Integrated Access Council

February 21, 2005

1:00-2:00pm

SML Room 409

 

Present:  Dale Askey, Katie Bauer, Matthew Beacom, Meg Bellinger, Dan Chudnov, Ann Green, Kenny Marone, Fred Martz, Jack Meyers, Kim Parker, Bobbie Pilette, Kalee Sprague, David Stern, Joan Swanekamp, Rich Szary, Frank Turner

 

Absent:  Carol DeNatale, Katherine Haskins, Julie Linden, Tom Saul

 

Guest:  Karen Reardon

 

            Meg opened the meeting by asking if there were any comments about the notes from last month’s meeting.  Since there were none they will be posted to the website.  She then asked if there were any announcements.  There were none, but she asked Kenny to talk about the Open Access Forum.

 

            Kenny said that the Open Access Forum held on February 10th was very successful.  She said it was encouraging to see one of our librarians (Ann O.) speaking and the Provost taking notes.  Alice moderated the forum and there were 96 people in attendance.  Kenny stated that everyone’s PowerPoint presentations have been put up on the website. 

 

            There is disagreement as to what the real cost of publishing an online article is.  Ann said between $1500 and $5500.  The real cost can be as high as $8000 when the peer review process costs are higher.  David said it is interesting to see what is averaged into the cost estimates. 

 

            Meg said that a graduate student asked for a website with an “approved list” of open access journals.  David replied we could put up a list of the most important articles in the field and identify the open access journals (and also blogs).  Meg mentioned that several libraries including Stanford, Harvard, and Cornell are involved in issues regarding open access publications.

 

Meg said she would like to hear from the IAC committees on a quarterly basis as to where they are and if there are any issues or questions for the Council to review.

 

1. Digital Preservation Committee – Bobbie

 

              Bobbie said the committee consists of Ann G, Audrey and Bobbie as co-chairs and also David Gewirtz, Nicole Bouche and Kevin Glick.  It is a very productive committee and has been meeting weekly; they are making steady progress on developing a high level digital preservation policy statement.   In preparation they reviewed numerous documents, including policies from Columbia University and the British Library, the DPC handbook and the RLG PREMIS report.

 

They are in the process of fine tuning the components of the policy which starts with principles and scope statements.  The scope covers the digital resources in the library’s collection.  Selectors, curators and bibliographers will be the key resource people in determining what resources are to be covered by the preservation policy.  Parts in process:  content, format, source, life cycle, and trustworthiness.  Other sections will cover storage, metadata, and access as well as a standards and best practices section.

 

Ann said they would set up a joint committee on preservation metadata in collaboration with the Metadata Committee.  They also sent out a call for related policies in existence.  They are meeting with CoDGeR this week in regards to licensed digital material.  The next meeting for an update at IAC will be May. 

 

Fred said the hardware is in for the rescue repository.  He passed around a photo of the equipment in 155 Whitney.  There is a month or more of configuration and testing to be done.  The ingest of content then begins.

                                   

2. Metadata Committee –Matthew/Joan

 

            Matthew said they have meetings every other week and have held a series of metadata case studies.  These deal with issues related to user needs, tools, production and work flows.  They are looking at commonalities across projects and standards used. 

            Matthew said there are several things that the group plans to do:  hold a forum on metadata, develop a metadata core with a minimum element set of elements for specific areas such as description and preservation, and also identify a set of standards that are being used across projects.  This is a framework which will also include user needs, tools, staffing, etc.  As they go through the case studies they found there are numerous metadata communities on campus, the committee is committed to interacting with others beyond the library.  The Metadata Forum is one opportunity to engage other people in the work of the committee.

 

            Matthew said this is a three-tier structure: Metadata Network, Metadata Core, and Metadata Forum.  Themes for the forum:  What are the metadata needs across communities and why invest in metadata?  They are looking at 90 minutes to 2 hours.  They have lined up 2 speakers (out of 3).  There will be 3 short presentations to spark discussion.  Karen Reardon will speak on personal collections and John Lizee and Michael Appleby on Yale Global on-line journal.  Kevin Glick may be the 3rd participant and would talk about Livelink and electronic records.

 

David asked about the expected level of the audience.  Matthew said they probably will be mostly sophisticated users of metadata or providers of metadata at a high level.  On one hand a large broadcast would be nice, but they also need to include people directly involved.  Meg asked how they will identify and encourage attendees.  Matthew said IAC should give suggestions about who should attend.  Jack said that the museums have metadata concerns, but those particular speakers may not draw them in.  He encouraged the committee to broaden the coverage.  David asked about the expected result of the forum.  Matthew said it is to raise awareness and also to build a network of people interested in metadata concerns, and to begin to engage people outside the library.  Joan said she hopes this will help inform the future agenda for the Metadata Committee.  David said if they want to get outsiders in they need to say that they are looking at setting standards.  Meg suggested that they tell people about the goals of the forum to encourage people to attend. 

 

Matthew said the forum will be set up and announced as soon as possible, and will be one of a number of meetings to facilitate discussion.  Perhaps they could ask the Peabody to talk about KE Emu, the Museum’s new collections management system.  Jack said there is a need to address museum usage of metadata.  Joan said that David Parsell is on the committee and looking at ways to get museum people involved.  Kenny said the School of Medicine is interested in patient databases and metadata repositories.  Kim suggested the committee look at clusters of communities interested in metadata issues and focus on specific interests. 

 

Fred asked to what extent they have come up with new models of hierarchical cataloging.  Matthew said he didn’t have an answer at this moment.  Joan said that Art is also interested in this topic.  Jack said that in the art field they could buy in.  Matthew said they are looking at bringing in others that can talk about other areas.  Meg said that having a variety of speakers from different areas would help all involved.  She said that they just finished an IMLS grant proposal which included very detailed metadata production costs.

 

 

3. Developers’ Forum – Karen Reardon

 

            Karen said the idea for the Developers’ Forum came from the systems retreat.  This is to harness expertise across the library.  They have been meeting monthly since last September.  She read off the list of topics that they have covered so far: RSS feeds, Ingest system for the rescue repository, Personal Insight, Color management and work flow, Tracking Reference Transactions Database, and the Economic Growth Center DL.  These are listed on the website.  The meetings have been mostly presentations so far.  She said they are looking to go with a demo presentation for the next several months.  Also at ITS there is a web developers’ forum and perhaps they can cross-pollinate.  Attendance has varied from 6-8 to 30-40. 

 

            Karen said that JPEG2000 is a hot and new topic with production issues, color management and technical issues.  Their website has the presentations and minutes.  Announcements of speakers are sent to the list.  IAC members should also be notified of the speakers. 

 

4. Future Agenda Items

 

            Meg said that she is hoping for quarterly reports from the committees.  That would be February, May, August, and November.  Suggested topics for future meetings include: Katie and Dale to talk about user needs and usability labs, Dan to talk about the Links project, the Portal Opportunities Group report is due in June (Kalee), Metalib and also OAI.  If there are any other thoughts send them to Meg. 

 

            Dan said there was recent discussion of Google-like capabilites at the Fall DLF meeting, especially regarding work at Los Alamos in a citation deduplicating project. The very successful project uses the concepts of computing power + data to achieve greater integration.  Dan encouraged us to consider similar solutions and strategies. Meg asked if Katie, Ann, Dan, Fred, and she could continue to talk about this.  Dan will also send the URL of the talk to IAC members (http://www.diglib.org/forums/fall2004/vandesompel1004.htm).