DPIP Production Content and Integration Working Group Meeting Notes

March 21, 2006

Attending: Tobin Nellhaus, Tracy Bergstrom, George Ouellette, Martha Smalley, Katie Bauer, John Gallagher, David Walls, Matthew Beacom, Jennifer Weintraub, Karen Reardon, Brian Kupiec, Fred Martz, Rebekah Irwin

Announcements:

Training session tentatively scheduled for May 9^th in the CCL Classroom (KMR has booked the room). Training will focus on digital production, management, and workflow across a variety of materials. Metadata will not be the focus of this session.

Karen and Fred gave a summary of the e-reserves project. Danuta reminded Fred to consider the sustainability and scope of the project. We agreed workflow and services are the focus of DPIP and that other groups might consider issues such as integration with Sakai and other interfaces.

The group next discussed the report.

The question was asked – who is the report for? Fred replied it was for LMT and then eventually LMC.

There were budget concerns as some might misinterpret the ‘strawman’ document. It was decided that we should put in a paragraph that says that DPIP is ‘scalable’ and the two budget extremes are designed to show that.

The issue of not doing other work and making digital work a ‘priority’ was discussed. We are saying we must put a priority on digital efforts and not just what we currently do. This led to a reminder of a concept raised by Susan Gibbons in her talk – at Rochester the AULs review projects and FTE requirements – they then decide what staff will work on the project and what other work they will not do so that they have the time to devote to the new initiative. It is not assumed folks will just take on extra work. Their approach is to make sure the person has the time to devote to the new initiative – we need to try to encourage the building of such a culture here.

It was suggested we detail specifics about the relationships between the Library and ITS. The example of the ‘Digital Imaging Services Group’ was raised, as it is an effort to increase collaboration and communication between WW&DCS, ITG and Media Services. It has been very successful. A similar initiative might be possible with RIS or other ITS groups.

The issue of the CDC timeline for creating a prioritized list of collections to be digitized was raised. Since this effort has no real ‘cost’ associated with it, Tobin and Jen should hold the meetings/forums.

The concept of the virtual teams was raised. The Metadata Services Team and the metadata virtual group are the most established example. The virtual group can be composed of folks from the MST, Beinecke, Walpole, VRC and other units.

It was suggested we mention concrete problems that we are trying to fix with DPIP and the report. The issue of digitization for preservation is an obvious concern DPIP can help address, along with unlocking collections. The Beinecke has a mission statement for its digitization – DPIP should have one as well. (Brian will forward the Beinecke mission statement to Fred.) The mission of DPIP should be, in part, to make the collections available, safeguard fragile objects and encourage research with our collections. The desire to ‘extend the reading room’ is a concept used by the Beinecke. We need to be sure the mission statement notes that these digital initiatives must be considered as important as other Library initiatives including collection space management and work produced by the renovation projects.