My name is Per Møldrup-Dalum. I am employed at the State and University Library in Denmark and have been so since 2007. Before my present employment I worked as a system consultant for a large international software company creating systems for the newspaper industry.
Automated identification of corresponding images and duplicate removal is a challenging task due to inconsistent quality of digitized book collections. Validating such collections based on qualitative criteria is a challenging endeavor according to the sheer amount of data that has to be processed. Traditional approaches seem to have peaked at a certain level.
After the first project year SCAPE members can look back at an outstanding project start and an intense phase of integrated project work. First results have already been achieved and spread to the community at several conferences and through different channels on the web.
In this blog post I will give a brief update of the latest jpylyzer developments. Jpylyzer is a validation and feature extraction tool for the JP2 (JPEG 2000 Part 1) still image format.
My last post discussed the benefits of collabaration, centred around a SCAPE hackathon. I argued that, in general, it was the collaborative, collocated nature of the developers working together that made demo development quicker; more people staring at the same problem results in multiple and varied viewpoints, ideas, and solutions.
We have created a testing framework based on the Govdocs1 digital Corpora (http://digitalcorpora.org/corpora/files), and are using the characterisation results from Forensic Innovations, Inc. ((http://www.forensicinnovations.com/), as ground truths.
We have tested Tika 1.0, Fido 0.9.6 and Droid 6.0 with the V45 signature file.
Tika generally performs best for all the 20 most common formats. Especially for text files (text/plain), it is the only tested tool that correctly identifies the files.
Tika is the fastests of the tools, and Fido is the slowest.
Being relatively new to SCAPE and these "hackathons", I wasn't entirely sure what to expect. In theory, I could see the benefits of the group collectively sitting together, jointly discussing and working on project issues, but in practice I wasn't sure exactly how it would work. How prescriptive would the agenda be (or need to be)? Would there be enough time? Would people actually sit working together, or just sit next to each other working?
We (Exlibris) are part of SCAPE for already a year. We joined the project as a 'Digital Preservation Commercial Company' (actually – the only one among the partners – off course that commercial companies are in, but not companies that produce a full scale Digital Preservation solution).
In my previous post, I tried to give a quick overview on Planning and Watch in SCAPE. Here I will shortly outline our main streams of work and summarise some of the achievements to report.
During the SCAPE Scenario Workshop we (AIT) have presernted and discussed the current state of the image comparison tool. The tool facilitates solutions for the following QA problems:
