configure artworks to fit within this
3. ...incorporate artworks into another existing repository and link out
4. ...build a new repository specifically to host BHL artworks
5. ...decide against the inclusion of artworks and continue to focus on books

What if we were to do two of these? For example, start with #2, which would be the easiest but not ideal. Then, longer term, we could rethink the data model to make it what we want it to be.

Could be problematic. Could be difficult to port over automatically.

If we can’t automate, we would have added a lot of content that will require rework to make it fit into the new data model once it’s ready. If we didn’t do the rework, we’d have inconsistent representation in BHL. It could be confusing for users.

This requires two different components – storage of the metadata, and storage of content.

I prefer not to shoehorn anything new/different into the existing data model if it doesn’t fit and also don’t want to shoehorn into the Bookviewer.

For Option 4, we could set up a way to implement one search across multiple data models. Like DAMS and Collections Search at SI. Collections Search brings together different kinds of collections from the various SI museums. It works because it’s watered down. BHL v. 2 could be something more along the Europeana data model.

So that would be a separate repository for interacting with artworks.

What about audio and video / time-based media?

MRK: Executive recommendation: We can’t handle right now in an effective manner that could scale. We will include in the Requirements for BHL V. 2.

It needs more investigation. There are models we can use to base it off of, we can look at other systems.

Clarification that these recommendations and considerations apply to standalone artworks.

Section 508 - Joel
At SI Webmasters Meeting last week, topic of accessibility came up. This is a priority not just for Central IT but from Institution
Joel will get a list of requirements and review the website to see what we can improve. Might involved things like putting OCR in alt tab
Will also look into best practices for page images themselves.

BHL Move
Privacy Office has been in touch and Contracting Office is still reviewing terms of service. Will follow up if don’t hear by Wednesday. NEG to talk to Under Sec Finance.

What about items that are queued up for ingest?
Those can continue as is but BHL Move will take priority once approved.

Trouble deriving at IA? Issue with some not getting into BHL
DjVu file changes, and a few items won’t derive properly.
JR re-derived this morning and will send error message to Mike if it continues