The Digital Collections Systems Sub-Committee (DCSSC)
Enhancement Priorities, FY05
Rev. 2004-06-18
For each given system, the relative priority of the enhancement items is indicated by their ordinal position, arranged from highest to lowest priority.
The explicit priority assigned to each enhancement item is a global ranking.
ADS (Asynchronous Delivery Service)
Priority: Low
Description:Have ADS requests include the name of the application from whose context the request was sent. This application name should then be referenced in the confirmation email.
Reason:Confirmation emails currently only refer to DRS, not the system from which the request was sent.
Effort:Low
DRS (Digital Repository Service)
Priority:High
Description:Allow multiple batches to be queued in a single FTP drop box by permitting multiple "batch.xml" files that will be processed sequentially by timestamp.
Reason: This feature will streamline depositing agent workflow and increase productivity.
Effort: Medium
Priority:High
Description:Allow mass update and delete of content objects and/or associated metadata. (Delete would still be allowed only within the 2 week post-deposit window.) Requires appropriate security mechanisms and an easy rollback procedure to undo incorrect actions.
Note: These functionality may be implemented in either Web Admin or batch (batch.xml transactions) or both, based on analysis of depositing agent needs.
Reason:Simplify maintenance of aggregates of objects by depositing agents. Currently, these functions are only available on a one-by-one manual basis in Web Admin.
Effort:High
Priority:Medium
Description:Allow searching in Web Admin based on the URN and producer fields.
Reason: No current mechanism for non-OIS staff to do this.
Effort: Low
Priority:Medium
Description:Add a new field "depositor" associated with each object, which will be searching in Web Admin.
Reason: No current mechanism for tracking objects by depositor, as opposed to owner or producer.
Effort: Low
Priority:Medium
Description:Permit the creation of inter-object relationships across owner codes.
Reason:Facilitate object re-use and linking without duplicating content.
Note: There should be appropriate notification when such a link is established or deleted. Also, some objects may need to be marked in a way that would prohibit such relationships.
Effort: Medium
Priority:Low
Description:Adding an optional free text note field to be associatedwith owner codes and billing codes. These will be readable/writable via theDRS Web Admin tool.
Reason:To allow owners/project staff/OIS liaisons to manage pertinent owner-level and project-level information. Currently, this must be managed externalto DRS.
Effort:Low
FTS (Full-text Search Service) / PDS (Page Delivery Service)
All FY04 enhancements incorporated into the ongoing ULC-approved re-implementation project
NRS (Name Resolution Service)
No enhancements requested at this time
SDS (Streaming Delivery Service)
Priority:High
Description:Support for SMIL (XML-based Synchronized Multimedia Integration Language).
Reason:SMIL is necessary for synchronization of audio content split across multiple objects, as will be the case, for example, with the Millman Perry Collection.
Note: SMIL relies upon external file references, which would normally be re-written as DRS internal IDS during the DRS loading process.
Effort:Low/Medium
TED (Templated Database)
Priority:Medium
Description:Display thumbnails in brief record display.
Reason:Thumbnails can be used as a visual selection criterion when paging through brief record displays.
Effort:Low/Medium
Priority:Medium
Description:The maintenance system should automatically populate the update data and operator fields.
Reason:This will increase the chances of realistic data being defined for these fields.
Effort:Low
Priority:Low
Description:Suppress or re-locate the TED record number in the record display.
Reason:The record number is of no value to the patron except for selecting records of interest for virtual collections. For the most part, its presence at the top of every record is annoying and a profligate use of screen real estate.
Effort:Low
Collection Inventory Control
Priority:High
Description:Investigation of potential mechanisms to provide collection owners/curators with a unified view of the digital assets in their collections, independent of the multiple manifestations of content in various repository and cataloging systems.
Reason:Inventory management requires separate, parallel processes in multiple systems, e.g., OLIVIA, VIA, DRS, NRS, etc. To track relationships between diverse content manifestations held in independent systems must be done by curators with some local external mechanism.
Effort:High
I:\OIS\Digital Acquisitions\DCSSC\Enhancements_2005.doc1