An Overview of Som e ETD Repositories in Brazil ETD2013 Sep 23-26 - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

ETD2013 – Hong Kong An Overview of Som e ETD Repositories in Brazil

ETD2013 – Sep 23-26 Ana Pavani Member IEEE Laboratório de Automação de Museus, Bibliotecas Digitais e Arquivos Departamento de Engenharia Elétrica Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Rio de Janeiro Brazil apavani@lambda.ele.puc-rio.br http: / / www.maxwell.lambda.ele.puc-rio.br/

BIBLIOTECA DIGITAL DE TESES E DISSERTAÇÕES (http: / / bdtd.ibict.br/ ) is the Brazilian National Consortium of ETDs. A small time line:  It was established in 2001 by IBICT – Instituto Brasileiro de Informação em Ciência e Tecnologia (http: / / www.ibict.br/ ) with the support of 3 universities (PUC-Rio, UFSC and USP) and other federal and international agencies (CNPq, MEC/ SESu and BIREME/ PAHO)

 In December 2001 the first union catalog was launched – the 3 founding universities sent metadata in XML files  In December 2002 OAI-PMH harvesting became the only tool to transfer metadata  In May 2013:  The number of cooperating institutions was 97 – from all 5 regions and the Federal District  All institutions were OAI-PMH data providers (still are!!)  The number of metadata records was over 220K

Some interesting numbers:  The 15 institutions with the largest collections accounted for over 74% of the metadata records (164,517 / 220,881)  The institution that ranked 1 st had almost 39,000 records  The institution that ranked 15 th had over 4,100 records

 2 of the 3 founding institutions are among the 15 with the largest collections  The 15 institutions with the largest collections are: privately owned by the Roman Catholic Church – 2; state owned by the Federal Government – 10; state owned by the Government of São Paulo – 3  The 15 institutions with the smallest collections accounted for 0.4% of the records (799)  Approximately 25% of the records are held by 69% of the institutions.

 Summary: Percentages of I ntitutions Percentages of Records ≅ 15.4% of the institutions with largest collections ≅ 74% ≅ 15.4% of the institutions with the smallest collections ≅ 0.4% ≅ 69% of the institutions in the middle ≅ 25%

Tw o com m ents are suitable: ( * ) The collections are very different in size; ( * ) There are other differences am ong collections too ( w e w ill see later!) .

THIS WORK

This w ork addresses the results of an exam ination of the ETD program s and other digital collections in the 1 5 institutions w ith the largest collections.

The examination focused on:  ETDs only or ETDs+ in the beginning and now  Technological solutions for ETDs and for other digital contents  Metadata and integration in the international scenario  Statistics  Digital preservation  The future

Initially, data were gathered from:  The institutions websites  The ETD digital libraries and/ or institutional repositories sites and catalogs

As a second step, a questionnaire that was sent to 14 institutions – PUC-Rio (my institution) is the 7 th in collection size.  Replies came from 10 institutions  The total number of data sets was 11 (73% of the 15 original group)  The 11 institutions account for almost 63% of the records on the union catalog  The 2 founding institutions in the group of 15 are among the 11

 The other 4 were disconsidered due to incomplete data  The 11 institutions are located in regions: Central- West – 1; Federal District – 1; Northeast – 2; South – 3; Southeast – 4

RESULTS

ETDs only or ETDs+ in the beginning and now:  Started the digital collections with ETDs – 10 (* )  Have ETDs+ – 10  Have ETDs only – 1 (* ) PUC-Rio started the Maxwell System (http: / / www.maxwell.lambda.ele.puc-rio.br/ ) as a digital library of courseware in 1995; ETDs were added in 2000.

9 institutions that have ETDs and other digital contents started w ith ETDs!! Som e of them have very large repositories of all types of contents. A sim ilar result w as presented by Schirm bacher ( 2 0 0 9 ) concerning Hum boldt University that started w ith an ETD program ( in 1 9 9 8 ) that becam e a visible Open Access Repository.

Technological solutions in the beginning:  TEDE – Sistema de Publicação Eletrônica de Teses e Dissertações (* ) – 6  Other solutions (* * ) – 5 (* ) A digital library system based on ETD-db developed by IBICT and freely distributed to universities; a training program was made available too. (* * ) 4 had homegrown solutions and 1 used Aleph 500 (links in MARC field 856) and a special website interface.

TEDE is still used in m ost of the other 9 1 institutions. I t w as a very im portant tool/ action to start ETD program s in Brazil. As a consequence, to help institutions get involved in digital publishing of scholarly com m unications.

Current technological solutions for ETDs and ETDs+ :  DSpace (* ) (ETDs+ ) and Aleph 500 (* ) (ETDs+ ) – 1  Original homegrown solution (ETDs+ ) – 2  Original homegrown solution (ETDs+ ) , DSpace (ETDs+ ) , DSpace (learning objects – even metadata are restricted!!) and DSpace (many other contents) – 1  TEDE (ETDs only) , Pergamum (* * ) (ETDs and senior projects) and DSpace (scholarly communication) – 1  TEDE (ETDs) and DSpace (all other digital contents) – 1 (* ) Internal harvesting transfers metadata from Aleph to DSpace. There is duplication. (* * ) An OPAC. There is duplication.

 Original homegrown solution (ETDs+ ) , DSpace (scholarly communication) , DSpace (rare books) and OJS (* ) (journals) – there is federated search! – 1  TEDE (ETDs), ADAM (* * ) (other digital contents) and DSpace (Learning Objects) – 1  TEDE (ETDs) and SIE (* * * ) (all other digital contents) – 1  TEDE (ETDs) , DSpace (a scholarly communications IR is under planning) , DSpace (a repository of contents related to coffee, ETDs included) and DSpace (a repository of contents related to forestry, ETDs included) – 1 (* ) OJS – Open Journal System (http: / / pkp.sfu.ca/ ?q= ojs). (* * ) ADAM – Aleph Digital Asset Module running on Aleph 500. (* * * ) SIE – Sistema Integrado Escolar – an OPAC.

 TEDE (ETDs – has not been updated since 2011) and DSpace (ETD+ ) – 1 Migration problem s from TEDE to DSpace have not been solved. MTD-BR ( Brazilian ETD Metadata Model) has 3 levels ( for som e adm inistrative elem ents) and DSpace data m odel allow s only 2 .

Metadata and the international scenario:  Metadata have quality control – 10  Metadata include the examining committee – 8  Metadata include sets in more than one language (pt-BR and other/ s) – 7 Metadata are transferred to international catalogs but 4 institutions have inform ation in pt-BR only!

Statistics (publication and accesses, to administrators and to the public) :  No statistics (administrators or public) – 1  Publication statistics (administrators and public) – 1  Publication and accesses statistics considered satisfactory (administrators and public) – 4  Publication and accesses statistics considered unsatisfactory and/ or being enhanced (administrators and public) – 5

Digital preservation program:  Under way – 1  Being implemented – 1  Under discussion / planning – 3  May consider – 5  No concern for digital preservation at the moment – 1

The future:  DSpace (ETDs+ ) and Aleph 500 (ETDs+ ) – the institution will maintain both systems  Original homegrown solution (ETDs+ ) – the 2 institutions will maintain the solutions; 1 institution may add DSpace in the near future for a joint project with other universities  TEDE (ETDs), ADAM (other contents) and DSpace (Learning Objects) – the institution plans to integrate the first 2 in a next generation system; there is no information on the 3 rd

 Original homegrown solution (ETDs+ ) , DSpace (ETDs+ ) , DSpace (learning objects) and DSpace (many other contents) – the institution has not decided about the future  TEDE (ETDs only) , Pergamum (ETDs and senior projects) and DSpace (scholarly communication) – the institution plans to discontinue TEDE and host ETDs on DSpace  TEDE (ETDs) and DSpace (all other digital contents) – the institution plans to discontinue TEDE and host ETDs on DSpace

 Original homegrown solution (ETDs+ ) , DSpace (scholarly communication) , DSpace (rare books) and OJS (* ) (journals) – there is federated search! – the institution will maintain this solution eventually substituting other system for DSpace  TEDE (ETDs – has not been updated since 2011) and DSpace (ETD+ ) – the institution plans to discontinue TEDE and maintain DSpace  TEDE (ETDs) and SIE (all other digital contents) – the institution plans to have only one platform or to share metadata

 TEDE (ETDs) , DSpace (a scholarly communications IR is under planning) , DSpace (a repository of contents related to coffee, ETDs included) and DSpace (a repository of contents related to forestry, ETDs included) – the institution has not decided about the future  Summary: Actions for the Future Num bers Maintain current situation 4 Discontinue TEDE and use DSpace for ETDs 3 Integrate on another system 2 No decision 2

COMMENTS