Using AToM as a DAM

[b.t.v...@warwick.ac.uk]

Hello everybody,

We are in the process of exploring options for managing and presenting digital objects at our institution. We like very much the functionality that Archivematica provides and so are now looking at how we might describe and present the objects processed through that pipeline. The alternatives to Archivematica alongside Description & presentation software such as AToM, ContentDM and the like, appears to be enterprise-class Digital Asset Management (DAM) systems that offer digital preservation functionality. Typically these might offer the ability to 'suck in' descriptive metadata created in other systems/the ability to add further metadata/granular access controls/presentation and download of digital objects. Some may offer versioning functionality also.

So, I was wondering if any users out there are making use of Archivematica/AToM as a kind of DAM as opposed to AToM being 'just' a descriptive catalogue? If so, how have peeps found it and what are the limitations they see.

Any feedback/help would be greatly appreciated - you guys rock!

Ben

[Dan Gillean]

Hi Ben,

Thanks for posting - I'm hoping that other members of our community might share their experiences with you, and that input on this thread might also help guide potential future AtoM development.

We've definitely had conversations with several interested community members about the ability to suck in metadata or update automatically - right now as we see it, the two best methods for proceeding are either: develop a well documented API for AtoM, that could both expose and consume metadata via JSON or, develop the nascent OAI-PMH module in AtoM, so that AtoM can also act as a harvester. Ideally in the latter solution, our OAI module would be able to expose and harvest both DC and EAD XML. There's been a lot of interest, but so far, no one has prioritized this enough to sponsor development or contribute code. We see it as functionality that could greatly increase many aspects of AtoM's use over time, and hope to be able to move in one, or both, of these directions in the future.

Does anyone have any experiences of using AtoM as a kind of DAM that they might share with Ben? If you've considered it but not implemented, what were the challenges or blocks?

Cheers,

Dan Gillean, MAS, MLIS
AtoM Product Manager / Systems Analyst,
Artefactual Systems, Inc.
604-527-2056

@accesstomemory

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ICA-AtoM Users" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ica-atom-user...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to ica-ato...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/ica-atom-users.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ica-atom-users/9b78e3b4-0767-463c-b994-4b52c688cbed%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[b.t.v...@warwick.ac.uk]

Hey Dan,

Thanks so much for the prompt reply.

Our archivists are currently using a system, that you may be familiar with (although I think it's most widely used over here in Europe), called CALM as the accessions and archival description catalogue. I'm keen for us to explore the use of Archivematica and AToM in handling our digital assets along with the archival descriptions. However, due to the change (both in what people are used to using and the workflows around that) it may require a gentle transition whereby descriptions are still created in CALM with digital assets run through the Archivematica pipeline and presented in AToM. In this scenario it would be handy to harvest the EAD descriptions from CALM. Who knows, perhaps we may be able to shift the archivists into directly inputting their descriptions into AToM along the way :-)

If there are any peeps who have had experiences in these kind of transitions that would also be interesting to hear about.

Cheers,

Ben