Shhh. Don't tell anyone. (Internship)

For this week’s blog I wanted to talk about the messy side of digitization that often gets ignored and overlooked: failure. Failure is a scary thing that people tend to tiptoe around as to not admit the things that go wrong. The idea of failure just seems so harsh. But, in order to overcome the fear of failure, we need to talk about it. Failure isn’t the end of all things, its an opportunity to grow, learn, and change.

For starters, lets define failure. According to the dictionary on my MacBook Air, failure is “the omission of an expected or required action.” I really like this definition – it doesn’t describe failure as utter disaster, just merely the omission of what you would expect. So, using this definition, lets talk about “omissions of what was expected” in some of my experience archiving with FBCWP.

Mislabeled Items

One of the most common problems that we have encountered throughout this archival process is inaccurate page/item labeling. Ask anyone – Betty, Shirley, Rebecca, and myself – we have all accidentally mislabeled an item in the scrapbook. But, the good news is, we always seem to catch our mistakes and have the opportunity to fix them. Yes, sometimes it is discouraging to have to re-label an entire scrapbook. On the brightside, however, it reminds us take our time in labeling and carefully number our scrapbook pages/items. And, on top of that, we still get the opportunity to fix it! I know that during my scrapbook, I caught labeling errors in the metadata process and digitization process. Even so, I have still been able to fix my errors each time.

Mismatched Scans

One of the biggest problems we have been facing lately is mismatched metadata and scans. When we use the scanner with RICHES MI for my scrapbook, we are able to in put the preset label: WPFP.SB.198_1979. Then, the computer would numerically add in ascending order, “.0001, .0002, .0003” etc. The first problem with this is that my scrapbook and metadata only  3 decimal spots in that section, not 4. Unfortunately, we could not find a way around this. So, our solution was to scan all of the items in ascending order and then go back in rename them. Unfortunately, when I tried to rename them yesterday, the external hard drive which had the scans on then seemed to be locked. I was unable to edit the names of the scans or even add or delete any documents/images to the external hard drive. While this is disappointing, it is good to know. Perhaps in the future we will change the labeling system to match the computers’ decimal systems. In the mean time, we have yet to decide whether or not to re-label my scrapbook.

Misnumbered Scans

While we’ve had the problem of mismatched scans and metadata labels, I also encountered the problem of misnumbered scans. This became a problem when I would scan some kind of brochure. For the scrapbook, we would only label the brochure with one number. But, when we would scan the item, we scanned each page in the brochure. Since I was not sure how to label those extra scans, I simply added in an extra decimal and number to each scan. Now, it’s a little more work, but I will need to go back and label those pages on the brochures in my scrapbook. Again, while this is a temporary set back, it isn’t a failure… its an opportunity to change our system and grow.

Through it all, while some of difficulties have been disappointing as they have set back our progress, never have our failures been utter disasters. Instead, they have merely been “omissions of what was expected,” which have allowed us to make our process better and more efficient.

HISTORY AND GIS: ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY (Digital History)

HISTORY AND GIS: ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

History and GIS: Epistemologies, Considerations and Reflections. London: Springer, 2013.

Travis, Charles. “Writing Visual Histories: An Interview with David J. Staley” in History and GIS: Epistemologies, Considerations and Reflections. London: Springer, 2013.

Through his interview, Staley makes several points about the role of visualizations in the field of history. First, Staley notes that technology “does not simply produce attractive visual aids to illustrate a textual presentation but tools to explore data” (Staley, 146). Consequently, Staley contends that technology (like GIS) should take scholarship beyond its traditional narrative role to a more interactive, multidimensional, exploratory role. As he considers technology and the notion of the spatial turn, Staley hesitates to legitimize the certainty of the spatial turn being that it has yet to catch on to historians at large. Nevertheless, in discussing spatial history, Staley argues that spatial history provides new methodologies for historical argumentation and interpretation. Finally, in discussing the relationship between historians and technology, Staley desires to see computer scientists develop better software (more accessible) and digital historians expand their proficiency with technology.

Von Lünen, Alexander. Immobile History: An Interview with Emmanuel Le Roy Ladurie” in History and GIS: Epistemologies, Considerations and Reflections. London: Springer, 2013.

When called a pioneer in computers and geography in history, Ladurie responded that he was a pioneer in geography and quantitative history but was “helped” by others with computers (Ladurie, 16). Moreover, when questioned about his statement, “Historians should become programmers to survive,” Ladurie acknowledges while that he himself was not a programmer, outside of cultural history, all history aims to be quantitative, which consequently makes programming very important. Then, after demonstrating how geography played an important role in his quantitative studies and micro-history research, Ladurie explained that it was his French academic training that taught him to value the combination of history and geography. Finally, addressing the general relationship between history and geography, Ladurie shares that while they have much in common, he “can’t say much about the theoretical underpinnings” (Ladurie, 23). Nevertheless, Ladurie shares how geography and history influenced his concept of immobile history, which builds off of the long dureé and concludes that little has changed over time in certain geographies (thus the term immobile history).

Von Lünen, Alexander. “Tracking in a New Territory: Re-imaging GIS for History” in History and GIS: Epistemologies, Considerations and Reflections. London: Springer, 2013.

Through this chapter, Lünen argues for the use of GIS in historical research. Here, Lünen describes that as different historiographical turns develop, they begin by imitating previous methodologies before they take on their own character. Believing that Historical GIS should be past the imitation phase (of being used for the purpose of data repositories), Lünen argues that GIS in historical research, or “Gistory” should be used to explore, to create new questions, new narratives, and new arguments. Furthermore, Lünen contends that Gistory provides the perfect opportunity to practice abduction (an original argument) and tracking (using speculation and inference in the exploration of an original argument). Lünen concludes by stating that Historical GIS should not be used just to visualize outcomes, “but rather for constructing new narratives in order for historians to constantly reassess their own research agenda” (Lünen, 234).

Placing History: How Maps, Spatial Data, and GIS Are Changing Historical Scholarship. Redlands, California: ESRI Press, 2008.

Bodenhamer, David J. “History and GIS: Implications for the Discipline” in Placing History: How Maps, Spatial Data, and GIS Are Changing Historical Scholarship. Redlands, California: ESRI Press, 2008.

Through his chapter, Bodenhamer looks as the implications for GIS in the field of history. Here, Bodenhamer argues that even though there are trail blazing projects like the Dust Bowl, there are still methodological and pedagogical issues with GIS. Considering methodological problems, he explains most historians prefer the “medium of words and narratives” instead of digital projects, being that a historian’s evidence is usually in the form of words and narratives (Bodenhamer, 224-25). Another issue raised by Bodenhamer is the fact that GIS requires information that can be measured with precision, and historians, unfortunately, often deal with imprecise evidence. Considering pedagogical issues, Bodenhamer shares that  “scarcity of financial and technical resources” creates an impediment to the development of GIS in the humanities (Bodenhamer, 228); furthermore, he argues that there is a lack of individuals trained in GIS technology and historical inquiry.

Cunfer, Geoff, “Scaling the Dust Bowl,” in Placing History: How Maps, Spatial Data, and GIS Are Changing Historical Scholarship. Redlands, California: ESRI Press, 2008.

In his chapter, Cunfer explains that traditionally, historians believe that the Dust Bowl of the 1920s-30s was caused by capitalism’s demanding pressure on the mid-west’s ecosystem. Recognizing the potential for GIS to reevaluate the traditional narrative of the Dust Bowl, Cunfer explained that by “incorporating data about all of the counties on the southern plains into a GIS,” the researcher van “view the [historical] question at a different geographic scale” (Cunfer, 101). So, where previous historians had based their arguments about the Dust Bowl on the studies of two counties, Cunfer sought to use new methods to widen the spatial scale of his research. Interestingly, not only was he able to expand the spatial scale of his research, but GIS technology allowed him to expand his temporal scale as well (Cunfer, 109). Thus, using GIS technology, Cunfer was driven by the historical question: was the Dust Bowl really caused by capitalism’s demand on the ecosystem of the Midwest? Through his research using GIS technology, Cunfer was able to look at the cause of the Dustbowl on a large scale spatially and temporally that could not have been done with traditional methods; as a result, through his research he concluded that dust storms are “a normal part of southern plains ecology…Dust storm activity can be exacerbated or locally enhanced by plowing for crops, but that was not the sole and simple cause of the Dust Bowl” (Cunfer, 118).

Knowles, Anne Kelly. “GIS and History,” in Placing History: How Maps, Spatial Data, and GIS Are Changing Historical Scholarship. Redlands, California: ESRI Press, 2008.

In her chapter, Knowles argues that GIS a “superb tool for mapping and geographically analyzing census data, social surveys, and other kinds of systematically collected information” as it allows researchers to visualize patters, interpret data from different perspectives, and more (Knowles, 2). Yet, as Knowles shares, the “precision” that makes GIS such a wonderful tool for research and analysis can just as easily be a difficult tool when one’s sources cannot be condensed into a database (Knowles, 2). Furthermore, Knowles shares how GIS is also problematic given that GIS is a visual tool and historians tend to favor words and texts in narrative form. Moreover, Knowles argues that GIS is problematic in that it draws greatly from “epistemological divide” between the fields of geography and history from which it draws (Knowles, 3). In addition to looking at the promises and problems of GIS, Knowles outlines 4 characteristics of GIS Scholarship, including, but not limited to, the idea that “geographic questions” that drive historical inquiry (Knowles, 7). Finally, in demonstrating historical use of GIS, Knowles provides examples such as the Map of Rome or The Battlefield of Gettysburg.

Project Update and Voyant Tools (Internship Week 11)

For the past few weeks we’ve looked at the DPLA and all of its opportunities. This week, I wanted to give you an update on the project and introduce you to a new digital tool.

Project Update

Sine my scrapbook (years 1978-1979) has the metatdata and scans completed, now all that’s left to do for this scrapbook is go back through and make sure that there is a metadata entry for each scan. When I was scanning, sometimes I had to scan the front and back of, say a photograph, but since the metatdata page only had info for the front of the photograph, I will need to go back and add a metatdata category for the back of the photograph. But, since I can do this at home, I spent this week beginning to scan the 1913-1962 scrapbook. This was actually kinda cool. Sometimes it seemed silly scanning photographs from the late 70s for my book; so, being able to scan photographs that were over 100 years old was really neat! Here’s a picture of one photograph I scanned:

The First Sanctuary

Yet, as fun as it was, I had my first bump in the road with the scanning this week. As I was scanning, the computer told me that the disk space was full. As soon as it notified me of that, I went to transfer my scanned items from the desktop to the external hard drive. Unfortunately, when I transferred the scans, only some scans transferred. The good news is that it was maybe only an hour and a half of work. The bad news is, I’m not sure why it happened. From here on out I’ll be saving my scans directly to the hard drive to make sure that no images get lost while transferring files from the desk top to the hard drive.

Voyant Word Tools

In my digital history class, I’ve had the opportunity to learn and experiment with a unique tool – Voyant word tools. Voyant word tools allows you to copy and paste text (or insert a url) for the program to analyze. Once you submit the text, Voyant creates a word cloud that shows the most frequently cited words. The more a word is mentioned, the larger it is in the cloud. In addition to creating a visual word cloud image, Voyant allows you to see how the words are used in context, allows you to remove stoppage words (ex: the, and), and tells you how many times each word is mentioned.

So, after experimenting with Voyant in my digital history class, I realized… why not use it for my internship as well!? I mean, I have transcribed almost 90% of the scrapbook. The metadata contains the most important words and just leaves out various lists of names or dates. So, I decided to copy and paste all 185 metadata entries of text into the Voyant Word Tools program!

And.... T A D A! 

Here’s my results:

Looking at the word cloud, you'll see the most frequently cited words are....

Church - 116 times

Sunday - 64 times

Baptist - 43 times

Day - 36 times

Family - 32

Pastor - 30

Year - 26

Years - 25

Considering these words, it didn't surprise me to see words like church, Sunday, and baptist appear often. What did surprise me, however, was to see words like year/years appear so frequently. Looking at the context of the way the word year/years are used, it becomes evident that the scrapbook frequently talks about its history. For example, the metadata records entries like "7 year anniversary." While this is only one scrapbook out of the entire collection, the word cloud analysis leads me to believe that the church values remembering its history. And as a historian in training, I found that to pretty cool!

Methodological Transparency (Digital History Week 10)

For this week’s assignment, our class looked at “the call for methodological transparency in historical writing,” specifically as it pertains to print articles that involve digital components; more specifically, we looked at the costs and benefits of producing a metagraph in addition to digital projects and print articles based on born digital projects. But, why is this important? Personally, I think methodological transparency would help digital projects receive the same respect and recognition as traditional, print articles. Let me explain.

As we have already determined throughout the semester, as a growing field, digital history seeks to earn the same respect and consideration as traditional, print articles. To help establish digital history as a respectable element of academia, scholars have published print based on born digital projects like William G. Thomas III and Edward Ayers’ “The Differences Slavery Made: A Close Analysis of Two Communities and Camron Blevins’ “Space, Nation, and the Triumph of Region: A View of the World from Houston.”  While these print articles help explain digital projects, they can still leave the reader wondering, how did the author reach these conclusions? For traditional historians who are used to relying on close readings of primary sources, perhaps explaining the methodological process and reasoning behind distant reading (and other methods of digital history) would help scholars see the value of digital projects.

For example, in their essay, “The Hermeneutics of Data and Historical Writing,” authors Gibbs and Owens pose the question, how can digital historians expect others to receive their new methodologies when the “new ways of working with data seem like a mysterious black box?” Considering this, they conclude that “the new methods used to explore and interpret historical data demand a new level of methodological transparency in history writing.” As part of explaining methodologies, Gibbs and Owen suggest that authors should be clear what their data implies and does not imply, how they interpret evidence, and how they intend to use their evidence. For example, with the opportunities created with digital technologies, data does not always have to be used as evidence; rather, it can also be used to create new research questions. For instance, according to Gibbs and Owens reveal that tools like Google NGrams can help promote the creation of new research questions.

A great example of this is Robertson’s Digital Harlem project. In a recent AHR Exchange, Sternfield criticized Robertson for not contributing a histiorographical argument to the scholarship on everyday life in Harlem. Robertson responded to this critique, saying, that “Digital Harlem is an opportunity to think about digital mapping as a research method, not as a means of making or illustrating arguments,” but as a way to investigate sources (AHR Exchange, 166). Considering this, I believe that a metagraph designed to complement Digital Harlem would have clarified the aims of the project and prevented the criticism it received due to methodological misunderstandings. Echoing this suggestion, Gibbs and Owens plainly state, “One way of reducing hostility to data and its manipulation is to lay bare whatever manipulations have led to some historical insight.”

One author who answered the call for methodological transparency is Cameron Blevins. In 2014, Blevins published “Space, Nation, and the Triumph of Region: A View of the World from Houston,” as a print article to share his findings from his spatial history research of late 19^th century Houston. Then, in 2015, he published “Mining and Mapping the Production of Space” as the first digital methods essay (a metagraph) to be published as a supplement to a JAH article. Personally, I found his metagraph to be very useful and informative. Compared to his 2014 article, Blevins’ metagraph helped to contextualize the way he approached his methods; in his metagraph, Blevins explained each of his visualizations, the meanings behind them, and the way he interpreted them.

Perhaps the most insightful thing I found in his metagraph was the way he explained what exactly his map represented. For example, as Blevins sought to map the space created by the Houston Daily Post, he shares that his Occurrences of Place-Names in the Telegraph and Texas Register, 1836-1851 visualization is “not a comprehensive view of every place-name… but a measurement of how frequently selected places appeared: ‘a’ view of the world from Houston rather than ‘the’ view of the world from Houston.” He then shares how by counting every instance of place names, he was able to “flatten” the text and ignore context; for example, he shares that the word “Dallas” on the front pate headline was given the same weight as the word “Dallas” in a retail advertisement. Sharing these methodolgocial processes helped me to better understand the meanings behind the conclusions Blevins reached. By better understanding his conclusions, I am able to appreciate his scholarship much more!

            In conclusion, considering Gibbs and Owens insights, criticisms of Digital Harlem received, and Blevins’ metagraph, it becomes evident that a metagraph has many benefits. Metagraphs helps users understand the data, how it was used, and the conclusions it produced. Furthermore, metagraphs help protect authors from criticisms based on misunderstandings. Considering the cost of a metagraph, the only cost I can see is the time it takes to write a metagraph. Personally, though, I believe the cost is well worth the benefit of methodological transparency.

Educational Projects with the DPLA (Internship Week 10)

I know we’ve spent the past couple of weeks looking at the Digital Public Library of American  (DPLA)…. But….. the more I look into it, the more I discover about it, and the more I want to share it with you all!

So far we’ve looked at the background of the DPLA and the way that artifacts end up on the DPLA website. But – there’s still more! Let’s explore some of the educational projects the DPLA is involved with.

Primary Source Sets

First, there’s primary source sets. Recognizing the role it plays in connecting the community with primary sources, the DPLA has created what they call “primary source sets” to help students explore primary source material. According to the DPLA website, each primary source set “includes an overview, ten to fifteen primary sources, links to related resources, and a teaching guide” (DPLA). Created, reviewed, and maintained by the DPLA’s Education Advisory Committee, these primary source sets provide students with pre-selected primary sources related to various topics. For example, if you wanted to look up primary sources related to the Civil War and Reconstruction, this is what you find:

Clicking on The Freedmen’s Bureau set, one is directed a webpage dedicated to primary source material on this particular topic. At the top of the page, the DPLA provides a brief description of the topic. Then, the page has 13 thumbnail images that users click on and are directed to the primary source material. Examples of primary sources for this set include: a letter to the assistant inspector general of the Georgia Freedman's Bureau (1868), a freedman’s work contract (1865), and an excerpt from the semi-annual report on schools for freedom (1866).

Looking at one of the primary sources, like the freedman’s work contract for example, users are provided with a digitized image of the primary source, a transcription of the source’s content, citation information, and links to the source’s host website.

What is really neat about these primary source sets is that they are designed to assist students and teachers in k-12 and higher education by connecting them with trustworthy, primary sources. According to Dan Cohen, the DPLA hopes to have over 100 of these primary source sets by this summer (http://www.thirteen.org/openmind/books/the-digital-commons/5374/).

National History Day

Recognizing the importance of history, the DPLA “is proud to be a part of National History Day, a series of contests in which students present research projects framed within a general historical topic that they’ve developed using primary and secondary sources. Containing millions of primary and secondary source, DPLA is the perfect complement to National History Day” (DPLA). Thus, as part of National History Day, the DPLA provides students with research guides in addition to providing them with opportunities to win awards for the best use of DPLA source material.

Education Advisory Committee

To help facilitate the DPLA’s involvement with National History Day and primary source sets, the DPLA works with its Education Advisory Committee for direction and insight. With over 300 applicants, the DPLA’s Education Advisory Committee is comprised of 10 individuals who are involved with education in grades 6-14. These individuals are responsible for building and maintaining primary source sets in addition to planning future educational projects.

Digital Project Reviews, They're Here Folks! (Digital History Week 9)

Reviewing Digital History Projects

While the American Historical Review has previously featured traditional articles based on “born-digital” projects, like William G. Thomas III and Edward Ayers’ “The Differences Slavery Made: A Close Analysis of Two Communities,” until now, the AHR had yet to review actual, digital scholarship. Thus, it is significant that for the first time ever, in this month’s publication of the journal, the AHR featured two reviews (and author responses) of digital history projects.

Not only is this significant in the development of the journal, but it is also significant for the field of Digital History as digital projects seek to earn the same respect shown to traditional, print scholarship. Reviews of DH projects in scholarly journals like the AHR are so important to the development of DH as a field given that the lack of a normalized peer review process has been a controversial topic that has prevented DH projects from receiving the same consideration and approval shown to print publications.

Thus, helping to create a normalized process for reviewing digital history, the AHR Exchange provides an introduction, two different reviews of different projects, and two responses from an individual involved in the project’s creation. While authors do not traditionally respond to reviews in this format, being that these are the AHR’s first digital history reviews, allowing authors to respond may help shape the way digital projects are reviewed in the future. Encouraged to “engage with questions of presentation, legibility, organization, historiography, research, and interpretation—to evaluate the effectiveness of the medium as well as the message,” the reviewers presented their findings and the project creators responded (141).

For its first DH reviews, the AHR looked at two interactive web based projects: Digital Harlem: Every- day Life, 1915–1930 and Slave Revolt in Jamaica, 1760–1761: A Cartographic Narrative. Both digital mapping sites, these two projects show how “digital tools can reveal both geospatial and sociohistorical patterns not visible through a more “traditional” reading of the historical sources available” (141). So, let’s check it out!

Digital Harlem

            In reviewing Digital Harlem, Joshua Sternfeld made several key points. First, throughout his review Sternfeld seemed to believe that Digital Harlem lacked historiographical contribution. With a constant emphasis on the lack of contextualization, Sternfeld criticized Digital Harlem for lacking “digitized photographic or full text source material” and for lacking comprehensive sampling data (147). Furthermore, Sternfeld argues that Digital Harlem focuses too heavily on criminal activity as opposed to “everyday life” in Harlem. Finally, Sternfeld notes that by “combining data from these disparate sources into a single searchable database, the authors have decontextualized the data” (152). As a whole, Sternfeld seemed to suggest that Digital Harlem was in adequate in its source material, its argument, and its historiographical contributions to the historiography of everyday life in Harlem.

            In response to Sternfeld, project contributor Stephen Robertson explains to readers that Sternfeld misses the main contribution of the project. He explains that as Robertson “only fitfully engages with spatial orientation… his emphasis remains on collecting digitized sources, not on visualizing them” (151). Then, explaining the technological and copyright limits prevented the project creators from implementing some of Sternfeld’s suggestions, Robertson shares that Digital Harlem was not designed as a public history project, teaching resource, or archive, but rather as a spatial visualization of historical sources (160). Thus, where Sternfeld criticizes Digital Harlem for neglecting to make a historiographical contribution with an accurate argument, Robertson explains that “Digital Harlem is an opportunity to think about digital mapping as a research method, not as a means of making or illustrating arguments,” but as a way to investigate sources (166). Then, addressing Sternfeld’s critique of the site’s attention to criminal records, Robertson explains that the criminal records represent the cultural (places) and economic (numbers game/gambling) everyday life of Harlem (161).

Slave Revolt in Jamaica

Distinctly different from Sternfeld’s review of Digital Harlem, Natalie Zacek offers a positive review of Slave Revolt in Jamaica. Describing the site as a cartographic narrative, Zacek reveals the sites’ two primary contributions: 1) challenging the traditional narrative that the revolt was the result of a series of disconnected rebellions by providing insight into the rebels’ strategic aims and tactical dynamics of the entire insurrection and, 2) suggesting the rebels’ long term goals of establishing their own society. While Zacek believes the second contribution is a bit of a stretch, she praises the project for providing an argument based on primary sources.

Responding to Zacek, principle investigator Vincent Brown echoes Zacek’s point about argumentation by emphasizing that scholarship should evidence and interpretation over the medium of presentation. Acknowledging that his rationale for the project was primarily historiographical, Brown explains that by viewing the slave revolt spatially, he was able to “advocate interpretations of the past that might otherwise go unarticulated” (179).

Final Thoughts

Reading the reviews and author responses was very intriguing. What stood out to me most was that Sternfeld criticized Digital Harlem for its lack of argument while Zacek praised Slave Revolt in Jamaica for its historiographical contribution. Yet, the fact that Robertson writes that Digital Harlem is not a “means of making arguments,” suggests a point of definition needed in the review process of digital projects: should digital projects be reviewed for their argument?

The Digital Public Library of America, Continued (Internship Week 9)

Last week you were introduced to the Digital Public Library of America (DPLA). Because the DPLA is so unique, I wanted to share a little more about it.

But first – a few points of clarification.

What is the DPLA again? The DPLA digitally connects “America’s archives, libraries, and museums” and make them available to the public (dp.la).

Yet, the DPLA is different from traditional libraries in that it does not actually host the digital files or even store the digital files presented on its site. Instead, the “DPLA is an all-digital library that aggregates metadata about digital objects held by libraries, museums, and archives around the country. “ (dp.la). For example, if you search Helen Keller’s bathing suit, you’ll see a thumbnail of the image along with the item’s metadata. But, when you click “view object,” you are directed to the SAILS Library Network, the institution that hosts artifact and its information. Here are screen shots of both the DPLA and SAILS’ presentation of the bathing suit.  

So, after understanding what the DPLA does, we can consider how items end up on the DPLA website.

Well, the DPLA staff works with its associated content and service hubs located around the country. According to the DPLA,

“Service Hubs aggregate data on behalf of a given state or region. Each Service Hub offers a full menu of standardized digital services to local institutions, including digitization, metadata consultation, data aggregation and storage services, as well as locally hosted community outreach programs that bring users in contact with digital content of local relevance.

Content Hubs are large digital libraries, museums, archives, or repositories that maintain a one-to-one relationship with DPLA. Content Hubs as a general rule have more than 200,000 unique metadata records to contribute to DPLA, and they commit to maintaining and editing those records as needed.”

In considering how this relates to the FBCWP project, it is important to understand both types of hubs. For our purposes, the closest content hub is located at the University of Florida as part of the George A. Smathers Digital Library. The closest service hub is located in Georgia as part of the Digital Library of Georgia. So, while the content hub is closer to central Florida, we would actually need to connect with a service hub to get the digitized scans of the scrapbooks online. But, before we could connect with a service hub, we would need to have a partnership with an institution willing to host our images (like the Winter Park Library, or RICHES MI).  As it stands, the DPLA does not host any items from RICHES or the Winter Park Library. Personally, I think the DPLA would benefit immensely from a partnership with RICHES and all of its digitized items. But, until there’s a service hub established in FL, UCF would have to reach out to the service hub in Georgia to get its digitized items online with the DPLA. Perhaps, maybe one day, RICHES could coordinate with other libraries in the central Florida area and apply to become a service hub. Wouldn’t that be cool?