Digital Production and Integration Program (DPIP)
Production and Content Integration Working Group
Minutes of June 13, 2006 Meeting
10:00 - 11:00, Room 409 SML
Present: George Ouellette, Karen Reardon, Brian Kupiec, Tobin Nellhaus, Matthew Beacom, David Walls, Youn Noh, Martha Smalley, Tracy Bergstrom, John Gallagher, Jennifer Weintraub, Katie Bauer, Frederick Martz
1. DPIP Meeting with LMT (Fred Martz reports)
Jen, Katie, Karen and Fred met with LMT last week on 6/6/2006.
Alice's comments: report was realistic and down to earth, not dependent on pot of gold. Wants to show report to provost. Report responded to needs of faculty.
Other comments: report represents transformational challenge for the library. Is DPIP a central organization or a coordinating group? [We had concluded in this working group that DPIP is both.] We did not reach clarity on this point in LMT. They would like more detail on organizational structure and logistics of virtual participants. Is DPIP positioned too low in the organizational structure to achieve major change?
Comment: DPIP is a cumulative organization; services will grow as successes are achieved. It is scalable. This gradual growth is suited to funding methods--working with what we already have.
Alice requested a third budget proposal for realistic long-term goals (midway between the existing conservative and ambitious budgets). She also pointed out need for a specific 3-month action plan.
Some comments against the "DPIP" name. Working group in general is not concerned about the name.
Alice: express the DPIP presence physically—perhaps given space in the CCL reconfiguration. DPIP could meet with faculty and students there. This might also happen now in the nave (per Alice's suggestion).
How will DPIP be presented to the larger Yale community? Report is not written for the non-library world, and would need some rewriting.
Martha: interesting to think of DPIP in relation to WWI project. If DPIP already existed, DPIP would have taken more of a lead on this project.
2. PREMIS Metadata at Yale (Matthew Beacom and Rebekah Irwin)
Rebekah and Matthew co-chair a subgroup of the Metadata Committee and the Preservation Committee working on a metadata element set for preservation. They are examining PREMIS, which stands for PREservation Metadata: Implementation Strategies. This group is looking at how to adapt PREMIS to Yale.
Deliverables of this subgroup are:
1. A PREMIS-based metadata element set and usage guidelines for use in preservation of digital assets at Yale.
2. A report of the investigation: its methods, commentary and recommendations.
Meeting structure:
1. Consult with the task force and advisors on a metadata element set for preservation via monthly meetings and individual consultations as possible or needed. Next meeting of whole group set for July 10.
2. Meet with small working group weekly. The first meeting of this group was May 31st.
Process plan:
To create the element set and guidelines, they are working on a top-down analysis of the PREMIS model and its semantic units in conjunction with several bottom-up use cases. The aim of this two-pronged approach is to gain a logical understanding of the PREMIS model, a practical understanding of our needs, and concrete experience with implementation constraints and opportunities.
To understand the model from the top-down, each member of the small working group is reading the PREMIS model documentation, related articles, and discussing them. From this, they will develop a draft of the most likely-to-be-relevant PREMIS semantic units (elements) and begin to test the draft with others. To gain experience with Yale's needs and concrete use of the PREMIS model for digital materials in our collections, they have identified existing digital collection projects or programs at Yale as possible use case partners – one for data sets, one for texts, and two for still images (Classics and YUAG). With each of these projects they expect to use a Fedora test bed maintained by David Gewirtz, one of the task force advisors, as the trial repository. This Fedora repository serves as a logical proxy for a Yale preservation repository.
Matthew explained that the existing digital collection projects or programs are:
1. Data sets:
Social Science Data Archive's migration from its current environment to Fedora. Our collaborators are Michael Appleby, ITS, and Gretchen Gano, SSLIS. We are working with a small sample of social science data sets that use Data Documentation Initiative (DDI) metadata for the studies and derived Dublin Core (DC) descriptive metadata. This use case partnership is already established and we have one instance of a study in the Fedora test bed using PREMIS.
2. Texts:
YUL Preservation Dept. Reformatting and Media Preservation's digital texts. Our lead collaborator is David Walls (a member of the task force's small working group). We'll be working with a small sample of digital texts that result from the reformatting process. Initial texts will be PDF files. Descriptive metadata for the texts is available through the MARC format records for the print originals. This use case partnership is established, and a sample set of PDF files is being selected.
3. Images:
A. Yale University Art Gallery's digital still images from its collection management system (TMS). Chief collaborator is likely to be Thomas Raich, YUAG, and a task force advisor. We'd like to be working with a small sample of digital still images from the Gallery's collection. Descriptive metadata for the images will come from the TMS system. This use case partnership is not yet established. We have contacted Thomas, but not heard back yet.
B. DPIP/Arts Library's Classics Dept. project's digital still images. Chief collaborator is Karen Reardon. We'd be working with a small sample of digital still images from the project to digitize images from collections of the Classics Dept. Descriptive metadata for the images would come from the DPIP/Arts Library work on the images as they are migrated to the Insight system. This use case partnership has not been established, but we have been working out details with Karen Reardon.
These use cases will build our understanding of our needs for a variety of content types, format types, and use environments--ITS, the Gallery, the Library. We'll relate that understanding of our needs to the PREMIS model and use the experience we gain to modify our draft of the relevant PREMIS elements and develop our usage guidelines.
We also want to consult with other PREMIS implementers internationally via the PREMIS Implementers' Group (PIG). There is a discussion list, a "play pen" or development area, and a registry of implementation projects. Matthew is on the discussion list; we have contacted Rebecca Guenther, LC, (LC is the PREMIS maintenance agency) about registering our PREMIS work (and thus gaining access to the development area). However, we are not sure that our work constitutes even the start of an “implementation” of PREMIS. Although we have adopted a working approach that relies on actual use cases, we are perhaps best seen as a prelude to an implementation of PREMIS at Yale. We think the group and the empowering committees and IAC may want to think about this and make a decision before we register with PIG.
The working group also has discussed interest in bringing a PREMIS expert or experts to Yale to develop our understanding of the model. Rebecca Guenther and Priscilla Caplan, Florida Center for Library Automation, (Rebecca and Priscilla are the PREMIS co-chairs) are doing a 2-day workshop in Glasgow this July (sponsored by Digital Curation Centre), preparing training materials, and looking for venues in the US (Washington, DC, etc.) to conduct the workshops. Would Yale be interested in hosting? There are a number of angles to be considered and discussed--when, who would attend (how many of us), where, and funding. The tutorial sessions planned for Glasgow include:
Introduction to the PREMIS Object Model
Walk through PREMIS Objects, Events, Rights and Agents
Implementation issues
XML Schemas for representing Data Dictionary elements
Real-life examples of implementation from UK institutions
The subgroup is aiming to have a draft to show by July 31. This will then be distributed to others inside and outside of the library so that they have a chance to comment. The subgroup will produce guidelines for the three data types by December 31, 2006.