The objective of the research is to develop a holistic model for digital library (DL) evaluation. To develop such a model, a three-stage research approach was applied: exploration, confirmation, and verification. During the exploration stage, a literature review was conducted, and then an interview along with card sorting technique was employed to collect perceptions from DL experts with emphasis on determining what criteria should be used in DL evaluation. Then, the criteria identified from the exploration were used for developing an online survey during the confirmation stage. Heterogeneous DL stakeholders were asked to rate the importance of each criterion to DL evaluation.The holistic model was constructed by utilizing descriptive and inference statistical techniques. Its holistic nature was ensured through: (1) incorporation of various DL stakeholders' perspectives in light of Marchionini's multifaceted evaluation approach, and (2) inclusion of all digital library levels suggested by Saracevic's stratified information retrieval model. Eventually, in the verification stage, selected criteria from the model were tested in real DL use setting. Some significant findings include: (1) consistently perceived important criteria for DL evaluation. DL stakeholders care more about premise (e.g., accessibility and iii iii sustainability of a DL), process (e.g., ease of use, technology reliability, and service responsiveness), and direct performance (e.g., usefulness of information, successfulness and efficiency of task completion), whereas less concerned about indirect factors (e.g., personalization, behavior change, service courtesy, and extended social effects); (2) inter-group divergence in importance perception for some evaluation criteria. The divergence primarily exists between the user and other DL stakeholder groups; (3) some promising criteria (e.g., comprehensiveness of collection, integrity of information, integration of service to information seeking path, collaboration/sharing) augment the existing DL evaluations whereby important criteria have essentially been covered; and (4) most importantly, the core dissertation objective is fulfilled, that is the construction of the holistic evaluation model, in which heterogeneous stakeholders' perspectives at all DL levels are presented. Moreover, some prestigious journals also have devoted special issues to this subject (e.g., 2 Science 1993Science , 2000 Information Processing and Management, 1999; Library Trends, 2000; Communication of ACM, 1995. IEEE Computer, 1995. Journal of American Society for InformationHowever, behind this fast-growing scene are some weaknesses that might hinder the progress of DL innovation. One of the remarkable weaknesses is reflected in the two competing visions of what is a DL, which are pinpointed by Borgman in 1999. One vision, with the research domain (e.g., Fox et al., 1993;Lesk, 1997) Unsurprisingly, the divergent visions of the definition of the DL cannot but yield to different foci in DL development. The view ...

Purpose – Digital humanities (DH) has become a much discussed topic among both humanities scholars and library professionals. The library and information science (LIS) community has taken efforts in providing new facilities and developing new services to meet humanities scholars’ changing research behaviors and needs employing digital tools and methods. How to effectively collaborate with the DH community has been a challenging task to LIS in their digital library (DL) development endeavors. The purpose of this paper is to discover productive ways for LIS to support DH scholarship, specifically, what DL components, including content, technology, and service, should and could be developed for digital humanists. Design/methodology/approach – As an initial effort of the Digital Humanities Interest Group at University of California, Irvine Libraries, the examination is primarily based on a cross-boundary environmental scan in both DH and DL fields. The environmental survey includes both a literature review and web and physical site visits. The survey results, especially a gap analysis between the behaviors and needs of humanities scholars and the digital content, technologies, and services currently offered by the DL community, are used to shape the proposed roles of DH librarianship. Findings – First, DH’s innovative approach to research and teaching practices brings opportunities and challenges. Second, DH research is collaborative work. Third, major channels are established for the DH community. Fourth, various tools and data sets are developed to support different types of projects. Fifth, DH community has unbalanced geographical and disciplinary distribution. Sixth, DH research output still lacks attention, integration, and sustainability. Finally, LIS professionals play unique roles in DH projects. Overall, the communities of DH and DL share common goals and tasks. Practical implications – This paper proposes these present and future roles of LIS professionals: creator and contributor; curator; messenger and liaison; educator; mediator and interpreter; host; partner; innovator; “hybrid scholar”; advocate; consultant. At the organizational level, libraries should demonstrate higher efficiency and effectiveness in the services by revamping organizational culture or structure to stimulate and realize more and deeper cross-boundary conversations and collaborations. On a larger scale, the DL community should strive to become more visible, valuable, and approachable to the DH community; and even better, become part of it. Originality/value – This paper examines both DH and DL fields critically and connects the two communities by discovering gaps and commonalities. Based on the findings, the authors recommend roles and actions to be taken by LIS professionals, libraries, and the DL community. This paper is valuable to both humanities scholars who are seeking support in their research using digital methods and LIS professionals who are interested in providing more effective and suitable services. The paper also helps library administrators and aspiring librarians better understand the concept of DH and grasp insight on the present and future of DH librarianship.

In this article, the authors report a series of evaluations of two metadata schemes developed for Moving Image Collections (MIC), an integrated online catalog of moving images. Through two online surveys and one experiment spanning various stages of metadata implementation, the MIC evaluation team explored a user-centered approach in which the four generic user tasks suggested by IFLA FRBR (International Association of Library Associations Functional Requirement for Bibliographic Records) were embedded in data collection and analyses. Diverse groups of users rated usefulness of individual metadata fields for finding, identifying, selecting, and obtaining moving images. The results demonstrate a consistency across these evaluations with respect to (a) identification of a set of useful metadata fields highly rated by target users for each of the FRBR generic tasks, and (b) indication of a significant interaction between MIC metadata fields and the FRBR generic tasks. The findings provide timely feedback for the MIC implementation specifically, and valuable suggestions to other similar metadata application settings in general. They also suggest the feasibility of using the four IFLA FRBR generic tasks as a framework for user-centered functional metadata evaluations.