Yale University Library

Digital Preservation Committee (DPC)

Meeting Notes prepared by Bobbie Pilette


Date:  January 11, 2005, 10:30


Present:  Nicole Bouche, David Gewirtz, Kevin Glick, Ann Green, Bobbie Pilette, Audrey Novak


The email responses from Ann Okerson & Kim Parker to the query “What is Yale’s responsibility for the long-term preservation of licensed e-content?” were discussed.  Kim’s response expanding on some of the CoDGeR documents found at http://www.library.yale.edu/ecollections/archivingselection.html was discussed and there was a general agreement among the DPC that she reflected our understanding which is: Whether Yale or some other entity will be responsible in preserving licensed e-content will depend on a number of factors including who the other entity is.  The DPC also agreed that it will be important for CoDGeR policies to mesh with and be consistent with the digital preservation policy (dpp).  This will call for the DPC to work with CoDGeR in areas of overlap once we get a more complete draft dpp.  It was thought that the definitions in the CoDGeR policy could become part of a thesaurus that will be developed as part of the DPC work.


A question was raised as to how to clarify that this policy is only concerned with digital objects where a conscious decision had been made to be “archived”.  There are a number of digital objects that come into the Yale Library through mirroring, linking or being available on a server.  These various digital objects would normally be covered in a collection policy which we are lacking.  The decision was to simply include a statement clarifying the dpp covers only “archived” objects.  This would serve as a placeholder and a reminder when we enter the library wide discussion phase to ask if there are policies in existence covering these other digital objects to which the dpp should link.


Nicole & Audrey drafted a “what” section regarding digital materials.  This was discussed and a certain amount of wordsmithing done.  We were reminded that this section must be taken in context of the policy’s “Principle Statement”.   The decision was to work on this a bit more and then combine it with policy thus far for review at our next meeting. 



Audrey will combine the “what” section with the latest version of the policy.


Next meeting, Jan 24:

Review new version

Review Kevin’s “financial statement”

Review outline that Ann presented in Dec 6 email and plan next steps