Thank you to all those who responded to my plea for information on
CONTENTdm.  I think I obscured the issue by using the company name PTSF
instead of the product name of ArchiveWare when I listed the other system we
are seriously considering.

 

I've delayed reporting to the list because we are still evaluating.  I
haven't heard from any ArchiveWare users.  Are you out there?  

 

Here are a few things we've learned from feedback, research, demonstrations,
etc.  If anyone thinks I've misrepresented the products, please let me know.
And if you have information you feel is relevant, please discuss it on list
if of general interest, or contact me off list if appropriate.

 

CONTENTdm is better known and has been adopted as a "memory project"
platform by several state libraries, including the one in Arizona.  Because
it is partnered with OCLC, one export can be to WorldCat (or soon to be
WorldCat and RLIN, apparently).

 

ArchiveWare appears to be more adapted to documents than CONTENTdm, for
which demonstrations are heavily slanted to scanned or born-digital
photographs, realia or other images, including moving images.  (CONTENTdm
does support sound files as well.)

 

CONTENTdm stores "transcripts" of documents as a single field in the
metadata, limited by the field limit of 128,000 characters (per page),
whereas ArchiveWare uses a different method.  This affects indexing of full
text.  An OCR'd document has a "transcript," but as far as born-digital
documents are concerned, CONTENTdm extracts text from PDF files only.  If
"Word" documents or other types of textual documents are imaged (HTML,
etc.), the text must be cut and pasted into a "transcript" that can then be
uploaded with the document.  ArchiveWare allows indexing of non-PDF,
non-OCR'd documents without cutting and pasting.

 

Both systems include options for applying watermarks or (in the case of
CONTENTdm) "bands" (at the bottom) to an image.  ArchiveWare's options
appear to be more flexible than CONTENTdm, which appears to apply a
watermark across the board.  ArchiveWare allows for watermark/nonwatermark
options to differ according to who is using the document, just as CONTENTdm
allows for the specification of different permissions for use to apply to
different patrons.  ArchiveWare's options include storing two copies of
images, one watermarked, and one not watermarked.  One demonstrator pointed
out to us that images stored on CONTENTdm cannot be watermarked
retrospectively-that is, once uploaded without a watermark, a watermark
cannot be later applied.  

 

CONTENTdm allows for the uploading of images into an approval queue without
an acquisition station, and for the storage of images in a "favorites" user
area for lectures, presentations, etc.

 

In many cases I don't know whether the systems match in areas I've discussed
here, since several of us are doing the evaluation, and not all of us have
had the same demonstration experiences.

 

Arel Lucas

Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University, Prescott Campus

(928) 777-3907


A posting from the Archives & Archivists LISTSERV List sponsored by the Society of American Archivists, www.archivists.org.
For the terms of participation, please refer to http://www.archivists.org/listservs/arch_listserv_terms.asp.

To subscribe or unsubscribe, send e-mail to [log in to unmask]
      In body of message:  SUB ARCHIVES firstname lastname
                    *or*:  UNSUB ARCHIVES
To post a message, send e-mail to [log in to unmask]

Or to do *anything* (and enjoy doing it!), use the web interface at
     http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/archives.html

Problems?  Send e-mail to Robert F Schmidt <[log in to unmask]>