Present: Matthew Beacom, Eva Bolkovac, Ellen Cordes, Rebekah Irwin, Youn Noh, Audrey Novak, Joan Swanekamp, Thomas Raich, Jennifer Weintraub, Stephen Yearl
Absent: Michael Appleby, Edward Kairiss, George Ouellette, Dajin Sun
The Medical Library has posted a position for a metadata librarian.
Matthew distributed a proposal he had drafted to form a Metadata Services Group. The proposal responds to a call in the DPIP Final Report (August 2006) to form such a group. The proposal served as the basis of discussion. The major points of discussion are summarized below.
- The role of the Metadata Services Group in setting policy and coordinating production
Joan suggested holding off on this. She questioned how much coordination would be possible since metadata production is project-based.
Jen: DPIP's expectation is that the Metadata Services Team will lead in coordinating policy and production.
- The relationship of the Metadata Services Group to the Metadata Services Team
Rebekah and Audrey proposed that the group could serve as an advisory group or stakeholders group for the Metadata Services Team.
Joan: The group could help set priorities.
Eva: Would the formation of such a group complicate existing management structures?
Matthew: The group would need to strike a balance between a peer-to-peer model and a stakeholders model.
The consensus was that the Metadata Services Group would serve as a stakeholders group for the Metadata Services Team. The Metadata Services Team would have a unique position within the group on account of its library-wide responsibilities.
- The relationship of the Metadata Services Group to the Metadata Committee
Two proposals were offered:
- Decommission the current Metadata Committee.
- Re-charge the Metadata Commitee to focus on a broader level of interest in metadata across the university.
Tom: It is important for the committee to maintain ties outside the library. For example, the University Art Gallery has just received a grant and would like the library to advise on the project and would like to be able to feed the project back into the library system.
Mike: ITS's metadata needs are project-based. Maintaining relationships with individuals might be more effective than participating in a standing committee.
Matthew: If a project-based approach is followed, larger planning opportunities may be missed.
Eva: The Metadata Committee could focus on standards rather than services, for example, by providing a metadata registry.
Audrey: Tools are also needed. Are there any successful models for management and communication across the university?
The consensus was that successful models were not available but that the Metadata Committee's services would be sought if offered.
ACTION: Matthew will draft a charge for the Metadata Services Group per this discussion and consultation with an ad hoc group of prospective members.
ACTION: Matthew will draft a rationale for decommissioning the current Metadata Committee.
Audrey will discuss the Digital Preservation Committee's experience with its transition to a new management structure and the rationale for the transition.