VM to go: Because collections are A GOOD IDEA

This week I'll discuss "the possibility of downloading a pre-installed VM versus building your own, from a learning and pedagogical perspective."

The lines between user, content editor, and administrator, between local and remote servers, and between front and back ends are blurred as part of library 2.0, and indeed as part of web 2.0. So it has felt strange to me as a library student, that just as I am learning to make use of web tools possible for others, I am being expected to learn the most basic, unassisted computer application: the Command Line.

Should preconfigured virtual machines and similar solutions be available for download? DUH. Yes, they should. Not because this would provide more time to concentrate on the collection, but because it will open the possibilities of collection up to more people, more institutions, more collectors.

Would I use preconfigured systems? No, because I've spent time learning how to install repositories. I don't like the prospect of looking back on my Digital Information Management certificate the way I look back on my English and Women's Studies degrees. I want to feel I learned something useful that others don't know as well as I do. Knowing how a repository is structured and modified by building it from scratch is valuable, for me, because I believe I'm bound to do it professionally. But that doesn't mean it's valuable for everyone who wants to start a collection. It means that it's valuable for those who want to offer professional collections.

I am not one of those library students who thinks that fewer people knowing how to operate repositories means that I will be more in demand. People think repositories are worthless now. Not all people, but many of them. There are universes of data and information being lost because collection is not expected; it is an afterthought. So collection has to become a more mainstream activity first. It has to be happening where the grass is greener, where you're colleagues are spending their time. It has to be HAPPENING. So the more easy it is to start and manage a collection, the more likely it will be accepted as a good idea, then a trend, and finally, a necessity.

CMS: Costs More Skronk

I just finished reading the following article: "Building a local CMS at Kent State", by Rick Wiggins, Jeph Remley, and Tom Klingler, of Libraries & Media Services, Kent State University. To summarize, the Kent State University Library website, made mostly of static html pages built in Dreamweaver, was looking and functioning worse and worse due to inconsistencies created in the collaborative environment in which it was being created. The project was undertaken to create a website for the library that more effectively met the needs of the library's staff and users, including metadata creation and more effective database functionality. A variety of Content Management Systems were researched by the project team, who determined that none of the CMS's they examined was the right fit. The project then became the writing of a local Content Management System, with the team for this new project given the tight deadline of fourteen months to accomplish the task. The new CMS was developed using the input of focus groups, then implemented with the training of staff. The layout of the site, including the content creator interface, and the tools for the varying levels of management, have been laid out in the article. The CMS and resulting site have been pronounced successful.

Of all the articles about CMS's in Library Hi Tech's 2006 issue, which focused entirely on these systems, I was interested in this one because I have just begun working with Drupal, and I was curious what needs the Kent State Library had that Drupal could not meet. It seems the main areas of unmet need, in the original project researchers' 2006 estimation, centered on metadata. First, they wanted metadata to form a basis for the site. The resulting CMS uses metadata to organize the pages, and allows metadata search, as opposed to keyword search. Another need not met by Drupal or the other existing CMS's was to have the site send an email when a new resource was added that would alert library staff to play their respective roles in metadata creation. This was also ultimately accomplished by the new CMS and site.

The site in question, http://www.library.kent.edu if I'm not outdated, is indeed smooth and professional. It feels like there is more content and more streamlined function than many of the Drupal sites I've seen. But I wonder if project 1 would have turned into project 2 in, say, 2009? Not likely. For one thing, the metadata tools they required may have been added to one of the Open Source CMS's by then. Plus, days grew dark. As in:

Question: "Should we initiate project costing many thousands of dollars, or just create a module for Drupal or another pre-existing CMS?"

Answer: "Well, considering we just cut all of our part time staff...".

But this article is a valuable resource, a map of a road less traveled, successfully illuminated. So libraries, mark the metadata below. When the recession is over, you'll know where your roadmap is!

Article Type:

Technical paper
Keyword(s):

Content management; Information management; Libraries.
Journal:

Library Hi Tech
Volume:

24
Number:

1
Year:

2006
pp:

69-101
Copyright ©

Emerald Group Publishing Limited
ISSN:

0737-8831