Beacom reported on work in-progress. Speakers and dates are being finalized. 3 speakers and topics. Looking for a date in late March.

Action: Beacom to contact speakers to arrange date.

There was a general discussion of the format for the forum, desired outcomes and audience. The format is a guided discussion that follows three brief presentations that highlight a mix of issues in three case studies. Those issues would include such things as standards, tools, best practices, workflows, training, identifying user needs, building and maintaining a viable service. We'll use those issues to guide the discussion. The outcomes include a set of useful questions we can work on answering over time, direction for needed best practices, a sense of who is engaged and what the commonalities and difference are in terms of need, interest, and context, and setting a tone of openness to ideas and experiences. Audience is those whose work focus is on creating or using metadata to support various services.

A topic of particular interest was how to draw people to attend the forum. "Hooks" for various groups of potential attendees are needed. We have to provide clear reasons for attending the forum in publicity and announcements. The three proposed topics for the forum presentations can be spun to appeal to many. The three topics are personal digital collections, online publications, and digital records (in an archive sense of the term.). The hooks may turn on the functions that metadata may support: sharing data, texts, images, etc. with colleagues; migrating digital materials to new platforms, preserving one's digital collections over time.

Action: Beacom to draft announcement for forum and share with committee as a whole for editing. We need to title the forum, too. Metadata may be an off-putting word to use. We need to get across the notion of managing digital resources.

The metadata framework or context is that in which decisions about making and using metadata are possible and become a practical matter of implementation, support, and development.

Discussion of work on a metadata core became part of the discussion on the metadata framework. Some were concerned talk of a " core" was misleading. It was suggested that we talk instead of "best practices," and identify various standards--element sets, standards for vocabulary, content, etc.--as needed. Many thought whatever we called it, it needed to put into a larger, meaningful context first. If a core is needed for compliance to OAI harvesting protocol, then the core needed is an element set. But if the core is for faciliating federated searching, then it may be more of a content standard for description, a value standard for vocabularies, etc.

Discussion of the framework was brief (due to time) and the main decision was to have out next meeting be for the purpose of discussing the framework.

Action: Beacom to set up next meeting soon and make it for 90 minutes.

Action: All to list their ideas of what would be included in this framework.

Discussion of the network was passed over. Points relating to need for supporting a network of metadata-engaged Yale staff were made throughout the meeting.

TBA