None.

Jennifer Weintraub reported on three digitization projects:

• Arts of the Book (AoB) Ephemera
• Bookplates Collection
• Music Library miscelaneous letters file

Jennifer provided a handout packet with information on the projects.

The Arts of the Book (AoB) Ephemera database has about 200 items and 800 images. It was done as pilot using a SCOPA GRANT to partially fund the work. The metadata used Dublin Core (DC) as a model. One additional field shows the number of images associated with the item described in the record. Subject terms were drawn from controlled vocabularies. The Thesaurus for graphic materials, I and II (for subject and genre terms, respectively) was used, as were terms for genre drawn from the Library of Congress's American Memory Project. Additional terms were developed locally. Cataloging took longer than scanning. A student did the descriptive work in the records, but the AoB curator did the subject analysis and term assignment work.

The bookplates collection at Mudd Library is a smaller pilot project that was modeled on the AoB Ephemera project for its DC-based metadata. A student worked on selected artists's bookplates in the collection. Scanning and cataloging them. The records are in an Access database.

The Music Library database follows more of an EAD model for metadata than DC. This is done in an Access database. A distinctive quality of this project is the marked difference in the data in the records and the portion of that data that is displayed to the public. Some fields contain administrative data regarding, for example, acquisition, fund, and credit information. These are not shown to the public. Other fields that may be of interest or value to the public such as links to the text of the letter or to an online translation of the letter are also suppressed from public view.

Question asked about the place of technical metadata--metadata about the digital object or surrogate and its creation. The examples emphasized descriptive or access metadata, what about the size of the digital object, its type, when, where and how it was created?. One answer was that these (all three?) projects fed into tools like the Luna Insight tool or the Beinecke DL and that technical metadata is collected or recognized there but not shown to users and not part of the "bibliographic" record itself. Further question asked, Do the "owners" of the database or digital imaging project care about the technical metadata? Or, is that technical information only of interest to a DL manager or, perhaps, a digital preservation repository manager?

Joan would like to follow up after the holidays with questions about the need for technical metadata for preservation contexts and other contexts.

Joan asked us to discuss the idea of having a forum or town meeting on metadata. Discussion focused on who would attend, how we would structure the meeting,when we could have the meeting, and what would we expect for outcomes.

The discussion led to the formation of a working group or task force to make the forum happen.

Volunteers are: Matthew Beacom, Marsh Garman, Ann Green, and Karen Reardon.

Many emphatic that we reach out beyond library. Joan asked that we seek out advice on who to contact from outside the library from Ed Kairiss and David Parsell, especially.

Overall: The forum is a chance to talk with a broad range of metadata makers and users at Yale. Simply raising the issues and bringing people together are valuable outcomes. Beyond those starting points, though, we may be able to find ways to support sharing data across the many collaborative communities at Yale. Sharing ideas on implementing metadata standards, best practices, production experiences, and cool services may lead us to building a usable framework (social and technological) for metadata at Yale.

Key points to consider are:

When: try for late January
Who: think Yale not Library; self-selected group or invited or mix? AMT Web team, Enterprise Web Group, etc?
What: Food and drink are musts. Start meeting--first 1/2 hour--with small gallery (2, 3 or 4 examples?) of good things done with metadata at Yale (problems solved, users served); put metadata into context of teaching, research, etc.; lead with the value of metadata. Move on to what? Need for harvesting metadata, supporting cross database searching, production issues for metadata, and standards? Framework for metadata at Yale? Readings?
Where: SML Lecture Hall, other?
Outcomes: report, action item suggestions, raised awareness among metadata makers and users, increase collaboration among metadata makers and users, more meetings?

Discussed interest in having working groups for digital preservation metadata and core metadata. The former would be a group that worked closely with the IAC Digital Preservation Committee. The latter would be a group for developing and proposing a set of local standards for metadata implementation. We determined that it would be premature to form a task force to work with the IAC Digital Preservation Committee. We also determined that a task force on core metadata for Yale may await direction from the feedback we get from the town meeting or forum on metadata.

Joan will set up two meeting for Jan. One early, one late.

Stephen Yearl will talk about MSSA activities, including EAD at next meeting. David Parsell will talk about and demo TMS--The Museum System--at the second January meeting.