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

An Overview of Som e ETD Repositories in Brazil

ETD2013 – Hong Kong

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/ ETD2013 – Sep 23-26

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 1st had almost 39,000

records

• The institution that ranked 15th 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%
• f 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 7th in collection size.

• Replies came from 10 institutions
• The total number of data sets was 11 (73% of the 15
• riginal 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 3rd

• Original homegrown solution (ETDs+ ), DSpace

(ETDs+ ), DSpace (learning objects) and DSpace (many

• ther 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

• ETDs were the kick off of digital publishing of

scholarly communication in Brazil – this has happened not only in the surveyed universities, it was wide spread

• TEDE (the SW and the training program) were a very

important support for the ETD programs – the universities with smaller collections were the main beneficiaries because they did not have other solutions nor the expertise

• TEDE is specific for ETDs so, when universities

decided to publish other contents, it became unsuitable and institutions started seeking other solutions

These three com m ents are the result of inform ation gathered in conferences, discussion groups, etc.

• The transition from ETDs only to ETDs+ , in some

institutions, seems to be a bit confused:

• There are different systems with the same collection

yielding duplication

• There are different instances of the same system with

different collections and, except for one institution, there is no federated search

• There are different systems with different collections and,

except for one institution, there is no federated search

• 2 institutions do not have plans for the future, yielding the

impression that the implemented solutions were not defined according to an institutional strategy

• The institution with two repositories has only TEDE listed
• n BDTD website

• Information on statistics was not precise – the

impression is that there is no clear understanding

• f what is to be measured and how to do it
• Institutions are aware that metadata harvested by

BDTD are harvested by international organizations – it was surprising that 4 institutions use only one language

• A good surprise was the number of institutions

concerned with digital preservation, though their actions are in different stages

• In 2 institutions, Learning Objects have been

separate from other digital contents and follow different guidelines – for example, metadata are not of public access

• In 1 institution (mine), Learning Objects share the

same repository and are treated like all other contents This analysis w ill be perform ed again in 2 years to com pare results.

THANK YOU! MUITO OBRIGADA!