Managing text digitisation
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/14684520310462536 |
| Published date | 01 February 2003 |
| Pages | 17-27 |
| Date | 01 February 2003 |
| Author | Stephen Chapman |
| Subject Matter | Information & knowledge management,Library & information science |
Managing text
digitisation
Stephen Chapman
Introduction
Many technologies and services are available
to improve access to books, journals,
manuscripts and other printed materials in
libraries and archives. Good digital images
can be made by scanning paper or microfilm;
searchable text by keying or optical character
recognition (OCR); encoded text by applying
a standard or content-specific encoding
scheme; and networked delivery by using a
commercial or custom-developed ``page
turning'' application. These many ``ors'' are
both a blessing and a curse to managers of
text conversion projects. Where production
teams could formerly implement
specifications for analogue reformatting (e.g.
preservation microfilming), they must often
develop them for digitising similar materials.
How can this be done accurately and
efficiently?
This article presents a decision checklist for
managers seeking to create specifications and
infrastructure, or to interpret available
guidelines, products, and services, for text
digitisation. (In this context, ``text'' refers to a
broad range of source materials: handwritten
and machine-printed, single sheet and bound,
printed originals or film and photocopy
surrogates.) The best practice advocated here
is to arrive at specifications that account for
project- and programme-specific variables
associated with the source materials and the
digital reproductions.
No project can be planned, funded and
undertaken without specifications. Solutions
promoted or marketed as ``standard''
preservation and access strategies should be
assessed carefully. Key variables among
ostensibly similar projects include use
requirements for the digitised text, attributes
of source materials, near- and long-term goals
for digital library content and infrastructure,
staffing, schedules, and budgets. The best
``best practice'' for scanning, for example, will
The author
Stephen Chapman is the Preservation Librarian for
Digital Initiatives at Weissman Preservation Centre,
Harvard University Library, Cambridge,
Massachusetts, USA.
Keywords
Digital libraries, Projects, Electronic data processing,
Information technology
Abstract
Good project plans include technical specifications, plans
of work, budgets and schedules that are consistent with
project goals. Text digitisation presents many variables
and many choices, so there is no one-size-fits-all solution
to recommend. This article presents a simple-to-use
questionnaire as a tool for project managers to translate
their vision of text digitisation into a series of functional
requirements optimised for their collections and users.
These requirements can then be used to develop
specifications, draft workflows, and select appropriate
staff, services and equipment.
Electronic access
The Emerald Research Register for this journal is
available at
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/researchregister
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is
available at
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/1468-4527.htm
Refereed article received 9 September 2002
Approved for publication 12 September 2002
Developed initially for the Northeast Document
Conservation Centre's School for Scanning
conferences, this paper also presents personal
opinions of lessons learned in Harvard's Library
Digital Initiative projects (1998- ). The author is
grateful to NEDCC for being included in the
School for Scanning faculty and to Bill Comstock
in the Harvard College Library for reviewing drafts
of this article.
17
Online Information Review
Volume 27 .Number 1 .2003 .pp. 17-27
#MCB UP Limited .ISSN 1468-4527
DOI 10.1108/14684520310462536
To continue reading
Request your trial