Library digitization projects, issues and guidelines
Identifieur interne : 000498 ( Istex/Corpus ); précédent : 000497; suivant : 000499Library digitization projects, issues and guidelines
Auteurs : Laurie LopatinSource :
- Library Hi Tech [ 0737-8831 ] ; 2006-04-01.
Abstract
Purpose To provide a selective bibliography of literature which explores issues and provides guidelines on library digitization projects. Designmethodologyapproach Literature published from 20002005 on library digitization projects was examined. Issues involving digitization projects are presented, as well as case studies and resources for digitization projects. The paper has the following sections project management, funding digital projects, selection of materials, legal issues, metadata creation, interoperability, and preservation issues. Findings Libraries are undertaking digitization projects to provide wider access to and to preserve materials. The literature survey presents an overview of digitization activities and discussions of issues concerning library digital projects. The authors of the case studies detail how libraries dealt with various components of the projects, such as planning, cataloging, and handling copyright issues. Many aspects of digitization projects will be changing over time, with further research and advances in technology, and the literature on the subject bears watching in coming years. Practical implications The articles and resource guides in the literature survey can assist librarians in carrying out digitization projects in their institutions. Originalityvalue It explains how important issues in library digitization projects are being encountered and resolved and provides many practical guidelines and resources for librarians undertaking such projects.
Url:
DOI: 10.1108/07378830610669637
Links to Exploration step
ISTEX:58B6BDEE77D5A3A5387DF01D55A9D4761FFBFBDELe document en format XML
<record><TEI wicri:istexFullTextTei="biblStruct"><teiHeader><fileDesc><titleStmt><title xml:lang="en">Library digitization projects, issues and guidelines</title><author wicri:is="90%"><name sortKey="Lopatin, Laurie" sort="Lopatin, Laurie" uniqKey="Lopatin L" first="Laurie" last="Lopatin">Laurie Lopatin</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Hofstra University, Hempstead, New York, USA</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author></titleStmt><publicationStmt><idno type="wicri:source">ISTEX</idno><idno type="RBID">ISTEX:58B6BDEE77D5A3A5387DF01D55A9D4761FFBFBDE</idno><date when="2006" year="2006">2006</date><idno type="doi">10.1108/07378830610669637</idno><idno type="url">https://api.istex.fr/document/58B6BDEE77D5A3A5387DF01D55A9D4761FFBFBDE/fulltext/pdf</idno><idno type="wicri:Area/Istex/Corpus">000498</idno></publicationStmt><sourceDesc><biblStruct><analytic><title level="a" type="main" xml:lang="en">Library digitization projects, issues and guidelines</title><author wicri:is="90%"><name sortKey="Lopatin, Laurie" sort="Lopatin, Laurie" uniqKey="Lopatin L" first="Laurie" last="Lopatin">Laurie Lopatin</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Hofstra University, Hempstead, New York, USA</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author></analytic><monogr></monogr><series><title level="j">Library Hi Tech</title><idno type="ISSN">0737-8831</idno><imprint><publisher>Emerald Group Publishing Limited</publisher><date type="published" when="2006-04-01">2006-04-01</date><biblScope unit="volume">24</biblScope><biblScope unit="issue">2</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" from="273">273</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" to="289">289</biblScope></imprint><idno type="ISSN">0737-8831</idno></series><idno type="istex">58B6BDEE77D5A3A5387DF01D55A9D4761FFBFBDE</idno><idno type="DOI">10.1108/07378830610669637</idno><idno type="filenameID">2380240210</idno><idno type="original-pdf">2380240210.pdf</idno><idno type="href">07378830610669637.pdf</idno></biblStruct></sourceDesc><seriesStmt><idno type="ISSN">0737-8831</idno></seriesStmt></fileDesc><profileDesc><textClass></textClass><langUsage><language ident="en">en</language></langUsage></profileDesc></teiHeader><front><div type="abstract">Purpose To provide a selective bibliography of literature which explores issues and provides guidelines on library digitization projects. Designmethodologyapproach Literature published from 20002005 on library digitization projects was examined. Issues involving digitization projects are presented, as well as case studies and resources for digitization projects. The paper has the following sections project management, funding digital projects, selection of materials, legal issues, metadata creation, interoperability, and preservation issues. Findings Libraries are undertaking digitization projects to provide wider access to and to preserve materials. The literature survey presents an overview of digitization activities and discussions of issues concerning library digital projects. The authors of the case studies detail how libraries dealt with various components of the projects, such as planning, cataloging, and handling copyright issues. Many aspects of digitization projects will be changing over time, with further research and advances in technology, and the literature on the subject bears watching in coming years. Practical implications The articles and resource guides in the literature survey can assist librarians in carrying out digitization projects in their institutions. Originalityvalue It explains how important issues in library digitization projects are being encountered and resolved and provides many practical guidelines and resources for librarians undertaking such projects.</div></front></TEI><istex><corpusName>emerald</corpusName><author><json:item><name>Laurie Lopatin</name><affiliations><json:string>Hofstra University, Hempstead, New York, USA</json:string></affiliations></json:item></author><subject><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>Digital libraries</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>Research libraries</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>Collections management</value></json:item></subject><language><json:string>eng</json:string></language><originalGenre><json:string>e-literature-review</json:string></originalGenre><abstract>Purpose To provide a selective bibliography of literature which explores issues and provides guidelines on library digitization projects. Designmethodologyapproach Literature published from 20002005 on library digitization projects was examined. Issues involving digitization projects are presented, as well as case studies and resources for digitization projects. The paper has the following sections project management, funding digital projects, selection of materials, legal issues, metadata creation, interoperability, and preservation issues. Findings Libraries are undertaking digitization projects to provide wider access to and to preserve materials. The literature survey presents an overview of digitization activities and discussions of issues concerning library digital projects. The authors of the case studies detail how libraries dealt with various components of the projects, such as planning, cataloging, and handling copyright issues. Many aspects of digitization projects will be changing over time, with further research and advances in technology, and the literature on the subject bears watching in coming years. Practical implications The articles and resource guides in the literature survey can assist librarians in carrying out digitization projects in their institutions. Originalityvalue It explains how important issues in library digitization projects are being encountered and resolved and provides many practical guidelines and resources for librarians undertaking such projects.</abstract><qualityIndicators><score>7.4</score><pdfVersion>1.3</pdfVersion><pdfPageSize>519 x 680 pts</pdfPageSize><refBibsNative>true</refBibsNative><keywordCount>3</keywordCount><abstractCharCount>1511</abstractCharCount><pdfWordCount>7694</pdfWordCount><pdfCharCount>48688</pdfCharCount><pdfPageCount>17</pdfPageCount><abstractWordCount>200</abstractWordCount></qualityIndicators><title>Library digitization projects, issues and guidelines</title><genre><json:string>other</json:string></genre><host><volume>24</volume><publisherId><json:string>lht</json:string></publisherId><pages><last>289</last><first>273</first></pages><issn><json:string>0737-8831</json:string></issn><issue>2</issue><subject><json:item><value>Information & knowledge management</value></json:item><json:item><value>Information & communications technology</value></json:item><json:item><value>Internet</value></json:item><json:item><value>Library & information science</value></json:item><json:item><value>Information behaviour & retrieval</value></json:item><json:item><value>Librarianship/library management</value></json:item><json:item><value>Information user studies</value></json:item><json:item><value>Metadata</value></json:item><json:item><value>Library technology</value></json:item></subject><genre><json:string>journal</json:string></genre><language><json:string>unknown</json:string></language><title>Library Hi Tech</title><doi><json:string>10.1108/lht</json:string></doi></host><publicationDate>2006</publicationDate><copyrightDate>2006</copyrightDate><doi><json:string>10.1108/07378830610669637</json:string></doi><id>58B6BDEE77D5A3A5387DF01D55A9D4761FFBFBDE</id><score>0.10097423</score><fulltext><json:item><original>true</original><mimetype>application/pdf</mimetype><extension>pdf</extension><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/58B6BDEE77D5A3A5387DF01D55A9D4761FFBFBDE/fulltext/pdf</uri></json:item><json:item><original>false</original><mimetype>application/zip</mimetype><extension>zip</extension><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/58B6BDEE77D5A3A5387DF01D55A9D4761FFBFBDE/fulltext/zip</uri></json:item><istex:fulltextTEI uri="https://api.istex.fr/document/58B6BDEE77D5A3A5387DF01D55A9D4761FFBFBDE/fulltext/tei"><teiHeader><fileDesc><titleStmt><title level="a" type="main" xml:lang="en">Library digitization projects, issues and guidelines</title><title level="a" type="sub" xml:lang="en">A survey of the literature</title></titleStmt><publicationStmt><authority>ISTEX</authority><publisher>Emerald Group Publishing Limited</publisher><availability><p>EMERALD</p></availability><date>2006</date></publicationStmt><sourceDesc><biblStruct type="inbook"><analytic><title level="a" type="main" xml:lang="en">Library digitization projects, issues and guidelines</title><title level="a" type="sub" xml:lang="en">A survey of the literature</title><author><persName><forename type="first">Laurie</forename><surname>Lopatin</surname></persName><affiliation>Hofstra University, Hempstead, New York, USA</affiliation></author></analytic><monogr><title level="j">Library Hi Tech</title><idno type="pISSN">0737-8831</idno><idno type="DOI">10.1108/lht</idno><imprint><publisher>Emerald Group Publishing Limited</publisher><date type="published" when="2006-04-01"></date><biblScope unit="volume">24</biblScope><biblScope unit="issue">2</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" from="273">273</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" to="289">289</biblScope></imprint></monogr><idno type="istex">58B6BDEE77D5A3A5387DF01D55A9D4761FFBFBDE</idno><idno type="DOI">10.1108/07378830610669637</idno><idno type="filenameID">2380240210</idno><idno type="original-pdf">2380240210.pdf</idno><idno type="href">07378830610669637.pdf</idno></biblStruct></sourceDesc></fileDesc><profileDesc><creation><date>2006</date></creation><langUsage><language ident="en">en</language></langUsage><abstract><p>Purpose To provide a selective bibliography of literature which explores issues and provides guidelines on library digitization projects. Designmethodologyapproach Literature published from 20002005 on library digitization projects was examined. Issues involving digitization projects are presented, as well as case studies and resources for digitization projects. The paper has the following sections project management, funding digital projects, selection of materials, legal issues, metadata creation, interoperability, and preservation issues. Findings Libraries are undertaking digitization projects to provide wider access to and to preserve materials. The literature survey presents an overview of digitization activities and discussions of issues concerning library digital projects. The authors of the case studies detail how libraries dealt with various components of the projects, such as planning, cataloging, and handling copyright issues. Many aspects of digitization projects will be changing over time, with further research and advances in technology, and the literature on the subject bears watching in coming years. Practical implications The articles and resource guides in the literature survey can assist librarians in carrying out digitization projects in their institutions. Originalityvalue It explains how important issues in library digitization projects are being encountered and resolved and provides many practical guidelines and resources for librarians undertaking such projects.</p></abstract><textClass><keywords scheme="keyword"><list><head>Keywords</head><item><term>Digital libraries</term></item><item><term>Research libraries</term></item><item><term>Collections management</term></item></list></keywords></textClass><textClass><keywords scheme="Emerald Subject Group"><list><label>cat-IKM</label><item><term>Information & knowledge management</term></item><label>cat-ICT</label><item><term>Information & communications technology</term></item><label>cat-INT</label><item><term>Internet</term></item></list></keywords></textClass><textClass><keywords scheme="Emerald Subject Group"><list><label>cat-LISC</label><item><term>Library & information science</term></item><label>cat-IBRT</label><item><term>Information behaviour & retrieval</term></item><label>cat-LLM</label><item><term>Librarianship/library management</term></item><label>cat-IUS</label><item><term>Information user studies</term></item><label>cat-MTD</label><item><term>Metadata</term></item><label>cat-LTC</label><item><term>Library technology</term></item></list></keywords></textClass></profileDesc><revisionDesc><change when="2006-04-01">Published</change></revisionDesc></teiHeader></istex:fulltextTEI><json:item><original>false</original><mimetype>text/plain</mimetype><extension>txt</extension><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/58B6BDEE77D5A3A5387DF01D55A9D4761FFBFBDE/fulltext/txt</uri></json:item></fulltext><metadata><istex:metadataXml wicri:clean="corpus emerald not found" wicri:toSee="no header"><istex:xmlDeclaration>version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"</istex:xmlDeclaration><istex:document><!-- Auto generated NISO JATS XML created by Atypon out of MCB DTD source files. Do Not Edit! --><article dtd-version="1.0" xml:lang="en" article-type="e-literature-review"><front><journal-meta><journal-id journal-id-type="publisher-id">lht</journal-id><journal-id journal-id-type="doi">10.1108/lht</journal-id><journal-title-group><journal-title>Library Hi Tech</journal-title></journal-title-group><issn pub-type="ppub">0737-8831</issn><publisher><publisher-name>Emerald Group Publishing Limited</publisher-name></publisher></journal-meta><article-meta><article-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1108/07378830610669637</article-id><article-id pub-id-type="original-pdf">2380240210.pdf</article-id><article-id pub-id-type="filename">2380240210</article-id><article-categories><subj-group subj-group-type="type-of-publication"><compound-subject><compound-subject-part content-type="code">e-literature-review</compound-subject-part><compound-subject-part content-type="label">Literature review</compound-subject-part></compound-subject></subj-group><subj-group subj-group-type="subject"><compound-subject><compound-subject-part content-type="code">cat-IKM</compound-subject-part><compound-subject-part content-type="label">Information & knowledge management</compound-subject-part></compound-subject><subj-group><compound-subject><compound-subject-part content-type="code">cat-ICT</compound-subject-part><compound-subject-part content-type="label">Information & communications technology</compound-subject-part></compound-subject><subj-group><compound-subject><compound-subject-part content-type="code">cat-INT</compound-subject-part><compound-subject-part content-type="label">Internet</compound-subject-part></compound-subject></subj-group></subj-group></subj-group><subj-group subj-group-type="subject"><compound-subject><compound-subject-part content-type="code">cat-LISC</compound-subject-part><compound-subject-part content-type="label">Library & information science</compound-subject-part></compound-subject><subj-group><compound-subject><compound-subject-part content-type="code">cat-IBRT</compound-subject-part><compound-subject-part content-type="label">Information behaviour & retrieval</compound-subject-part></compound-subject><subj-group><compound-subject><compound-subject-part content-type="code">cat-IUS</compound-subject-part><compound-subject-part content-type="label">Information user studies</compound-subject-part></compound-subject><compound-subject><compound-subject-part content-type="code">cat-MTD</compound-subject-part><compound-subject-part content-type="label">Metadata</compound-subject-part></compound-subject></subj-group></subj-group><subj-group><compound-subject><compound-subject-part content-type="code">cat-LLM</compound-subject-part><compound-subject-part content-type="label">Librarianship/library management</compound-subject-part></compound-subject><subj-group><compound-subject><compound-subject-part content-type="code">cat-LTC</compound-subject-part><compound-subject-part content-type="label">Library technology</compound-subject-part></compound-subject></subj-group></subj-group></subj-group></article-categories><title-group><article-title>Library digitization projects, issues and guidelines</article-title><subtitle>A survey of the literature</subtitle></title-group><contrib-group><contrib contrib-type="author"><string-name><given-names>Laurie</given-names> <surname>Lopatin</surname></string-name><aff>Hofstra University, Hempstead, New York, USA</aff></contrib></contrib-group><pub-date pub-type="ppub"><day>01</day><month>04</month><year>2006</year></pub-date><volume>24</volume><issue>2</issue><fpage>273</fpage><lpage>289</lpage><permissions><copyright-statement>© Emerald Group Publishing Limited</copyright-statement><copyright-year>2006</copyright-year><license license-type="publisher"><license-p></license-p></license></permissions><self-uri content-type="pdf" xlink:href="07378830610669637.pdf"></self-uri><abstract><sec><title content-type="abstract-heading">Purpose</title><x> – </x><p>To provide a selective bibliography of literature which explores issues and provides guidelines on library digitization projects.</p></sec><sec><title content-type="abstract-heading">Design/methodology/approach</title><x> – </x><p>Literature published from 2000‐2005 on library digitization projects was examined. Issues involving digitization projects are presented, as well as case studies and resources for digitization projects. The paper has the following sections: project management, funding digital projects, selection of materials, legal issues, metadata creation, interoperability, and preservation issues.</p></sec><sec><title content-type="abstract-heading">Findings</title><x> – </x><p>Libraries are undertaking digitization projects to provide wider access to and to preserve materials. The literature survey presents an overview of digitization activities and discussions of issues concerning library digital projects. The authors of the case studies detail how libraries dealt with various components of the projects, such as planning, cataloging, and handling copyright issues. Many aspects of digitization projects will be changing over time, with further research and advances in technology, and the literature on the subject bears watching in coming years.</p></sec><sec><title content-type="abstract-heading">Practical implications</title><x> – </x><p>The articles and resource guides in the literature survey can assist librarians in carrying out digitization projects in their institutions.</p></sec><sec><title content-type="abstract-heading">Originality/value</title><x> – </x><p>It explains how important issues in library digitization projects are being encountered and resolved and provides many practical guidelines and resources for librarians undertaking such projects.</p></sec></abstract><kwd-group><kwd>Digital libraries</kwd><x>, </x><kwd>Research libraries</kwd><x>, </x><kwd>Collections management</kwd></kwd-group><custom-meta-group><custom-meta><meta-name>peer-reviewed</meta-name><meta-value>no</meta-value></custom-meta><custom-meta><meta-name>academic-content</meta-name><meta-value>yes</meta-value></custom-meta><custom-meta><meta-name>rightslink</meta-name><meta-value>included</meta-value></custom-meta></custom-meta-group></article-meta></front><body><sec><title>Introduction</title><p>Since, the early 1990s libraries have been embarking on digitization projects to provide access to and to preserve unique materials in their collections. There is a wealth of literature on many aspects of this subject. This survey presents a sampling of the literature published from 2000‐2005 on some of the issues and components involved in non‐commercial digitization projects conducted by libraries in the US – project management, funding of projects, selection of materials for digitization, legal issues, metadata, interoperability, and preservation – to see where the profession is and to aid libraries in digitization efforts. Case studies of digital projects illustrate how libraries are addressing these issues.</p><p>Access and preservation of materials are the major reasons that libraries are undertaking digitization projects. Through digitization, the library is able to provide access to all sorts of materials – text, photographs, manuscripts, audio, and moving image materials. Digitization also allows for the preservation of rare, fragile, and unique materials:<disp-quote><p>Collections can be made accessible, via digital surrogates in an enhanced format that allows searching and browsing, to both traditional and new audiences via the internet (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b38">Hughes, 2004, p. 6</xref>).</p></disp-quote><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b43">Kenney and Rieger (2000, p. 1)</xref> state that libraries are digitizing materials because:<disp-quote><p>… they remain convinced of the continuing value of such resources for learning, teaching, research, scholarship, documentation, and public accountability.</p></disp-quote></p><p>Another benefit of digitization is that it raises the profile of the institution as users worldwide utilize its collection remotely:<disp-quote><p>There has been a significant growth of various national and international digitization projects in the last ten years, as libraries and universities all around the world have funded major initiatives to showcase their rich cultural and scientific heritage (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b38">Hughes, 2004, p. 6</xref>).</p></disp-quote></p><p>The Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS) reported in its 2001 survey of digitization activities by museums and libraries that 34 percent of academic libraries, 24 percent of public libraries, and 78 percent of state library administrative agencies had been involved in digitization activities in the previous year (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b40">IMLS, 2002, p. 7</xref>). Nineteen percent of academic libraries (p. 26), and 13 percent of public libraries (p. 23) planned digitization activities in the next 12 months. Academic libraries ranked the highest priority goal of digitization as increased access to the collections and the second highest priority as the preservation of materials of importance or value (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b40">IMLS, 2002, p. 27</xref>). Many library digitization projects involve special collections. According to a 1998 survey of special collections departments in Association of Research Libraries (ARL), 66 percent were conducting digitization projects, and 25 percent were planning digitization projects (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b59">Panitch, 2001, p. 52</xref>).</p><p>At a more local level in 2004, the Metropolitan New York Library Council (METRO) conducted a survey of the digitization activities of its 270 member libraries. Fifty‐one percent of the respondents had digitized items in the past two years, and 45 percent planned to digitize in the next two years (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b55">Metropolitan New York Library Council and OCLC, 2005, p. 3</xref>). Forty‐seven percent of the respondents indicated that increasing access to the collection was the primary reason for digitizing materials (p. 4).</p></sec><sec><title>Project management</title><p>Digital projects are extremely complex, and effective project management – including managing budgets, staffing, workflow, determining technical specifications, and metadata creation – is vital for a successful digitization project. Several authors provide guidelines for managing digital projects. <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b15">Chapman (2000)</xref> discusses three phases of a digital project – setting goals, planning and budgeting, and managing workflow – and he discusses various issues and tasks in each phase. <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b31">Grout <italic>et al.</italic> (2000)</xref> discuss management issues involved in creating digital resources, and they provide guidelines for such aspects of a digital project as project planning, preparation for data creation, resource delivery, and archiving and preservation. <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b14">Cervone (2005)</xref> outlines a process for digital library project teams to use in the important task of decision making, including the use of an option assessment matrix.</p><p>Drawing on his experience of managing a digitization project at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b25">Eden (2001b)</xref> presents guidelines for managing such projects. He discusses identifying best practices, designing the web site, and choosing a metadata scheme, as well as the importance of communication, collaboration, and quality control for a successful project. <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b39">Hull and Dreher (2001)</xref> report on the design of a management system to track the various tasks involved in a project at Temple University to digitize photographs and a collection of World War I and II posters. The authors state that the tracking database helped maintain efficiency and control of the project, and was used for statistics, report generation, and documentation of the project.</p><p><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b75">Wilson (2003, p. 27)</xref> outlines a project at the Amateur Athletic Foundation of Los Angeles Sports Library to digitize part of its collection on the Olympics. He discusses various aspects of managing the project, including the decision to outsource the conversion of paper documents to digital format, preservation of the digital resources, copyright concerns, and metadata. The author concludes:<disp-quote><p>The same knowledge and skills that make a good manager in a traditional setting contribute to success in the digital environment, namely familiarity with the resources in the collection, and understanding of the information needs of a particular library's clientele, and sensitivity to the way that people seek information.</p></disp-quote></p></sec><sec><title>Funding digital projects</title><p>Digital projects are expensive. They require hardware, software, and trained staff to perform such responsibilities as scanning, performing quality control, and creating metadata. Where do libraries get funds for digitization projects? <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b24">Eden (2001a)</xref> suggests that libraries research and apply for funds from both internal library sources and external sources, as well as collaborate with other libraries, museums, or archives.</p><p>Many libraries depend on grants to support their digitization projects (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b16">Chepesiuk, 2001</xref>). A major source of grant support in the US is IMLS, a US Federal Agency established in 1996 for preservation or digitization of library materials. Joyce Ray, the Director of Library Services of IMLS, recommends that applicants for an IMLS grant focus on evaluation criteria, including:<list list-type="bullet"><list-item><label>• </label><p>national impact (e.g. is it an innovative model project?);</p></list-item><list-item><label>• </label><p>design specifications, including technical information such as hardware, software, file formats, metadata standards;</p></list-item><list-item><label>• </label><p>a sound management plan, with a commitment to preservation;</p></list-item><list-item><label>• </label><p>a realistic budget;</p></list-item><list-item><label>• </label><p>qualified personnel (e.g. technical experts, catalogers, project managers); and</p></list-item><list-item><label>• </label><p>sustainability (is the institution committed to maintaining the digital resources?) (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b62">Ray, 2001</xref>).</p></list-item></list>The METRO survey of New York City area libraries paints a different picture. In contrast to “state, regional, and national trends which show digitization efforts primarily funded by grants,” (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b55">Metropolitan New York Library Council and OCLC, 2005, p. 1</xref>), 51 percent of the respondents to the metropolitan survey indicated that digitization funding came from the institution's own budget (p. 5). Foundation and federal grants were each utilized by only 10 percent of the respondents (p. 5).</p><p><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b60">Pastine <italic>et al.</italic> (2001)</xref> describe digital imaging projects at Temple University, focusing on financing and on the funding provided by two IMLS grants. The federal funds were earmarked for personnel, equipment and networking, and capital renovation of the library. The authors also discuss the ongoing costs of digital projects. They expect additional staff training costs to be financed by the university. Temple University Library will also continue to seek outside funding for digital projects through such sources as the National Endowment for the Humanities and the National Endowment for the Arts, as well as foundations and corporations.</p><p><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b23">Downer <italic>et al.</italic> (2005, p. 237)</xref> outline the implementation of an IMLS grant for the Cornerstone Project to digitize historical materials in Alabama's libraries, archives and museums. The grant established digital projection centers at Auburn University and the University of Alabama. In addition, matching funds from several Alabama universities financed equipment and staff for the project. When the IMLS grant ends, more financing will have to be sought. The authors advocate more permanent funding for digitization:<disp-quote><p>The Cornerstone Project is one part of a long‐term vision to encourage libraries and other repositories to integrate digitization of materials into their usual and routine tasks.</p></disp-quote></p></sec><sec><title>Selection of materials</title><p><disp-quote><p>Considering the bourgeoning volume and heterogeneity of information on the web, selection and appraisal of resources for digitization is one of the most difficult tasks in the digital resources management life cycle (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b34">Hartman <italic>et al.</italic>, 2005</xref>).</p></disp-quote></p><p>Selecting materials for a digital project entails different factors than selecting print materials, such as legal issues and the high costs of digitization projects. In addition, the project team needs to determine if the materials to be digitized warrant the time and expense of transferring the digital files to new formats every few years as technologies change. Several authors provide guidelines for selecting materials for digitization. <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b73">Vogt‐O'Connor (2000)</xref> recommends that the selection process take three phases: nomination, evaluation, and prioritization. She discusses legal issues and stakeholder concerns (involving culturally or ethically sensitive materials), and she presents a checklist for the evaluation of materials, which includes such factors as donor restrictions, condition of materials, and the authenticity of the item. <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b21">De Stefano (2000, p. 13)</xref> lists issues to consider for selection of materials for a digital project, with copyright the first issue. “Obtaining copyright permission is not always possible and can derail a project that appears otherwise straightforward.” She discusses selection as it applies to different goals of a digitization project: selection to increase access to materials; selection based on content; and selection for preservation.</p><p>Several authors recommend that libraries have collection development policies for digital projects:<disp-quote><p>On the basis of cost alone, it is essential that academic institutions choose digital projects carefully based on an established set of criteria within a well‐planned procedure (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b10">Brancolini, 2000, p. 786</xref>).</p></disp-quote><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b69">Smith (2001)</xref> and <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b10">Brancolini (2000)</xref> suggest using Harvard's guidelines, <italic>Selecting Research Collections for Digitization</italic>, (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b35">Hazen <italic>et al.</italic>, 1998</xref>), as a foundation for selection criteria and then adapting them to the needs of the local institution. Harvard's guidelines include “a graphical matrix for decision making” (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b10">Brancolini, 2000, p. 784</xref>). <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b69">Smith (2001)</xref> presents recommendations for selection, including that libraries be clear about the purpose of a digital collection – whether it be for preservation, outreach, or curricular development; that libraries develop protocols for selection; and that libraries clarify the target audience for a digital collection. <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b53">McDonald (2003, p. 24)</xref> also recommends defining a library's user community and selecting materials that are relevant to that community. He concludes:<disp-quote><p>… if we build high demand, high quality collections at a reasonable cost that can be maintained for the long term, we will take the first steps to becoming a major part of the scholarly research dissemination chain.</p></disp-quote><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b22">De Stefano (2001, p. 67)</xref> advocates that selection be driven by use. However, she found that this is often not the case. She conducted an informal survey of 25 current digital library projects, and found that most of the projects had enhanced access as their goal, and:<disp-quote><p>… the most popular approach to selecting collections for digital conversion is a subject‐and‐date parameter approach applied, by and large, to special collections, with little regard for use, faculty recommendations, scholarly input, editorial boards, or curriculum.</p></disp-quote></p><p>Unlike De Stefano's findings, several case studies read for this literature survey found that the use of the collection was a primary criterion for selection. For example, <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b41">Jerrido <italic>et al.</italic> (2001)</xref> discuss three digital pilot projects at Temple University. The projects were chosen in collaboration with faculty to meet the needs of students, faculty and researchers. One of the projects was the digitization of World War I and II posters, and this collection was selected because of the wide use to be made of the digitized posters by a large number of schools and academic departments of the university. The authors state that use was also a major selection criterion for digitizing the Urban Archives Photo Collection at Temple University. <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b28">Fifarek (2002)</xref>, <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b75">Wilson (2003)</xref> and <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b36">Helling (2003)</xref> all cited use as a primary selection criteria for materials in digitization projects at their institutions.</p><p><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b13">Cedar Face and Hollens (2004)</xref> outline the active collection development activities at Southern Oregon University to build digital collections on the ecology and indigenous peoples of Southwestern Oregon and Northwestern California. Bibliographies and databases were searched for relevant resources, and research documents were solicited from federal, state, and local agencies. The authors also discuss the importance of collaboration in collection development. The project team collaborated with governmental agencies and with tribes to obtain materials for the projects.</p><p><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b1">Adaryukov and Miller (2005)</xref> discuss selection issues in a project to digitize part of the 80,000‐volume Molly S. Fraiberg Judaica Collection at Florida Atlantic University. An <italic>ad hoc</italic> selection committee was created to delineate the scope of the digital collection, and to establish selection procedures. With high importance placed on preservation concerns, priority was given to materials in the most brittle condition.</p></sec><sec><title>Legal issues</title><p>An important aspect of a digital project involves handling legal issues such as copyright. The current copyright law in the US is the Copyright Act of 1976. This was amended by the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) of 1998 which attempted to adapt copyright law to the digital environment. Several authors discuss various legal issues regarding library digital projects. <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b27">Ferullo (2004, p. 30)</xref> outlines some of the provisions of the DMCA and states it “is quite complex and is just beginning to be interpreted by the courts.” <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b7">Besek (2003)</xref> focuses on US copyright law as it relates to a digital archive. <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b37">Hoffmann (2005)</xref> presents guidelines for applying copyright law to information transmitted over the internet. <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b48">Levine (2000)</xref> and <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b38">Hughes (2004)</xref> discuss copyright law, public domain materials, the DMCA, fair use, ethical questions of publicity, and the right of privacy.</p><p>When libraries undertake a digitization project, they need to take into consideration whether or not the material to be digitized is protected by copyright law, or whether it is in the public domain. Works in the public domain are not protected by copyright, and they “can be used freely without paying royalties or fees, or asking permissions” (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b38">Hughes, 2004, p. 60</xref>). Several authors provide charts detailing when published and unpublished works pass into the public domain (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b56">Minow, 2002</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b48">Levine, 2000</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b74">Wherry, 2002</xref>). Works published before 1923 and US government publications are in the public domain and can legally be digitized and put on the web as long as there are no privacy or publicity concerns. For example, <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b13">Cedar Face and Hollens (2004)</xref> report that most of the documents in Southern Oregon University's First Nations Collection on indigenous peoples are in the public domain because they were published before 1923 or they are US government publications. The case study on the making of modern Michigan (MMM) digital project also illustrates copyright issues. <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b42">Jones (2005)</xref> describes the copyright screening system by which the participating Michigan libraries can determine the copyright status of materials they wish to digitize for the project. For further assistance, an instructional video on copyright issues was produced by MMM staff and was made available for use by the participants on the MMM web site.</p><p><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b56">Minow (2002)</xref> clearly outlines, with the use of flowcharts and examples, steps that libraries can take to address copyright concerns for materials that are still under copyright protection. Libraries can use exceptions to the US copyright law, such as “fair use,” and Minow states that some libraries assert the fair use exception for educational and research purposes.</p><p>However, this is not easily accomplished. Fair use is an especially contentious issue in the literature:<disp-quote><p>The law specifically allows fair use for such purposes as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, and scholarship or research. That being said, trying to decipher those purposes and conditions is a daunting and confusing task (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b74">Wherry, 2002, p. 17</xref>).</p></disp-quote></p><p>Fair use is tested in the courts on a case‐by‐case basis (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b56">Minow, 2002</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b37">Hoffmann, 2005</xref>). <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b47">Lee (2001, p. 141)</xref> is wary of using the claim of fair use for digital projects “until this has been clarified under national law.” <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b2">Anderson (2001, p. 112)</xref> warns that “fair use, enacted into statute in 1976, may be eliminated in part or whole,” and he recommends that librarians stay informed of developments concerning this issue.</p><p>On the other hand, <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b20">Dames (2005, p. 34)</xref> maintains that fair use is strong. He states that although “fair use is a high‐stakes litigation gamble” he remains “confident in using fair use as a viable copyright limitation.” He advocates using fair use, or losing it. An example of fair use in a digital project is the digital image web site for a collection of artists' books at the Frick Fine Arts Library at the University of Pittsburgh. <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b68">Shincovich (2004, p. 12)</xref> states that she believes the web site for the artists' books collection falls under the conditions of fair use, one reason being that the site is primarily for educational purposes. But, discussing the complexity of copyright law, she asserts that applying fair use to digital image collections in not clear‐cut, and the:<disp-quote><p>… vague nature of copyright law for literary, artistic, and photographic works is a deterrent to art librarians and visual resource professionals when creating educational resources.</p></disp-quote></p><p>If the material to be digitized is not in the public domain, and if copyright exceptions are not applicable, the library will need to obtain permission from the copyright holder to digitize the material. Tracking down the copyright holder(s) and coming to an agreement with them can be a very difficult and time‐consuming process. <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b47">Lee (2001, p. 141)</xref> states:<disp-quote><p>It is not surprising, therefore, that many digital imaging projects concentrate on material they own rights to, or on items out of copyright.</p></disp-quote></p><p>If the library needs to get permissions, <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b38">Hughes (2004)</xref> recommends that a member of the project team be responsible for clearing copyright, including identifying and contacting the copyright holder or holders, and documenting all the steps taken.</p><p><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b65">Rossman and Weintraub (2003, p. 18)</xref> describe the procedure used at Yale University to obtain permissions from artists and presses to digitize book arts ephemera in their Art of the Book Collection. Mailings were sent out to artists and presses with an explanation of the project, a “license for the copyright holder to sign and return, and a printout of what the work would look like in the database.” The authors report that although obtaining permissions took more time and increased costs, it was a successful undertaking, since the majority of the copyright holders granted the permissions.</p><p>After an institution mounts a digital project on the web, the institution needs to manage the rights to the digital objects. <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b38">Hughes (2004)</xref> and <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b47">Lee (2001)</xref> recommend including copyright statements visible to users. For example, <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b29">Galloway (2004)</xref> describes the copyright and use statements on the web site of Pittsburgh area photographs at the University of Pittsburgh. There is a generic copyright and use statement for the digital photograph collections as a whole, and, in addition, the metadata of each image contains a copyright field.</p><p>Besides explicit copyright statements, some projects “insert banners or captions into the image itself (usually along the border of the image)” (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b47">Lee, 2001, p. 143</xref>). Another technique is the use of watermarking, which “inserts marks or labels into the digital content in a subtle, or transparent, way” (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b38">Hughes, 2004, p. 74</xref>). Watermarks are used to control the use of the digital image and to limit copying. An example of the use of watermarks is the urban archives photo collection at Temple University, where a Temple University libraries watermark is applied to the catalog display images (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b41">Jerrido <italic>et al.</italic>, 2001</xref>).</p><p>Another technique used to protect images from unauthorized use is to “serve low resolution images with inadequate detail for publication” (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b52">Mathias, 2004, p. 7</xref>). This was the method utilized by the Library of the Academy of Natural Sciences in Philadelphia for the project to digitize manuscript materials (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b52">Mathias, 2004</xref>).</p></sec><sec><title>Metadata creation</title><p>A major component of a digital project is the creation of metadata:<disp-quote><p>Metadata is structured data about data – information that facilitates the management and use of other information (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b45">Lagoze and Payette, 2000, p. 84</xref>).</p></disp-quote></p><p>Good metadata creation is important not only to access materials in a digital repository, but also for representing information about an object such as structure, creators, format, and technical information. According to <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b47">Lee (2001, pp.103‐4)</xref>:<disp-quote><p>… cataloguing is one of the most crucial aspects of any digital imaging project … .Without a browsable or searchable catalogue, end‐users will struggle to find items in the collection they are seeking, the administrative team will have difficulties keeping track of the progress of the project … and digitizers will have lost an invaluable opportunity to record technical information that could prove essential in the future.</p></disp-quote><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b45">Lagoze and Payette (2000, p. 89)</xref> describe the creation and use of different types of metadata: descriptive, focusing on Dublin Core (DC) (which the authors assert “stands out as one of the most active and accepted metadata standards, used in more than 100 major projects in more than 20 countries”) structural metadata to support such functions as browsing, navigation, and structural relationships; metadata for rights management and access control; and administrative and preservation metadata.</p><p><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b12">Caplan (2003)</xref> describes and gives examples of different metadata schemes. Most library catalogs use the MARC format, which has undergone changes in the last few years to accommodate the cataloging of electronic resources. Caplan also describes the text encoding initiative for the encoding of electronic texts; DC, which contains 15 data elements; encoded archival description (EAD) for archival collections; categories for the description of works of art; VRA core categories, for visual resources; and the content standard for digital geospatial metadata for describing digital geospatial resources.</p><p>In the last few years, two new metadata schemes were developed, primarily to accommodate digital resources – the metadata object and description schema (MODS) and the metadata encoding and transmission standards (METS). MODS was developed by the Library of Congress to:<disp-quote><p>… provide an alternative between a simple metadata format with a minimum of fields and little or no substructure such as Dublin Core and a very detailed format with many data elements having various structural complexities such as MARC 21 (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b32">Guenther and McCallum, 2003, p. 12</xref>).</p></disp-quote></p><p>While MODS is a descriptive metadata scheme, METS is an XML document incorporating different types of metadata – “descriptive, administrative, structural, rights and other data needed for retrieving, preserving and serving up digital resources” (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b32">Guenther and McCallum, 2003, p. 14</xref>). <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b11">Cantara (2005, p. 251)</xref> details the different components of a METS document and demonstrates how to construct one. Although METS was developed only recently, Cantara states that “an increasing number of libraries and archives are implementing METS for a vast variety of digital library projects.”</p><p>Several authors stress the importance of controlled vocabularies and thesauri for retrieving relevant information. <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b17">Chopey (2005, p. 272)</xref> states, “The most fundamental principle in constructing a subject index is to use a controlled vocabulary.” <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b5">Baca (2003)</xref> lists several vocabulary tools that can be used to provide access points to digital resources, including the Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH), Art and Architecture Thesaurus (AAT), Thesaurus of Geographic Names, and the Library of Congress Thesaurus for Graphic Materials. Writing about cataloging digital resources for the visual arts, <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b31">Grout <italic>et al.</italic> (2000)</xref> detail features of the AAT and the Getty Thesaurus of Geographic Names, and provide examples.</p><p>The project team must determine what metadata and vocabulary sets are appropriate for a particular digital project. What metadata schemes and vocabularies are being used in digital projects? In 2003, <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b18">Cole and Shreeves (2004, p. 315)</xref> conducted a survey of projects funded under the IMLS National Leadership Grant program from 1998‐2002. Eighty‐six percent of the respondents used item‐level metadata. The survey found that 56 percent of the respondents who used item‐level metadata used DC, 33 percent used MARC, and 39 percent used locally developed standards. Eighty‐four percent of the respondents with item level metadata used controlled vocabulary for subjects, with 73 percent using LCSH and 27 percent using the LC Thesaurus of graphic materials: topical terms for subject access (TGMI) (p. 316). The results of the METRO digitization survey of New York City area institutions again differed from the more national survey. Only 42 percent of the respondents to the METRO survey planned to create metadata for digitized items in the next two years (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b55">Metropolitan New York Library Council and OCLC, 2005, p. 6</xref>) (compared to 86 percent in the survey by <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b18">Cole and Shreeves, 2004</xref>). Also, the majority of respondents in the Cole and Shreeves survey used DC, whereas in the METRO survey, 25 percent planned to use MARC and only 13 percent planned to use DC (p. 6).</p><p>Some case studies illustrate approaches used by different libraries in cataloging and creating metadata for digital projects. <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b26">El Zein <italic>et al.</italic> (2001, p. 42)</xref> describe cataloging issues concerning three digital collections at Temple University. After considering several metadata standards, the project team decided to use MARC as they felt it is the most “elegant, recognizable, transportable, and evolving document coding scheme.” The standards used for subject access included LCSH, LC Thesaurus for graphic materials, and AAT.</p><p><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b49">Lim (2003)</xref> discusses metadata issues encountered in a project at Wayne State University (WSU) to digitize a historic costume collection for instructional and research purposes. This project was a collaborative effort between the library and the faculty in WSU's College of Fine, Performing, and Communication Arts. The metadata used was a combination of DC and collection‐specific metadata elements, and the author reports that both library personnel and faculty created metadata records for the items in the collection.</p><p><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b64">Ross (2005)</xref> describes the Mississippi Digital Library Program, a statewide collaborative project administered by the University of Southern Mississippi. The metadata chosen for the project was EAD, and finding aids from the various institutions were converted to EAD by an outside vendor.</p></sec><sec><title>Interoperability</title><p>With so many different metadata schemes and vocabularies, how does one search across different databases or collections? That is where the issue of interoperability comes in. Interoperability is “the ability to perform a search over diverse sets of metadata records and obtain meaningful results” (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b12">Caplan, 2003, p. 33</xref>). <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b12">Caplan (2003, p. 35)</xref> discusses different approaches to interoperability. One approach is the cross‐system search, where:<disp-quote><p>… metadata records are stored in multiple, distributed databases and retrieved using the search facilities associated with each database system.</p></disp-quote></p><p>She cites ANSI/NISO Z39.50 protocol as an example of this. Another approach is a union catalog, and she discusses the Open Archives Initiative (OAI) Metadata Harvesting Protocol as “a variation on the traditional union catalog” (p. 34). She also discusses the use of crosswalks, “authoritative mappings from the metadata elements of one scheme to those of another” (p. 38).</p><p>Several authors discuss difficulties of interoperability, including semantic differences and different vocabularies. <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b18">Cole and Shreeves (2004, p. 315)</xref> describe a project to implement a collection registry and item‐level metadata repository for digital collections that were funded by the IMLS National Leadership Grant Program. The authors state that the diversity of controlled vocabularies and metadata schemes of the digital collections involved “has an impact on the utility of metadata for interoperability.” They conclude that:<disp-quote><p>… search and discovery across aggregations of more varied and complex digital content in a robust and full featured manner is proving harder than initially perceived by many of us (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b18">Cole and Shreeves, 2004, p. 320</xref>).</p></disp-quote><disp-quote><p>Regardless of the method used to search across multiple resources, differences in the underlying metadata will cause difficulties in retrieval and presentation, and it is a fair generalization that the more dissimilar the metadata, the more problematic retrieval will be (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b12">Caplan, 2003, p. 41</xref>).</p></disp-quote></p><p>Echoing these sentiments, <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b66">Schottlaender (2003)</xref> states that interoperability issues are very challenging technical issues to overcome. Despite the difficulties of attaining interoperability discussed in the literature, <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b17">Chopey (2005, p. 258)</xref> sees improvements, noting various initiatives:<disp-quote><p>… have made great strides in the past ten years toward achieving interoperability of metadata standards on the scale of the entire Internet.</p></disp-quote></p><p>The collaborative digitization project (CDP) is an example of a project where issues of interoperability come into play. This program is a collaboration of cultural heritage institutions (libraries, archives, historical societies, and museums) in Colorado and other western states to increase access to their unique resources through digitization. <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b8">Bishoff and Meagher (2004, p. 21)</xref> report that the different institutions in the program use a variety of metadata standards and controlled vocabularies:<disp-quote><p>The CDP adopted a mandatory subset of Dublin Core metadata elements to facilitate the building of the union catalog or database, and to assure interoperability among the databases from the participating institutions.</p></disp-quote></p><p>The CDP developed a software application for data entry, DC Builder, which:<disp-quote><p>… supported the conversion of metadata from a variety of systems and formats to Dublin Core as well as the direct entry of metadata into a DC form‐based application (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b8">Bishoff and Meagher, 2004, p. 27</xref>).</p></disp-quote></p><p>In addition, different institutions could enter metadata records simultaneously into DC Builder. One of the CDP projects is the western trails digital project, which involved the collaboration of institutions in several western states. <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b6">Bailey‐Hainer and Urban (2004, p. 260)</xref> outline the use of DC Builder for contributing records by institutions in the different states. The authors also discuss the use of Z39.50 to address some of the interoperability issues of searching many different databases in the CDP and to return a single results list. The importance of collaboration is emphasized:<disp-quote><p>The Western Trails project has demonstrated that collaboration can aggregate and increase access across diverse collections and extend the capabilities of local cultural heritage organizations through shared experience and infrastructure resources. Metadata about local collections can now be shared on state wide, regional, and national levels.</p></disp-quote></p><p>Writing on metadata schemes and controlled vocabularies, <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b5">Baca (2003, p. 54)</xref> states:<disp-quote><p>The dream of integrated access to diverse information resources is still just that – a dream. The dream can become a reality if those responsible for making cultural heritage information available online judiciously select and implement the appropriate metadata schemas, controlled subject vocabularies and thesauri, metadata crosswalks, and information technologies available today.</p></disp-quote></p></sec><sec><title>Preservation issues</title><p>Much has been written on the challenges of digital preservation. <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b63">Rieger (2000)</xref> lists some of the factors that cause digital preservation to be so challenging – technological obsolescence, legal issues, the high cost of digital preservation, and lack of institutional commitment. Whether material is digitized primarily for access or for preservation, the problem of technological obsolescence endangers long‐term access to the digital collection.</p><p>There are currently three main strategies to deal with technological obsolescence. Refreshing involves copying of the digital files from one storage medium to another. Migration is the:<disp-quote><p>… periodic transfer of digital materials from one hardware/software configuration to another, or from one generation of computer technology to the next (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b46">Lazinger, 2001, p. 77</xref>).</p></disp-quote></p><p>The third strategy is emulation:<disp-quote><p>… the development of software that performs the functions of obsolete hardware and other software … additional software [would] be created to permit a more advanced computer at some future time to mimic the obsolete hardware (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b46">Lazinger, 2001, p. 77</xref>).</p></disp-quote></p><p>Lazinger states that most institutions currently use migration as the strategy for dealing with technological obsolescence, and it is “necessary every time the operating environment, including the hardware and software, changes” (p. 100). But the migration process is not without problems. <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b4">Astle and Muir (2002)</xref> point out that with each migration, it is possible that some functionality and data could be lost.</p><p>Several authors discuss the benefits of institutions having preservation policies for digitization. The Technical Advisory Service for Images (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b71">TASI, 2005</xref>) recommends that institutions have a digital preservation strategy in place, to ensure that the images will be captured according to appropriate standards. TASI further recommends that the preservation strategy have a technical component to address technological changes, and an organizational component to ensure that the institution's staff will have the budget and training needed to keep up with changing technology. <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b63">Rieger (2000)</xref> discusses the components of a digital preservation policy, including organizational infrastructure, policies for selection, and preservation strategies.</p><p>Most of the case studies of library digitization projects examined for this literature survey did not focus on the issue of preservation. This is somewhat troubling, since the longevity of the digital collections is dependent on regular migration of the electronic data to keep up with changing technology. Several authors did mention that back‐up copies of electronic data were regularly made on CDs or DVDs (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b41">Jerrido <italic>et al.</italic>, 2001</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b9">Bond, 2004</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b61">Phillips, 2002</xref>). A few authors stated that their institutions store the electronic files on CD and DVD disks, and they plan to migrate the files to new media when necessary to keep up with changing technology (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b9">Bond, 2004</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b61">Phillips, 2002</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b75">Wilson, 2003</xref>). And <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b34">Hartman <italic>et al.</italic> (2005, p. 162)</xref>, reporting on the University of North Texas Libraries' Portal to Texas History, state that:<disp-quote><p>… all images and file structures are designed to support portability and future migration, independent of hardware and software.</p></disp-quote></p><p>Intellectual property rights is another important issue in digital preservation. In the US, the DMCA allows the duplication for preservation purposes of:<disp-quote><p>… up to three copies, which may be digital, provided that digital copies are not made available to the public outside the library premises (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b70">Steilow, 2003, p. 123</xref>).</p></disp-quote></p><p>Therefore, preservation copies in digital format cannot be put on the internet.</p><p><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b30">Gertz (2000, p. 99)</xref> discusses intellectual property rights as they apply to the selection of materials for digital preservation. She maintains that it is not always clear what is legitimate to digitize for preservation, stating:<disp-quote><p>… the tension between protecting intellectual property rights and broadening access has become a serious issue for the selection process.</p></disp-quote><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b58">Muir (2004, p. 73)</xref> outlines how copyright legislation in the United States affects the preservation of digital resources. The author explains that digital preservation strategies involve copying and the possibility of changing information, which “raises complex rights questions.”</p><p>There is disagreement in the literature over the use of digitization for preservation. For example, <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b72">Teper (2005, p. 33)</xref> does not believe that digitization is:<disp-quote><p>… a long‐term preservation medium. Too many unknowns remain to assume that digital imaging provides an improvement in ensuring the longevity of printed information.</p></disp-quote></p><p>On the other hand, <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b67">Seadle (2004, p. 121)</xref> finds digitization to be an acceptable method of preservation for certain kinds of materials. He identifies criteria for the selection of materials for digital preservation: whether the materials are both valuable and endangered; whether there are appropriate digitization procedures and standards for the materials; and whether copyright permits access to the materials. He concludes that for libraries that digitize primarily paper documents (as contrasted with multimedia content), “standards and procedures are reasonably well established to give the works a good chance to long‐term survival.”</p><p>Despite some of the problems inherent in digital preservation, for the past few years libraries have been using digitization as a preservation method. This is demonstrated by a survey conducted by the ARL Preservation Committee of ARL libraries in 2000. Thirty‐seven percent of the respondents reported a significant change in their library's preservation program in the past five years (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b57">Mohlenrich, 2001, p. 9</xref>). And of those, 38 percent cited digitizing for preservation as the primary change (p. 14).</p><p>Moreover, the ARL endorsed digitization as an acceptable method of preservation in the document <italic>Recognizing Digitization as a Preservation Reformatting Method</italic> (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b3">Arthur <italic>et al.</italic>, 2004</xref>). The document outlines the benefits of using digitization for preservation and discusses standards and best practices. <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b54">Merrill‐Oldham and Chapman (2004)</xref> support the ARL document and recommend that institutions involved with preservation activities begin to adopt accepted standards and best practices for digital preservation. There is not universal agreement, however. <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b33">Hart (2004, p. 185)</xref> takes a cautious approach to the document, stating that digitization “carries a higher risk of loss than other approaches to preservation.” He also asserts that many libraries do not have the expertise or financial resources to use digitization as a preservation reformatting method.</p><p>Several authors stress the importance of long‐term commitment on the part of institutions in preserving their digital collections. This involves budgetary commitments and the continual migration of digital materials as technologies change. <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b19">Conway (2000, p. 7)</xref> discusses the high cost of digital projects, and states:<disp-quote><p>… digital image conversion … requires a deep and long‐standing institutional commitment to traditional preservation, the full integration of the technology into information management procedures and processes, and significant leadership in developing definitions and standards for digital preservation.</p></disp-quote><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b30">Gertz (2000, p. 102)</xref> maintains:<disp-quote><p>Using digitization to create access to materials of long‐term value calls for genuine commitment to preserving the digital files, to development of the infrastructure necessary to preserve those files routinely over the long‐term.</p></disp-quote><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b51">Maroso (2005, p. 203)</xref> emphasizes the importance of Education and Training, especially for small and mid‐size institutions, for preservation of their digital collections. She writes:<disp-quote><p>… smaller institutions are not considering the up‐keep of their digital images, and … the cost of upkeep must figure into their permanent budgets to keep viable information they worked so hard to create.</p></disp-quote></p></sec><sec><title>Conclusion</title><p>Libraries have been undertaking digitization projects to provide wide access to materials in their collections and to provide long‐term preservation of these materials. The literature has addressed many pertinent issues and provided guidance that libraries can use in navigating through the various aspects of a digitization project. The literature on library digitization continues to grow and bears watching in the coming years to see how emerging issues are being addressed by the library community. Currently many projects are funded through grants. How long will that continue? Will digitization costs become a regular part of a library's operating budget? Currently many libraries hire graduate students or temporary staff to work on digitization projects. What personnel will be working on long‐term and massive projects in the future? What materials are being and will be digitized? Are they being and will they be used for curriculum and teaching as well as research? How will future changes in copyright law and relevant court cases affect library digitization efforts? Research is being conducted on metadata standards and interoperability. How will this research affect digitization? How will libraries address the issue of preservation of their digital collections to keep up with changing technology? It is hoped that future research will include surveys to determine how libraries are addressing these issues and how they intend to address them as the converging technological revolution and information explosion of our era proceed.</p></sec></body><back><ref-list><title>References</title><ref id="b1"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Adaryukov</surname>, <given-names>A.</given-names></string-name></person-group> and <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Miller</surname>, <given-names>W.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>2005</year>), “<article-title><italic>Cooperative dimensions of digitization projects at Florida Atlantic University</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>Florida Libraries</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>48</volume>, pp. <fpage>43</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>54</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b2"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Anderson</surname>, <given-names>B.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>2001</year>), “<article-title><italic>Fair use, copyright law and digitized works</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>Behavioral & Social Sciences Librarian</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>20</volume> No. <issue>1</issue>, pp. <fpage>111</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>4</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b3"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Arthur</surname>, <given-names>K.</given-names></string-name></person-group>, <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Byrne</surname>, <given-names>S.</given-names></string-name></person-group>, <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Long</surname>, <given-names>E.</given-names></string-name></person-group>, <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Montori</surname>, <given-names>C.</given-names></string-name></person-group> and <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Nadler</surname>, <given-names>J.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>2004</year>), <source><italic>Recognizing Digitization as a Preservation Reformatting Method</italic></source>, <publisher-name>Association of Research Libraries</publisher-name>, <publisher-loc>Washington, DC</publisher-loc>, available at: <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="http://www.arl.org/preserv/digit%5Ffinal.html">www.arl.org/preserv/digit%5Ffinal.html</ext-link>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b4"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Astle</surname>, <given-names>P.</given-names></string-name></person-group> and <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Muir</surname>, <given-names>A.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>2002</year>), “<article-title><italic>Digitization and preservation in public libraries and archives</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>Journal of Librarianship and Information Science</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>34</volume> No. <issue>2</issue>, pp. <fpage>67</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>79</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b5"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Baca</surname>, <given-names>M.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>2003</year>), “<article-title><italic>Practical issues in applying metadata schemas and controlled vocabularies to cultural heritage information</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>Cataloging & Classification Quarterly</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>36</volume> Nos <issue>3/4</issue>, pp. <fpage>47</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>55</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b6"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Bailey‐Hainer</surname>, <given-names>B.</given-names></string-name></person-group> and <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Urban</surname>, <given-names>R.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>2004</year>), “<article-title><italic>The Colorado digitization program: a collaboration success story</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>Library Hi Tech, Vol</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>22</volume> No. <issue>3</issue>, pp. <fpage>254</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>62</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b7"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Besek</surname>, <given-names>J.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>2003</year>), <source><italic>Copyright Issues Relevant to the Creation of a Digital Archive: A Preliminary Assessment</italic></source>, <publisher-name>Council on Library and Information Resources</publisher-name>, <publisher-loc>Washington, DC</publisher-loc>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b8"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Bishoff</surname>, <given-names>L.</given-names></string-name></person-group> and <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Meagher</surname>, <given-names>E.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>2004</year>), “<article-title><italic>Building heritage Colorado: the Colorado digitization experience</italic></article-title>”, in <person-group person-group-type="editor"><string-name><surname>Hillmann</surname>, <given-names>D.</given-names></string-name></person-group> and <person-group person-group-type="editor"><string-name><surname>Westbrooks</surname>, <given-names>E.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (Eds), <source><italic>Metadata in Practice</italic></source>, <publisher-name>American Library Association</publisher-name>, <publisher-loc>Chicago, IL</publisher-loc>, pp. <fpage>17</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>36</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b9"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Bond</surname>, <given-names>T.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>2004</year>), “<article-title><italic>Visual image repositories at the Washington State University libraries</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>Library Hi Tech</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>22</volume> No. <issue>2</issue>, pp. <fpage>198</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>208</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b10"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Brancolini</surname>, <given-names>K.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>2000</year>), “<article-title><italic>Selecting research collections for digitization: applying the Harvard model</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>Library Trends</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>48</volume> No. <issue>4</issue>, pp. <fpage>783</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>98</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b11"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Cantara</surname>, <given-names>L.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>2005</year>), “<article-title><italic>METS: the metadata encoding and transmission standard</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>Cataloging & Classification Quarterly</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>40</volume> Nos <issue>3/4</issue>, pp. <fpage>237</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>53</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b12"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Caplan</surname>, <given-names>P.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>2003</year>), <source><italic>Metadata Fundamentals for All Librarians</italic></source>, <publisher-name>American Library Association</publisher-name>, <publisher-loc>Chicago, IL</publisher-loc>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b13"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Cedar Face</surname>, <given-names>M.</given-names></string-name></person-group> and <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Hollens</surname>, <given-names>D.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>2004</year>), “<article-title><italic>A digital library to serve a region: the bioregion and first nations collections of the Southern Oregon digital archives</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>Reference & User Services Quarterly</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>44</volume> No. <issue>2</issue>, pp. <fpage>116</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>21</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b14"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Cervone</surname>, <given-names>H.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>2005</year>), “<article-title><italic>Making decisions: methods for digital library project teams</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>OCLC Systems & Services</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>21</volume> No. <issue>1</issue>, pp. <fpage>30</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>5</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b15"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Chapman</surname>, <given-names>S.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>2000</year>), “<article-title><italic>Considerations for project management</italic></article-title>”, in <person-group person-group-type="editor"><string-name><surname>Sitts</surname>, <given-names>M.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (Ed.), <source><italic>Handbook for Digital Projects: A Management Tool for Preservation and Access</italic></source>, <publisher-name>Northeast Document Conservation Center</publisher-name>, <publisher-loc>Andover, MA</publisher-loc>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b16"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Chepesiuk</surname>, <given-names>R.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>2001</year>), “<article-title><italic>Digitizing rare materials: special collections go global</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>American Libraries</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>32</volume> No. <issue>5</issue>, pp. <fpage>54</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>6</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b17"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Chopey</surname>, <given-names>M.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>2005</year>), “<article-title><italic>Planning and implementing a metadata‐driven digital repository</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>Cataloging & Classification Quarterly</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>40</volume> Nos <issue>3/4</issue>, pp. <fpage>255</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>87</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b18"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Cole</surname>, <given-names>T.</given-names></string-name></person-group> and <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Shreeves</surname>, <given-names>S.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>2004</year>), “<article-title><italic>Search and discovery across collections: the IMLS digital collections and content project</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>Library Hi Tech</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>22</volume> No. <issue>3</issue>, pp. <fpage>307</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>22</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b19"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Conway</surname>, <given-names>P.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>2000</year>), “<article-title><italic>Overview: rationale for digitization and preservation</italic></article-title>”, in <person-group person-group-type="editor"><string-name><surname>Sitts</surname>, <given-names>M.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (Ed.), <source><italic>Handbook for Digital Projects: A Management Tool for Preservation and Access</italic></source>, <publisher-name>Northeast Document Conservation Center</publisher-name>, <publisher-loc>Andover, MA</publisher-loc>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b20"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Dames</surname>, <given-names>K.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>2005</year>), “<article-title><italic>Copyright clearances: fair use, action and apathy</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>Online</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>29</volume> No. <issue>5</issue>, pp. <fpage>32</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>4</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b21"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>De Stefano</surname>, <given-names>P.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>2000</year>), “<article-title><italic>Selection for digital conversion</italic></article-title>”, in <person-group person-group-type="editor"><string-name><surname>Kenney</surname>, <given-names>A.</given-names></string-name></person-group> and <person-group person-group-type="editor"><string-name><surname>Rieger</surname>, <given-names>O.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (Eds), <source><italic>Moving Theory into Practice: Digital Imaging for Libraries and Archives</italic></source>, <publisher-name>Research Libraries Group</publisher-name>, <publisher-loc>Mountain View, CA</publisher-loc>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b22"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>De Stefano</surname>, <given-names>P.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>2001</year>), “<article-title><italic>Selection for digital conversion in academic libraries</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>College & Research Libraries</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>62</volume> No. <issue>1</issue>, pp. <fpage>58</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>69</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b23"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Downer</surname>, <given-names>S.</given-names></string-name></person-group>, <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Medina</surname>, <given-names>S.</given-names></string-name></person-group>, <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Nicol</surname>, <given-names>B.</given-names></string-name></person-group> and <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Trehub</surname>, <given-names>A.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>2005</year>), “<article-title><italic>AlabamaMosaic: sharing Alabama history online</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>Library Hi Tech</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>23</volume> No. <issue>2</issue>, pp. <fpage>233</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>51</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b24"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Eden</surname>, <given-names>B.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>2001a</year>), “<article-title><italic>Getting started with library digitization projects: funding your first (and subsequent) digital projects</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>The Bottom Line</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>14</volume> No. <issue>2</issue>, pp. <fpage>53</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>5</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b25"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Eden</surname>, <given-names>B.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>2001b</year>), “<article-title><italic>Managing and directing a digital project</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>Online Information Review</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>25</volume> No. <issue>6</issue>, pp. <fpage>396</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>400</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b26"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>El Zein</surname>, <given-names>L.</given-names></string-name></person-group>, <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Jerrido</surname>, <given-names>M.</given-names></string-name></person-group>, <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Darby</surname>, <given-names>M.</given-names></string-name></person-group>, <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Cunningham</surname>, <given-names>C.</given-names></string-name></person-group> and <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Weng</surname>, <given-names>C.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>2001</year>), “<article-title><italic>Provision of online access to digital materials in the Temple University libraries: cataloging issues</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>Collection Management</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>26</volume> No. <issue>3</issue>, pp. <fpage>39</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>46</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b27"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Ferullo</surname>, <given-names>D.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>2004</year>), “<article-title><italic>Major copyright issues in academic libraries: legal implications of a digital environment</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>Journal of Library Administration</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>40</volume> Nos <issue>1/2</issue>, pp. <fpage>23</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>40</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b28"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Fifarek</surname>, <given-names>A.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>2002</year>), “<article-title><italic>Celebrating history and innovation: the Louisiana purchase digital library project at Louisiana State University</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>OCLC Systems & Services</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>18</volume> No. <issue>4</issue>, pp. <fpage>186</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>94</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b29"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Galloway</surname>, <given-names>E.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>2004</year>), “<article-title><italic>Imaging Pittsburgh: creating a shared gateway to digital image collections of the Pittsburgh region</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>First Monday</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>9</volume> No. <issue>5</issue>, available at: <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="http://www.firstmonday.org/issues/issue9_5/galloway/index.html">www.firstmonday.org/issues/issue9_5/galloway/index.html</ext-link>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b30"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Gertz</surname>, <given-names>J.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>2000</year>), “<article-title><italic>Selection for preservation in the digital age: an overview</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>Library Resources & Technical Services</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>44</volume> No. <issue>2</issue>, pp. <fpage>97</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>104</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b31"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Grout</surname>, <given-names>C.</given-names></string-name></person-group>, <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Purdy</surname>, <given-names>P.</given-names></string-name></person-group> and <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Rymer</surname>, <given-names>J.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>2000</year>), <source><italic>Creating Digital Resources for the Visual Arts: Standards and Good Practice</italic></source>, <publisher-name>Oxbow Books</publisher-name>, <publisher-loc>Oxford</publisher-loc>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b32"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Guenther</surname>, <given-names>R.</given-names></string-name></person-group> and <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>McCallum</surname>, <given-names>S.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>2003</year>), “<article-title><italic>New metadata standards for digital resources: MODS and METS</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>Bulletin of the American Society for Information Science and Technology</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>29</volume> No. <issue>2</issue>, pp. <fpage>12</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>15</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b33"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Hart</surname>, <given-names>A.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>2004</year>), “<article-title><italic>A critique of ‘Recognizing digitization as a preservation reformatting method’</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>Microform & Imaging Review</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>33</volume> No. <issue>4</issue>, pp. <fpage>184</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>7</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b34"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Hartman</surname>, <given-names>C.</given-names></string-name></person-group>, <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Belden</surname>, <given-names>D.</given-names></string-name></person-group>, <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Reis</surname>, <given-names>N.</given-names></string-name></person-group>, <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Alemneh</surname>, <given-names>D.</given-names></string-name></person-group>, <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Phillips</surname>, <given-names>M.</given-names></string-name></person-group> and <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Dunlop</surname>, <given-names>D.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>2005</year>), “<article-title><italic>Development of a portal to Texas history</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>Library Hi Tech</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>23</volume> No. <issue>2</issue>, pp. <fpage>151</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>63</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b35"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Hazen</surname>, <given-names>D.</given-names></string-name></person-group>, <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Horrell</surname>, <given-names>J.</given-names></string-name></person-group> and <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Merrill‐Oldham</surname>, <given-names>J.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>1998</year>), <source><italic>Selecting Research Collections for Digitization</italic></source>, <publisher-name>Council on Library and Information Resources</publisher-name>, <publisher-loc>Washington, DC</publisher-loc>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b36"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Helling</surname>, <given-names>B.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>2003</year>), “<article-title><italic>Preserving the ‘Athens of Indiana’ through digitization</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>Computers in Libraries</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>23</volume> No. <issue>6</issue>, pp. 14‐6, 18.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b37"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Hoffmann</surname>, <given-names>G.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>2005</year>), <source><italic>Copyright in Cyberspace 2: Questions and Answers for Librarians</italic></source>, <publisher-name>Neal‐Schuman</publisher-name>, <publisher-loc>New York, NY</publisher-loc>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b38"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Hughes</surname>, <given-names>L.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>2004</year>), <source><italic>Digitizing Collections: Strategic Issues for the Information Manager</italic></source>, <publisher-name>Facet Publishing</publisher-name>, <publisher-loc>London</publisher-loc>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b39"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Hull</surname>, <given-names>R.</given-names></string-name></person-group> and <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Dreher</surname>, <given-names>S.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>2001</year>), “<article-title><italic>‘Into the middle of the thing’ (with apologies to Horace): developing a system to manage a grant‐funded digital collection project</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>Collection Management</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>26</volume> No. <issue>3</issue>, pp. <fpage>29</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>38</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b40"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name>IMLS</string-name></person-group> (<year>2002</year>), <source><italic>Status of Technology and Digitization in the Nation's Museums and Libraries: 2002 Report</italic></source>, <publisher-name>Institute of Museum and Library Services</publisher-name>, <publisher-loc>Washington, DC</publisher-loc>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b41"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Jerrido</surname>, <given-names>M.</given-names></string-name></person-group>, <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Cotilla</surname>, <given-names>L.</given-names></string-name></person-group> and <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Whitehead</surname>, <given-names>T.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>2001</year>), “<article-title><italic>Digitizing collections: a meshing of minds, methods, and materials</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>Collection Management</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>26</volume> No. <issue>3</issue>, pp. <fpage>3</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>13</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b42"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Jones</surname>, <given-names>R.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>2005</year>), “<article-title><italic>Empowerment for digitization: lessons learned from the making of modern Michigan</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>Library Hi Tech</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>23</volume> No. <issue>2</issue>, pp. <fpage>205</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>19</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b43"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="editor"><string-name><surname>Kenney</surname>, <given-names>A.</given-names></string-name></person-group> and <person-group person-group-type="editor"><string-name><surname>Rieger</surname>, <given-names>O.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (Eds) (<year>2000</year>), <source><italic>Moving Theory into Practice: Digital Imaging for Libraries and Archives</italic></source>, <publisher-name>Research Libraries Group</publisher-name>, <publisher-loc>Mountain View, CA</publisher-loc>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b45"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Lagoze</surname>, <given-names>C.</given-names></string-name></person-group> and <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Payette</surname>, <given-names>S.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>2000</year>), “<article-title><italic>Metadata: principles, practices, and challenges</italic></article-title>”, in <person-group person-group-type="editor"><string-name><surname>Kenney</surname>, <given-names>A.</given-names></string-name></person-group> and <person-group person-group-type="editor"><string-name><surname>Rieger</surname>, <given-names>O.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (Eds), <source><italic>Moving Theory into Practice: Digital Imaging for Libraries and Archives</italic></source>, <publisher-name>Research Libraries Group</publisher-name>, <publisher-loc>Mountain View, CA</publisher-loc>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b46"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Lazinger</surname>, <given-names>S.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>2001</year>), <source><italic>Digital Preservation and Metadata: History, Theory, Practice</italic></source>, <publisher-name>Libraries Unlimited</publisher-name>, <publisher-loc>Englewood, CO</publisher-loc>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b47"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Lee</surname>, <given-names>S.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>2001</year>), <source><italic>Digital Imaging: A Practical Handbook</italic></source>, <publisher-name>Neal‐Schuman</publisher-name>, <publisher-loc>New York, NY</publisher-loc>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b48"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Levine</surname>, <given-names>M.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>2000</year>), “<article-title><italic>Overview of legal issues for digitization</italic></article-title>”, in <person-group person-group-type="editor"><string-name><surname>Sitts</surname>, <given-names>M.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (Ed.), <source><italic>Handbook for Digital Projects: A Management Tool for Preservation and Access</italic></source>, <publisher-name>Northeast Document Conservation Center</publisher-name>, <publisher-loc>Andover, MA</publisher-loc>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b49"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Lim</surname>, <given-names>A.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>2003</year>), “<article-title><italic>Collaborative digitization projects: opportunities to enhance teaching and learning</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>Information Technology and Libraries</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>22</volume> No. <issue>2</issue>, pp. <fpage>75</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>8</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b53"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>McDonald</surname>, <given-names>J.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>2003</year>), “<article-title><italic>A recipe for a successful digital archive: collection development for digital archives</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>Against the Grain</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>15</volume> No. <issue>1</issue>, pp. <fpage>22</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>4</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b51"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Maroso</surname>, <given-names>A.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>2005</year>), “<article-title><italic>Educating future digitizers: the Illinois Digitization Institute's basics and beyond digitization training program</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>Library Hi Tech</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>23</volume> No. <issue>2</issue>, pp. <fpage>187</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>204</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b52"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Mathias</surname>, <given-names>E.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>2004</year>), “<article-title><italic>Anatomy of a digitization project</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>Library Journal</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>129</volume>, pp. <fpage>2</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>7</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b54"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Merrill‐Oldham</surname>, <given-names>J.</given-names></string-name></person-group> and <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Chapman</surname>, <given-names>S.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>2004</year>), “<article-title><italic>Why the preservation community should support ARL's call for acceptance of digitization as a preservation reformatting method</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>Microform & Imaging Review</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>33</volume> No. <issue>4</issue>, pp. <fpage>204</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>6</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b55"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name>Metropolitan New York Library Council and OCLC</string-name></person-group> (<year>2005</year>), <source><italic>2004 METRO Digitization Survey: Final Report</italic></source>, <publisher-name>Metropolitan New York Library Council and OCLC</publisher-name>, <publisher-loc>New York, NY</publisher-loc>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b56"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Minow</surname>, <given-names>M.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>2002</year>), “<article-title><italic>Library digitization projects and copyright</italic></article-title>”, available at: <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="http://www.llrx.com/features/digitization.htm">www.llrx.com/features/digitization.htm</ext-link>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b57"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Mohlenrich</surname>, <given-names>J.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>2001</year>), <source><italic>Preservation and Digitization in ARL Libraries</italic></source>, <publisher-name>Association of Research Libraries</publisher-name>, <publisher-loc>Washington, DC</publisher-loc>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b58"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Muir</surname>, <given-names>A.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>2004</year>), “<article-title><italic>Digital preservation: awareness, responsibility and rights issues</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>Journal of Information Science</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>30</volume> No. <issue>1</issue>, pp. <fpage>73</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>92</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b59"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Panitch</surname>, <given-names>J.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>2001</year>), <source><italic>Special Collections in ARL Libraries: Results of the 1998 Survey</italic></source>, <publisher-name>Association of Research Libraries</publisher-name>, <publisher-loc>Washington, DC</publisher-loc>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b60"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Pastine</surname>, <given-names>M.</given-names></string-name></person-group>, <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Bayard</surname>, <given-names>I.</given-names></string-name></person-group> and <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Lang</surname>, <given-names>C.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>2001</year>), “<article-title><italic>Digital diamond: Temple University libraries' IMLS grant</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>The Bottom Line</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>14</volume> No. <issue>2</issue>, pp. <fpage>76</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>84</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b61"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Phillips</surname>, <given-names>F.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>2002</year>), “<article-title><italic>Managing the special collections department in the digital world: a case study of cooperation and innovation</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>OCLC Systems & Services</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>18</volume> No. <issue>1</issue>, pp. <fpage>51</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>8</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b62"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Ray</surname>, <given-names>J.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>2001</year>), “<article-title><italic>Digitization grants and how to get one: advice from the director, office of library services, institute of museum and library services</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>The Bottom Line</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>14</volume> No. <issue>2</issue>, pp. <fpage>93</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>6</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b63"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Rieger</surname>, <given-names>O.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>2000</year>), “<article-title><italic>Projects to programs: developing a digital preservation policy</italic></article-title>”, in <person-group person-group-type="editor"><string-name><surname>Kenney</surname>, <given-names>A.</given-names></string-name></person-group> and <person-group person-group-type="editor"><string-name><surname>Rieger</surname>, <given-names>O.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (Eds), <source><italic>Moving Theory into Practice: Digital Imaging for Libraries and Archives</italic></source>, <publisher-name>Research Libraries Group</publisher-name>, <publisher-loc>Mountain View, CA</publisher-loc>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b64"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Ross</surname>, <given-names>D.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>2005</year>), “<article-title><italic>The Mississippi digital library program</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>Mississippi Libraries</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>69</volume> No. <issue>2</issue>, pp. <fpage>38</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>41</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b65"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Rossman</surname>, <given-names>J.</given-names></string-name></person-group> and <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Weintraub</surname>, <given-names>J.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>2003</year>), “<article-title><italic>Digitization of book arts ephemera in the arts of the book collection, Yale University Library</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>Art Documentation</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>22</volume> No. <issue>2</issue>, pp. <fpage>16</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>19</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b66"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Schottlaender</surname>, <given-names>B.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>2003</year>), “<article-title><italic>Why metadata? why me? why now?</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>Cataloging & Classification Quarterly</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>36</volume> Nos <issue>3/4</issue>, pp. <fpage>19</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>29</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b67"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Seadle</surname>, <given-names>M.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>2004</year>), “<article-title><italic>Selection for digital preservation</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>Library Hi Tech</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>22</volume> No. <issue>2</issue>, pp. <fpage>119</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>21</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b68"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Shincovich</surname>, <given-names>A.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>2004</year>), “<article-title><italic>Copyright issues and the creation of a digital resource: artists' books collection at the Frick Fine Arts Library, University of Pittsburgh</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>Art Documentation</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>23</volume> No. <issue>2</issue>, pp. <fpage>8</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>13</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b69"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Smith</surname>, <given-names>A.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>2001</year>), <source><italic>Strategies for Building Digitized Collections</italic></source>, <publisher-name>Council on Library and Information Resources</publisher-name>, <publisher-loc>Washington, DC</publisher-loc>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b70"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Stielow</surname>, <given-names>F.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>2003</year>), <source><italic>Building Digital Archives, Descriptions, and Displays: A How‐To‐Do‐It Manual for Archivists and Librarians</italic></source>, <publisher-name>Neal‐Schuman</publisher-name>, <publisher-loc>New York, NY</publisher-loc>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b71"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name>TASI</string-name></person-group> (<year>2005</year>), “<article-title><italic>An introduction to making digital image archives</italic></article-title>”, Technical Advisory Service for Images, available at: <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="http://www.tasi.ac.uk/advice/overview.html">www.tasi.ac.uk/advice/overview.html</ext-link>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b72"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Teper</surname>, <given-names>T.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>2005</year>), “<article-title><italic>Current and emerging challenges for the future of library and archival preservation</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>Library Resources & Technical Services</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>49</volume> No. <issue>1</issue>, pp. <fpage>32</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>9</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b73"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Vogt‐O'Connor</surname>, <given-names>D.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>2000</year>), “<article-title><italic>Selection of materials for scanning</italic></article-title>”, in <person-group person-group-type="editor"><string-name><surname>Sitts</surname>, <given-names>M.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (Ed.), <source><italic>Handbook for Digital Projects: A Management Tool for Preservation and Access</italic></source>, <publisher-name>Northeast Document Conservation Center</publisher-name>, <publisher-loc>Andover, MA</publisher-loc>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b74"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Wherry</surname>, <given-names>T.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>2002</year>), <source><italic>The Librarian's Guide to Intellectual Property in the Digital Age: Copyrights, Patents, and Trademarks</italic></source>, <publisher-name>American Library Association</publisher-name>, <publisher-loc>Chicago, IL</publisher-loc>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b75"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Wilson</surname>, <given-names>W.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>2003</year>), “<article-title><italic>Building and managing a digital collection in a small library</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>North Carolina Libraries</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>61</volume> No. <issue>3</issue>, pp. <fpage>88</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>97</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref></ref-list><ref-list><title>Further Reading</title><ref id="frd1"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Koelling</surname>, <given-names>J.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>2004</year>), <source><italic>Digital Imaging: A Practical Approach</italic></source>, <publisher-name>AltaMira Press</publisher-name>, <publisher-loc>Walnut Creek, CA</publisher-loc>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="frd2"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Lynch</surname>, <given-names>C.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>2003</year>), “<article-title><italic>The coming crisis in preserving our digital cultural heritage</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>Journal of Library Administration</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>38</volume> Nos <issue>3/4</issue>, pp. <fpage>149</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>61</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref></ref-list><app-group><app id="APP1"><title>Corresponding author</title><p>Laurie Lopatin can be contacted at: Laurie.J.Lopatin@Hofstra.edu</p></app></app-group></back></article></istex:document></istex:metadataXml><mods version="3.6"><titleInfo lang="en"><title>Library digitization projects, issues and guidelines</title><subTitle>A survey of the literature</subTitle></titleInfo><titleInfo type="alternative" lang="en" contentType="CDATA"><title>Library digitization projects, issues and guidelines</title><subTitle>A survey of the literature</subTitle></titleInfo><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">Laurie</namePart><namePart type="family">Lopatin</namePart><affiliation>Hofstra University, Hempstead, New York, USA</affiliation></name><typeOfResource>text</typeOfResource><genre type="other" displayLabel="e-literature-review"></genre><originInfo><publisher>Emerald Group Publishing Limited</publisher><dateIssued encoding="w3cdtf">2006-04-01</dateIssued><copyrightDate encoding="w3cdtf">2006</copyrightDate></originInfo><language><languageTerm type="code" authority="iso639-2b">eng</languageTerm><languageTerm type="code" authority="rfc3066">en</languageTerm></language><physicalDescription><internetMediaType>text/html</internetMediaType></physicalDescription><abstract>Purpose To provide a selective bibliography of literature which explores issues and provides guidelines on library digitization projects. Designmethodologyapproach Literature published from 20002005 on library digitization projects was examined. Issues involving digitization projects are presented, as well as case studies and resources for digitization projects. The paper has the following sections project management, funding digital projects, selection of materials, legal issues, metadata creation, interoperability, and preservation issues. Findings Libraries are undertaking digitization projects to provide wider access to and to preserve materials. The literature survey presents an overview of digitization activities and discussions of issues concerning library digital projects. The authors of the case studies detail how libraries dealt with various components of the projects, such as planning, cataloging, and handling copyright issues. Many aspects of digitization projects will be changing over time, with further research and advances in technology, and the literature on the subject bears watching in coming years. Practical implications The articles and resource guides in the literature survey can assist librarians in carrying out digitization projects in their institutions. Originalityvalue It explains how important issues in library digitization projects are being encountered and resolved and provides many practical guidelines and resources for librarians undertaking such projects.</abstract><subject><genre>keywords</genre><topic>Digital libraries</topic><topic>Research libraries</topic><topic>Collections management</topic></subject><relatedItem type="host"><titleInfo><title>Library Hi Tech</title></titleInfo><genre type="journal">journal</genre><subject><genre>Emerald Subject Group</genre><topic authority="SubjectCodesPrimary" authorityURI="cat-IKM">Information & knowledge management</topic><topic authority="SubjectCodesSecondary" authorityURI="cat-ICT">Information & communications technology</topic><topic authority="SubjectCodesSecondary" authorityURI="cat-INT">Internet</topic></subject><subject><genre>Emerald Subject Group</genre><topic authority="SubjectCodesPrimary" authorityURI="cat-LISC">Library & information science</topic><topic authority="SubjectCodesSecondary" authorityURI="cat-IBRT">Information behaviour & retrieval</topic><topic authority="SubjectCodesSecondary" authorityURI="cat-LLM">Librarianship/library management</topic><topic authority="SubjectCodesSecondary" authorityURI="cat-IUS">Information user studies</topic><topic authority="SubjectCodesSecondary" authorityURI="cat-MTD">Metadata</topic><topic authority="SubjectCodesSecondary" authorityURI="cat-LTC">Library technology</topic></subject><identifier type="ISSN">0737-8831</identifier><identifier type="PublisherID">lht</identifier><identifier type="DOI">10.1108/lht</identifier><part><date>2006</date><detail type="volume"><caption>vol.</caption><number>24</number></detail><detail type="issue"><caption>no.</caption><number>2</number></detail><extent unit="pages"><start>273</start><end>289</end></extent></part></relatedItem><identifier type="istex">58B6BDEE77D5A3A5387DF01D55A9D4761FFBFBDE</identifier><identifier type="DOI">10.1108/07378830610669637</identifier><identifier type="filenameID">2380240210</identifier><identifier type="original-pdf">2380240210.pdf</identifier><identifier type="href">07378830610669637.pdf</identifier><accessCondition type="use and reproduction" contentType="copyright">© Emerald Group Publishing Limited</accessCondition><recordInfo><recordContentSource>EMERALD</recordContentSource></recordInfo></mods></metadata><serie></serie></istex></record>Pour manipuler ce document sous Unix (Dilib)
EXPLOR_STEP=$WICRI_ROOT/Wicri/Ticri/explor/TeiVM2/Data/Istex/Corpus
HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_STEP/biblio.hfd -nk 000498 | SxmlIndent | more
Ou
HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_AREA/Data/Istex/Corpus/biblio.hfd -nk 000498 | SxmlIndent | more
Pour mettre un lien sur cette page dans le réseau Wicri
{{Explor lien
|wiki= Wicri/Ticri
|area= TeiVM2
|flux= Istex
|étape= Corpus
|type= RBID
|clé= ISTEX:58B6BDEE77D5A3A5387DF01D55A9D4761FFBFBDE
|texte= Library digitization projects, issues and guidelines
}}
| This area was generated with Dilib version V0.6.31. |  |