DefiningImageAccess/Resource/MIDESS

From ImageWeb

Jump to: navigation, search


{{#ifeq:MIDESS project reports|||| colspan="2" style="text-align: center; background: #FDEEF4"|
ResourceName:=MIDESS project reports
}}

{{#ifeq:||||style="vertical-align: top;" |Focus

{{#ifeq:DefiningImageAccess/Project/MIDESS||||style="vertical-align: top;" |PublishedBy: {{#ifeq:||||style="vertical-align: top;" |UsedBy: {{#ifeq:||||style="vertical-align: top;" |Describes:
DefiningImageAccess/Resource/MIDESS
[[Focus:={{{Focus}}}]]}}
PublishedBy::DefiningImageAccess/Project/MIDESS}}
[[UsedBy::{{{UsedBy}}}]]}}
[[Describes::{{{Describes}}}]]}}

MIDESS project reports

Published in the project The MIDESS project (see DefiningImageAccess/Project/MIDESS).

"MIDESS explores the management of digitised content in an institutional and cross-institutional context through the development of a digital repository infrastructure. The project addresses how support can be provided for the use of digital content in a learning and research context, in an integrated manner." (From the IPR final report, link below.)

"... which looks at the management of digitised content in institutional and cross-institutional repositories that hold documents and objects which may be textual or multimedia." (ibid)

User Requirement Report

MIDESS conducted a user requirements study, including a 13 case studies drawn from the various partner institutions, leading to technical requirements against which repository systems might be evaluated. The survey was conducted by an online questionnaire. This work is described in their User Requirements Analysis document; a summary of survey responses is in section 5. This information might usefully inform a more detailed stakeholder analysis, if required.

Tool Review

The project has undertaken a high-level survey of 9 open source and proprietary systems against a number of criteria. Results of this survey are summarized in their Functional and Technical Requirements Specification. From this, 6 products were selected for more detailed evaluation, including FEDORA and DSpace (Eprints was dropped because it supported justr textualk documents rather than arbitrary digital objects (images, etc.). The detailed evaluation was based on a paper survey rather than hands-on evaluation.

  • http://www.leeds.ac.uk/library/midess/MIDESS_%20Workpackage_4_Metadata_part_A.pdf - metadata report part A, with summary of commonly used metadata standards, and some discussion of interoperability between them. A useful report, with good overviews of the metadata schemas covered, but it's not clear to me what is its intended scope of coverage of standards. I guess the standards covered are those which are in-use by the project partners, which (if true) is of itself useful information.
Personal tools
Oxford DMP online
MIIDI
Claros