Creating a digital collaboration is a lot of work. Who are the hard-working superstars behind the Pasadena Digital History Collaboration? Below is the first in a series of interviews highlighting different individuals in the collaboration: their role, their triumphs, their frustrations, and their reflections on the process. The interviewer is Kelli Hines, a summer PDHC intern from San Jose State University's MLIS program, and the special guest is Dan McLaughlin from the Pasadena Public Library.
Kelli Hines: What is your role within the collaboration?
Dan McLaughlin: I am the photo librarian at the Pasadena public library and sort of have become the keeper of the subject headings.
KH: How did you get involved?
DM: Martha Camacho, the person who created the collaborative, is my direct supervisor.
KH: How do you create a balance between your other work and the work for the PDHC?
DM: Making sure the PDHC work is in sync with my larger job, which is Pasadena history.
KH: Has the collaboration changed or evolved since the beginning?
DM: Not really. It will in the future, but right now it’s been pretty stable. Oh, now we are beginning to explore non-photo digital resources.
KH: How do you decide what is most important? What compromises have you had to make in order to get things accomplished?
DM: Well, through discussion. Sometimes we use minimal subject headings when there is a desire to get things up quickly.
KH: What excites you most about the project?
DM: Three things, getting our photos online, seeing the photos from other institutions (both current and future members) and mechanisms for allowing discussion about photos.
KH: What are you most proud of?
DM: Getting our photos online.
KH: Why is getting the photos online a particular source of pride for you?
DM: I have scans dating back to 1999 that are now seeing the light of day.
KH: What has been the most challenging for you?
DM: Content dm @#$#$@#$%#$%#$%#$
KH: It sounds like there's no love lost between you and CONTENTdm. Could you elaborate on the specific difficulties and limitations you've experienced with the software?
DM: Three big areas. One, we made some basic decisions on the structure and content of the underlying database based on descriptions we were given. These descriptions have proven to be false. In other cases we made assumptions on the structure of the database that have also proven to be false. On the level or record entry and manipulation the interface is both clunky and cumbersome (you can only see about 40 characters in a field that is unlimited; to edit a subject heading involves three distinct steps each of which can take a few minutes to process.) Basically the database seems to be designed to massively import lots of records at the same time that will never be edited. Our work flow is much smaller batches of records that need to be individually massaged. There is a fundamental disconnect between who the database was designed for and how we are using it.
KH: Is there anything you would have done differently?
DM: We would have structured our cataloguing rules differently. We assume someday that we will be able to implement a thesaurus (SEE and SEE ALSO); we also assume that someday we will be able to sort a search by date of item; we would like to be able to search both the entire database and also search just by a particular institution and/or type of material. We have made cataloguing rules assuming these things or to work around content dm limitations.
KH: If you could be granted any one wish for the project, what would you wish for?
DM: That version 6.2 will do everything that has been promised. I am not hopeful.
No comments:
Post a Comment