Ball State University Libraries' Use of CONTENTdm for Repositories

by Arthur W. Hafner, Dean of University Libraries

The Ball State University Libraries currently manage two digital repository systems, the Ball State University Digital Media Repository (DMR) and Cardinal Scholar, the Ball State Institutional Repository.

The difference between the two is that Cardinal Scholar allows for direct deposit of Ball State-created digital assets by faculty and students while the DMR is mediated by professional librarians and includes digital assets created by Ball State community and non-University content providers through collaborative projects.

Our Digital Media Repository, http://libx.bsu.edu, currently contains over 102,000 digital objects created by the University Libraries’ personnel, Ball State faculty and students, and community partners. It utilizes CONTENTdm to deliver digital images, Indiana Public Radio and local public television content, student-produced news video, oral history audio and transcriptions, World War II films, and 3D objects such as anatomical models and theater costumes. CONTENTdm has proven to be an excellent vehicle for the management of audio and video digital assets.

Cardinal Scholar, www.bsu.edu/cardinalscholar, is our institutional repository (IR) that supports the University’s research publishing distribution strategies by making faculty and student work globally accessible and electronically searchable. We use EPrints software for Cardinal Scholar.

When we were investigating IR solutions, we considered CONTENTdm as a potential platform because of our investment in the system. However, without major customization, there were key features that CONTENTdm did not handle well for our IR needs. For this reason, we chose EPrints. Features we like in EPrints include:

· Easy management of individual and group logons to self-deposit assets
· Grouping assets by academic unit
· Control of self-deposit process
· Built-in Web 2.0 features such as RSS

While it may have been possible to customize CONTENTdm to handle these and other features, we determined that the required time and personnel investment was not cost-effective because EPrints either included these features or would require less customization.

We are satisfied with both products for their respective solutions. Various Ball State academic units have consulted with the University Libraries to explore the use of EPrints for individual departmental applications in those cases where they wish to restrict access to selected digital assets.