Digital Production and Integration Program (DPIP)
Production and Content Integration Working Group

January 10, 2006 Meeting

11:00AM - 12:00PM

Present: Bauer, Beacom, Bergstrom, Gallagher, Irwin, Kupiec, Martz, Merleaux, Nellhaus, Ouellette, Reardon, Smalley, Walls

Absent: Weintraub

I. This meeting was largely devoted to discussion of the following questions that arose from the reports on top-priority issues and site visits to Cornell and Harvard. Fred Martz observed that the DPIP WG must determine what tasks to tackle first and that initial projects recommended should have a high likelihood of success as well as a substantial positive impact for stakeholders.

1. How should DPIP respond to the urgent need for faculty support in creating course-related digital content? The digital production units at the Cornell and Harvard libraries do not normally handle the production of course-related digital content. Is our situation different? Who will provide funding, digitization services, and ongoing support that are capable of satisfying faculty demand, both in quantity and in turnaround time?

Is DPIP going to focus on meeting immediate faculty needs for digitization or on centralized digitization of library collections? Smalley--faculty sometimes want ephemeral material that we would not want to maintain long term in a database. Martz--do we need to coordinate more effectively with ITS? Beacom--the Metadata group has IT people on it. Reardon--could we provide consultation resources or metadata services (those things we do well) to those faculty digitization projects done through ITG. The consultation role is most critical. This would require a position, person available to provide advice. Beacom--suggests that one very good, high impact pilot project would be to aid the VRC in digitizing their collection.

2. Should DPIP be instrumental in establishing an E-Reserve service? The implementation of Sakai provides a special opportunity to develop a state-of-the-art service providing access to a wide range of course-related readings and multi-media materials.

Medical ran a pilot serving approximately 15% of courses. The work was substantial, but is important.

Martz--needs to be a longer-term goal DPIP could aid with. The e-reserves document has identified copyright as a major issue. Cornell has a very high level body which serves to set copyright policy for Cornell. It consists of a University Counsel, a lawyer who works in the IT department, and a high level manager from the library (an analogous person would be the Yale Associate University Librarian for Collections). WG--We should recommend that a high-level group has to be formed to determine copyright policy for Yale University. A Special Collections subcommittee formed guidelines for copyright, but it never went to University Counsel. There seems to be some confusion about the Yale University copyright policy (do we have one)?

3. Is DPIP the right body to address the issue of global integration and cross-collection searching? Is this issue within the scope of DPIP or should it be addressed by a different body such as ILTS R&P or a digital architecture committee or the portal opportunities implementation group?

This issue needs to be addressed but it is a universal question affecting the library’s entire web presence and beyond the scope of DPIP. It should be approached in some other way, especially since it has heavy technical and architectural components. Beacom--DPIP needs to support people working on this problem. Need a change in attitude so that for a project we optimize how we create metadata for that project, but also ensure that the metadata is reusable, or available for larger systems. Kupiec--what is the appropriate group? The groups listed above do not seem appropriate. Martz--there is no existing group with a suitably broad charge to address this issue.

4. DPIP could be constructed as a virtual organization consisting of staff in a central group as well as staff distributed throughout the library who report through other library units (e.g. the Metadata Services Group). What would such a virtual organization look like and who would be the participants?

DPIP Metadata unit, for example, might be a virtual team consisting of Metadata catalogers (Youn Noh and Beacom) and catalogers from other units such as Beinecke, VRC, and Walpole. Martz--the virtual team seems to work well at Cornell. Kupiec--this was once called matrix management in industry where an important characteristic was that participants had designated obligations and real authority. Martz--Eventually this would become part of work of all traditional cataloging units, but you need to kick start the effort. Reardon--Harvard has more of a "real" team. They have people who are dedicated to digitization, finding projects, metadata, project management, etc. Kupiec--we need to add authority to the virtual team leader, and then responsibility on the part of the team. WG--This is what is missing from our committee structure, which is based upon largely voluntary contributions.

5. Several WG members favor launching a DPIP pilot project that would begin the practical development of digitization and metadata practices, preferably a substantial, relatively straightforward text-based project that will have a recognizable impact. Is there general agreement that this is a good approach? What material should such a project digitize?

The CDC Pamphlets Task Force is putting a proposal to the Collections Collaborative for a project revolving around World War I pamphlets and other related material in various formats. Good that this project would transcend any one department or Special Collection. A portion of this would be digitization. Collections Collaborative will not be able to grant enough money to complete the project. Project would need to identify, describe, digitize and possibly microfilm. Martz--if many projects are funded through the Collections Collaborative perhaps we could realize efficiencies of scale if all are somehow coordinated through DPIP. Walls--moving to practical (from theoretical discussions) would be a good next step for DPIP.

6. Should our report recommend the creation of DPIP staff positions? What positions are most critical?

Kupiec--will there be a manager of DPIP? Martz—There are several units where DPIP management might ultimately reside. Question #6 assumes that the leadership of DPIP will be in place and focuses on production-level staff needs. The reports mention needs such as digital consultants, metadata specialists, or project coordinators with extensive technical expertise. Smalley--has there been funding promised for DPIP staffing? There is some one-time money but nothing permanent yet. Gallagher--there needs to be a grant funding specialist position who could help get money. Merleaux--needs to be someone with ties to ITS who can have input, coordination with groups looking at repository and digital preservation. Person needs to have some technical, digital preservation skills, with knowledge of preservation metadata.

II. Dates for the NARA training / digitization workshop: Fred will contact the NARA folks. He will start by asking about the weeks of March 6 and March 13 and will report back to the group with possible dates (coincides with the Yale Spring Recess).