0.14 The evia project: many challenges, some solutions  (Page 6/9)

1. segmentation of unedited video files using a three-level hierarchical scheme;
2. annotation of each segment;
3. production of a glossary, citations, and transcriptions.

The annotations can be extensive, equivalent in some cases to a “small monograph.” The EVIA project’s vetting processes require significant up-front investment of time and money prior to completion of an author’s collection. Moreover, “preservation transfers, video transcending, file and data management, training, the summer institute fellowship, and peer review management all consume a great deal of money.” There is doubt about the perceived value of the published work to the scholarly community at large because of general problems with the ways in which “scholars are assessed and rewarded,” not to mention the inferior status sometimes accorded to online publications. Nevertheless, the inclusion of EVIA project work in certain tenure and promotion dossiers has had positive results.

The software tools developed within EVIA include the Annotator's Workbench and the Online Search and Browse Tool, along with smaller-scale applications for “controlled vocabulary maintenance,” technical metadata collection, etc. The latter are intended to serve other disciplines on an open-source basis.

The report describes numerous challenges to do with sustainability, understood by the EVIA team in terms of “preservation, access, publishing, collection development, infrastructure, and funding strategies.” Each of these must be addressed “if a project is to successfully move from being just a project to being a trusted resource, a dynamic social space, or a viable channel for scholarly communication.” Apparently a “means of sustaining the project” has been created, although few details of the funding strategy are given.

The following observations do, however, appear:

1. Preservation —which is resource-intensive but “fundamental” to EVIA’s work—concerns not only digitized video material but also associated textual content, for both of which “long- term, high-quality access” and “migratability” are required.
2. Access and IP : Legal issues arise from the copyright material within some recordings, in addition to which various ethical considerations obtain. Access is therefore restricted to educational users.
3. As scholarly publishing became increasingly integral to EVIA’s work, the project assumed corresponding “functions typically maintained by academic societies and by presses,” including initial vetting, developing stylistic conventions, peer review management, and copy-editing. This aspect “has been the most difficult to establish” within EVIA’s infrastructure; a “coordinating role” is envisaged in future, with editorial functions moving to “the academic societies.” Financial and cultural obstacles are noted.
4. Collection development : Although the Summer Institutes were “incredibly productive and satisfying,” they were costly and cannot be exclusively relied upon for ongoing development. EVIA’s core holdings are also being expanded through collaborative projects and partnerships, as noted above. “Born-digital recordings” will enlarge content with minimal investment in relation to preservation.
5. Funding : At a cost of c. $4 million between 2001 and 2009, EVIA “has been an expensive endeavor by humanities project standards.” Much of the funding was used to develop software, which needs to be maintained if not extended and improved. The report refers to multiple solutions that will allow EVIA to continue to develop; these largely concern “infrastructure support, collaborative relationships and...alternative grant funding” which reflect the primary areas of software development, collection development/preservation, and publishing. A subscription-based model was deemed commercially unrealistic and ethically inappropriate.