About and Landing Page (Pamela): This collection is comprised of images from the Pacific
Fabric Collective. We are interested in presenting a variety of fabrics that might be of use and
interest to members of the fashion industry, fashion students, textile enthusiasts, interior
designers, artists, art historians, crafters, sewers, quilters, fabric buyers and sellers. The fabrics
range from utilitarian to decorative and abstract to whimsical, with many others in between.
1) Planning for digitization: discuss the potential users and their needs, the overall theme of the
collection (Natasha)
Every group project presents new challenges and opportunities to connect with
classmates, and this project certainly did just that. After the initial groups were posted via D2L,
emails began to flow between group members sharing their excitement and enthusiasm to get
this collaborative project started. Soon enough, one of our members volunteered to schedule
our first meeting via EIluminate and it commenced on the evening of November 7th. After a few
introductions and small talk, we dove straight into creating our online collection. Team member
Carolyn A. played an integral part at this juncture, as well as throughout the planning process as
she suggested that we base our online collection around fabric. She deals firsthand with fabrics
and has experience selling them online and thought it would be a creative, fun, out-of-the-box
way to build our collection. After discussing the idea and the many categories that we could use
for our metadata fields, such as print, color, material and so forth, it seemed as though “Fabric”
was a great way to go. We all thought the idea was interesting and agreed that it would be an
inventive way to tackle this project. Even our only male team member, Ryan J., was a good
sport and on board with our fabric wielding ways and willing to search through his wife's closet
for prints and patterns.
After the theme of fabric was selected, we agreed that all of the fabrics chosen should
have a print or pattern of some kind in order to make the collection both interesting and
appealing. Knowing that the assignment called for at least 35 images and there were six of us,
we decided the more the merrier in this case, and agreed that each one of us should select,
scan and upload ten fabric images to a Flickr account that one of our team members created.
Utilizing this internet site, our entire group could post and view the fabric choices which allowed
us to edit the number of images used in our final collection based on scan quality in the future.
In order to keep track of our metadata, group activity, and overall notes throughout the planning
and creative process, team member Chole T. created a Google Doc for us to work in which was
quite useful. Once the details about the theme and quantity were established, we progressed in
determining the potential users of our database.
As the brainstorming began, it was fun to think of all the ways that a unique collection
like ours could be used from everyday individuals looking to renovate a home space to students
in the fashion industry, and even sewing and textile enthusiasts. Our collection proved to be
versatile and flexible for a multitude of potential users. Each group member equally contributed
ideas in naming prospective audiences and at the end of first meeting, we were happy with the
compiled list and the accomplished progress. Over the next few weeks, we scheduled four
additional meetings: November 14th, 18th, 26th and 29th. Along with these meetings, there
was a continuous stream of emails written to one another concerning deadlines, final selections,
questions, findings, ideas, advice, troubles, and simply reaching out for assistance which was
greatly needed from a few of us with, largely with regards to uploading issues. Communication
was a key factor in the preparation and success of building this collection, and we had no
shortage of that as each group member put forth their best efforts to arrive at a cohesive,
functioning, and user-friendly online collection.
Fabric: Potential users: fashion industry, fashion students, textile enthusiasts, interior
designers, artists, art historians, home improvement industry, eBay sellers, on-line
shopping/consumers, crafters, sewers, and quilters
2) Selection: criteria used to select the documents for digitization (Ryan)
Selection: Fabric should have pattern or print, should be easily scannable (?)
While our group sought after a unique theme for the project that eventually “materialized”
as fabrics, we quickly recognized key parameters that would have to be considered to ensure
success during the selection process, including subject matter, scan-ability, and best-practice
standards.
It was decided that each scanned fabric should contain a print design or pattern to not
only further engage the user/viewer but provide additional depth and/or contextual depth. In
essence, we felt intricate patterns and original designs would better lend themselves to a robust
set of metadata than, say, a solid square of red satin. This was initially complicated by the fact
that some fabrics contained foreign objects such as sequins that were later deemed
superfluous.
Next, the team came to the conclusion that—aside from the obvious fact that the various
fabrics chosen needed to easily fit on a scanner throughout the process—the materials would
have to yield consistent, aesthetically pleasing images. In other words, images displaying
wrinkles, non-design elements such as negative space, and repetitive patterns with respect to
the entire database would eventually be scrapped from the final upload process.
While putting together our collection, copyright was discussed as well, as the images
were going to be part of an online collection viewable to the public. Copyright can be an
overwhelmingly confusing and sticky subject, and this is perhaps even more the case in the
textile industry. In 2009, Meagan Lacy investigated just this topic, revealing the complexities of
copyright law pertaining to fabric designs—which even includes something as trivial as a “polka
dot!” This largely deals with the construction of “useful articles,” which hold the key distinction of
functional items, not “works of visual art” (p. 17), so this became an interesting issue regarding
the Pacific Fabric Collective. Most, if not all, of the designs incorporated were likely protected
by copyright law, but for the purposes of this project; and since the group did not create
functional nor designer items and solely documented these designs for educational purposes, it
was deemed the scans would qualify as fair use—the Association of Research Library’s (ARL)
site explains projects such as these fall under fair use as long as they are “accessible in
appropriate contexts” (2012)—and the Technology, Education, and Copyright Harmonization
Act (TEACH) of 2001 (Covey, 2005). The group also included a “Manufacturer” metadata set,
along with distributor and production location information, which convey ownership to the best of
the group’s knowledge.
References
Code of best practices in fair use for academic and research libraries. (2012). Retrieved from
http://www.arl.org/pp/ppcopyright/codefairuse/code/index.shtml.
Covey, D. T. (October 2005). Acquiring Copyright Permission to Digitize and Provide Open
Access to Books. Washington, DC: Council on Library and Information Resources. (PDF)
Lacy, M. (2009). Protecting the polka dot: How intellectual property law affects the U.S. textile
industry. DttP, 37(4), 16-20.
3) (Pamela)Technical production information: standards used (resolution, bit depth, etc);
equipment
Group one used a variety of flatbed scanners capable of creating images at various levels
of bit depth and resolution, a Canon CanoScan LiDE 30 capable of 1200 x 2400 dpi and 24 bit
depth; CanoScan 9000F capable of scanning images up to 9600 dpi at 49 bit depth; a robust
Samsung SCX 4623F that can scan 1,200 to 4,800 dpi with Optical Resolution; a Dell All-InOne A960 capable of 1200 at 24-bit depth; an Epson V500 capable of 24 bit depth; and a Brother
7840W all-in-one with the ability to scan up to 1200 dpi and 24 bit depth. The flatbed scanners
worked well for fabrics that could be laid flat and did not have many seams or special treatments
such as ruching or ruffles. According to Bibliographical Center for Research (BCR), flatbed
scanners are very popular for scanning in libraries, archives, and museums. Additionally,
“depending on the condition and format of the selected materials, flatbed scanners can be used to
scan 2 dimensional materials such as papers, some photographs, printed material, etc.” (2008, p.
17). Many personal scanners have platens that can accommodate materials up to 11x14, which
allowed members of the group to capture a large area of fabric to showcase patterns, designs, and
colors.
Many of the fabrics selected for digitization contained multiple colors. The group
members decided to scan all materials at 24 bit depth to capture as many colors as possible
without increasing file size. Digitizing at that measurement works best for publishing JPEG
images online. The Cornell University Library Research Department states that bit depth is
“determined by the number of bits used to define each pixel. The greater the bit depth used, the
greater the number of tones (grayscale or color) that can be represented in black and white,
grayscale, or color” (Cornell University Library, 2003). The collection contains only one bitonal
image, which rendered very well when scanned at 24 bit depth.
We scanned not only at the appropriate level of bit depth, but also the best level of
resolution to produce a high quality archival master. According to BCR, “there is no one
“perfect” resolution to scan all collection materials” (2003, p. 10). However, since we selected
fabrics, though of different textures and types of material, they all scanned with good results.
The resolution was even good enough to capture the essence, which according to Anne Kenney
and Oya Reiger (2000), “represents the level of detail that can be seen by the unaided eye at a
normal reading distance” (p. 27). Although essence usually refers to fine detail text and
illustration, it works well to describe the level of detail in digitally rendered fabrics.
References:
Bibliographical Center for Research, (2003). BCR’s CDP Digital Imaging Best Practices Version
2.0. Retrieved February, 2012 from www.lyrasis.org
Cornell University. (2003). Moving Theory into Practice: Digital Imaging Tutorial. Retrieved
September, 2012 from http://www.library.cornell.edu/preservation/tutorial/intro/intro-01.html
Kenney, Anne R. & Oya Rieger. (2000). Moving Theory into Practice. Mountain View, CA:
RLG.
4) Image production: discuss the archival masters and derivatives
(Chole’ )
We discussed image production in our first meeting. Using the CONTENTdm
instructions are our guide, we only discussed digital masters as a personal preference, not as a
group specification. We did decide, however, on the specifications for the derivatives to be used
in the collection. After we decided on the content (fabric) we agreed all images would be resized
(or cropped) into 8” x 8” JPEG’s for our fabric images. However, some of us chose to make
masters and derivatives based on the recommended standards found in some of our course
reading. Therefore, two of us made masters in the TIFF (uncompressed, lossless) format with
derivatives made into JPEG’s (compressed, but at a high quality level). The masters were saved
in personal folders and JPEG’s (derivatives) were added into the Project Client. One of us from
this method scanned images twice – one as TIFF – the other as JPEG. The derivative JPEG’s
were made from the TIFF files, and cropped using Photoshop. The other person scanned the
images as 8” x 8” so no additional cropping was used.
Four of us only made JPEG’s from the scanned images. Two of the four used the scanned
JPEG as a master and derivative because they were scanned with 8” x 8” dimensions. The other
two who scanned images in JPEG saved the original scans as masters, and cropped the JPEG’s
into 8” x 8” for the derivatives used in the collection. One of these stated they used Photoshop to
crop, the other used GIMP.
It seems there is a way to scan images into the dimensions a person requires, but a couple
of us either did not notice this option, have this option, or choose to use this option. This is
something to think about for a large project where taking the extra time to further crop an image
may not be prudent. However, it might not be helpful if a human eye is needed to determine
where best to crop the image.
Regardless of the file type used for the master images, or whether cropping was
conducted at the scan level or prior to uploading to the Project Client, all masters were scanned
at 300dpi; 24 bit depth.
References
Digital asset management. (2002-2003) NINCH Guide to Good Practice in the Digital
Representation and Management or Cultural Heritage Materials. Humanities Advanced
Technology and Information Institute: University of Glasgow and the National Initiative for a
Networked Cultural Heritage.
Moving theory into practice digital imaging tutorial. (2012, Sept. 19). Cornell Library. Retrieved
from:
http://www.library.cornell.edu/preservation/tutorial/presentation/presentation01.html.
Frey, F. (2000). Working with photographs. Handbook for Digital Projects: A Management Tool
for Preservation and Access. Andover, MA: NEDCC.
Frey, F., & Reilly, J. (2006). Digital imaging for photograph collections: Foundations for
technical standards. Rochester Institute for Technology and the Image Permanence
Institute (2nd ed.). Rochester, NY.
- but everyone please write under here what your archival masters and derivatives are (if any) . I
will merge the information into a paragraph or two.
Chole: Scanned masters as Tiff’s and Jpeg’s (2 original copies made) from scan. Made Jpeg
(high resolution) from Tiff’s (8 x 8) for CONTENTdm using Photoshop.
Ryan: Masters were scanned at 300 dpi, 8.5 x 11.7 inches (2552 x 3508 pixels), 24 bit depth
Jpegs. Masters were cropped in Photoshop to 8 x 8 inches (2400 x 2400 pixels) for
ContentDM.
Carolyn: Masters were scanned as Jpegs and saved. GIMP was used to crop the images to 8x8
and these were saved as derivatives.
Gina: Masters were scanned as Jpegs only. 300 resolution, 8x8 dimensions, 24-bit depth in
color forContentDM. No other derivatives and no other masters. Master was textile itself.
Pamela: Masters were scanned as TIFFs at 300 dpi, 8x8, 24 bit depth and derivatives were
saved as jpeg and uploaded to ContentDm.
Natasha: Masters were created and saved as Jpegs only. I do not have any derivatives. 300
dpi @ 24-bit depth, 8 x 8 dimensions
5) Metadata: include the group discussions and consensus about metadata fields and types
(structural, descriptive, technical) (Carolyn)
Once the group had uploaded their respective fabrics to Flickr, we met to discuss our
database and what metadata fields would be relevant to our collection. During this meeting, we
established our fields examining them one by one. If a field was deemed relevant then we
proceeded to discuss its finer details, such as would this element be mandatory, searchable,
and/or repeatable? Also, did this element require a controlled vocabulary?
After a consensus was reached, a member of our group volunteered to implement our
chosen elements and the controlled vocabularies in the actual database. Once this was
completed, we were able to upload our respective fabrics to the CONTENTdm Client.
From here, each member customized the metadata to meet their specific fabric’s criteria
which, ultimately, were uploaded to the CONTENTdm website. In retrospect, we were probably
a bit too liberal with our metadata options. Because each person entered their fabric’s individual
metadata, each person did it a little differently. No one did it wrong, but it was inconsistent. In
our next meeting, we decided that we needed to go back into the database and align all of the
metadata in each listing to be compatible with one another.
This member volunteered to take on the task due to familarity with fabrics. Mistakes that
had been made were excessive semi-colons (in some elements) or not enough semi-colons (in
others). Each member also interpreted the term “Description” quite differently. It was very
beneficial to go back and filter each entry to make sure that a.) the metadata was entered, b.)
the metadata was accurate, and c.) the metadata was consistent with all of the others in the
collection.
For our particular collection, the metadata we found most pertinent included color,
textile, and print. Therefore, each item was titled by its hue, fabric, and design. During a
meeting we found that the “subject” search feature for our collection did not actually reflect the
subjects we had provided. When attempting a search, one could see some of the subjects
provided, but not others, and there really did not seem to be any rhyme or reason to this glitch.
This member found that the subject field would benefit from a controlled vocabulary. So, using
many of the same terms that had been inputted and/or consolidating terms, the controlled
vocabulary for the subject element was developed. Once this feature had been implemented,
the “subject” search feature appeared more normally than it had previously.
This member believes that the “relation” field to have been the most dubious. Initially, we
had planned to leave it out entirely not understanding how it worked into our collection.
However, a team member read the professor’s instructions again and found that the relation
element was mandatory. We first understood the “relation” field to be how the items relate to
one another. We assumed that all floral prints should be identified in relation metadata with the
other floral print listings. However, upon further research, we found that the field “relation”
simply implied what collection the resource was a part of. This information was found in the
report “Best Practices for CONTENTdm and other OAI-PMH compliant repositories.” Here the
definition of the field of “relation” is stated as “the named digital collection where a resource
resides” (pg. 17). Upon learning this, a link to our collection was included in the relation field for
our contents.
Overall, the metadata decisions for our resources were rather straight-forward. The
color, fabric and pattern for each item was simplified with controlled vocabulary. Other fields and
terms were negotiated prior to implementation and adhered to. This member believes that
Group 1 worked well together. Every member was flexible, determined, and communicative
which made the task of determining the metadata for our collection less complicated than
anticipated.
Controlled vocabulary for pattern and design retrived from:
http://www.artlandia.com/wonderland/glossary/
Ingram, G. and Lee, J. (2010). Best practices for CONTENTdm and other OAI-PMH compliant
repositories: shareable metadata. OCLC Digital Collection Services.
6) Are there any other issues that may be important for understanding how this collection was
designed and implemented? (Gina)
Collaborating in team projects can be challenging and rewarding, but can also be
intimidating when you do not know what to expect when working with strangers. Our group is
amazing in working together and accomplishing tasks. We had no problems with meeting times
and were able to work together on Google Docs and online-collaboration sessions. Google Docs
assisted in keeping our tasks in line and kept everyone up to date with current changes and ideas.
We were able to record our meeting sessions and save files as needed. Meetings were scheduled
regularly to ensure that we stayed on task, and we also set our own due dates for when portions
of the project should be completed. Whenever a problem arose, all group members participated
in getting it solved so that we were all on the same page within the project. If any of us needed
assistance, we quickly e-mailed the group for ideas and solutions. In collaborative sessions, we
all took turns asking questions and accomplishing the tasks at hand.
We had our first meeting on November 7th via Elluminate where we established the topic
“fabric” for our project. We discussed the types of patterns and prints to scan and decided that
we would all scan 10 items so that we would have enough to remove any that were wrinkled or
unclear. Some fabrics did not scan as well as others so having more than enough to choose from
allowed us to remove the unwanted ones. One group member established a Flickr group so that
we could all download our fabrics into one place for viewing.
By our next meeting, on November 14th, most of the images were available on Flickr and
we were able to determine which ones we were going to use for the project. A majority of the
time during our second meeting was spent trying to solve a problem that one group member had
with the Flickr account. After several invites to the group and endless attempts to allow the
member into the group to add images, another member volunteered to load the images for her by
having her e-mail the files. Once all of the images were loaded onto Flickr, we were able to
eliminate the unwanted fabrics for future loading into the ContentDM program. Our professor
provided a training session two days after this meeting, so we decided to use those couple of
days downloading the ContentDM software in preparation for the session. Before our next
meeting, a couple of members navigated around the ContentDM site and downloaded some
fabrics for early practice.
Our third meeting on November 18th was used to determine which metadata fields we
would be utilizing and what controlled and uncontrolled vocabulary would be used. We created
lists of colors, materials, patterns, prints, etc. for controlled vocabulary fields and established
uncontrolled vocabulary fields for descriptions and multiple wording. One group member
volunteered to enter the metadata into ContentDM so that we could each upload our images onto
the Group 1 website and add the information into the chosen metadata fields. A problem
occurred for one member when she could not upload her images onto ContentDM. She was using
a Macintosh computer and tried numerous ways to load the images, but a constant memory
failure message kept appearing. She tried adding different software which did not help in the
situation. Another group member attempted to load the images for her from Flickr and e-mailed
files, but was unsuccessful and received the same message. As a result, we had to add some more
scanned images into ContentDM to bring our database number to 47 items. In this meeting, we
also determined who would work on which part of the assignment. We decided since there are 6
group members and 6 parts to the paper, we would divide the tasks up accordingly. This was a
simple procedure as some group members had preference as to which part they wanted to do, and
the others just fell into place after that. For the next week, we all worked on uploading and
adding our metadata to our own fabrics that were selected for the project.
We met again on November 26th which consisted of addressing issues we faced with
ContentDM and inconsistencies in our database. We determined that we needed some other
terms added into the controlled vocabulary sections and discovered that we had various wording
in some fields that did not correlate. We also discovered that the field “relation” needed to be
added to our metadata fields. One member volunteered to add the “relation” metadata for all of
the fabrics and to double-check all of the other fields to ensure that they were consistent in
content and entered correctly. This was a huge job that really got our database in good standing
and eliminated inconsistencies and incorrect content. For the next few days, all of the group
members began working on the paper portion of the project. We utilized our Google Doc to
download our sections for all group members to see and edit. We all offered feedback and ideas
for making each section the best possible for providing pertinent information about our project.
By our last meeting on November 29th, the group had all of the sections completed and
available on Google Docs. After all of the group members viewed each other’s sections and
made suggestions and corrections, we had six solid sections of information for our paper. One
group member volunteered to put the sections together in APA format and check for proper word
usage and text flow. She will complete the finished product and e-mail it to all group members
for final review and feedback. As soon as all group members have responded about the finished
product, a final copy will be sent to everyone and it will be submitted via the dropbox in D2L.
Since it was new software to us all, ContentDM proved to be challenging at times,
especially when uploading images. As a team, we were able to get the images on there and
worked out the problems before moving along in the project. Through trial and error, we learned
how to independently upload and add metadata to the images on ContentDM. We communicated
issues and questions about the process with each other until all of our information was presented
correctly.
Scanning the images was not a problem for us. We all had scanners of different makes
and models, but we were all able to scan at the capacities that we needed. We scanned a large
number of fabrics so that we could eliminate ones that did not scan very well. Overall, this
project was a great experience and gave us the opportunity to utilize new software and apply
concepts that we have learned over the semester.
Although it took some time to learn about ContentDM, having exposure to a professional
database program will be helpful to us in the future when creating digital collections. We
enjoyed having the experience of working together and learning a new program.
Elements
Title
·
·
o
o
Searchable
Yes
[color; fabric; print or design]
Ex: Green; Purple; Jersey; Floral Print
No more than 3 colors
Use “multi” for more than three
Required
Repeatable
Controlled
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Subject [Local]
Yes
No
·
Ex: Floral; stripes; ribbed; design; polka dot; etc.
Yes
Yes
Description
Yes
·
Specific or additional details if needed
No
Yes
No
Creator
·
Ex: Last, First
Yes
Yes
No
Format
Publisher
Yes
Ø Fall2012-284-13-Group-01
Yes
No
Yes
Date
Yes
Yes
·
Ex: Date you made image and metadata available
·
Ex: 11/18/2012
No
Format
Yes
Yes
Subject [LCSH]
Ø Fabric
Type Format
Will be changed to: Textile
Yes
Yes
Yes
Ø Textile
Identifier
Will be the same as title
No
Yes
No
No
Rights
Will be changed to: Manufacturer
Yes
No
Yes
No
Elements
Searchable
Source
Will be changed to: Origin
·
Ex: India
Repeatable
Controlled
No
Yes
No
Relation
No
·
Related to other items in database
No
Yes
No
Audience
Controlled Vocabulary:
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
ü
ü
ü
ü
ü
ü
ü
ü
Yes
Required
Fashion Industry
Fashion Student
Textile Enthusiasts
Interior Designers
Artists
Art Historians
Home Improvement
Ebay Sales
Online Shoppers/ing
Crafters
Color
Controlled Vocabulary:
ü Red
ü Blue
ü Green
Brown
Black
White
Beige
Maroon
Yellow
Orange
Burgundy
Cranberry
Tan
Teal
Purple
*** All of mine appear to fit in these color categories, but I would have a field of “multi” where any of
the fabrics that contain more than 3 colors fits in this category. ***
ü
ü
ü
ü
ü
ü
ü
ü
ü
ü
Elements
Material
Controlled Vocabulary:
ü
ü
ü
ü
ü
ü
ü
Searchable
Required
Repeatable
Controlled
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Cotton
Polyester
Rayon
Fleece
Silk
Acrylic
Denim
Spandex
Ramie
Linen
ü
Print
Controlled Vocabulary:
ü
ü
ü
ü
Squares
Floral
Polka Dot
Striped
Geometrical
Plaid
Animal
Zig-Zag
Hearts
Paisley
ü
Pattern
Yes
·
Ex: Geometrical, Roses, Large, Horizontal
·
[but use capital first letter for all entries]
Elements
Searchable
Yes
Required
Yes
Repeatable
No
Controlled