Data Management Plan and Documentation:

Haunted Locations in Oregon

Metadata: https://github.com/LIB410-Spring2023/group-1/blob/main/_data/group-metadata-file.csv

Objects: https://github.com/LIB410-Spring2023/group-1/tree/main/objects

The Haunted Locations in Oregon digital collection documents haunted locations in Oregon and contains 21 images of Oregon ranging from 1855 to 1977. Locations document Willamette Valley, Southern Oregon, and natural locations that illustrate historic buildings, cemeteries, and other natural landmarks.

Objects were gathered from three public repositories: Oregon Digital, the National Archives, and the Library of Congress. Elements include location information, year of creation, rights, and archival links. Image files were uploaded to a GitHub repository and shared on CollectionBuilder. The metadata .csv was uploaded and an .xml file referenced the objects. The file was uploaded using markup. The collection uses open-source tools and is freely available to the public.

Data Curation Methodology

To create our collection of objects, we searched archival databases for images of haunted locations. We saved the images to our individual Dropbox and documented the metadata in our separate spreadsheets. After we uploaded our objects and their metadata to SharePoint, we created a folder for our images and a metadata spreadsheet. We continued to maintain and update the images and spreadsheets in our Dropbox and created backup copies.

To prepare our objects for our digital collections, we separated our objects from the group a second time. Each group member was responsible for certain objects and kept them in our own Dropbox with our own metadata spreadsheets. After we standardized our spreadsheets and objects to fit our Metadata Application Profile (MAP), we split into pairs and peer-reviewed the other’s data. Using this method, we identified mistakes in our group members’ workflow. Once reviewed, we combined our data into a single spreadsheet and were able to create a .csv file and import it to GitHub as a group. Each of us imported the objects we were responsible for.

To ensure a timely technical delivery, we adhered to the timetable outlined in the class’s Group Profile Milestones document. Each weekly meeting, we went over the milestones outlined in the document and assessed finished tasks and upcoming deadlines. This process enabled us to develop and maintain a steady, progressive workflow, and we met all our deadlines to ensure our site was active and functional for our June 5th presentation.

Technical Team and Expertise

Individual roles and responsibilities followed the “Norms & Roles” guideline provided in week one.

Emily, the Project Manager, kept the group on task and maintained our communication. She coordinated role duties, acted as quality control, and divided the Repository Manager role to remaining members. The mid-term and final report writing were divided among the group and assignments submitted on schedule.

Jonathan, the Collection Development Manager, selected our 21 objects and verified rights and licensing. He drafted our collection description and finalized it for publication. He worked with Olivia to convert file formats to .jpgs with Photoshop CS for broad utility. Jonathan provided insight into problematic scenarios of our digital collection and its implementation.

Olivia, the Object Preservation Manager, developed file naming standards, identified a file preservation format, transcribed meeting notes, and organized our SharePoint storage. Olivia used CollectionBuilder to make objects adhere to MAP guidelines and data consistency. After Jonathan had selected our objects, she uploaded them to cloud storage.

Matt, the Metadata Manager, curated the group’s object inventory to comply with CollectionBuilder and MAP guidelines. He reviewed object descriptions and converted coordinates for uniformity. He supplied HTML to the header in the CollectionBuilder collection. Matt was responsible for technical edits of the final DMP report.

Members collaborated to produce an .md file for CollectionBuilder and strictly followed MAP guidelines and file formatting. They also administered quality control for the collection by reviewing each other’s contributions to our final project.

Standards and Formats

Data Types:

There are 21 objects in this digital collection. Each object is a .jpg file, chosen for convenient use and viewing on the web, ranging from 60 kilobytes to 5 megabytes. The average file size is 659 kilobytes, and the total data is 13.5 megabytes. Images are scaled to 75, 150, or 300 pixels per inch with a preference for higher resolution if a higher resolution image was available in our sources.

Data Handling:

Image objects were sourced from Oregon Digital, the National Archives, and the Library of Congress. Once collected, they were converted to .jpg, resized, given new file names according to our MAP guidelines, and given a resource description. All files were hosted on SharePoint and stored in personal Dropbox folders for group access. This allowed group members to prepare specific objects according to their responsibilities.

Folder Structure:

Our collection objects were compiled into SharePoint and available to group members:

1. Group1-Objects: The inventory spreadsheet.

• a. Object Files: Contains .jpg objects

• b. Old Object Files: Contains outdated files as a backup.

Each group member was responsible for individual objects in a personal Dropbox.

File Naming Convention:

File names have a “regionname_title_creationdate” format. Definitions:

• Region Name: City, County, or Region of image. Most originate from cities.

• Title: Describes file content.

• Creation Date: Object creation date. Displays a single year or a YYYYMMDDD format.

Privacy and Security

Privacy:

Images, objects, and metadata in our project were reviewed using ethical privacy standards. Additionally, objects were retrieved from public sources of good report. Most depicted no individuals, however two images depicted individuals that could be alive: “Merchant Hotel” and “Pittock Mansion”. These images had low dpi, dismissing identification potential.

Private property access was examined and noted in the metadata. Two private properties were scrutinized and had no expectation of privacy: “Asahel Bush” and “Pittock Mansion”. The Pittock Mansion went public in 1965 (Pittock Mansion 2018) and “Asahel Bush” in 1953 (Green 2020). All metadata was limited and precluded a privacy breach.

Security:

Our files include objects, spreadsheet inventory, meeting notes, and project documents with backup copies on DropBox, SharePoint, personal laptops and CollectionBuilder and password protected. Ownership rights were reviewed for permissions. And fell under public domain, educational use, or a Creative Commons license.

Data Preservation/Retention

Period of Data Retention:

Our digital collection will be made available by June 11, 2023, on CollectionBuilder and GitHub. Data will be maintained in cloud storage on SharePoint and Dropbox.

Data Dissemination:

Objects are publicly available on GitHub as .jpg files, along with the metadata. Links are provided for access to archival copies.

Data Storage and Preservation of Access:

Objects are viewed as .jpgs and maintained on GitHub, and archival copies provided for Oregon Digital, the National Archives, and the Library of Congress sources. The Archive Wayback Machine was used to archive object sources. Links are provided in the collection.

Appendix A: Metadata Application Profile

MAP pdf

(Thornhill, et al. 2023)

Appendix B: Apparition?

An incidental observation in one of our objects revealed an anomaly in our “Oregon Caves” object described as the Ghost Chamber. We quickly concluded an apparition could be the only explanation. Our hypothesis postulates the unique stereograph photographic process captured a superimposed bilateral locality. This increased sensitivity to phenomena outside normal or supernormal sensory ranges (e.g., sight, hearing) allowed a special circumstance for the right technology and right timing to record this extremely rare event.

We are, however, ethically certain the ghost has no expectation of privacy. We documented this apparition in the name of pseudoscience.

Works Cited

Green, Virginia. “Oregon Encyclopedia: Explore - Asahel Bush House” Oregon Encyclopedia, The Oregon Historical Society, last updated Sept. 6, 2022, https://www.oregonencyclopedia.org/articles/asahel_bush_house/. Accessed 3 June 2023.

“Pittock Mansion: Our Story - History” Pittock Mansion, Pittock Mansion Society, last updated 2018, www.pittockmansion.org/our-story/history/. Accessed 3 June 2023.

Thornhill, Kate, Stone, Julia, University of Oregon, University of Idaho Libraries. “Metadata Application Profile (Data Dictionary) Template” Humanities Data Management, LIB410 Week 6, University of Oregon.