Minutes for Nov. 9, 2006

Start time: 2 pm. Location: SML 410. Present: Matthew Beacom, Tom Bolze, Daniel Lovins (chair), Britta Santamauro (recording)

More Thoughts on "Expert User" Model

Mathew recounted his discussion with Joan about applying the "expert user" model to non-MARC metadata training and production. Joan had recommended keeping two metadata groups separate: (a) one that would consult on initiatives across the university; and (b) another that would be dedicated to development of skills specifically within the Catalog Department. Regarding the latter, Matthew suggested assembling a group small enough to be able to fit into SCML.

Matthew also mentioned that there are persons at various points around campus who already have advanced skills in metadata creation (e.g., EAD at Manuscripts & Archives? Luna Insight at Beinecke? VRA Core at the Art Library?, CCO at museums?). He suggested that these people be brought together in some way, to remind themselves that they are part of a larger peer group at Yale, and also better be able to support one another. Britta suggested that they could serve as mentors to catalog department staff as well.

The difficulties surrounding selection of a metadata expert users group was briefly discussed. Should the selection be based on interest, enthusiasm, driven by necessity? In any event, all agreed that there should at least be clear guidelines on how members are selected, how to turn candidates down (in case there should be more interest than available spaces), and whether or not, or under what circumstances, C&Ts would be included in preliminary training and production. We have to remember that, particularly in the case of C&Ts, selective access to technical training gives some a competitive advantage over others. We should also keep in mind potential issues with C&T job descriptions and contract language.

Task Force Membership

Given that Rebekah is no longer able to attend meetings, and that other members of our small group are not always able to attend, Daniel asked whether we should consider recruiting new members. After some discussion, there was general agreement that, since the task force's charge is nearly complete, it would be unwise to bring in new people at this late stage. It would be better to wait for the current group to "declare victory and go home", and then for a successor group to be formed (e.g., one charged with implementing the department's new metadata goals?), at which point new people could be brought in.

Department Name Change

Daniel reported on a dicussion held among team leaders (and others), on whether and in what way the department should change its name. Some expressed strong feelings about preserving the word "cataloging". Daniel tried to make the case that the very idea of the catalog may be in jeopardy, as library systems increasingly come to resemble information portals rather than traditional, inventory-type catalogs. He suggested that the word "metadata" is more clearly understood by information technologists, and that this is significant because (in his view) it is likely that we will work more closely with IT specialists in the future. Others pointed out that "cataloging" is an accurate description of what we do, that the term itself has a venerable history, and that its practitioners by that name are well-respected throughout the library world.

Some suggested that the department's name should be changed, but only after the nature of our work has changed. That is, the name change should be driven by and accurately reflect what we are actually doing. On the other hand (and this view was also expressed), perhaps a change of name would itself open doors, shift priorities, and push us toward the kind of metadata services outlined in our new vision statement.

Web Presence of Department

On a topic related to the department's name and image, Daniel suggested that we are not paying enough attention to our collective Web presence. Most teams are currently using the departmental web page template, but a few, notably Metadata Services and the Rare Books, have migrated to the Library templates. There are advantages to having done this, namely compliance with XHTML, more professional layout, and better visual integration with other (i.e., extra-departmental) web sites. A potential pitfall, though, is that by using "front door" templates, one may create the impression that certain pages are meant for public consumption even if they're not (e.g., certain types of obscure local documentation). Another is that if some teams adopt the library templates while others do not, a kind of internal rift is created. Template color palettes, for example, can create a sense of harmony or dissonance. The Rare Book Team seems to be color-coordinated with the Beinecke Library; Metadata Services resemble ILTS. Assuming we decide to move the department and all unit home pages to a Library template, we should also consider consistency in these kinds of details. In the event Joan approves a global change of templates, Britta offered to help teams with their implementation.

Meeting adjourned: 3:10 pm.