An Overview of Some 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% of the institutions.

Summary:

Percentages of Intitutions 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%

Two comments are suitable:

(*) The collections are very different in size; (*) There are other differences among

collections too (we will see later!).

THIS WORK

This work addresses the results of an examination of the ETD programs and other

digital collections in the 15 institutions with 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

original 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 with ETDs!! Some of them have very large repositories of all types of contents.

A similar result was presented by Schirmbacher

(2009) concerning Humboldt University that started with an ETD program (in 1998) that became 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 most of the other 91 institutions.

It was a very important tool/action to start ETD programs in Brazil. As a consequence, to help

institutions get involved in digital publishing of scholarly communications.

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 problems from TEDE to DSpace have not been solved. MTD-BR (Brazilian ETD Metadata Model) has 3 levels (for some administrative elements) and DSpace data model allows 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 information 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 other 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 Numbers

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 comments are the result of information 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 on BDTD website

Information on statistics was not precise – the impression is that there is no clear understanding of 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 will be performed again in 2 years to compare results.

THANK YOU! MUITO OBRIGADA!