1 of 15

Delivering Archives and Digital Objects:

a conceptual model (DadoCM)

and how it envisions access to born-digital materials

2 of 15

The problem DadoCM is addressing

  • Access to digital materials though archival description is wonky
    • Crosses the boundaries of two different description approaches/philosophies
    • Multiple systems & experiences
    • Many repositories separate digital materials from their archival description and/or duplicate metadata

3 of 15

What DadoCM is

​

  • A high-level conceptual model focused on connections between archival material and digital manifestations of those archival resources
    • Reconciles archival description with how we provide access to digital materials

4 of 15

The DadoCM Approach

  • DadoCM says provide access to digital objects though archival approaches and systems
    • Use aggregate description
    • Then there is a lot we don’t need as a default
      • Item-level metadata
  • But work with existing delivery systems for digital content
    • International Image Interoperability Framework (IIIF)

5 of 15

What DadoCM is

​

  • Developed from an collaborative process
  • System-agnostic, but points to IIIF
    • Inclusive of low tech environments
    • Supports PDFs, JPGs, & ZIPs
  • Not concerned with managing digital materials

6 of 15

DadoCM Outcomes

  • Manage Archival Description and Digital Objects without duplication, not necessarily in one system
  • Maintain connection with archival component
  • Describe and provide access to aggregations of digital materials at the point where they can be self-describing

7 of 15

Digital Objects as Manifestations of Archival Components

​

  • One-to-one relationship
    • Since archival components can be aggregates, so can digital objects
  • Clarifies what is description/metadata and what is the thing we’re describing
  • Poses some practical challenges
    • Digitizing only part of a component
    • CD in a folder with paper records

8 of 15

Comparing to Portland Common Data Model (PCDM)

9 of 15

Comparing to Portland Common Data Model (PCDM)

​

10 of 15

Delivering Aggregate Digital Objects

  • DadoCM says this is a technology problem
    • Archival systems don’t have to care
  • IIIF is great at delivering complex digital objects
    • Interoperable
    • Widely supported by existing infrastructure
  • ZIPs, PDFs, can also deliver aggregate digital objects

11 of 15

Delivering Aggregations with IIIF

  • Principle of structured data and client-side viewer
  • Alternative Representations in manifests

12 of 15

Delivering Complex Objects with IIIF

  • IIIF Collections
  • Nested collections for multi-level view
  • Thumbdrive of photos
    • Actual implementation

13 of 15

Centering Alternative Representations

  • Useful even when IIIF viewers don’t add much
  • Manifest for web archive
  • Web archive (WARC/WACZ)
  • A manifest can include:
    • Text content
    • Technical metadata
    • Alternative formats for edge cases

14 of 15

Remaining IIIF and IIIF viewer needs

  • Specification consensus
    • Arbitrary formats as canvas?
    • More structure for Alternative Representations?
  • Viewer improvements
    • Display things that render in-browser (PDFs, WARCs)
    • Better usability for Alternative Representations
    • Better support for nested collections

15 of 15

Future plans

  • Wrapping up work on as_arclight
    • ArchivesSpace plugin for indexing in ArcLight
    • Follows DadoCM patterns
  • Working on publishing DadoCM 1.0
  • Extending IMLS grant though 2026
    • UX testing on inheritance and search relevancy in ArcLight