None.

The meeting was devoted to reviewing the report. Matthew announced that after the Digital Preservation Committee and the Metadata Committee approve the report, it will go to the Integrated Access Council on October 30.

Matthew had sent out an agenda proposing the following topics for discussion:

1. a service to persistently name digital objects (to meet the requirement for an object identifier)
2. a service to indicate the fixity of digital objects (to meet the requirement for assurance that the object has not changed)
3. a service to validate and name the format of the digital objects (to meet the requirement for format identification)

Joan asked if these services were implementation issues for another group to address. Matthew: possibly, but they could be included in the cover letter.

Eva asked about the audience for the report. Matthew: IAC, but multiple implementations are likely and the report attempts to be implementation independent. The recommendation that comes closest to addressing implementation is the recommendation to "[e]xperiment with and evaluate the base and full profiles as part of the library's VITAL/Fedora implementation project." Eva suggested moving this recommendation to the top since experimentation precedes implementation.

Ed asked how the effectiveness of PREMIS would be evaluated and proposed including a recommendation that addresses evaluation. Matthew: Evaluation is not a part of our charge.

There was some discussion about the wording of the recommendations. Ed commented that the first recommendation to "[e]ncourage use of the base preservation metadata profile throughout Yale" was vague. Policies would make encouragement unnecessary.

The group discussed governance. Ed: Who would be responsible for faculty papers? Possibly the Digital Landscape committee or IAC.

Joan suggested providing examples of materials to which the policies would apply, e.g., "develop strategies for..." Eva suggested emphasizing that the creation of metadata would be automated.