Matthew announced that SCOPA had sponsored a library-wide forum on Cataloging Cultural Objects on December 8. There was an interesting afternoon discussion among panel members and invited guests.

Fred, Karen, and Jen were invited to update the commitee on DPIP activities and related metadata issues. DPIP relies upon existing staff positions for metadata. (Based upon Alice's notes from the M & P luncheon meetings, not all staff appear to be aware of this.) DPIP plays a major role in initiating and streamlining projects and acting as a liaison. The DPIP Final Report calls for the development of coordinated metadata policies and a production capacity that can respond quickly to new projects. The Metadata Services team in SML could expand to a virtual metadata services group (details TBD).

Audrey asked why all of the Catalog Department couldn't be considered such a group. Fred explained that the plan is to draw in all catalogers, which aligns with Joan's vision for the Catalog Department, but implied that this would happen in stages. Joan commented that basic training could be provided to the entire department, but metadata is often project specific. Given that staff appear to respond best to project based training, different units may be better equipped, depending upon the projects that come their way. We need to determine how much training is not project specific.

Fred pointed out that not many DPIP projects to date have required metadata production. Karen added that deadlines have prohibited the creation of extensive metadata. Audrey suggested that the heavy lifting may be on the repository side with metadata enhancement.

Karen explained that DPIP is looking to the virtual metadata services group for management and coordination of metadata, guidelines for description, and guidelines for performing QA. Audrey added that there will be a need to normalize metadata. Eva asked if metadata enhancement would fall under the purview of Catalog Management. Joan commented that projects initiated outside of DPIP might follow different procedures. Karen explained that so far clients have come to DPIP, not vice versa, and that if the library were to initiate a project, the metadata would most likely be richer.

Joan expressed an interest in obtaining cost/time estimates from existing projects, as well as general guidelines for gathering this information. Karen explained that DPIP hasn't been tracking student output but will be begin to do so.

ACTION: Karen, Joan, Matthew, and Youn will meet to discuss project tracking.

Fred mentioned some innovative projects from the DLF Fall Forum that are using the OAI-PMH to provide metadata in alternate interfaces (not just to external harvesters). When collections are brought together, the need for collection-level metadata, e.g., for rights, and for more contextual metadata becomes apparent. In some cases, local collections may be combined with harvested collections. In particular, users need to know if URLs are actionable and the services they facilitate.

Audrey asked about the need for other types of metadata. The vendor for the Yale Daily News project is providing technical metadata, overall descriptive metadata, minimal article level metadata (title, author, type of article), and structural metadata. Some technical metadata may be embedded in files. Media services could also deliver technical metadata at no cost (to be confirmed). Ellen asked if technical metadata should be captured for existing projects.

ACTION: DPIP and staff who participated in the Yale PREMIS evaluation will meet to determine how much PREMIS metadata is being captured (or could be) in DPIP projects.