Integrated Access Council

November 27, 2006

1:00-2:30 p.m.

SML Room 409

Present:  Jeff Barnett, Katie Bauer, Meg Bellinger, Katherine Haskins, Jack Meyers, Karen Reardon, Alan Solomon, Kalee Sprague, Joan Swanekamp

Absent:  Matthew Beacom, Carol DeNatale, Julie Linden, Kenny Marone, Audrey Novak, Bobbie Pillette, Tom Raich, David Stern, Frank Turner, Stephen Yearl

Guests:  Rebekah Irwin, Jen Weintraub

Recording: Rachel Dwight

Agenda:

·        "Report of the Working Group for Developing Selection Criteria for Collections Digitization" presented by Jen Weintraub.

·        A review of the recommendations from the Preservation Metadata Task Force from Rebekah Irwin.

Report of the Working Group for Developing Selection Criteria for Collections Digitization – Jen Weintraub

(A copy of this report is available HERE)

This working group came as a recommendation of the DPIP (Digital Production and Integration Program) report, which showed a need for collection policy.  This group was formed to develop that policy and is being led by Ann Okerson.  The Task Force was charged with developing “a set of criteria that subject specialists should consider when reviewing collections for digitization.” A second group will identify initial target collections based on these criteria.

The three immediate goals of the group are:

  1. Get ready, i.e. have a list of collections to digitize.
  2. Gain a better understanding of the digitization need among departments.
  3. Enable better understanding throughout the University why this needs to be done; which will hopefully increase funding.

Member of the working group are:  Ann Okerson, Karen Reardon, Bobbie Pilette, Diane Kaplan, Matt Wilcox, Susanne Roberts, and Jen Weintraub. They worked on this report from July to September. Now they need to create the second group named above; this will likely be created in December and have about seven members.  It will probably be chaired by Jen Weintraub.

The report gives four general reasons for digitizing material: access, preservation, innovation, and outreach.  It also lists 13 prioritization criteria, for example: value, safely digitizable, available funding, etc. Identifying initial target collections will be done on a January – April timeline. The working group has received feedback on this report from the CDC and DPIP, and would like to hear from IAC today.

Feedback / Discussion:

Meg asked that Jen return when the working group has made more progress.  Jen said that if the report changes, she will send to IAC members.

Review of the recommendations from the Preservation Metadata Task Force Rebekah Irwin

Rebekah’s presentation is available HERE.

Preservation metadata is information that supports and documents the digital preservation process. PREMIS is an international open-source standard for handling metadata to archive digital content.  It is still in the early stages, but some early adopters are the Library of Congress (National Digital Newspaper Project), Cornell (MathArc), National Archives of Scotland (Digital Data Archive Project), and Oxford University (Paradigm Project).

The PREMIS working group at Yale consists of a core group, and a larger advisory group.  The Advisory Group has members from outside the library, including the Peabody Museum, ITS, YUP, MssA, and the Art Gallery—the outside input is extremely helpful.  Its sponsoring committees are the Metadata Committee and the DPC.

The working has three recommendations (for the detailed accompanying actions, see the presentation):

  1. Experiment with and evaluate PREMIS metadata in use at Yale.

-        PREMIS will be included as part of the Vital/Fedora implementation and will report back to IAC in June 2007 on their progress.

-        It’s necessary to actually use it in order to make better decisions.

  1. Participate in PREMIS Implementers’ Group to work with other users (such as LoC, Stanford).

-        Make a commitment to working with PREMIS (doing some now).  Progress will be included in June 2007 report to IAC.

3.      Establish a coherent policy framework and governance structures for the preservation of digital information assets at Yale.

-        This group’s purpose was to make recommendations—Need to ensure the committee lives on to accomplish those recommendations

-        Want to develop policies across Yale, not just the library

Feedback / Discussion:

Meg: On the third point, was there input from the advisory group on this? Rebekah: Most want to see the library go first, then they’ll start the process. They had many questions, including durability, cost, etc.

Meg: How important was this (preservation) to them? Rebekah: They have a sense that libraries should be stewards but some things are important only to them and they need to take responsibility.  At first, there was lots of skepticism—one reason the bar was set low (six elements out of 120 possible elements).

Meg (to Jack): Faculty feels preservation is important, but never seem to want to fund it. Jack: Some want someone else to solve the problem, some won’t give up control. It’s possible that later they’ll help. Meg: Maybe Digital Landscapes could sponsor a group in the future? Jack: That’s an essential step, very important.

Joan: My impression is most people feel it’s important, and also that the library is most appropriate to handle it.

Meg: Have you done any testing of ingest? Rebekah: Matthew Beacom, Youn Noh, and I met with Audrey Novak and her group—we looked to see what’s being done with the Rescue Repository (to test). The meeting went well, we’re all excited about it.

Meg: On the second point—we shouldn’t let what other institutions are doing drive our time and energy.

Alan: A little worried about priorities—Faculty doesn’t understand what may have to be given up.

Regarding Point 3: Rebekah/Meg: We need to try to make this information/data usable going forward, for example, the descriptive data will be usable in a Marc record, but in the future we will likely try to convert Marc records into PREMIS (Vital/Fedora)-type records.  It’s smarter to apply these descriptors now (at creation) than to go back later.

Joan: The idea is that basic metadata will be created automatically at the time of creation of a digital object? Jeff: Yes, and each digital object will have a unique identifier.  This is the essential, core piece that everything else will build on.

Meg: I’m glad to see how much you’ve worked with others outside of YUL, and that everyone wants to keep it simple. Is this something that could go to the Digital Landscapes committee? Somewhere else? Jack: You shouldn’t present them with a finished report, but discuss it the next meeting, definitely.

The next IAC meeting will be December 11, 1:00 – 2:30 in SML 409.  An agenda will be sent out prior to the meeting.