Skip to end of metadata
Go to start of metadata

CSC/DOT meeting minutes, July 30, 2012
Present: DID NOT RECORD
Minutes: Mike Giarlo

  • The Council discussed the roles and responsibilities of the various digitally oriented committees in the UL, such as the CSC, DOT, DCRT
    • DOT is concerned with operations, project and digitization workflows, and cross-unit resourcing
      • A proposal to reform DOT as the Digital Operations Collaborative (?) was put forward in 2011, which would broaden DOT's role beyond project workflows and grow its membership to units not currently represented
      • There is less infrastructure and workflow in place for work unrelated to digitization, so it has been difficult to strike out into other areas
      • Exploratory work (not related to existing production workflows) is a potential gap, and is a niche where DOT could have more of role. Such work could include bibliographies and content partners such as Google, Internet Archive, and HathiTrust, all of which are handled by other groups at the moment
      • DOT members report feeling overworked, alongside a lack of adaptable workflows and a need for prioritization to more strategically branch out
      • There is a widely cited ownership issue -- who "owns" all the projects in DOT's sphere of influence?  Is it DOT, or individual DOT members, or the departments, etc.?
      • It is not even clear that all projects and services have owners.  For instance, who owns the services around CONTENTdm?
    • The newly formed Publishing and Curation Services department may be a natural home for some of these services, and is shaping up to be the owner of ScholarSphere services and ETD/EHT services.
      • Service ownership by PCS may mean coordination and management of services particularly on the user end
      • It is very important for public services folks to know that services have owners so that they know who to contact, and also important to have self-help information published in known locations to aid public services
    • Some reported that it is not uncommon to not know when work is in progress or completed.  More of a project management approach is needed -- projects need project managers, and project managers need to follow processes for the purposes of, e.g., transparency, accountability, and ownership.
    • In addition to more project management, there is a need for higher-level program managers or service managers so that sustained efforts have owners
  • Members of the Council then listed what they felt were the most pertinent challenges and areas of opportunity
    • group/meeting fatigue
    • the process for vetting new projects and services (governance and approval)
    • service/program definition
    • web accessibility
    • tension between honoring prior commitments & workload
    • assigning priorities to initiatives sooner rather than later
    • expanding the Council's portfolio process beyond IT context
    • tension between need for more process and desire to be more agile
    • users need to see us as trustworthy, reliable, and timely
    • document our roles and levels of commitment
    • better integrate committee work with "work work"
    • be serious about skunkworks or exploratory work ("R&D")
    • need better tools/processes for visualization of work already going on
    • being there for the user (clearer timelines and better usability)
    • "prioritization is the priority"
  • The clearest opportunity for the "DOC" group, then, is better documenting processes and workflows for increased transparency and shared understanding of ongoing work
  • Is there a "top three" of challenges that can be tackled in short term?  Need an inventory of things to do related to program definition and prioritization
  • Linda K to lead on inventory of programs/services by 8/10
  • Everyone will help by adding departmental and individual roles and responsibilities
    • Goal is to create "space" for doing new things <- this is the "problem statement" we're trying to address with these activities

CSC/DOT meeting minutes, June 4, 2012
Present: Mike Furlough, Lisa German, Kevin Clair, Dace Freivalds, Mike Giarlo, Andrea Harrington, Sue Kellerman, Linda Klimczyk, Christy Long, Bonnie Osif, Albert Rozo
Minutes: Patricia Hswe

Mike Furlough opened the meeting by suggesting that we discuss our current understanding of where we are with Sigma and ScholarSphere. How does implementing ScholarSphere affect the way we're organizing our work currently? What will we emphasize? How will we plan for the future?

Where are with implementing various Sigma projects and ScholarSphere?

  • Per Mike Giarlo on ScholarSphere - we have frozen feature dev (all these features will make it in beta release)
  • Service Management Team was recently organized to figure out how we'll work together to manage ScholarSphere (policies, guidelines, terms of use, user support services, marketing and promotion, etc.)
  • Usability testing of the software is taking place in July (with stakeholders, including faculty and students)

What will people be able to do during ScholarSphere's soft launch?

  • Deposit files
  • Track versions of these files over time
  • Kick off audits of these files
  • Share files
  • Everything will be searchable (on metadata)
  • Set access levels for sharing or not

There will be a Tech Update on ScholarSphere on June 12.

Re: file storage limits - 5-10 GB recommended

After September release, what's next?

  • We have a wish list of features and we need to prioritize what to focus on next among those features.
  • Can upload many files at once but they can't be identified as a thing - i.e., defined as a collection. So, we need to go deeper into unresolved issues regarding collections - e.g., what defines a collection?

How will content in ScholarSphere be exposed to Summon?

  • We are working on this with Serial Solutions. We may use some web standard, such as microdata, for web content to be exposed (crawled). In general, this will work with Serial Solutions (lots of moving parts to do this).

Updates for other projects in Sigma:

  • Grad and undergrad posters - getting ingested, or already ingested, into Cdm
  • Born-digital purchased data sets - Marcy to test with her own purchased data set
  • ETD-like materials: customers need to fill in the metadata fields so we can load them into Cdm
  • OJS: migration from Queens has happened, we have a sandbox to play with OJS (Janis to help with this)

How will content in ScholarSphere be accessible in Google Scholar?

  • First, we want them accessible in Google. Google has very general SEO guidelines so not a lot of optimization to get them findable in Google.
  • GScholar is different - requires very specific mappings - so we have to do this ourselves. 
    • Source code has to be written out in a certain way so that mapping to GScholar is feasible (i.e., mapping the metadata fields we have to the ones that GScholar accepts). 
    • GScholar has a collection development policy - it is very specific as to what it accepts.
  • Two factors
    • Seeking bang for buck - very little time to work on this set of features, so how can we maximize this development time? So that's why we are going with Google.
    • The other factor: after talking with other folks, like sponsors, they said focus on Google.

Current priority for ScholarSphere: to continue to develop service management policies and guidelines (terms of use and support mechanisms in place), testing and bug fixes

What about length of time for ensuring?

  • Can't make any assurances, but we need language that's assuring.

Disaster plan/recovery has been worked out. Will be available in public documentation.

Bonnie Osif expressed need for information: faculty and students will come with pointed questions, so she will need resources to draw on (formats; security; longitudinal studies; documentation/resources to draw on for liaison librarians to help their faculty and students)

Additional concerns:

  • What role does DCRT play in the context of ScholarSphere? Do we have too many committees? DCRT instituted transparency and fairness, process.
  • ScholarSphere is a different workflow and program from digitization efforts (Cdm and Olive).
  • Up until now, Libraries have not taken responsibility for content that we have not purchased or do not own.
  • We need to figure out different channels for digitization (Gov docs are also a factor)

The collections question/issue surrounding ScholarSphere:

There hasn't been a lot of engagement from the former Collection Development Council in development of digitized collections.

  • There hasn't been a lot of engagement from the former Collection Development Council in development of digitized collections - how to address collection development in context of ScholarSphere?
  • What does a collection mean in the context of repository services? 
    • Users may not view ScholarSphere as a collection.
  • Could there be an option for checking the option for having a CAT record? 
    • We still need to have a conversation about a collection development policy - i.e., how do we decide what should go into the CAT?
  • If there are gems that are found that could go into ScholarSphere, then couldn't liaison librarians ask faculty or whomever about getting into ScholarSphere?

Summing up:

  • It's easy to go to the borderline cases and worry about them.
  • Sounds like we're wanting to clarify operational activities of all sorts around ScholarSphere
  • We need to continue looking at other operations like digitization
  • We need to clarify what services ScholarSphere provides
  • We need to figure out what to do with DCRT, DOT & role of CSC?

Any long-term concerns/questions:

  • One concerns application support for ScholarSphere - is it ITS-supported platform, or I-Tech? Or both?
  • What about long-term archiving of content?
  • What is the role of infrastructure vs. ScholarSphere? What role does the newly formed Digital Preservation Network have?

CSC/DOT meeting minutes, February 13, 2012

Present: Mike F., Patrick A., Lisa G., Linda K., Dace F., Bonnie O., Patricia H., Christy L., Andrea H., Kevin C., Linda F., Tim P., Mairead M., Sue K.

1. Sigma updates (Linda F.)

progress on various action items established at the beginning of the project

five different items:

student exhibition posters : separate workflows for graduate and undergraduate posters. will not be in the CAT but will be in CONTENTdm and so indexed by LionSearch. (as of last week) about 75 students had expressed interest in depositing their posters in the repository. metadata guidelines are finalized and a process is nearly in place for submission and deposit of posters to CONTENTdm. only award winners will go to CONTENTdm, so this is about 30 items or so.

eTD-like materials : things that haven't historically gone into etd-db but could well, things like honors theses, master's papers from various colleges and World Campus. recommended that these be included in the CAT, as the eTDs are (though would require workflow approval in Cataloging and Metadata Services).

non-eTD items for ingest and access : non-serial grey literature use cases, like dissertations, bibliographies, etc. identifying appropriate workflows for things like this.

journal publishing service investigation : service that has been requested by various people in the university. establishing tiers of service for what we might provide to people interested in this, e.g. referrals to stakeholders such as the press, advice on publishing tools, preservation, and so forth. professional look, peer review, searchable and archiving-ready, cheap. example service: College of Engineering is going to set up an OJS installation, willing to partner with the Libraries to determine if this is a service we can follow through on.

decommissioning of DPubS : need a place to put things. short term (contentdm?) vs. long-term service, delivery, etc. content (monographs) is starting to move into contentdm; kevin and albert are looking at migrating romance studies books into contentdm, not sure when it'll be done but it's in his contentdm loading queue.

born-digital purchased data sets : patricia and marcy b. are working on a process for acquiring, storing, making available to users. working w/ becky a., selectors, and folks in IT units (mike g. and dan c. from DLT, i-tech folks (who?)). dealing with acquisitions issues, storage, metered access and other use restrictions issues. possibly designating this as a use case for repository services (on top of the immediate storage issues).

2. Repository services update (Andrea H.)

just finished a code sprint w/ MediaShelf. has also been working with Bien C. on design and interface issues (also worked on the CMS). prioritizing features list for development iterations.

by early to mid-March they'd like to have a demo prototype w/ an admin function working, for ingesting content, adding and editing metadata, etc.

one item of note (per mairead) is that preservation functionality (checksums, etc.) was rolled out during the code sprint and made available to the Fedora development community

late spring is the set date for another consulting visit/code sprint from the MediaShelf folks, to take place probably in May though no exact date has been set

3. Stakeholder discussions (Mairead M.)

meeting w/ stakeholders on a weekly basis to discuss use cases. these meetings have been very helpful for prioritizing functions and determining what is most necessary in early iterations of the code and early releases. attendance has been very good at these meetings and lots of great input has come from the people who have attended.

4. Governance issues for Program Sigma (Mike F.)

core group asked back when we started for CSC to work in an advisory capacity for policy, governance, etc. time now to discuss what exactly that means – what are some specific issues that the group should address? how does CSC work as an advisory body relative to Sigma's program activities?

mairead: in IT governance == frameworks, groups, policies, etc. to make sure that business decisions drive strategy and resources are allocated to strategic needs. at the stakeholder meeting various policy decisions related to content were discussed, e.g. who decides what content to accept? what are the metadata decisions related to this? etc. but this isn't really "governance" in the sense that ITS etc. thinks of things, that's really more of CSC's role (since it's the group that has more authority in areas of resource allocation, overall digital initiative strategy, etc.)

content strategies: some will emerge right away, others only as content appears in the repository and we have a sense of how the thing is being used. one thing to think about: how much content are we going to have to actively recruit, vs. having early adopters who will readily deposit things and generally be a champion of the repository? promotion, etc.

differences in paradigm: faculty-generated content (vs. librarian-purchased content); content that will see very active use (vs. something that's purchased and then sits someplace – things placed in the repository will likely change in nature over time, have derivative objects created from them, etc.)

looking at the library mission statement and strategic plan as a framework for determining policies and guidelines for the repository

using repository content as a tool for attracting students – your research will be featured in this tool in [x,y,z] ways

what are the ways in which CSC can serve as an advisory role?

  • putting parameters in place for what we can/will promote, save, preserve and for how long (Bonnie)
  • what level of the university will content come from? student-to-library, dept-to-library, …? what are the workflows and processes for deposit to us? (Patrick) – discussion of what the business model is for sustaining the repository
  • determining at what level decisions need to be made in order to keep working moving along at an appropriate rate. what is this group most qualified/equipped to be able to do? (Mike F.)
  • tiered services – what is the minimum required to advance certain key early goals of the program, and what policies are required to ensure that that work can continue? (Lisa)

questions:

mission

service model

development of terms of service that submitters sign on to when dropping content into the repository

accessibility and usability of content

Principles of Access (Patricia) – what do we want to provide as basic levels of access to users every time they visit the digitized collections page (or a specific collection, image, etc. within the digital collections). these are

1)     discoverability of digitized collections

2)     download a copy of a digital object

3)     unique, persistent identifier for every object in the digitized collections

4)     citation guidance for digital objects (and these issues go beyond our own digitized collection – how do we engage LLS and other instruction librarians in these efforts?)

5)     unified search across all digital collections, as well as different types of search across the digital collections (i.e. searching within a certain subject or subset of digital objects)

6)     clarifying conditions of use for digitized collections – rights statements, etc.

possibility of aligning the work of this initiative with the Discovery and Access team (chaired by Binky Lush and Emily Rimland); unified approach to looking to discovery and access across all collections (primarily a focus on lionsearch but looking at other platforms as well)

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

CSC/DOT Minutes
December 5, 2011
4:00-5:00 p.m.
510A Paterno Library

Minutes:  Tim Pyatt
Chair:  Mairéad Martin

  1. Program Sigma Update
    1. Overview – Andrea Harrington

Work started in September; the program team has met weekly. The website for Sigma is now up, see:

http://www.libraries.psu.edu/psul/scholar/projectsigma.html

The team also has a wiki for tracking progress and work. There will be a forum about Sigma on Dec. 12 and an article about Sigma appeared in the most recent Interview.

  1.  
    1. Short-term Action Items – Linda Klimczyk

 

Short Term Services
Born Digital Purchased Data Sets

  • Updating/revising data purchase workflow
  • Working with DLT on storage and access
  • Working with Itech on front end services

Graduate and Undergraduate Exhibition Material

Phase 1: file format standards, mock-up of UI for ingest, information session on posters (incl. IP issues)

  • Informational Website under construction
  • Grad Students winners solicited to submit sample material for demo collection
  • Same students will be invited to test ingest tools in Spring
  • Planning with Grad School Committee and workflow underway
  • UL will present with Grad School Committee on 1/17 overview and 2/7 training
  • Preliminary number of participants known after 2/7
  • Planning with Office for Undergraduate Education - preliminary meeting only to date
  • Load date sometime in April (after exhibition)

Medium Term Services

ETD-Like Material
Requirements defined, platform selected (ContentDM), planning underway for ingest tools, pilot ingest Spring 2012

Faculty and Student Papers
functional requirements gathering, stakeholder solicitation - for Project Gamma (repository infrastructure)

Journal Publishing Services

  • Phase 1: defining services that we will provide – underway
  • Brainstorming session completed, next steps meeting 12/6
  1.  
    1. Repository Platform – Mike Giarlo (absent, covered by Mike Furlough and Mairéad Martin)

Mike F. talked about levels of services offered for different audiences using ETDs (dissertations and MA theses) and ETD-like projects (masters papers) as examples. We are looking at two services – first is stewardship and preservation for access; second is receipt and management of the digital objects. Service levels will vary for different categories of materials – ETD-like materials (such as masters papers) may not get the same level of service as ETDs.

Mairéad talked about the progress for selecting and building platform/tools for the management of content. We are planning a beta release at the end of the summer of a Hydra-based platform. A consultant will be brought in to help with code. Project Gamma is being used as the internal working name for the program to build the repository platform, but is not the public name. Public release for the platform is targeted for the fall.

Materials initially will be loaded into ContentDM and will later migrate to the Hydra platform after it launches.  Fedora will be repository basis with SOLR for indexing and Blacklight for access. This replace the CAPS project/proposed platform.

  1. ARL e-Science Institute
    1. About the Institute – Mike Furlough

Patricia Hswe and Lisa German are also involved. The Institute is a six month program to develop a strategic plan for contacting libraries with campus e-science activities. Mike is one of the seven people planning the institutes for ARL. They are planning workshop to gather small groups from campuses to brainstorm. This goes beyond data management to include outreach and facility planning.

  1.  
    1. At Penn State – Lisa German

The local team at PSU planning our strategy is lead by Lisa and includes folks from RCR and Hershey. The first exercise was to interview the Dean. They have also met with researchers and deans from across the university.  Subject librarians team up with the planning group for interviews.  The team has also done an analysis of strengths and weaknesses. Members from the local team will be going to Phoenix in January for one of the brainstorming workshops.  A website about the project coming. The biggest challenge is how to carry this forward. The institute in Phoenix will allow brainstorming with other ARL schools to help develop action plans. This also fits with the Core Council report in planning for library services for the sciences.

Next Meeting: Thursday, December 15, 3:30-5:00 p.m. – Will be canceled.

 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

ECSC Meeting Minutes, 7/11/11

Minutes:  Sue Kellerman

Chair:  Mike Furlough

Attendees: Patrick Alexander, Kevin Clair, Linda Friend, Mike Furlough, Lisa German, Mike Giarlo, Andrea Harrington, Sue Kellerman, Christy Long, Bonnie Osif, Tim Pyatt

Announcements

New member – Tim Pyatt was introduced.  Mike provided Tim with an overview of the charge and mission of ECSC.

1.    ETD Projects

Porting of existing tools – Mike Giarlo

The security vulnerability (authorization issue) breach discovered in April prompted action by DLT to perform minimal fixes to the database; eTD and eHT stakeholders were contacted to identify new features they want and/or what could be easily accomplished at this time; DLT’s Beth Hayes named as project manager.  The Libraries eTD group - Linda Friend, Patricia Hswe plus two colleagues from the Graduate School and Schreyer Honors College meet every two weeks.  The three levels of the database software undergoing review/fixes are: administrative, author and search and browse.  Progress is being made on all three levels.  The group plans to do more testing; want partners to do full security audit.  Timeline is late August/September.

Service needs investigation – Linda Friend

Linda distributed the eTD Requirements Gathering Report  which detailed the rationale for replacing the current eTD and eHT platform, identifies stakeholders, reports out findings from stakeholders meetings and set potential future activities.  Meetings with stakeholders revealed nothing new or surprising; all were willing to compromise and/or change procedures.  Stakeholders want to be kept up-to-date as Libraries moved forward in their planning.   Tim P. commented about Duke’s eTD program.  His experience was students did not want to self-submit.

Role and charge of DOT – Kevin Clair and Sue Kellerman

* *Sue and Kevin provided a brief overview of the current charge and role of DOT and presented DOC (Digital Operations Collaborative) with its new mission statement and charge.  New activities for DOC included serving as a clearinghouse for digital initiatives.  DOT’s focus has been primarily project specific with little discussion on such topics such as Google/HaitiTrust and other “boots on the ground initiatives”.  It was also recommended that the membership be expanded to enhance collaboration among departments.  The DOC proposal is still in draft; feedback and comments should be sent to Sue or Kevin.  Mike F. raised the question about operational ownership for some point of the mission statement.  He also asked if DOC has the capacity and resources to do what it says it can do.  Mike F. thanked DOT members, Kevin and Sue for bringing the new DOC proposal forward.  Lisa G. mentioned that re-casting the Collection Services Advisory Group, recharging DCRT and DOT (together) are the next things to do.

2.    Organizing and planning for repository services – Mike Furlough

 Mike presented a draft of a Penn State Research Repository Services (PURRS) [link to PURRS doc].  This program would expand services for publishing eTD and eHTs, pre- and post-prints, along with exploring data curation services.  For the coming year it will be necessary to develop a service road map of named services, policies, staffing, and organization.  Mike proposed to hold a full or half-day planning retreat to build out the roadmap for developing these services.  Mike G. has the technical roadmap that he could bring and share at the retreat.  Members to participate/who should be involved in the retreat include: DOT, DCRT, Mike G., RCR head or representatives, CAPS team, Cynthia Robinson, members from the Resource Data Management Team, and the In-Reach/Outreach group.  Mike will work with Martha to schedule the retreat for early August and look at membership and when and how to proceed.

  

3.    Other – Mike Furlough

* *The AD’s budget retreat will be held July 27-28.  Discussions on final budget strategy planning including digitization project funding will be set for the year.

The meeting was adjourned at 5:00 p.m.

Next meeting:  Monday, June 6, 3:30 – 5:00 p.m.

August 1st Meeting Minutes:  Mike Giarlo; Chair:  Lisa German

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

ECSC/DOT Meeting, 5/16/11
Minutes: Linda Friend
Chair:  Lisa German

Attendees: Patrick Alexander, Kevin Clair, Dace Freivalds, Linda Friend, Mike Furlough, Lisa German, Mike Giarlo, Andrea Harrington, Sue Kellerman, Linda Klimczyk, Bonnie Osif, Albert Rozo, Karen Schwentner

Announcements

Rebecca Mugridge-MacIntosh requested that Kevin Clair represent Cataloging & Metadata Services on ECSC; she will no longer be a member of this group.

Agenda Items

1.                   Reactions to Town Meeting on Scholarly Communications – Linda F. (15 min)

Linda and Dan Mack are co-chairing a group to identify and promote current and future content and services in the area of scholarly communication. The group sponsored a town meeting on May 4, with close to 50 participants onsite and via Mediasite Live.  Linda provided a summary and requested feedback on “next steps” from ECSC/DOT.  The information from Libraries personnel can serve as additional feedback and follow-up to the discussions we had this winter about “where do we want to be in 3 months and in a year.”  [Document pasted in at end of minutes and also available on Scholarly Communications wiki at https://wikispaces.psu.edu/display/scomm/E-Content+Stewardship+Committee+-+Town+Meeting+Discussion+Document ]

Chief take-away points where there was a lot of consensus:

•              Having some specific, tangible services that liaisons can talk to faculty about and see go further than consultation. 

•              Having publishing opportunities available in more of a “template” approach, with consultation & support throughout.

•              Investigating resources that could bring income to the Libraries

•              Providing as much support material as possible in a virtual environment

Discussion:

Currently reaching out to serve Penn State needs primarily.

Scholars are discipline-loyal and this is the best way to reach them and get them interested in participating (support and as contributors to a database of content.)  The disciplinary communities are often small and very focused – need relevant examples encourage

Scholars won’t want to be lumped together with grad students in terms of services.

ECSC also interested in this as a “portal” concept to services, and content provided by faculty in particular

Suggestion to cross reference the suggestions with ECSC’s priorities and tactics.


 

2.                   Analysis of proposed digital projects – Bonnie (15 min)

[Attachment with agenda, 5/13 email]

DCRT had consensus on the priority order of assigned to the top 10 proposed projects (the rest were singles or continuations.) The group considered usage by patron group, collection strengths, condition, etc.  Several multi-year projects are included. The group continues to encourage library submitters to work with faculty colleagues who have content.  Bonnie noted that she has an example of a way to enrich a collection with a lot of additional resources via the CMS using the bridges digitization as a start. She also reported that she has rewritten the DCRT process, making it more concise and more specific.

Sue reported that completed digitization projects include: Barb Lessig's Berks Campus Advisory Board Minutes and Linda Musser's Artists of Dauphin County, a 1951 thesis.  Two other "one-off" digitization jobs (noted on the proposed digital projects list) are nearing completion - Linda Musser's EPA document and her request to scan 184 slides from the 1991 doctoral dissertation “On the Shoulders of a Titan.” Barb Lessig's Yarn Carrier project (five volumes) is slated to be scanned in early June 2011.

Mike mentioned that he had asked Patricia to have her graduate assistant compile the list of external opportunities that we have been contacted about.  Which will help us develop in our priority areas?  How can we begin to build “services”?

Sue has been costing out actual service elements for a project in genealogy.  It will be desirable to include cost figures for other departments involved, e.g. cataloging.  This could be in terms of hours - where does Cataloging work it in?  Who does it?  Kevin noted that a Special Collections staff member has been adding subject headings to records in some cases so the information should include their time.

Wage and vended services are real costs, as are hours spent in web development, etc.  Bonnie will add a question to the project proposal where the submitter can estimate the number of hours a project will need, as well as the units involved.   

Storage – currently Sue contacts DLT (Christy) after project proposals come in and are accepted.  Andrea suggested that it would benefit everyone to get DLT involved early in the process.  In the next round, need to identify someone in DLT who can talk to the proposer and estimate storage needs before DCRT does its assessment.

Digitization funding - Mike has asked Sue to recommend a budget to cover digitization needs. Because of the uncertainty of Penn State’s share of state funding in recent years, these are being allocated for services other than digitization. How can we plan for predictability?  Sue indicated that it will be easier to plan with the history they have on the elements that make up a project.


 

3.                   ARL/Spec Digital Preservation Survey – Sue (10-15 min)

[Attachment with agenda, 5/13 email]

Sue completed this and it gave some interesting insights and a broader perspective.  One question inquired about types of digital content the institution collects, and which we’d want to preserve more of.  Highlights

  • Sue recognizes four types of digital content: born digital; surrogates from the University; digital resources; licensed resources
  • Met with Jackie Esposito to learn more about the surrogates and our mandate to preserve them.
  • Was not able to find any “policies.” The collection development group could look at policies for preserving digital assets.
  • Our current preservation strategies involve a lot of collaborate efforts (HathiTrust, MetaArchive, vendor based)
  • Included job descriptions for digital curator & digital architect in response.
  • Major issues with standardization of media for preservation
  • Barriers – staff workload, communication, lack of ability to predict long term investment costs

4.                   Penn State University Research Repository Service – Mike F. (15-30 min)

[Attachment with agenda, 5/13 email]

Discussion of Mike F’s summary of a potential repository service to be developed 2011/12, with beta services sometime during Fall 2011.  In introducing it, Mike asked us to use it as a starting point to think about our mission and audience, and to be considering how we’d develop and market such a set of services.  He included a list of existing programs and clients, many expanding our ability to ingest, manage and preserve student work (dissertations, papers, exhibition posters, etc.) as well as other forms of publishing (journals, conference proceedings, monographs, faculty research portfolios.

Discussion - how do we get to some version of the vision by next year?

  • Need priorities.
  • Stop doing one-offs; develop infrastructure that can be used for multiple content types
  • Bonnie suggested we simply need to pick content we think we can do well and get started
  • Linda suggested that time is valuable and if we want to do something in the next academic year, some individuals (Inreach-Outreach?) could be planning an information-gathering process and be ready when faculty return in August.
  • Patrick mentioned eTDs as desirable content were much discussed at the meeting he and Mike attended at Georgia Tech (sponsored by an IMLS grant to Purdue, Georgia Tech and Utah to foster community support for library publishing services.) Felt libraries could share eTDs more broadly and be able to drop ProQuest. He also noted that this could really change the P&T system since they do publish many expanded dissertations from teaching faculty. Attendees generally felt they couldn’t afford to do more marketing – at the limit of what they can do with current staff and planning, especially Michigan.  There was a lot of willingness to try open source OJS, and move on to something else if publishing doesn’t take off with journal editors.  He also noted that it will be important for libraries and presses to form and retain relationships with faculty so that they have an investment and the public research profiling would contribute.
  • Mike G. noted that they have an ongoing commitment to the eTD program and to completing the Port Project this summer (many developer hours assigned.) He is writing a charter to follow up with the work of the CAPS project that will guide development of infrastructure to accommodate multiple formats. He felt that prototypes might be ready by spring 2012.
  • Mike F. asked us to think about how to continue the discussion, maybe with a focused retreat.

The meeting adjourned at 4:50 PM.

Next meeting: Monday, June 6, 3:30 – 5:00 p.m.

June 6th  Meeting - Minutes:  Rebecca Mugridge-MacIntosh;  Chair:  Mairéad Martin

&&&&&&&&&&&&

Town Meeting -- Scholarly Communication, 5/4/11

Attendance: about 30 in audience, 20+ on Mediasite.

Take Aways.  Strong interest in:

  • Having some specific, definable services that they can talk to faculty about and see go further than consultation.  Info available on a website describing real services for faculty & students. Define needs and decide on a focus, e.g. a format to start with.  What does it take to get a project accepted?   Can we build on/expand the DCRT process?  What’s the support/infrastructure/commitment for both archiving and access?  E.g. if someone has content, what would be the process for assessing & accepting it? 

-               ETD assessment

-               Possibility for conference proceedings, bibliographies, journals

-               Untapped potential of gray literature, working papers, field notes, etc.

  • Having publishing opportunities available in more of a “template” approach, with consultation & support throughout.
  • And – what about investigating resources that could bring income to the Libraries?
  • As much support material as possible in a virtual environment so that all locations can benefit (and presumably contribute expertise)

-          additional web content

-          learning sessions.  E.g. internal faculty would benefit from a session on managing their own intellectual property rights.

-          University’s IP resources need to be consolidated for easy access.

Some ideas:

  • Important to develop understandable terminology that isn’t off-putting
  • Question of what is worthwhile – this is a classic collection development activity extended to a virtual environment
  • Interest in finding ways to extend DCRT project proposal idea – make it possible for librarians to link up with faculty who have content in order to create more innovative co-projects.
  • Place to draw attention to  Libraries faculty scholarship – possible collaboration with Research Committee
  • Desirable to have user-initiated ways to contribute content to a Libraries-managed location
  • Investigate ways to use the data we have more effectively  (e.g. publicize use of collections)
  • Ability to identify faculty who are working in similar areas
  • Sponsor a conference/workshop on some aspect of scholarly communication – for Penn State faculty; for an external audience
  • Create Scholarly communication” journal” (or other regular communication ) sponsored by the Libraries
  • “Portal” for linking faculty & their research interests
  • Technology needs – e.g. format conversion standards/issues in MediaTech

Town Meeting Topics by Category (Tom Reinsfelder’s draft)

Lots of librarianly interest in categorizing the content and services suggestions.

Education & Awareness
(communication)

Infrastructure:
Repositories & Digitization
(Action)

Publishing services/support
(Action)

Connections with other units and faculty
(communication)

 

 

 

 

 
(for librarians & for faculty/students: different audiences)
 
Intellectual Property/Copyright
 
Using clear definitions/terminology
 
Author Rights
 
Data management
 
OA Week
 
Discussions with students
 
Discussions with faculty (needs assessment)
 
Presentations/exhibits
 
Discussion of OA policies at PSU
 
SC website
 
Highlight faculty involvement/project examples
 
SC Bibliography
 
 
 



Technology for hosting/digitizing:

-          articles, images, and data from faculty and students
-          ETDs
-          Gray Lit: conference proceedings; grant reports; student work,
-          Archival material (PSU sports, faculty papers, university records, photographs, campus collections, etc.)

Policies for acquiring and managing content

Security / limited access to certain documents

Cataloging Issues

Whose responsibility? 

Funding?



Hosting OA Journals (Univ. Press?)

Assistance with publishing contracts

CIC author addendum

Copyright Expertise

Ways to make $$

Sell/publish unique content produced by PSU?

Print on Demand

Allow users to create and purchase unique products by assembling content from multiple collections.  (something like Wikipedia’s Book Creator)

Need a system for allowing users to find content & for processing transactions.




ITS

Media Commons

PSU Colleges & Campuses

Hershey/Dickinson

University Press

PSU Research institutes

Use of Digital Measures to identify journal editors, research interests, etc. 

Create faculty portal or profiles for faculty to connect with others with similar interests   . 

5/11

SCIOT (Scholarly Communication Inreach-Outreach Team)

POSSIBLE NEXT STEPS for Team

Our wiki: https://wikispaces.psu.edu/display/scomm/Scholarly+Communications+-+Home

Current members are Linda Friend, Dan Mack, Esther Dell, Dolores Fidishun, Nancy Henry, Dan Hickey, Patricia Hswe, Tom Reinsfelder.  Current charge is to investigate information needed internally about scholarly communication & provide it.

What are your thoughts on where I should take this?  I’ll be informing the team about our discussion today from CSC.   Is there a role for CSC as we move forward on ideas?

  1. Audience – confirmed as primarily faculty and grad student needs at this time. What data do we have access to?  (CIC data some of our librarians completed?) What other groups might be charges (e.g. research commons/concierge discussions.
  2. Summary article will be in next week’s InterView.
  3. Develop additional contacts, e.g. local experts.
  4. Conversations with faculty – a dozen or more names recommended in the spring by subject liaisons.

Also follow up with needs assessment for grad students – what will they actually use?

Libraries personnel --brief  survey this summer.

  1. Contribute to new service model & content developments systemwide
  • Review KC service plans to see what would complement it for faculty & grads
  • Develop information sessions, e.g. reading publisher contract language (survey librarians for what they already are providing in grad classes, meet w/Gary White about ideas for Graduate services, etc.)
  1. Develop a toolkit of information & referral points – in progress.
  2. Some interest in exploring hands-on technical/software services for faculty (such as described by Sarah Shreeves.)  Also ways to connect researchers’ interests using software approach.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

ECSC Notes

April 11, 2011

3:30-5:00 p.m.

510A Paterno Library

Minutes: Dace Freivalds

Chair: Mike Furlough

In attendance: Alexander, Clair, Coughlin, Freivalds, Friend, Furlough, German, Giarlo, Harrington, Hwse, Klimczyk, Osif, Rozo, Schwentner

1. RDMST Update - Hwse

  • RDMST wiki
  • RDMST will issue survey to recent NSF grant awardees. The objectives of this survey are to assess data management in terms of storage, size, issues, needs, and preservation for reuse.
  • Survey issued week of April 11. Copy of survey available here.
  • Team has added a new service statement to its home page.
  • Patrick reminded group that we need to define "data" (especially for humanities folks)
  • Group will mount intranet page for Libraries colleagues outlining a baseline consultation approach to use with faculty
  • RDMST will hold a coffee conversation on Thursday, April 21, 10:00 a.m. Linda K. will help set set up Adobe Conenct so that a recording can be made.

2. DCRT Proposal Review - Osif

  • Group has prioritized 23 proposals. of those 2 were removed, and 2 were related to ETDs
  • DCRT Preliminary grid at DCRT Prelim Grid 1112.xlsx
  • Waiting for estimates on work needed and finances
  • Will be submitted as budget request
  • Top 10 projects:

War posters/Stelts
Hammermill Bond/Hart
Anderson Ellis/Stelts
Coal mine maps/Musser
Kenneth Burke papers/Stelts
Behrend student yearbooks/Hart
Ogontz school archives digitization, phase 1/Fidishun
Ogontz school archives digitization, phase 2/Fidishun
Ogontz school archives digitization, phase 3/Fidishun
Ancient Nubia topographic bibliography/Mack

3. ETD-db Issues - Giarlo

  • Week of 3/23 security vulnerability discovered in ETD software. Problem with authorization; fixed in one day.
  • Can't confirm whether vulnerability was exploited.
  • Need to re-code in modern, trusted framework. Timeline: end of Summer 2011
  • Re-engineering; no new UI or funcitonality
  • Not implementing new platform since it is faster to re-code
  • Next generation ETD - need to do quick needs assessment. Have lots of data, but need to reconfirm. Linda K., Linda F. and Patricia will do the needs assessment

4. CAPS Final Demo - Giarlo, Coughlin

  • CAPS project is done -- Final report
  • Next steps, including OpenCASA, defined in the final reportt
  • What does CAPS team need from the sponsors - CSC should reveiw final reprot and next steps, need manager support so next steps can be done, prioritize wishlist

Next meeting: Monday, May 16, 3:30 – 5:00 p.m.

May 16th Meeting - Minutes: Linda Friend; Chair: Lisa German


++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

ECSC Notes

March 14, 2011

3:30-5:00 p.m.

510A Paterno Library

Minutes: Mairéad Martin

Chair: Lisa German

In attendance: Dace Freivalds, Linda Klimczyk, Christy Long, Lisa German, Bonnie Osif, Sue Kellermna, Albert Rozo, Andrea Harrington, Ann Holt, Linda Friend, Patricia Hswe, Mike Giarlo, Kevin Clair, Mike Furlough, Mairéad Martin

[NOTE: No set time limits on these items, but expect that 1 & 2 will take the majority of the meeting]

  1. Budget impacts – Lisa, Mike, Mairéad + group discussion
  • What we know, what we are doing, what we expect
  • What are our Guiding Principles going forward?
    • For Content Stewardship
    • For the Libraries/DLT
    • For ….?

 

Lisa: Dean and ADs just met on this topic: will use strategic plan as our guide, top priorities are Knowledge Commons, Content Stewardship, and Summon. The Dean will be addressing this issue at the LFO meeting this Wednesday, Marc 16. Dr. Spanier’s budget hearing moved to Wednesday to meet with Senate. Probably won’t know anything concrete for a little while. Dean Dewey has been through budget difficulties before, and is very experienced in this regard, and you can be assured that we will be deliberate and strategic. We can only hope things won’t end up where the governor proposed. 

Mike: Dean filled ADs in on discussions among academic deans – trying to get a handle on what cuts might look like. Strong expectation that it’ll be left up to individual colleges to deal with things, rather than blanket approach. Expect speculation about percentage cuts etc. Already been planning for 2% cut but we don’t know if there’ll be anything larger than that. Don’t know anything about salaries, benefits, etc.

Lisa: Note that library’s budget has two pots – people and collections – whereas a lot of colleges, it’s just people. Collections budget for next year – budget cut already planned for.  Lots of vacant positions right now which gives the UL flexibility too.

Any questions or comments:

Question: What is status of core council report for campuses? Not known. Academic units have already been hearing.  UL response has to be ready by May 1st.

Question: What is Dean planning on sharing with the staff? Following LFO, will have an announcement of anything she says there.

Clearly there are more questions than answers right now.

Question: What about the approach in ITS? For over a year ITS has been planning budget cut scenarios of between 5 – 15% and this will stand to us now clearly.

Discussion about Content Stewardship guiding principles going forward – what should these be? Going to have to make some decisions about priorities, emphases, and if we’re going to pause on some things. What would guide our decision-making?

Also, want to talk about reorganization: Any changes for this group? For example, would new head of Special Collections join CSC?

Collection Development will look different going forward. Key thing – want to make sure we don’t break lines of communication, want to make sure there are more connections, especially public facing ones.  This is an aspect of the guiding principles for this group.

Parking lot issues from reorganization – communication, representation on groups, functions across units right now (admin positions, for example) – looking at sharing staff where we may not have done that previously.  Examples of kind of conversations we need to have going forward.  Lisa expects significant on-boarding activities – in Access Services, for example.

Question: status of Head of Special Collections? Offer out and hoping there will be an announcement in next week or two.

Question: Knowledge Commons Director position? Been talking about internal position searches. Dean will talk about this at LFO. And head of RCR – likely to be the same story for head of RCR.

Question: Question about D&P budget: not using state library services funding now.  Digitization key service for research library even though we’re not using that funding for it.

So talking about guiding principles for next year: key one will be using strategic plan for direction, as mentioned already.

Look at tactical plans (attached here): walked through these together. Review tactics as we discuss principles.

Reviewed Goal #5:  three foci – e-records, data management, and partnerships with researchers

Goal #2 Infrastructure-- storage strategies, curation services and architectures

Goal #3: publishing services based on distribution on user needs

Traction on revamping ETD service as example of main one that could be exended to others. Focused on building out on existing communities.

All of these overlap, all important to ADs, senior director(s), Dean and CIO. 

Principles:

  • User focus is key
  • Assessment and investigation of needs (informed by data).
  • Market and communicate well so that service is well known and understood.
  • Faculty buy-in for importance of the UL. Alliances important.
  • Sustainability: things we start that can be sustained.
  • Working towards efficiency and avoiding duplication both internally and at the institutional level (Mike – example: strategic plan said UL and ITS work on repository services and not have units create their own.)
  • Extra university collaboration is important too – CIC, ARL peers, etc.
  • Important that we all be outwardly focused.
  • Decommission services/tools that are no longer needed.
  • Be opportunistic (relates to situations where funding might already be in place)

Question about room for experimentation and risk? Going to be challenging to justify new programs in this environment. The Dean feels strongly about the need to be innovative and to experiment.

Question about if we had to pick about where to put all of our effort – e-science, e-records, ETDs or digitized collections? What criteria would we use to decide? Looking at strategic plan of UL, ITS, university would be key. User focus is a key principle but it can mean a lot of different things. Pragmatic considerations – what funding is already in place is an important consideration.

Action item: Mike will clean up the list of guiding principles and Mike and Lisa will share with rest of ADs as well. Lisa would like to take to CDC.

Noted – multiple campuses issue needs to be kept in mind.

  1. Follow up on last month's prioritization work – Group
  • Goal 2: Infrastructure

Reviewed matrix.  Lisa – CAPS work might be serve as possible solution for publishing services. End of the month deadline for CAPS and then strategic conversation about how to move forward with that. Final report due by end of the month. Plan for demo for next meeting on April 11.

Storage: Mike Giarlo: Decisions about particular digital formats. Discussions on everything we have digitized to date, where to live, etc.

Lisa thinking about CDC and its role: Focused on acquisition, but access and preservation important too. Need to think of it as a continuum where collection management starts through curation and content stewardship activities. How do we make sure that continuum is reflected. Would like to discuss that here – where affinities are, etc.

Question about CDC and strategic directions and how it feeds into CSC. Lisa thinking about SWOT analysis for collection development.  About collection management/curation rather than collection “development” – curate what you have rather than just focus on acquisition. Focus on “services” rather than “building collections.”  New services and new roles that we didn’t have before. Content Stewardship part of liaison services. A lot more intersection with IT than we’ve ever had before.

Christy: Started working on storage architecture and strategies. RFP for storage hardware likely to be after next three months. Storage team is Jeff Minelli, Pablo Garaitonandia and Wayne Stump on DLT Storage Services team.

  • Goal 3: Publishing/Repository Services

Talked about gathering requirements for repository services. Get together a small group that would take what we have already done for ETD services for the grad school and SHC and do interviews with Engineering, EMS, and Agriculture.  Grad School also interested in support for Graduate ….? [Note from Mairead – didn’t catch this.]

Subcommittee: Andrea, new PM in DLT – Beth Hayes, Linda F., Patricia, plus relevant subject librarian. Move quickly, tried to have info gathered by May 1. Look at needs and start specing out what services would look like. Could go from this to look at other types of publishing. Use what we know already from working with DPubs or publishing service needs. This should help us move quickly.

Question – include the current clients or not? Yes but intent to get to new requestors before the end of the semester.

Question about multimedia support for ETDs: statement gone to Grad School, meeting with ADs at end of the month to talk about the archiving part.

Have had a couple of consultations with faculty on campus who are starting electronic journals. Patrick might have a few more things to add to this. Budget implications of this is critical too.

  • Goal 5: Research Data Curation

Intersects with other goals. Tactics – e-records, new Head of Special Collections is key. New e-records archivist position very important. CAPS working along track that would along some initial steps but a lot of other questions to be answered. Lisa – we should invite Dean to the meeting to demo CAPS.

Questions about user engagement and how to make priority decisions. Area that is new and we don’t have specific services yet, the riskiest area.

Storage for e-records – moving on that now.

Data management needs and services: other institutions dealing with these questions too but broad interest at all levels. Data Curation Services WG a way of building out services, another area of Office of Research interested in participating too – “concierge” function.  

Documented priorities distributed a couple of weeks ago.

  1. Updates
  • Rights clearances project – Lisa German

Press looking to digitize its backlist but rights must be cleared first. Patrick Alexander, Bob Alan and Ann Snowman talked and agreed staff from Acquisitions and Access Services are going to work with the Press to do that work. Signed on with Mellon grant with UM for Phase 2 of rights clearance service – materials published outside US – committed one FTE for that, and would include university press materials. See this for future rights clearance questions too? This is a first stab and let’s see where it goes. Accelerating work with the Press.

  • ARL E-Science Institute – Mike Furlough

Last fall ARL communicated with library deans and directors about how libraries will support science in the future. Decided to hold an institute to help bring librarians together to understand the issues and craft plans for their institutions. 75 schools signed up. Mike  participating as one of the faculty, with about 5 from other schools, planning work, and then leading discussions at capstone institute. Will have a team here participating, need to define what the team will do over six month project. Schools will form local teams to explore issues on their campuses and come to baseline understanding – strategic agenda for supporting digital research in the sciences going forward. Opportunity to lead by example on this. Great opportunity to come back with reorg discussion to think about how Content Stewardship intersects with public access areas such as science.

Will workshops be broadcast? Some will be webinars every six weeks or two months to lead into new module, readings on particular topics, etc.

Two folks from libraries and one person form another part of the institute – researchers, administrator, etc.

  • RDMST progress report  - Patricia

Research Data Management Service Team has been meeting biweekly since beginning of January, focusing on trying to formalize a process for responding to NSF DMP requirement. Half day retreat last week and discussed how to formalize the consultation process, for example, what should go in the initial email when we get a request, what to do with short notice, and also plan presentation for April 21 coffee conversation hour. Whole team will be introducing what services we will be providing and what subject specialists would like to see offered. See this as outreach within the UL. Going to be working on a roadmap for a program for next 6 – 9 months. Complementary to what the Data Curation WG will be doing. First consultation on Friday: met with faculty from Chemistry, proposal to fund education of undergrads who want to be science teachers.

  • DOT & DCRT updates – Bonnie, Sue/Kevin

Monthly meeting on Thursday: ContentDM 6 is out so planning migration to that. OCLC demoing it on Wed afternoon in I-Tech training room, DOT invited. Next, looking at the charge and expanding charge. Reviewing DCRT proposals. Looking at workflow for sending Internet Archive material to HathiTrust.

Bonnie:  finishing up DCRT proposal review. Meeting with CDC on Wednesday and prioritization next week. Working on marketing issues, group’s charge, and toolkit – should be ready by April 1st. Going to be making suggestions to charge.

Action item: Before next meeting, look at dependencies between projects – storage/eRecord, repository services and CAPS for example.


Next meeting: Monday, April 11, 3:30 – 5:00 p.m.

April 11th Meeting - Minutes: Dace Freivalds; Chair: Mike Furlough

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

CSC minutes for January 18th

 Before the main discussion about the CSC forum for the Libraries faculty and staff on Thursday, Linda Klimczyk and Mike Giarlo gave a brief update on the work that CAPS has done so far, focusing on the mock-up interface and the project team's daily status updates to discuss use cases and project deliverables.

Mairéad, Lisa, and Mike Furlough introduced their initial draft of the Thursday afternoon presentation about the content stewardship program. The presentation was divided into three parts:

1) the purpose of the content stewardship program;

2) the component groups of the content stewardship program;

3) the strategic goals of the content stewardship program.

Members of the Council gave recommendations throughout the discussion on what should be included and/or changed in the draft before it was presented publicly. Among the topics discussed were changing the name of the group to "Content Stewardship Council," without the "E," to communicate the holistic nature of the content managed by the program and because communities outside the Libraries will think of different things when they hear "content stewardship."

Other topics were focusing on the charges of various groups, how they are related, and the specific questions stakeholders may have and who the appropriate contact person or group would be for them. There was also discussion about refining language about the roles of each group to avoid confusion.

The main strategic goals outlined in the presentation are:

-          defining the program

-          developing publishing services

-          delivering collections

-          exploring data curation (new services and groups to handle planning, faculty/research institute outreach and collaboration, etc.)

-          building infrastructure

Sue Kellerman led a discussion on how much of what the content stewardship program is doing constitutes new initiatives, and how we are building on the several years' worth of work that's already been done in digitization at Penn State. This, combined with more efforts to alert people in the Libraries and throughout the university to work that's already been done and how we're continuously improving it, is what would be interesting to a broader audience.

This discussion led into the second part of the meeting, which was a larger discussion of CSC's priorities and strategic goals for the year and how we could go about meeting them. To do this, the committee assigned certain goals to two or three members of the group, and report-backs will be given on them throughout the year's CSC meetings.

Action Item: Mairéad wrote down the names for each goal and will send them to the group, as an aid in planning. Dace will provide a matrix for goals, deliverables, and timelines to the group as well.

The next meeting is February 14, and the action items are to come back to the group with delineated action items pursuant to each goal assigned to the folks in CSC. There will be more discussion of use cases at this meeting.  In the meantime, there were a few things that jumped out from the initial analyses, i.e. lots of reliance on the curator to handle lots of things.

final remarks from Mairéad – DLT got temporary funding for storage systems.  one-time funds so they need to be spent now. plans are still being made for what to do with it.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Econtent Stewardship Meeting
29 November 1530--1700

MF called the meeting to order. PHA took minutes.

I. CAPS. Mike Giarlo (see handout): MG introduced CAPS: Proposed web-based resources: to address needs not being met. Will offer variety of services in layers: repository (describe, store, add version; inventory, audit, etc.). Platform’s being dev.: Curation of Architecture Prototype Services project (CAPS). Propose to build: (1) CONTENT TYPE:  (audio, ETDs, newspapers, video, image, book, data, etc.); (2) APPLICATIONS: series of end-user web apps will handle different types of content. (3) MICROSERVICES: e.g., annotate, transfer, store, migrate, identify, version, inventory. (4) STORAGE.

Q. Lisa: How will this work with SUMMON? How will it work with Libraries web design?

A Mike G.: For prototype it will NOT integrate with SUMMON. Needs to eventually get there; not to compete with SUMMON but will be integrate.

Stakeholders’ commitment an hour per week.

Q. Mike: How much effort for those on project team?

A. Mike G. A lot of time commitment from a variety of staff.

Robin: Would like to see roles and time commitment clarified and spelled out.

Lisa G. “Go forth” but create a project plan.

The CAPS project does not need to go back to the group (ECSC) but should have feedback from project team, including a project plan with time commitments spelled out.

Q. Is e-record enough? Can we move forward “politically”?

Mike: Talking about building a lot in a short time Project plan will include priorities. Maybe erecords are “third.”

II. DOT Platform review (Sue Kellerman). Question today concerns ETD database. “Bear” to control  downstairs, but customers like it. More requests to add content to database. This is the question: what should we tell the folks waiting to add content?

MJF: Don’t want to risk losing functionality in the  meantime but need to make improvements. Does DOT have any particular ideas in mind?

KC review was to determine “next steps.” What dominated was the diff. between end users and their satisfaction with product vs the unstainable way the project currently exists.

Q. Lisa G.: Will CAPS eventually solve the problem of ETD? KC: Yes. MG: Yes, with custom code written for the “blue box.” Not in the prototype.

Q. What about the frontend? Little opportunity to get consistency on the front end.

Q. What if PSUL acquired a license from bepress (Berkeley Electronic Press)?

MM. Need to meet with colleges to get their requirements and try to accommodate their needs. Current system is risky. More content cannot be sustained. Evaluate existing tools that could help in this regard.

Bonnie: The anger of the people waiting was remarkable. Schreyer folks were very pleased, and the students think it was great.

MF we need to have this conversation quickly to help them (Bonnie’s folks) quickly.

SK: reconstitute committee that worked on Schreyer to get this back on track. MF to follow up on this and will need a few days.

KC: Waiting for new release of ContentDM but don’t know when things can be started. Priorities are in place.

III. KC (for Patricia). Phenology Database Group met with group of students that track events in nature that happen over time and making observations about climate change as it happens. They have a database, and can add data, but they have no way to sustain and archive their data. KC looked at their db structure and how it might relate. Who are their users, how to they expect to keep it going, what does data look like. Waiting for (1) sample of database. Have talked with other potential partners for pedagogical help in how the data is being used. Kevin observed absence of Patricia. Need to know metadata standards, are they being used in this context. How would it link up with other projects? They have a couple of years’ worth of data. Want to make it public for hobbyists, who can contribute to the project.  Need a host, infrastructure, and someone to manage the project. Currently in Excel. Looking for a web-based resource. As more people come to us, we’re learning a script to give them so we can direct them or show them a partner, depending on research, funding, etc.

MF (MM, MG) talked with ? to create a user consultant group that could serve the role of meeting with folks with data needs for campus based research. Kevin, Mike G. Cynthia Robinson, Dan Mack, et al. Look at NSF data requirements; what are service gaps, how can we help. What are potential pilot projects?

Another group in the making to look at universitywide needs. Commitment to do something, but it needs to be a large look at how this could take place.

MF Dec. 14. a presentation on communicating to campus what’s going on with data curation etc. in Foster with a view toward making the libraries’ services better known.

Christy Long

IV. Use cases. Not an actual work flow. Will divide into groups. Take the use case (with papercut outs) more than needed. Identify who it goes to, create workflow. Then do narrative as to how it works. Who approves? Look at the work of the previous group, add on, build on, and revise.


++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

ECSC meeting October 4 2010

Present: Kevin Clair, Mike Furlough, Patricia Hswe, Ann Holt, Rebecca Mugridge, Andrea Harrington, Sue Kellerman, Linda Friend, Albert Rozo, Lisa German, Mairéad Martin, Linda Klimczyk, Karen Schwentner, Barbara Dewey

Overview of Content Stewardship Program – Mairéad Martin
Long history of digitization efforts – Lisa led overview of slides on handout.
Hierarchy of groups today:
IT Strategies
↑ECSC
↑DOT, DCRT
This year ECSC spent time working out roles and worked through use cases to further define them.
The Content Stewardship Program is described in both the Libraries’ and DLT strategic plans with input on needs from discussions including library stakeholders, etc.
Mike presented a diagram of the program components (see handout). In thinking about a programmatic approach the most important thing is service development – those things that support our users. Partnerships between different groups are critical to our success in piloting and launching new services.

Five Goals of ECSC
All information from the retreat and inventory of everything in the pipeline was analyzed to formulate goals.
Goals (also in handout.) Additional points from discussion below:
1. Define the Program ( use cases/workflow, marketing plan, collaboration: MetaArchive, Data Cure, CDL, Hathi Trust, National Dig. Stewardship Alliance, and more)
Next steps – wider engagement with collaborators in library (subject librarians), ITS, faculty and researchers on informal publishing (blogs/wikis), user services: presenting service to user in ways that it is accessible and will help us promote services.
2. Develop infrastructure
a. Close gap between applications, user and infrastructure.
b. Platform review available on wiki. (Olive, DPubs, CONTENTdm, ETDs)
c. Discussion of history – archival storage underground and inventory of what we’ve done and where it is.
d. Policy around storage will benefit PSU as a whole.
3. Services to support publishing
We have several services now such as ETDs. If we want to grow it to open access deposit, etc. we need to grow the infrastructure. Platform review was critical. Now develop requirements. Several projects will help us to answer what this needs to look like.
4. Digital collections
Digital Collections Review Team – representative group. Call for projects annually. Now we are talking about being more strategic about what we are seeking or accepting. We need to play more to our strengths. Assessment plan will be developed. Moving forward how do we link the existence of these to students’ success? How does this tie in with what we buy and license?
DOT: Digital Operations Team. The change between DTAG and DOT is moving from operations to operations plus assessment, usability, ongoing maintenance and planning. Members of DOT are part of DCRT and meet with proposers during request phase of each project.
5. Data curation roles and services
Typically defined as research data but we also include University business records. We have functional requirements for these business records. These requirements being used in Micro Services test bed. A question is the scope of what we will do across the university as a service. We will collaborate with other institutions already doing this. Dean Dewey is thinking of this in terms of mapping what is happening now in the field, at PSU and from user point of view as a seamless service. Even if we start small we will satisfy some needs. Office of Research and the Graduate School are key partners. IST has great faculty expertise. Various research centers emerging. Dean Dewey feels that PSU can be a leader in the suite of services related to content stewardship.

Our history is to manage digital projects through collaboration between disparate units rather than from a centralized unit. One of our challenges has been getting our own house in order in terms of collaboration between the multiple library units before we figure out how to collaborate externally through the University.

These services are not an add on but core to our future. Dean Dewey feels that we’ve done important groundwork over the last year that will help us in moving forward.

Report from DOT discussion on platform review - Kevin
Analysis of what DOT should be doing moving forward:
• Newer initiatives that DOT is involved with external to digital collection building (e.g., Summon and Hathi Trust)
• Maintaining and enhancing existing products and services (Usability, interface)
• How visible should DOT be compared to ECSC and what level of contact should they have with customers?
• Cleaning own house – what they know they can do, taking greater advantage of resources already available on current platforms, identify who can do what and who can be trained to ensure backups
• DCRT vetting of proposals year long – not most agile of approaches. We will need to be more agile than this when we begin accepting research data.
Dean Dewey – if you have standards in place that will help you to decide what comes in.
We do that pretty well now but moving things from the pipeline (especially those that we did not create) needs to be better organized and more agile. Workflows that we have are bound to systems already in place. Research data doesn’t necessarily apply to these systems.

Follow up discussion on DOT:
Internal communication issues – how do I find out about my project, who do I ask for what? People don’t know what our acronyms are. The Marketing group will put something together this Fall to help inform the library audience of what is going on internally.
External marketing – what do we call these things (suite of services/repository)… this is needed for people to understand what we are offering.

Most important questions to have answered and next steps for DOT post platform review?
Kevin: Who are the users and what services do they want? DOT would like some policy decisions on what services they should provide vs. the long list of services that they could provide.
Sue – go through platform review and find out what we could be doing and come back with recommendations.
Kevin: knowing what ECSC’s long term priorities (types of content, scale, etc.) are in next few years will help DOT build strengths and proficiencies to meet those.

Angela Totolo from Botswana works on digital scholarship and publishing. She’ll be visiting us and some have been invited to join this meeting. Mike will be setting up additional informational meetings as well.

Conferences/meetings
Ithaca Sustainability Meeting:
Hybrid JSTOR and here is our product line
Working on ways of expanding out services. Two or three projects that are primary resource projects (e.g., auction catalogs from Frick and Met libraries). Mike points this out because it means that JSTOR may be interested in working with libraries with collections that have widespread value.
Discoverability of digital collections
Google – different kinds of search. We do a lot with mechanics of searching but not so much helping people to become better searcher.
One presenter, a librarian, presented on what students do and don’t know how to do with searching. It would be interesting to have him come here and present that.
Upcoming reports:
Charleston
DLF
EDUCAUSE
DublinCore
MetaArchive
ASIST Assessing research data needs
Hathi Trust meeting

Action items:
DOT continues platform review, specific recommendations and ECSC comes up with action items. Leaders provide framework for DOT
Send platform to dean

Agenda for next meeting: Continue conversation on services that we provide. DLT will also provide recommendations based on the platform review.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Meeting Minutes
August 2, 2010
Chairs - Mike F., Mairéad, Lisa
Notes - Mike G. and Patricia

I. Introductions and discussion of program/role of the group

II. Background/intro for Mark Phillips (Mike Giarlo)

  • working in libs since 2003
  • now Assistant Dean at UNT Libraries
  • UNT - model of efficiency - in 1 1/2 years, brought up fully-compliant OAIS repository
  • strategic stuff - org perspective (what has worked, what hasn't?), committee structure
III. Mark Phillips on what UNT Libraries have done
  • model library of type: research institution only for past 40 years, collecting as research library for past 20-30 yrs. University is only 100 years old.
  • how to build a library when you don't have many years of experience?
  • in order for us to meet mission (provide resources to faculty and students), had to think differently about how we build collections
  • plus: no legacy of digital programs, lot of infrastructure not in place
  • context: had lots of small projects with their own ideas of what standards should be, metadata standards - had varying levels of success
  • head of library: pushed idea of one centralized workflow, infrastructure for preserving and providing access to all of our content
  • in 2002, received some state funds to investigate how to do this
    • also centralized all digitization activities - digital projects unit
    • took on all scanning responsibilities
    • setting standards for digitiz output
    • took on responsiblity for setting standard of what metadata should look like
    • institution wanted to outsource things like the above
  • wanted some level of consistent services on top of the above
  • had Digitization Interest Group but no funding to digitize materials - was dissolved
  • tried to figure out what to do/how to do, while building statewide partnerships across TX for building digital collections
  • now have robust workflow for digitizing content, born-digital content
  • focused on what kind of content do we want to bring into the library (what's not represented well in terms of formats, what needs to be preserved)
  • now in process of giving back some capabilities to individual units - so they can have a little more control - almost as if they are vendors to digital library unit (because of expectations of standards)
  • how do we take some of the collections budget and apply toward digitization budget?
  • recognition that collecting digital content and moving that forward is part of being a modern research library (should already be doing it - needs same sort of engagement that traditional processes were given)
  • trying to get everybody else energized in something they may not be involved in as much as others
  • although UNT has a library school, and TWU has one, too, not too much collaboration between library and library schools
  • outreach to faculty at UNT (from libraries) - new dean, Martin Halbert. Now big discussion about a mandatory depositor of all peer-reviewed articles within UNT DL and possibility of open access repository. So, now outreach to faculty has to be figured out.
  • big state of flux - figuring out how librarians do liaising with faculty
  • used to push collection budget to faculty members and their departments and now started to pull that back and try to understand where those funds are going (what types of collection materials)
  • library's been asking faculty to give them all their stuff, and now they're starting to (tied to promotion and tenure)
  • UNT - is at stage of accepting what faculty have and want to put online
    • Bonnie noted that at PSU we're not going out to teaching faculty at this point - projects come to us via library faculty and staff
  • Portal for Texas History - used as vehicle to fund infrastructure development, collaborative of 40+ institutions with K-12 focus,
  • model that UNT has set up with lots of content types, foci, partners - good model for reaching out to faculty
    • There tend to be two types: give fac specs and some will give you back standard form; others just want you to do it
  • UNT has generic way of dealing with variety of content types - here's our audio, video, photographs . . . and here's how we deliver something of x content type
  • library isn't really good judge of what is useful or what will be useful - so strangest content that we think is really bizarre and not useful is the one that gets used
  • we need someone in library to whom to funnel questions about IP rights
  • kinds of use cases: converting access to spreadsheet (vetting issues)
  • content vetting - never going to be able to understand what's good/useful and bad/not useful.
    • Mike F. noted that here at PSU the collections budget could be thought of as source for digitization (creation of collection content)
  • UNT - how do we treat web as possible content source? how do you justify that with collection devlopment budget?

IV. ECSC Priorities

  • Everyone received the "ECSC Priorities" document.
  • The council is to take a look at the activities on goals and tactics sheet. Are they realistic? How can we use some of these to solve other problems? How will we get these things underway?

V. MetaArchive (report from Mike G.)

  • slow-going, planning CURATEcamp has taken a lot more time
  • struggling how to make it a team activity
  • list all decisions that need to be made between now and implementation, hardware specs, new roles to be filled

VI. Curation microservices pilot (Mike G.) - can these work for us in terms of what we define as curation?

  • use cases gathered
  • how do these use cases map to microservices?
  • once we have list of microservices that look like they apply to curation, then do gap analysis
  • also gathering sample data sets, put them on server, curate via microservices

VII. Horowitz Archive - update

  • waiting for rest of collection from OCLC

VIII. Open Repositories (Mike G.)

  • DuraSpace
  • Release of DSpace with Fedora inside
  • Birds of a Feather session - Delphine Khanna, Stephen Abrams and Mike - talked about governance of microcuration services - CDL wants their specs to be used, pushed out
  • Specs have been taken up by the community

IX. Communication group

  • still need elevator speech, set of slides, blog
  • convene communications group to decide who should post/what should be posted

X. Use Cases

  • need to do one more session

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ECSC
July 7, 2010
Meeting Minutes

Attendees: Patrick Alexander, Kevin Clair, Dace Freivalds, Linda Friend, Mike Furlough, Lisa German, Andrea Harrington, Patricia Hswe, Linda Klimczyk, Sue Kellerman (recorder), Christy Long, Mairead Martin (chair), Bonnie Osif, Albert Rozo

Mairead provided an overview of the committee’s work to date including the communication plan and the development of long and near-term plans. Also mentioned were upcoming DOT projects, microservices discussions and MetaArchive. Project privatization has not yet been discussed.

Lisa provided an update on the communication plan. The three areas of the plan include: 1) the message; what is the message? 2) develop a virtual “elevator’s speech; see drafts written from our Retreat 3) determine other modes of communication such as blogs, creating a generic slide set, other presentation materials. Possible audiences would include ITS, Press, CIC, CNI, and ARL. The outcome of this communications plan would be to highlight collections, reach donors, increased use of collections by faculty, etc.

Linda F. noted that she joined the Libraries Marketing Committee and will represent ODSP, the Press and ECSC. Linda also noted that the Inreach/Outreach group which she and Dan Mack are co-chairing will raise awareness of Open Access Week this fall (the week of October 17th).

Action: Include the ECSC minutes link in the Libraries Newsletter.
Action: A timeline for the Communications Plan will be presented at the next ECSC meeting in August for discussion.

Other ESCS updates:

Mairead mentioned that the service framework for distributed digital preservation repository subcommittee met.

Mike F. informed the group that two OCLC consultant will be visiting the Libraries in mid-July to learn about our digitization service model. The University Libraries is one of six institutions that they will be visiting. Mike also mentioned that the DCRT Review is soon to begin. Lisa and Mike will be conducting the review.

Lisa shared that the budget discussions will be held next week. The top three priorities for the year are the Knowledge Commons, the implementation of the Discovery System and the Content Stewardship Program. Budgets for each of these priorities will be set as well as budget allocations for the proposed digital projects.

Results of use cases: See ECSC minutes of June 4th. From the use case exercises it was apparent that roles/responsibilities are not clearly understood. Also questions on levels of authority, communications (how we do it and workflow from group to group), the role of the project manager, process management, how are projects prioritized and which group does this, and questions about individuals vs. role of the group exist.
Patrick shared his perspective from the Press about how important it is to set standards and roles and responsibilities; levels of authority – who has “say-so”.

Next step of use cases: 1) need a session to answer questions already identified from previous two use cases; 2) explore different service needs including what services can we provide and ask users what they need. It was also suggested that we do another use case exercise. Action – Schedule another meeting for use cases. Ask Christy to facilitate.

Platform review – Patricia reported that the review is nearly completed. Action – Report out at next ECSC meeting.

Curation Microservices Pilot Project – Patricia updated the group reporting that recent activities for the project included securing server space, collecting data sets and developing use cases.

DataCure – Patricia provided an update on the research data project that she and Mike G. participated on as external collaborators. Data curators, data research scientists and data services librarians from the University of Oregon, Purdue, Georgia Tech, Cornell and Penn State participated in a conference call to discuss researchers’ data practices and data-related needs. The group plans to collect data on data practices, interview faculty and document findings by the end of August.

MetaArchive Implementation – Mike G. reported that he is working on the MetaArchive wiki which will document implementation steps, a timeline and roles and responsibilities. (Update: see - https://wikispaces.psu.edu/display/contentstwdship/MetaArchive+Implementation+Hot+Team)

CURATEcamp 2010 – Mike G. reported on this unconference on curation microservices to be held at UC-Berkeley, August 16-17. Penn State’s DLT and the California Digital Library are sponsors. Linda K., Patricia, Mairead and Mike G. will be attending. It was also announced that Penn State’s and UC-San Diego’s IDCC10 proposal for a full-day workshop on digital curation tools has been accepted.

Announcements:

Barbara Dewey and Patrick Alexander attended the AAUP and ARL meeting on August 26th. AAUP reconstituted a group on library relations; Patrick was asked to chair. This group will tackle issues relating to building better relationships between libraries and presses.

Linda F. will be attending the ACRL Scholarly Communications 101 Roadshow at Lehigh University, August 6th. Let Linda know if you are interested in attending.

Kevin noted that he would be attending the 3rd annual Eastern CONTENTdm Users Group meeting on August 4th – 6th at the U.S. Military Academy Library, West Point, NY.

Mike F. shared that the Libraries and six other institutions (University of North Texas, Virginia Tech, University of Utah, Georgia Tech, Boston College and Clemson) submitted a NEH grant application, Chronicles in Preservation, to develop collaborative best practices for the preservation of digitized and born-digital newspaper content. Mike agreed to share the grant narrative.

Patrick and Mike F. attended Data Curation and Publishing conference and workshop. Few publishers attended; got UK take on thesis issues. Patrick and Mike presented on libraries and presses and specifically the German Broadsides project.

Mike G. alerted the group that Mark Phillips, University of North Texas will be a guest at the next ECSC meeting.

Sue reported that the Libraries received its second NEH grant to digitize additional key Pennsylvania newspapers as part of the National Digital Newspaper Program.

Next Meeting: Monday, August 2, 3:30-5:00 p.m.
August 2nd Minutes: Mike Giarlo; Chair: Mike Furlough

 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

ECSC
June 21, 2010
Meeting Minutes

Attendees: Albert, Bonnie, Christy, Dace, Kevin, Linda F., Lisa, Mike G., Patricia (who took notes)

Order of business
  • Continuation of use case discussion - all attendees
  • Vetting decision for curation mircoservices proof-of-concept project (last 5 minutes of meeting) - Mike G.

h5. Use Case DiscussionKevin's use case: A librarian is interested in creating a map-based digital entry point 
for a collection. They require support from Cataloging and Metadata 
Services to create authorized geographic headings and associated 
point-coordinate metadata in the record, and support from I-Tech to 
develop an interface, including an online map entry point (Google or 
otherwise) to display the locations associated with items in the collection.
(Left out all the space-age linked data stuff even though I'd probably 
insist on bringing it up if someone presented this to us.)

1.  What's different about this project/activity/request now that we have a program?
- know whom to consult (metadata lib, subject lib, curator)
- enhancement of what we have
- changing expectations of our customers
- more people involved than just 1 or 2 folks
- creation of template that could be plugged into a variety of projects
- existence of portfolio management (i.e., having a process), which will track people involved, resource allocation, etc.

2.  What is ECSC's role?
- oversight - most of work could be done by process manager and DOT
- vetting group

[Pause to define process management - about bringing sense of process to various aspects of a project (includes how are we record changes for change management), essentially an approach to tracking interconnected tasks/activities for gains in efficiency and effectiveness.]

3. What is DOT's role?
- managing the project and allocating resources to it . . .
[Lisa raised question of what does "resource allocation" mean?  In terms of people already in DOT?  (DOT members see it as allocation of their time WRT to their roles.)  Or at higher level?
Mike commented that there is a decision-making aspect to the resource question - maybe not allocation, per se, but deciding whether something can happen, or not (such as server storage needs).]

4. What is DCRT's role? 
From collections and strategic plan point of view:  Personnel allocation, if necessary.

5.  IT's strategies role? 
Probably none.

6.  ITCC's (IT coordination and communication) role?
Probably none.

7. Architect's role?
- Software, systems analysis, tech arch perspective - serving as a consultant in this area

8.  Curator's role? 
- looking at content and usability of content
- ongoing assessment
- keep track of discovery and access
- strive for consistency in how digital entry point and digital collections are presented/represented

9. What is the process manager's role?
Linda/Andrea (who work on process management): making sure it goes through project request process, request > portfolio > ________, documentation (noting changes, too, that are related to the process)

10. Which vetting group gets the request? 
- ECSC
- DCRT if it's a collection. If it's a one-off, hand to DCRT. Does it go to Preservation? or DOT?
*This is where clarification is needed.
*Need a flowchart.
May just go to DOT, or to Cataloging
*Confusion. Need process.
Need a single entry point. We do have a request form.

11. Who shepherds the request through the process? 
- DCRT up to a point
- Project Manager shepherds it through
[Question: What documentation does every project need? Charter? Define "project."]

12. What criteria are used to make approval decisions? (And what does "approval" mean?)
- Is it strategic?
- re resources available actually to do this? When will resources be available? DCRT has a lot of great criteria for this already.
- Support at different levels - "support" meaning support of your supervisor, all the way up to strong upper-level support. Even if a small project, you'd still need support of your local unit.  Support needed all the way up through the chain.
- If big enough, might need to be a part of someone's work plan.

13. Who develops the charter?
- Project manager, in consultation with stakeholders
- Does every project need a charter? If project takes longer than a week, perhaps not.

14. Who leads the project?
- Project manager - *may vary* who this person is.
- Also could be someone's assignment: stakeholder might lead it (someone from cataloging, I-Tech for interface piece), someone who's local expert

15. Who communicates up, out . . .
- Project manager - especially with stakeholders.
When something clears DCRT, they let them know proposed project has moved up - so, DCRT and any other committee through which it flows.
If project is deferred or denied, then person needs clarification/answer as to why, so they can improve their proposal (could be something as straightforward as copyright issue).


Patricia's best practices/consultation use case: Librarian Smith, a subject expert in geography, emails Librarian Brown asking about any procedures or policies in place for dealing with miscellaneous digital content, such as digitized images (scanned on demand) and course reserve materials that aren't easily categorizable. She notes this content is on both physical media and on a server.

1.  What's different about this project/activity/request now that we have a program?
- centralized spot where you can go for best practices recommendations - i.e., a wiki
- utilize a template, process
- would know who to consult
- retention policy for scanned-on-demand materials (policy for new software, migration, specifications)
- there would be a wiki that lays out standards/best practices for scanning
- there'd be an inventory/db for tracking what gets scanned, what is put on reserve (D&P does some of this already - good for other units to know, also for repurposing what has been scanned and stored)

[Note:We stopped here with this use case.]

Vetting decision for curation microservices pilot project

Mike G. talked about the proof-of-concept curation microservices project for ECSC to vet. Question is how do we vet this via ECSC?
Lisa asked:
- Is it strategic? Yes.
- Are there resources available? Mike G. and Patricia H. have supervisor's OKs.
- Is there any new content? No, so a question of collection management.
Since ECSC is a sponsor, the pilot project team will need to report every month or so on its progress.
Outcome: Project can go forth.

 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

ECSC Draft Minutes 4 June 2010

ECSC Minutes - draft

June 4, 2010

9:30 a.m. – 11:00 a.m.

510A Paterno Library  Minutes: Linda Friend

Chair: Mike Furlough 

Attachments included the agenda, an updated priorities list from Mairead, a one page summary of The Center for Research Ethics in the Sciences and Engineering, and the description of the MetaArchive Implementation Hot Team.

REPORTS Platform Review & Service Framework Discussions - Patricia and Mike G. (5 minutes)
 Patricia and Mike G. have collected all the data and will be working on the report content in June.
Mike G. noted the National Library of Australia’s Framework for providing business services.  It is based in service oriented architecture and they looked at all the services they provide in a systems sense.  Mairead thought it would be good to examine this process so a group gathered at the end of May to go through the document and picked a few service categories, using CONTENTdm as the example (Mairead, Albert, Linda K., Michelle Beldin sp?), Patricia, Mike G., Kevin.)  They are meeting again in a week.

Conference and Travel Reports - Patricia, Mike F, others (10-15)
Mike F. went to Purdue on way to the CIC conference in May.  He met Scott Brandt, the Associate Dean for Libraries, who has been working with digital curation, as well as the director of the Press and a few others  They have been doing a lot of contacts with researchers in the sciences.  They don’t have a production level repository service but hope to have by the end of summer.and engage themon the science side.  Imls 7 iuc on data profiling emerging from structured interviews – data, formats, amount, how others could use.  Extend as a genqrlizable model for service planning.  They do not have a prod level repos service – maybe prod by end o summer for such. Purdue’s approach came “from the top” – the library dean met with other deans,  department heads and data was the primary topic they heard about.  Mike will send us information on their data profiling.info on data profiles.  Mike Giarlo mentioned he said he met with ITS assessor who analyze IT opportunities at Penn state, and also met with SSRI, where data is also an issue.   A lot of mixing up and integration of personal data with other data is the common rule.

Patricia went to NC Chapel Hill for the recent Digital Curation Institute, where they crammed a semester of work into a week.   There was hands-on work and she came back with useful documentation but felt that networking with the range of participants was the best part, since they were doing different kinds of things including archives, repository coordinators and people wanting to start repositories.  The next session is 1/6/2011 and she, Dan Coughlin and Mike Giarlo are  collaborating on a proof of concept project

Lisa is attending the RLG Partnership Meeting in Chicago and there should be some interesting sessions available for re-broadcast.  The Friday symposium is about access to research collections and she plans to blog about it.

Mike Giarlo is going to Madrid in July for a conference and is participating in a session on digital curation.  In August, he will be in Berkeley for a curation-themed panel.

Rebecca noted that there are  a lot of ALA/ALCTS  programs of interest to us and will share the schedule.  Kevin Clair is speaking Saturday morning. 

Bonnie Osif is attending SLA in June.

MetaArchive Hot Team charge - Mike F, Mike G, Sue (5)*
The charge for a new MetaArchive team was attached to agenda.  The Archive is now working on a broader range of content and allows interaction with digital preservation in other parts of the country.  They have met once and Mike Giarlo feels the documentation is pretty impressive, with rules, order, timelines, etc.  The new group expects to meet again soon and regularly.

ResearchEthicsHUB.org / The Center for Research Ethics in the Sciences and Engineering - Mike F (5)*
The Rock Ethics Institute (Nancy Tuana) approached the Libraries about 6 weeks ago to partner on a grant proposal for an online research center.  The grant was submitted to NSF this week and is requesting $5 million over five years. A sample web page and explanation is available at  researchethicshub.org .

It is designed to have three components – an archive repository for grants results; two peer reviewed products: an encyclopedia of research ethics to provide consistent source material and a new peer reviewed journal of instructional modules. Staff will be hired to support each module, including instructional designers 5 million over 5 years.   For the technology to do the work, it will be contracted out to hubzero at Purdue, which has generalized nanotechnology research – this would be firs non-science initiative to use it.  The money might be available by the end of 2010.

Mike has a clean copy of proposal and will send around the narrative.  Libraries/DLT staff who will be senior personnel on the grant also include Mairead, Mike G., and Patricia.  Look at nanopub.org for an example; researchhub.org is also live with an interface but no functionality.

RETREAT FOLLOW-UPSCommunications - Lisa (10 minutes)
Lisa shared a list of communication ideas from the subgroup who met twice post-retreat.  She noted the importance of everyone having a similar “elevator speech” about our content stewardship program when talking to colleagues.
Mike G. brought us his concept for a blog.  He’s been looking for good examples of collaborative blogs and requirements, including:

1.       Updated frequently. Commitments from people to post.  Cover breadth of program.  Maybe a rotating editor to coordinate submissions.

2.       Audience is informational, i.e.one channel

3.       Having a generic slide set would be useful so we can recycle. Baseline descriptive info is useful too.

Need to develop short-and longer-term priorities when we do the group’s plan.

Lisa and Mairead may “step back” so that the communication group has more possibilities of finding meeting times. 

Other items from the retreat:

1. Budget?

-There is some funding to ITS from the University for stewardship

- Can there be some $$ for appropriate conference travel?

2. Is the wiki working as a communication medium for ECSC?

3. Meeting minutes, agenda, action items.  Link in interview desirable.  Decisions made and action items will appear in minutes.

4. Suggestion for a 5 minute update from operations at each meeting; Kevin agrees. How we commas a group – 5 min update from operations at each meeting – Kevin says fine.


Need short term and long term actions when we do the plan (i.e. timeline).
Major priorities - Mike F & Lisa (15-20)*
--see attached for a working draft [discussion was  postponed in order to get to use cases.]
Handout includes goals of: Defining the Program; Clarifying and/or developing a collection development policy for PSU-owned digital content; Revamping ODSP to provide a high-visibility service for the Penn state community; Explore new roles for the Libraries and ITS in data curation for the University

Use cases discussion - Christy  (30-45 minutes)
 -Dace & Kevin - spatial data
 -Linda F & Bonnie - DCRT digitization
 -Patricia - best practices

Christy led the discussion of the first use case, using a list of questions tailored to technology needs. Outcomes would be to identify service gaps, roles and responsibilities, and service management.

1.       What's different about this project/activity/request now that we have a program?

-          Already have 2 customers – habits/process in place – will need to review communication & monitor expectations.

-          Have a portfolio process and know most of the consultant roles

It is not in isolation in relation to other activities and there is a greater chance of alignment with other activities – not an island.

2.  What is ECSC's role?

- What other data etc. do we need to move this to the next platform – reduce, reuse, recycle
- Keeping an eye on potential connections with similar project needs Vetting group

Oversight?

- Vetting group?

- Approval, communication, teamwork.

 

3. What is DOT's role?
- Managing the project

- Proposing resource allocation

- During review- compare old system to new system

- Platform/software recommendation?

- Prototype and testing

- Standardized formats assurance

4. What is DCRT's role? 
- *could* look at any implications around collections

-potentially communicates info needed by users in general.

 

5.  IT Strategies role? 
Probably none.

 

6.  ITCC's (IT coordination and communication) role?
- Recommend final approval

- Resource allocation

- Final/semi-final  approvals – decide among options for spending money and human resources

7. Architect's role?

- Develop standards

- investigate options

- Systems analysis and design leadership

- Balancing resources with platform requirements
- Consultation on technical architecture and relation to other systems,  software, systems analysis.

8.  Curator's role? 
- looking at content and usability of content
- Format types – standards, definition

- Reporting out to various customers/colleges on what our standards are.

- Communication

- Analyzing the content workflow in systems we’re looking at

- Usability

- Integration with other projects

- Assessment

- “Integration”

 

9. What is the process manager's role?

Kevin asked for a better definition (will save for discussion next session)

-          Is this beyond what DOT already does?

-          Andrea and Linda K.?

-          Dept heads?

 

10. Which vetting group gets the request? 
- ECSC

- DOT
[Lisa noted that we have dissertations in many formats – U. Wisconsin wants Google to digitize all their dissertations; this is a perfect use case – how to make decision if a major company is willing to digitize them]

 

11. Who shepherds the request through the process? 

- DOT, communication with DOT?

– idea of one person assigned for every project.

-There will also likely be a client representative, possibly a different person such as a subject specialist (e.g. Linda F. for ETDs)

- don’t want to forget role of the client: Bonnie noted that the customers really know what is needed – can’t dictate but they look to us for guidance (Schreyer) 

 

12. What criteria are used to make approval decisions? (And what does "approval" mean? – need a better definition)
Funding; personnel; storage; technology; Is it flexible enough to use for something else?; service, flexibility; interoperability and integration.

For every project, is this appropriate for what we do?  (Libs not good at saying no.)

Fits in with mission and strategic plan.

13. Who develops the charter?
This group? Including the project leader?

14. Who leads the project?

- project leader?

15. Who communicates up, out . . .
- Everyone, with a consistent message appropriate to your responsibilities, e.g. the primary liaison.

 

Conclusion

Evaluate the session on a post-it note and give to Christy.  We will try to schedule a lunch meeting to do more use cases.

 

Next Meeting: Wednesday, July 7, 3:30-5:00 p.m.

July 7th  Minutes: Sue Kellerman; Chair: Mairéad Martin 

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

ECSC
May 7, 2010
Minutes

Attendees: Kevin Clair, Dace Freivalds, Linda Friend, Mike Furlough, Lisa German, Mike Giarlo, Andrea Harrington, Patricia Hswe, Christy Long, Mairead Martin, Rebecca Mugridge (recorder)

1. Report on the ASIS&T Research Data Access & Preservation Summit. Mike reported that iRODS (Integrated Rule-Oriented Data Systems) was a major topic of discussion. Mike is now participating in monthly conference calls of an ad hoc data curation group consissting of various academic institutions including Purdue, Oregon, etc. The group will be proposing a paper for IDCC. He also reported that the consensus was that there are three problems areas  -- (1) how to involve researchers in curation, (2) how easy can you make the process of depositing data, and (3) the research community is realizing that there is a difference between preservation and curation.

2. Report on progress on the platform review. Mike and Patricia reported that they are close to finishing the user interviews. They will draft a report and share it with ECSC and DOT. They hope to complete the draft report by the end of May, and the final report in June. It will include an executive summary and a matrix based on the 24 criteria they used in their analysis.

3. IDCC 2010 proposal for practice track paper. Patricia reported that she is putting together a proposal about how we're trying to put digital curation into practice. She will include information on the platform review and the challenges of digital curation.

4. Hiring of graduate assistant for 2010/2011. Patricia reported that there were three candidates for the graduate assistant position; the successful applicant is Ann Holt, a doctoral student who is familiar with archives and who has experience working with patrons.

5. Review notes from the retreat and discuss next steps. Take aways from the retreat are:

  • Dace: really important to flush out elevator speech
  • Andrea: cohesive view of the program; holistic portfolio
  • Rebecca: talked a lot about communication; we need a long-term communciation plan
  • Linda: building blocks are in place
  • Mike G.: additional clarification of roles, use project and walk it through idea phase to being done
  • Mike F.: need to be able to articulate what we do in the next 12-18 months, will give us more direction
  • Patricia: data curation profiles would help us going forward
  • Lisa: perhaps ECSC should develop a budget request
  • Mairead: we need to include ITS in our planning; strategic thinking
  • Christy: technical role; expectations

Next steps:

  • Develop a communication plan
  • Conduct a use cases analysis; this would help with communication, roles/responsibilities
  • Develop a tactical plan covering the next 12-18 months
  • Develop a budget; Identify resources

Outcomes of the use cases analysis should be:

  • roles/responsibilities
  • communications
  • possible service gaps
  • resource management
  • assessment

Possible use cases:

  • DCRT digitization: which one? - Linda/Bonnie
  • Platform choice - Mairead
  • Spatial data - Dace/Kevin
  • Best practices/consultation - Patricia

Action items:

  • Mairead, Mike, Lisa - priorities
  • Communications group -- Andrea, Mairead, Linda, Mike, Christy, Rebecca, Patricia.

Three subgroups have been formed:

  • Communications - Andrea, Mairead, Linda, Mike, Christy, Rebecca.
  • Priorities - Mairead, Mike, Lisa
  • Andrea and Linda K. -- Portfolio

6. Ground rules for work and meeting. Lisa distributed a list of "ground rules" for how we manage ourselves. They include:

  • Make every effort to attend meetings and be on time.
  • Listen to and show respect for the opinions of others.
  • Send out calls for agendas to team members before meetings.
  • Send out agendas and documentation to team members before meetings.
  • Follow the agenda and stay on track.
  • Think of the good of the whole rather than the good of the self.
  • Document work of the committee.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

E-Content Stewardship Council
April 9, 2010
Minutes

Attending: Alexander, Friend, Freivalds, Furlough (chair), Harrington, Hswe, Mugridge, Osif

Not present: Martin, German, Giarlo, Kellerman

1. Platform Review - Patricia

Interviews projected to be completed at the end of April; currently interviewing external users of the products.Notes from the interviews will be sent to interviewees for doublechecking of accuracy. Patricia and Mike G. will use an analysis matrix based on one done at Purdue to better compare data across platform.s teh final reprot is expected at the end of May 2010, and will include next steps.

Patrick suggested ECSC consider watching the SSP/AAUP Web Seminar: Understanding Digital Natives: How Does Academic Publishing Need to Change to Serve Tomorrow's Scholars?

2. PaLA and Other Presentation Opportunities - Bonnie, Patricia

• Bonnie recommended that we publicize othe DCRT process and our digital curation efforts by presenting at the 2010 PaLA conference to be held Oct. 24 - 27 in Lancaster, PA. The deadline for submitting proposals is April 18.ECSC supports this recommendation. Mike F. reported that Nancy Eaton met with the PA State Library, Free Library, and Carnegie Library of Pittsburgh, and all agreed for need to do more marketing of digital collections.

Action Items:

  • Bonnie will pursue a PaLA presentation on the DCRT process with DCRT and DOT.
  • Patricia will prepare and share a proposal on how we put digital curation into practice for 2010 International Digital Curation Conference (Chicago, IL). She would be happy to have co-presenters.
  • Patricia will submit a proposal on digital curation  for the ACRL 2011 (Philadelphia, PA)

• Linda's proposal has been accepted for thETD 2010, to be held in Austin, TX in June 2010.

• Patrick will chair a newly formed AAUP committee on library operations.

3. Continuing FRBR Conversation - Dace

At the end of a webinar on FRBR by Barbara Tillett of the Library of Congress, there was cosniderable interest in an ongoing conversation re FRBR, RFD, RDA, etc. and Lisa suggested that this be brought up at ECSC. The group agreed that we need to keep FRBR concepts in mind as we determine metadata structures. Visual reosurce folks ahve similar needs. Discussion ensued obut how best to cite digital reosurces.

Action Item:

  • ECSC will fold this into a broader discussion on outreach and education for UL staff re digital curation issues, FRBR, RFD, etc.

4. ODSP Planning - Mike, Patrick

Mike and Patrick have been having conversations re Press and UL expectations, skill sets, etc. for schoalrly publishing, and how this leads to different ways of supporting the University. Patrick reviewed the process for genrating digital versions of the Press's frontlists and backlist, and each presents its unique problems. One issue for backlists is the need to rekey backfiles in order to generate XML files (OCR has not been shown to be a viable option). Ideeally, the Press would like to produce the digital version simultaneously with (or even before) the priont version. The Press is explorign process changes. One service UL could offer to tehPress is archiving guidance.

Action Item:

  • Mike F. and Patrick will prepare a program statement to layout a contimuum of service for ODSP. They will start by laying out a set of services around conference proceedings, and then will review what we can deliver.

5. Retreat Planning Update - Linda

Retreat planning comittee will meet the week of April 12 to finalize agenda. Barbara Sherlock, Office of Planning and Instituional Assessment, will facilitate the retreat.

6. Project Process

Andrea distributed list of ECSC projects that are currently in the potfolio. She needs inout on how to code the projects (i.e., ECSC, ODSP, etc.) All should bve tagged with ECSC as the vetting group. New fields such as "Ongoing" may be added.

Mike distributed the list of 2010/11 projects. need to be inclusive in decision making re priorities, e.g., collection dvelopment staff should be included. DLT needs a way to predict storage needs.

ECSC agreed that new project requests such as that for the development of the EFNEP (Expanded Food and Nutrition Education Program) AgNIC site should come to ECSC.

Action Items:

  • Mike F. will ask DOT to look at the ECSC project protfolio.
  • Andrea will update the portfolio file and send it to ECSC for review.
  • Dace will move the EFNEP Agnic site development into the planning stage.

E-Content Stewardship Counci

March 15, 2010
Minutes

Attending: Furlough (chair),  Kellerman, Friend, Hswe, Harrington, Osif, Freivalds, Clair (for Mugridge), German (phone) Martin (minutes)

Not present: Mugridge, Giarlo

1. Mid-term report on the e-content delivery platform review project – Mike G./Patricia

Currently in the midst of conducting user interviews, finished demo sessions including two demos for ContentDM 4 and 5.2. See attachment for notes on DPubs and Olive (Mike G.) and ETDs and ContentDM (Patricia).
ETDs completed all but one user interview. Some issues that have emerged: One issue is that it doesn't have an extensible workflow, different one for SHC and Grad School. Gaps in design - submitter can't submit two theses concurrently. Issue when there's a new discipline/major but can't just add to a drop down menu. Issue when a submitter doesn't release thesis as open but abstract and metadata is open. Asked Pauletta for feedback she's got from users; one desirable feature, for example, is a wizard for submission process. Haven't interviewed external users yet. Sue recommended interviewing ILL - Barbara Coopey.

ContentDM - transition as we move over to new version in middle of May 10 - 14. 5.2 will help us with querying, collection descriptions unicode compliant, faceted searching, robust user group.

Patricia added that these are merely highlights and more info on the wiki .

Now thinking about the structure of report - will have it ready by end of May.

Question from Sue - clients of DPubs, Brian at PA History? Sue will supply names to Patricia. P. Alexander will know who to contact there.

2. Project Updates:

o    Horowtiz Transaction - Mike F.

Mike distributed outline of a project plan for completing Phase I of the project. The goal is to put up as much of collection online as possible by June 30. Several sub projects in this. Preservation working on digitization since last fall and outsourced collection building to OCLC, indexed into ContentDM. Two other subprojects involed - scan for Personally Identifiable Information and can do this when data comes back from OCLC; and the Becker project - Howard Becker sociologist became aware of collection, issue about putting his letters online and he'd like to review letters first. Policy for educational/research purposes, clear statement on website. Looking out for privacy issues for the most part, material being vetted for invasive privacy issues. Value - we're getting material out there. User interface design project - Patricia working with Bill and Jim Quigle and others on user interface issues, what kinds of modes of access - Finding Aid guides or other methods. Marketing not included in project plan. ContentDM upgrade included - launch and post-launch. June 20 go-live data. Another sheet with dependencies, etc.
A lot of correspondence in files, rights to these letters. No expectation of privacy after letter is sent, control lost.
Monthly project team and logistics managed through DOT.
Q from Patricia about donors' expectations - deed of gift said digitization needed to be completed within three years. No details on interface, etc.

o    PA Homefront - Mike F.

Collaboration with the Richards Civil War center, research on socio-economic issues in the North during the Civil War period. Libraries role to help identify primary resources and ongoing see how UL can work with them. Press working with them on a Metalmark idea - historically-based or out of print materials that could be brought back into print. IMLS planning grant -- research essay on state of the field, materials of value, questions to be explored; second inventory of collections of value from PA State Archives and Heinz History society in Pittsburg; and third report from summit from cultural heritage organizations on how they'd work together on this. Project coordinator assigned, looking at survey tool, what resources we have, etc.
Mike traveled to Heinz Center this week to look at dual survey tool, cull quick descriptions of items, ultimate outcome an online viewable inventory of these collections but need to figure out what it looks like. This week reviewing data and Mike will pull in some folks from Special Collections to review. Goal to have presentation to this group or open group on what Richards is trying to do and how we can contribute. Other meetings will be held in the sumer, grant runs to end of Sept.
Heinz still inventorying, intern looking through civil war materials, own backlog to cover. Survey tool developed for PACSL consortium -- identifying collections, bring data back, expose hidden collections. Google PACSL consortium survey. At this point ramp up on inventory. Ultimately like to digitize everything -- need to see if that's a viable project in the near term.

o    MetaArchive Implementation – Mike F.
Agreement signed; need to set up implementation group in near term. Will entail our setting up infrastructure to harvest collections and prepare our own collections to be harvested, figure out roles/responsobile within the libraries. Will be more active than LOCKSS. NEH grant opportunity might fund archives of newspaper content in the nearterm.

3. Conference Reports

o    The Past’s Digital Archive – Patricia
A graduate student conference at Yale. Useful for seeing what next generation of scholars are thinking about. Mappng the Stacks project - Jacqueline Goldesby African-American history in early 20th century Chicago. Developing a portal across repository search of finding aids. Some highlights from papers - disparities between physical and digital texts for grad students; Google project scanning example - how scholars need to participate more in google book digitization. Patricia will send URL for conference.

o    WebWise 2010: Imagining the Digital Future - Patricia
IMLS funded project. Use of digital content, need for increase collaboration and community. Inclusion engagement - incorportating users in development of virtual exhibit or website. Models of public participation in science. Users, curation, importance of focusing on use and repurposing content. Conference will be held in DC next year.
See attachment for detailed notes.

o    Code4Lib Report – Mike G.
From Mike Giarlo: Code4Lib: You can tell how good a code4lib conference is by how little you remember of it.  By that measure, this year's conference was the best yet.  
Some of the highlights for me: 1) Linked data, a pattern for exposing resources and metadata via the web, continues to be a hot topic among cutting-edge library developers. There was a focus this year on how to participate in the linked data web in practical and lowish-barrier ways.  The speed with which concepts move, at code4lib, from "novel, and interesting to a few" to "widely talked about and deployed" is dizzying; 2) Software development practices continue to mature in libraries.  We're talking more and more about test-driven design and agile development.  While these methodologies are beneficial to developers themselves, I find this remarkable because it means the gap between coders and stakeholders is being bridged, and that means better and more usable software, and happier users; 3) Repositories are not typically a hot topic at code4lib, but there were a number of prepared talks, lightning talks, and breakout sessions on the topic.  Fedora tends to be the repository most often talked about, if only because it is the repository that requires the most hacking -- and these are the people doing the hacking.  What I found interesting this year was the dissatisfaction with monolithic repository software packages, and the movement towards "homebrewed", though standards-based, repository services, such as those being advocated by the California Digital Library.

o  IFLA - Sue

International federation of Library Associations held in New Dehli: 35 papers in three days, primarily from folks from India. Newspaper digitization and use of these resources.
210 attendees from 10 different countries. A unique experience. Presentations varied, microfilm digitization and others talking about the repositories that had been established. Systematic coordinated effort to preserve newspapers in India, going to pitch this to Indian government. National digitization program in the US was a model they'd like to follow. IFLA conference in August each year. 2011 in Puerto Rica & DC pre-conference.

Closing the Digital Curation Gap - Mike
Cooperative project at UNC LIS and Data Curation Center at Glasgow. Funded by JISC and Mellon. Two year project. Mike in role of advisor/practitioner. Goal is to identify and get knowledge base more widley disseminated around curation. Roles, resources, etc. Trying to build capacity and what kinds of organizations we'd need to share in that responsibility. Interesting discussion that suggests forthcoming tension around ownership and control of collections to stewardship of resources. Clear that you may not control all collections but outsource too.
Social networking space - Digital Curation Xchange, Mike will send link around.

4. Developing Content Stewardship Portfolio – Mike F.

Last month and talked about portfolio process for managing IT activities to identify resources and do some planning. Discussed scope for this group if we do a portfolio and if it will be separate from the IT one. First question was what would be included. Mike had volunteered to get group together and started by harvesting existing documentation. Mike distributed document with list of possible projects.
Q. are there items missing? Sue, yes, DISC workplan will be reviewed by DOT so that will be changing. DCRT proposals now being vetted.
Mike question to Andrea: does this map to what we already have? Issue of what is a project vs. operational issue.
Challenge to identify what goes on here and look at where there are conflicts for resources. To some extent these projects/initiatives have been vetted.
Q from Mairead - how would we use portfolio among us? Periodic review.
This group a vetting group, would need to review these and assign priorities. Andrea - helpful that we put it in a spreadsheet.
In many cases there'll be special projects that need to be included.  Retreat will be identifying priorities for the coming year.
Action item: Andrea will verify what's there already. Andrea will publish list at next meeting.
Mike - digitization projects that were deferred in DISC.
Sue - Google or Internet Archive on here?
Patricia - platform review? Should be on the portfolio as a project.
Patrick - question about Emily Davis diaries - what condition are they in? Sue - paper good, but casing bad. Already been transcribed and now being scanned. Patrick very interested in this project - he was drooling.

5. Retreat planning

11 - 4 pm on Tuesday April 20

Discussion about retreats or meetings that folks found effective: IAM retreat -- agenda well-crafted, some specific outcomes, chance to work in small groups with reporting out process. Stayed on task.

Groups for SWOT analysis. Action items concrete. Stay focused. Trying not to do too much.
Linda, Bonnie, Mairead, Patricia, Mike G. will work together on draft agenda and distribute to the rest of the group for review.
Nots -- people don't follow group rules.

Action Items

1.  Andrea validating portfolio
2. Mairead organizing agenda formation for retreat
3. Sue - names to Patricia and Mike for platform review.

E-Content Stewardship Council
February 22, 2010
Minutes

Attending: German (chair), Mugridge, Friend, Hswe, Clair (for Kellerman), Harrington, Osif, Freivalds, Furlough (minutes)

Not present: Kellerman, Martin, Giarlo

1. Project portfolio/process (Harrington)

We have implemented an IT Portfolio Process in order to more comprehensively manage resources across ITech and DLT. A critical factor in this process is the review and vetting of projects and activities to determine priorities for the work. Many existing committees, including ECSC and DOT, are considered a “vetting group” which will recommend priorities to ITCC. Under discussion is how we would extend the portfolio process to encompass content stewardship projects that are not currently in scope for the process.

Q: What is a “project?” Does it include multi-departmental or single person efforts, or both.?

A: The portfolio is meant to be comprehensive. If in doubt, put the project through the process. Doing so will help ensure that cross-dependencies will be identified. For ECSC purposes: projects that have limited impact beyond the unit, or which have no dependencies outside the unit, are probably not in scope.

Q: How was the portfolio created?

A: Originally involved brainstorming among multiple people and scanning for projects identified in tactical plans as well as existing project tools in ITech & DLT. Began in spring/summer 2009 and worked through by start of 2010.

Q: How would we employ this process for ECSC? How would we create one?

A: We should probably extend the current portfolio, rather than start with a completely different approach. In order to help clarify scope, and to help identify projects that should be recorded, we should brainstorm an inventory of projects that we are involved in or aware of. This goes beyond digitization projects and proposals to include ODSP projects, platform reviews, tests, modification, and possibly services not previously addressed by the team members as a whole (eg, Hathi trust implementations).

ACTION: Complete initial inventory by March 12th. Furlough will draft several members to brainstorm this list.

2. Content management platform review - update (Hswe)

Giarlo and Hswe have now had demos of all four major platforms under review resulting in good discussion. Detailed summaries are available on the wikispace for the project. The project will slow down until after March 8 owing to travel plans.

ACTION: Hswe and Giarlo will plan and set up interviews with internal and external users for the next phase of the review.

3. DCRT Update (Osif)

DCRT has received 13 new proposals for digitization this year and is nearing the completion of their review. Not all proposals will be recommended to go forward. This year members of DCRT and DISC met with those who nominated projects to ask questions and provide feedback. Last year’s deferred projects were also reviewed and discussed during the same time frame. However, DCRT is not reviewing those projects again at this time.

DCRT expects to complete its work in March to hand off to DOT and CDC. Final recommendations are expected to be ready in early April. These will be discussed at a future ECSC meeting.

4. ECSC/DOT Retreat (German)

The retreat is now on calendars for March 22, but this is likely to change. Our plan is to hold this in the Nittany Lion Inn for a half-day, including lunch.

Members are asked to consider issues and agenda items. A primary focus should be to focus on strategic matters, using these to develop a tactical plan for the coming year. We also want to use the retreat to establishing a common concept of “content stewardship.”

ACTION: Martha Ney will review calendars to recommend new dates.

5. Hathi Trust Updates (German)

Now that HathiTrust has grown to include 5m+ volumes, it has begun to focus on user access and discoverability issues. These raise come important questions for the Libraries, including: how to integrate Hathi records in our Cat; how to keep Hathi visible to researchers and librarians; how to improve usability for users of Hathi; and other matters.

Actions to date:
• APIs are being implemented to incorporate Hathi materials into the Cat. Target completion is end of March.
• Hathi Trust is in the A-Z list.
• Review of the withdrawal process for items that have been digitized by Google is underway.
• Lisa and Patricia are working with others in the CIC to establish usability testing for the implementation of WorldCat local as the discovery layer for Hathi.

========================================================================================================================

E-Content Stewardship Council
January 20, 2010
4:00 – 5:00 p.m.
DLT Conference Room
Minutes

Chair: Mairéad Martin
Minutes: Lisa German _(NOTE: in the future, minutes will rotate)_Attendees: Dace Freivalds, Linda Friend, Mike Furlough, Lisa German, Mike Giarlo, Andrea Harrington, Patricia Hswe, Sue Kellerman, Mairéad Martin, Rebecca Mugridge, and Bonnie Osif

1) ECSC charge, role and purpose (Mairéad)
See draft charge and strategic plan description of program

Change “aspects” to services

Discussion of how forming the ECSC will be beneficial and impact our areas:

Lisa’s group
• More metadata work
• Interface design – application

Mairéad’s group
• More standardization
• Peer group extended
• Work together to define bigger picture
• Wrap process around it
• Drive solution decisions, standards, and protocols
• Frameworks and roadmaps that we haven’t had here
• Strategic importance
• End of unilateral decision making
• More marketing of this idea within DLT
• Service standard

Mike’s group
• Better communication
• “Parking lot for ideas is better than having them lost”
• Hard to know what implications it will have
• Think about areas where we need to pull off additional focus
• What does data curation mean?
• What resources do we need?

Need this to support scholarly communications program

Risk of the committee: Large group and large group can spin

Summary:
• Have something to create
• Need to have a collective understanding of the program

Have a retreat? Yes
Action item: Mike will ask Martha to schedule a retreat

2) Mike and Patricia – platform review
Scope: ContentDM, Olive, ETD, DPubs
• What they do well, what they don’t do well, identify stakeholders, how are they used, how they fit with other platforms,
• In scope: look at a variety of external perspectives and internal perspectives, and the industry perspective, and interoperability perspective
• Out of scope: Oliver, Day CMS

Logistics:
• Just a review, not designed to select alternatives products and stop at that point
• Gathering a roster of people to talk to
• Set up demos of how people use them

Will write a report and do a presentation

Timeline:
January and February develop project plan, develop roster, present a mid-term report to this group. Between end of February and May conduct the project and finish by May.

Will do progress reports with this group

Get an understanding of how these platforms are used and will be answer the question as to how well we serve our users and look at range of content.

Get to a more standards and protocol based way of thinking. How will it interoperate with other systems.

3) Establish a global

Action Items:
1. Work on setting up a retreat - Mike
2. Mairéad will create a wiki space
3. Create a parking lot of ongoing projects – Mairéad
4. Set up a global – Mike
5. Send thank you notes to DISC and discharge them – Lisa
6. Draft of DOT charge to Sue – Lisa
7. Link of platform review charter – Mike G.
8. Lisa, Mike, and Mairéad will work with Sue to get DOT charge nailed and people invited

Next meeting:
Portfolio process discussion

As background, Mairéad distributed the Cyberinfrastructure, e-Content, and Data Stewardship document which was written during the strategic planning phase.

Next meeting: Monday, February 15, 3:30-5:00 p.m., Deans Conference Room, 510 Paterno

  • No labels