There were no announcements.

Matthew presented the preservation metadata task force's evaluation of the PREMIS Data Dictionary. Draft documents were distributed to reviewers (Meg, the advisory group for the task force, the IAC Digital Preservation Committee, and the IAC Metadata Committee) on August 4, 2006; the documents are available here. The task force will spend the next three weeks gathering feedback from the reviewers in preparation for a second draft.

The commitee discussed obligation (which semantic units are mandatory and why) and generation (which semantic units can be populated automatically). Joan asked how the level of obligation assigned by the task force compared to the level of obligation assigned in the data dictionary. Matthew explained that the data dictionary is flexible and that obligation is likely to be implementation-specific, with minimal requirements to improve interoperability.

ACTION: Rebekah will compare obligation in the data dictionary and the task force's evaluation and report her findings.

Michael suggested that software tools could be configured to capture PREMIS metadata; consequently, the possibility of automatic capture/generation is likely to depend upon the software/tools used. Michael also pointed out that certain semantic units could be populated at the collection rather than the object level. Jen added that batch processes could be used to populate semantic units that require human judgment, but only at the collection level. Michael added that a preservation repository would need to come up with business rules for which metadata to capture.

Ed asked why the physical location of a CD was included in the Object Entity record for the TIFF image from the Yale Department of Classics. Rebekah explained that although an attempt was made to apply the task force's guidelines in the creation of sample records, any decisions made were speculative and provisional. Youn added that the physical location of an identical copy might be recorded in the record for an object held by the repository if the repository had decided to manage the identical copies as a unit. The decision to include physical location was based upon inspection of a record from the Getty and consultation with George, a participant in the Classics project.

Stephen provided an update on preservation activity in Manuscripts and Archives. He explained that Manuscripts and Archives had been storing its electronic records in Livelink, which meets the health insurance industry's requirements for recordkeeping. However, now that ITS is running an implementation of Documentum, Manuscripts and Archives is advising University recordholders to use Documentum. Stephen also explained that Manuscripts and Archives has recently discovered that it does not have legal responsibility for the records in its custody because it is not an administrative unit but rather is viewed as part of Special Collections. Also, responsibility for electronic records is perceived as residing within the systems in which they are created. Ed asked if Manuscripts and Archives accepts faculty papers. Stephen explained that Manuscripts and Archives makes such decisions case by case from an appraisal of the collection's value and in accordance with its retention policies.

The next meeting will be on Tuesday, September 5.