We received a survey recently from an educational institution, but under the auspices of IMLS, titled Controlled Online Collections Survey. First I had to figure what they were talking about:

“A network accessible collection of digital materials where: access to the collection is controlled, or use of the digitized material is controlled.”

Anyone else get this survey?

I struggled with this for a while largely because we strive to make as much of our collection as possible available to the public – if we have restricted rights, it doesn’t get posted. I know we are fortunate enough not to have to worry about generating revenue from usage of our images. But as I got further into the survey, the questions became curiouser and curiouser, asking what technologies institutions employ to control access and what reasons are discouraging institutions from creating controlled online collections. C’mon guys, what about Open Access? Harvesting? I thought we were getting away from this mentality? Sooo 1990′s.

The final survey question was like the ‘reveal’ in a bad reality makeover show: What are the top 5 ways IMLS should support the implementation of controlled online collections?

#1: Don’t
#2: Don’t
etc…

I’ve had the honor (maybe never again) of reading technology grant proposals for IMLS, and other grant-giving organisations, and in my experience it is fantastically revealing – an incredibly mixed bag of professionals who know what they’re doing, professionals who don’t know what they’re doing and non-professionals. I’ve been around long enough to see the reality behind a technology proposal and you can’t bullshit this bullshitter. I’ve been greatly impressed by the ingenuity of some would-be grantees with genuine and innovative projects, but I have also seen what are essentially excuses to keep someone employed and fund their institution.

The reality is that the majority of museums can barely keep the doors open – they need funds and where the money comes from is not important. I’ve been amazed at some of the projects that have been funded, I’m not sure whether that’s a reflection of the reviewers or whether there is a tacit understanding that these grants are operational “care packages”. I’m always for calling a spade a spade, so why don’t we have a “Keep the Doors Open” fund, but I guess that’s what we hope to get from the Federal Funding for Museums initiative.

On the subject of funding I’m getting increasingly concerned on the topic of Open Source, which seems to be a requirement if you want to get a technology grant these days. The whole point about Open Source Software is the community support and development, but the approach seems to be: develop the application, put it into the community. Pardon my French, but that’s completely arse about face. These projects should build the community first then develop the software – otherwise its the equivalent of doing the user requirements after you’ve built the product.

The real problem is that the communities that would be best served by Open Source, i.e. small/medium museums, are the ones that can least afford to contribute and participate, so they are no better off whether its open source or not – the crux of selecting software is that it meets your requirements – whether its Open Source should be way down the list. Museums struggle as it is with acquiring and implementing software packages, I don’t think that enforcing Open Source to get funding is helping. I’d rather see an enforcement of solid requirement analysis.

And let’s not forget the old chestnut that just because its Open Source doesn’t mean its free. The software itself might be free, but the configuration and implementation isn’t. It reminds me of the infomercial selling my dream HDTV for just $19.99 – what a bargain!

A couple of links, one about Open Source pros and cons, another which is well worth taking the time to read, is a whole First Monday article devoted to Open Source.

Be Sociable, Share!

•