Integrated Access Council
October 18, 2004
SML Room 409
Present: Dale Askey, Katie Bauer, Matthew Beacom, Meg Bellinger, Carol DeNatale, Ann Green, Katherine Haskins, Kenny Marone, Fred Martz, Jack Meyers, Kim Parker, Bobbie Pilette, Kalee Sprague, David Stern, Joan Swanekamp, Frank Turner
Absent: Dan Chudnov, Julie Linden, Tom Saul, Rich Szary
Meg introduced Carol DeNatale who is manager of collections at the Yale University Art Gallery.
2. Digital Preservation Committee Update - Bobbie
Bobbie began by stating that the current charge is a little different than the previous one given out. She highlighted some aspects of the charge. This is a three-year committee that will begin its focus on policies and procedures that will evolve into program planning and then implementation. It is a small committee with a cross section of people. The members include co-chairs Ann Green, Audrey Novak and Bobbie Pilette, and also David Gewirtz, Kevin Glick and Nicole Bouche. They are going to rely on forming task forces and going out to other working groups and other committees for working on the charge.
Bobbie pointed out that the work plan for the first year was listed under deliverables and includes:
- A digital preservation mission statement.
- The publication of a digital preservation policy statement.
- The publication of a road map to a digital preservation program.
- Time lines for digital preservation projects, initiatives, and implementation strategies.
- A project plan for year 2.
David asked if the road map deals with decisions regarding the types of items, and Bobbie replied yes. Meg asked what the priorities are and should this go to other people to look at, especially to gather stakeholder recommendations. Bobbie commented that their first meeting is November 1st. She said that they are looking to bring people from across the library together to get their ideas; the committee seeks broad interest and feedback that includes and reaches beyond the IAC.
Ann said that their main concern is to understand the overall mission of preservation. The next step is to look at projects and how they relate to that policy. She said they are going to look closely at projects in place to evaluate them and develop policies. They also plan to look at the policy and mission statements of other Universities and the other libraries at Yale.
Meg said she has seen the most recent document on the rescue repository and it is a foundation for a larger repository in the future. Fred said that collections in the rescue repository will be some of those to be included in the long-term preservation archive. Many issues are coming up particularly ingest and the treatment of different formats that will come into the rescue repository. He said they will be more clear as the process goes on. Persistent naming will be one issue that needs to be looked at, and another is technical metadata.
Ann said she has compiled a document of the issues regarding preservation repository planning that will be used as background material for her visits to five universities. She feels they will need a task force from the Metadata Committee and the Digital Preservation Committee to look at preservation metadata issues. Katherine said they will also need a task force to look at helping others with the ingest of materials into the rescue repository.
David asked how the Mellon grant on collaborative collections is linked to the work of the IAC committees. Meg replied that three things Rich’s grant will deal with are: 1. Looking at the issue of integrated access to descriptive information from special collections, 2. Coordinate and create names of reference resources, and 3. The potential for creating the services needed. Bob Martin of IMLS will join for the kick-off of the January retreat at the start of the Mellon Grant. Fred said this could become a part of integrated access.
3. Metadata Committee Update - Joan
Joan said that she and Matthew had meetings regarding the charge but made no changes. They had heard suggestions from several people but felt that the suggestions were more for the working of the committee and not for the statements. Joan did a short recap for those not at the last meeting. The Metadata committee will work closely with the Preservation committee. She mentioned the Cornell model and how they offer services to the entire university. We need to thing about this – working as consultants. She pointed out that attention to standards is important.
She said they would be picking up the work of the Eli Metadata group. They did the standards for the Luna personal collections tool. They are looking to expand this to include more. Work has started and they will build on this. Joan said the first thing to do is to create a list of action items. They have not yet held their first meeting, but they do have a letter ready to go out to members: Matthew Beacom, Marsha Garman, Ann Green, Rebekah Irwin, Ed Kairiss, Karen Reardon, Dajin Sun, Steve Yearl, Jenn Weintraub, and Daphnee Rentfrow. Joan mentioned that many others could be included and they will want to consult with them, but this is a large group already. This group includes a carryover of some working on Eli Metadata.
Jack asked if there should be someone from the museum involve with the group. Carol answered yes but not at this time. They should wait until the group gets started in several months. Frank commented that the smaller the better for groups to set meeting dates and also get things done. Katherine said that with Matthew, Daphnee and Rebekah the arts are covered.
David said that the way we approach them is the key factor. Katherine replied there needs to be more than descriptive metadata. Joan said they are putting in an infrastructure that allows metadata from a variety of sources to be used. They are developing a consistent application of standards that will allow cross searching. They will create a recommended set of elements for different standards. This is what is important. Meg asked if there is somebody from Peabody that should be involved. Joan said that once they get going they will have someone come in to talk about the databases they have used. Ann said the Metadata Group needs to look at the technical metadata coming out of the rescue repository.
Meg asked that Joan finalize the documents and give them to Randy to be put on the IAC website.
4. IAC Priorities Planning
Ann said she was looking at the priority list from last time that Meg had put into eight categories. She put these into columns for ease of use as a worksheet. This was so members could look at and think about the priorities and how to implement activities to move these along. Some areas mapped out rather well and have identified paths. Meg said the strategic plan is right on and identified where the gaps are. Some have natural homes. She asked what we should do to create infrastructure. Ann said there is the option of thinning down and moving items around.
Kalee said that in regards to the Orbis section Meg had said at the last meeting that this should go to the ILTS, yet it is still on the list. Some of these items are Systems items (“Voyager reports” and “Library Notice field”). “Serials Solutions” should be under section four “New Services/Tools.” As should “enhanced search capability.” Kalee asked if any one project needs to only be in one category. Matthew replied that it would be nice to park them in one category to have a start.
Fred said the component called “Scope of Orbis” is bigger than Orbis (and not an Orbis feature) and includes a view of Orbis within a federated environment. Matthew said we need to rethink what the scope of Orbis is and not just for the Library. It was decided to move “Scope of Orbis” to the “Integrated Library Culture…” category. Kim said she recently returned from a conference where others spoke of a catalog warehouse. Meg said it sounded as if all agreed to move it to Integrated Library. Dale said we need to have people from CDC involved with the Voyager reports.
Kenny said that OCLC is now available through Google (WorldCat). Have we looked at this? Where does it fit in the worksheet? Joan also said there is the red light green product of RLG issue too. It is not the most reliable. What new extra questions might come if Yale uses WorldCat? Is it a benefit for our users that we may not necessarily want? Discussion was held about the pluses and minuses of using WorldCat. Meg asked if we should add a google-like thing to the list. Dale said we already have it under the “New services” category (Google). We decided to add ‘Google-like things’ (algorithmic searching) in the first category called “Improve the user experience….” Ann will revise the worksheet for the next IAC meeting.
Joan asked how Rich’s grant fits into all of this. Meg said this discussion will be continued.