DLF Wiki - User contributions [en]

NDSA:Staffing Survey

2012-10-03T17:32:14Z

Jjones:

'''Title of Activity or Project''' 
Digital Preservation Staffing Survey

'''One Sentence Description:''' 
This is a survey of organizations currently responsible for digital preservation to gain insight into how organizations worldwide are addressing these staffing, scoping and organizational questions.

'''Statement of the Problem and Goals for Addressing the Problem:''' 
Digital preservation is an emergent field. Businesses, cultural memory institutions and government bodies that want to responsibly preserve and generate digital assets face significant challenges with respect to staffing. 
How many staff do we need? What types of positions are needed? What skills, education and experience should we be looking for? Should we hire new staff or retrain existing staff? What functions should be scoped as part of the program? What should be provided by other parts of the organization, outsourced or provided through collaboration with other organizations? 
It is our hope that once we collate and interpret results we can provide valuable information for institutions that are embarking upon digitization and digital preservation programs and/or projects. Results from surveys like these may even become fodder for best practices with respect to digital preservation staffing.

'''Strategic Value of Activity:''' 
*This has been a good way to start the discussion of how a department or organization should plan to staff a digital preservation initiative
*This survey will provide groundwork for developing best practices for digital preservation staffing
*The iPRES poster will serve as a self-contained “beginning-middle-end” project that will help the Standards group learn to work together toward a common goal
*The survey will lead to a white paper that will draw international attention to the NDSA

'''Required Resources:''' 
What are the steps to take in order to accomplish this activity?

* Time of working group members
* Work space on Google docs for iPRES poster
* Harvard-hosted Qualtrix software

'''Roadmap:''' 
How will this activity be shared?

1. Hold conference calls 
2. Draft survey and review 
3. Invite member feedback 
4. Revise survey 
5. Design survey in Harvard’s Qualtrix software 
6. Disseminate survey to digital preservation practitioners (with the NDSA and without) 
7. Post a blog to The Signal explaining the survey and getting the word out 
8. Retrieve survey results and interpret 
9. Design a poster for the 2012 iPRES conference to share survey results and interpretation 

'''Dissemination of Knowledge:''' 
* Write a blog post
* Send announcements to listservs
* Present poster at iPRES
* A white paper discussing the results (tentative)

'''Signifiers of Success and Outcomes:''' 
* Roughly 85 respondents to the survey
* iPRES poster
* A white paper discussing the results (tentative)

NDSA:August 20, 2012 Standards Working Group Notes

2012-08-21T13:32:43Z

Jjones:

NDSA Standards and Practices Working Group

WebEx meeting notes, August 20, 2012

Attending:
Jimi Jones, Andrea Goethals, John Spencer, Meg Philips, Carol Kussman, Kate Murray, Stephen Davis, Dina Sokolova (note taker), Midge Coates, Aaron Trehub, Steve Morris

(Apologies if I have left anyone out, please feel free to add your name.)

Meeting will be recorded. No objections noted.

The WebEx recording can be found here: https://issevents.webex.com/issevents/lsr.php?AT=pb&SP=MC&rID=54493937&rKey=f3bba9add0fd29e8

Two new members introduced themselves to the group:
Carol Kussmann, Minnesota Historical Society
Steve Morris, North Carolina State University Libraries

Agenda:
Conference reports/interesting stuff

Wikipedia work update

Staffing survey

Planning for the iPRES poster

Conference reports/interesting stuff

• Stephen Davis talked about a questionnaire sent out by the Academic Preservation Trust. The document gathers information on what types and amounts of data the partner institutions have and what services they prefer to receive. This survey might be of interest to those who want to learn about this initiative. Stephen will post the survey on the listserv.

• Meg Phillips and Kate Murray shared their impressions of the CurateCamp Processing Data/Processing Collections unconference held at the Digital Preservation 2012 Meeting. They believe that the unconference was an effective way of covering topics and overall the CurateCamp was a fruitful experience.

• Aaron Trehub talked about IFLA conference in Helsinki where he participated in the panel session on disaster planning and recovery for digital libraries. The page for this IFLA panel can be found here: http://conference.ifla.org/ifla78/session-216.

• Aaron also mentioned that the Association of Southeastern Research Libraries is working on “A Step-By-Step Guide to Data Management” that will help institutions in preparing Data Management Plans. The guide is planned to be finalized sometime this semester. The draft of this document can be found here:
http://www.lib.ua.edu/wiki/sura/index.php/Main_Page.

Wikipedia work update
Stephen Davis updated the group on the recent work on the Digital Preservation Wikipedia article. Several additions have been made to the article Talk page, WikiProject page, and NDSA Working Group page. These pages also provide links to the current Google docs for the article outline and proposed new content.

The main goal of the initiative is to move new content to the Wikipedia article. Stephen mentioned that the main challenges are that all improvements should be done within the current article’s content, and it is currently not clear how much information should be included in the main article if there are related Wikipedia articles on the topic. Stephen encouraged the members of the working group to comment on the completed sections and participate in adding and editing content.

Staffing survey
Andrea Goethals showed the preliminary results of the staffing survey that she prepared using Qualtrics web-based survey software. The original closing day for the survey was August 17, but it was decided to keep the survey open till the end of the month so that more institutions could respond. Andrea reported that 123 responses were received up to date and not all of them are complete. Andrea went through all the questions of the survey showing the preliminary results in form of tables and graphs. The survey results will be archived and made available to the NDSA Standards Working Group members.

Planning for the iPRES poster
Jimi Jones talked about the iPRES poster for the digital preservation staffing survey that needs to be done by the end of September. After some discussion Meg Philips and Jimi Jones suggested to form a group that would decide what questions are important and interesting and put together the first draft of the poster. It was decided that the first draft of the poster would outline the content and the work on the second draft would be concentrated on the poster design.

Carol Kussman, Andrea Goethals, Meg Philips, Kate Murray, and Jimi Jones agreed to serve on the group, but everyone who is interested is welcome to join, especially people with statistics background and skills.

The revised schedule for the staffing survey poster work:

July 18 – August 17: Staffing survey goes out

Week of August 20: Close out survey, collate data, generate graphs

Tuesday, August 28: 2-page paper due

Week of September 4: 1st draft of text for poster (action team works off-line)

September 13: WebEx for 2nd draft for poster

Week of September 17: Polish up final draft of poster text, copy edit, finalize graphs/images

September 24-26: Poster is printed

September 27: Poster is done and ready to transport to iPres

October 1-5: iPres conference

The next monthly WebEx meeting will cover updated survey results and the first draft of the poster.

NDSA:August 20, 2012 Standards Working Group Notes

2012-08-21T13:32:00Z

Jjones: Created page with 'NDSA Standards and Practices Working Group WebEx meeting notes, August 20, 2012 Attending: Jimi Jones, Andrea Goethals, John Spencer, Meg Philips, Carol Kussman, Kate Murray,…'

NDSA Standards and Practices Working Group

WebEx meeting notes, August 20, 2012

Attending:
Jimi Jones, Andrea Goethals, John Spencer, Meg Philips, Carol Kussman, Kate Murray, Stephen Davis, Dina Sokolova (note taker), Midge Coates, Aaron Trehub, Steve Morris

(Apologies if I have left anyone out, please feel free to add your name.)

Meeting will be recorded. No objections noted.

The WebEx recording can be found here: https://issevents.webex.com/issevents/lsr.php?AT=pb&SP=MC&rID=54493937&rKey=f3bba9add0fd29e8

Two new members introduced themselves to the group:
Carol Kussmann, Minnesota Historical Society
Steve Morris, North Carolina State University Libraries

Agenda:
Conference reports/interesting stuff

Wikipedia work update

Staffing survey

Planning for the iPRES poster

Conference reports/interesting stuff
• Stephen Davis talked about a questionnaire sent out by the Academic Preservation Trust. The document gathers information on what types and amounts of data the partner institutions have and what services they prefer to receive. This survey might be of interest to those who want to learn about this initiative. Stephen will post the survey on the listserv.

• Meg Phillips and Kate Murray shared their impressions of the CurateCamp Processing Data/Processing Collections unconference held at the Digital Preservation 2012 Meeting. They believe that the unconference was an effective way of covering topics and overall the CurateCamp was a fruitful experience.

• Aaron Trehub talked about IFLA conference in Helsinki where he participated in the panel session on disaster planning and recovery for digital libraries. The page for this IFLA panel can be found here: http://conference.ifla.org/ifla78/session-216.

• Aaron also mentioned that the Association of Southeastern Research Libraries is working on “A Step-By-Step Guide to Data Management” that will help institutions in preparing Data Management Plans. The guide is planned to be finalized sometime this semester. The draft of this document can be found here:
http://www.lib.ua.edu/wiki/sura/index.php/Main_Page.

Wikipedia work update
Stephen Davis updated the group on the recent work on the Digital Preservation Wikipedia article. Several additions have been made to the article Talk page, WikiProject page, and NDSA Working Group page. These pages also provide links to the current Google docs for the article outline and proposed new content.

The main goal of the initiative is to move new content to the Wikipedia article. Stephen mentioned that the main challenges are that all improvements should be done within the current article’s content, and it is currently not clear how much information should be included in the main article if there are related Wikipedia articles on the topic. Stephen encouraged the members of the working group to comment on the completed sections and participate in adding and editing content.

Staffing survey
Andrea Goethals showed the preliminary results of the staffing survey that she prepared using Qualtrics web-based survey software. The original closing day for the survey was August 17, but it was decided to keep the survey open till the end of the month so that more institutions could respond. Andrea reported that 123 responses were received up to date and not all of them are complete. Andrea went through all the questions of the survey showing the preliminary results in form of tables and graphs. The survey results will be archived and made available to the NDSA Standards Working Group members.

Planning for the iPRES poster
Jimi Jones talked about the iPRES poster for the digital preservation staffing survey that needs to be done by the end of September. After some discussion Meg Philips and Jimi Jones suggested to form a group that would decide what questions are important and interesting and put together the first draft of the poster. It was decided that the first draft of the poster would outline the content and the work on the second draft would be concentrated on the poster design.

Carol Kussman, Andrea Goethals, Meg Philips, Kate Murray, and Jimi Jones agreed to serve on the group, but everyone who is interested is welcome to join, especially people with statistics background and skills.

The revised schedule for the staffing survey poster work:

July 18 – August 17: Staffing survey goes out

Week of August 20: Close out survey, collate data, generate graphs

Tuesday, August 28: 2-page paper due

Week of September 4: 1st draft of text for poster (action team works off-line)

September 13: WebEx for 2nd draft for poster

Week of September 17: Polish up final draft of poster text, copy edit, finalize graphs/images

September 24-26: Poster is printed

September 27: Poster is done and ready to transport to iPres

October 1-5: iPres conference

The next monthly WebEx meeting will cover updated survey results and the first draft of the poster.

NDSA:Standards and Best Practices Working Group

2012-08-21T13:29:57Z

Jjones: /* Meeting Schedules, Minutes and Agendas */

== Standards and Practices Working Group ==

[[NDSA:Standards and Practices Working Group Charter ]] (December 10, 2010)

== Current Members ==
A list of current members is posted here: [[NDSA:Standards and Practices Working Group Members]].

== Statement of Purpose ==

The Standards and Practices Working Group will work to facilitate a community-wide understanding of the role and benefit of standards in digital preservation and how to use them effectively to ensure durable and usable collections. The Group will also develop, recommend, promote, and disseminate information about effective methods for selecting, organizing, describing, managing, preserving and serving digital content, in collaboration with other individuals and organizations where appropriate.

== Current Scope of Work ==

Working group members may initiate and engage in new work at any time by forming Action Teams focused on specific projects or tasks.

===1. Survey and document the digital preservation standards landscape===
This is an ambitious and on-going project using Wikipedia to promote the use of digital preservation standards and best practices. The objectives are to:
* identify and describe '''existing''' digital preservation standards and best practices
* identify '''gaps''' in digital preservation standards and best practices coverage that could be addressed by this working group in collaboration with others
* sustain this activity by building a community of Wikipedians to join us in this activity

The categories of digital preservation standards and best practices we will focus on include: Content models, Content packaging, Content transfer, Digital preservation strategies and techniques, Digital preservation terms and concepts, File formats, Encodings, Metadata exchange, Metadata schemas, Repository architecture, Repository certification and trustworthiness, Repository operations, Repository policies

Status of activities and deliverables:

* creation of Digital Preservation "WikiProject" within Wikipedia as an umbrella for collaborating with others on this project -- '''COMPLETE 6/2012'''
* redevelop the current Wikipedia "Digital Preservation" page so that it can serve as an appropriate launch page to more detailed information about standards and best practices -- '''IN PROGRESS, 7/2012-'''

* create / update pages describing current standards and best practices in the field of digital preservation
* consult with others involved in digital preservation to encourage their input and contributions to the effort
* report back to the NDSA steering committee with updates and proposals as to how to continue this effort into the future

Links related to this project:
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Digital_Preservation Digital Preservation WikiProject Page]
* [[NDSA:Existing DP-Related Wikipedia Pages]]
* [[NDSA:Survey Template]]
* [[NDSA:Sources of Information about DP Standards and Best Practices]]
* [[NDSA:Categories and Action Teams]] (sign up for an action team here)
* [[NDSA:Parking Spot for other DP-related Standards and Best Practices]]

----

===2. Survey of digital preservation staffing===

* [[NDSA:Staffing survey planning page]]

----

===3. Survey on adoption of digital preservation standards and best practices===

* [[NDSA:Standards survey planning page]]

----

===4. Related action team on distributed digital preservation===

* [[NDSA:DDP_OAIS_Frameworks | Describing a Framework for Applying OAIS to Distributed Digital Preservation]]

----

== Meeting Schedules, Minutes and Agendas==

* [[NDSA:August 20, 2012 Standards Working Group Notes]]
* [[NDSA:June 18, 2012 Standards Working Group Notes]]
* [[NDSA:May 16, 2012 Standards Working Group Notes]]
* [[NDSA:April 18, 2012 Standards Working Group Notes]]
* [[NDSA:March 13, 2012 Standards Working Group Notes]]
* [[NDSA:February 22, 2012 Standards Working Group Notes]]
* [[NDSA:January 17, 2012 Standards Working Group Notes]]
* [[NDSA:November 7, 2011 Standards Working Group Notes and Agenda]]
* [[NDSA:June 6, 2011 Standards Working Group Notes and Agenda]]
* [[NDSA:May 2, 2011 Standards Working Group Notes and Agenda]]
* [[NDSA:April 4, 2011 Standards Working Group Notes and Agenda]]
* [[NDSA:Digital Preservation Metadata Action Team -- March 15, 2011]]
* [[NDSA:March 7, 2011 Standards Working Group Notes and Agenda]]
* [[NDSA:February 7, 2011 Standards Working Group Notes and Agenda]]
* [[NDSA:January 12, 2011 Standards Working Group Notes and Agenda]]
* [[NDSA:December 6, 2010 Standards Working Group Notes]]
* [[NDSA:November 17, 2010 Standards Working Group Notes]]

== NDSA Standards Working Group Listserv Archives==

The archives of the Standards Working Group Listserv can be found here (login will be required): http://list.digitalpreservation.gov/SCRIPTS/WA-DIGITAL.EXE?A0=NDSA-STANDARDS&X=25F57E4CACD543490D&Y

== Workshops ==
* I can haz standards workshop, NDIPP 2011 [[NDSA:I can haz standards workshop notes]]

== Deprecated pages kept for historical reasons ==
* [[NDSA:2011 NDIIPP Partners' Meeting Attendees]]
* NDSA Standards Working Group Google Group Space (we never ended up using this): http://groups.google.com/group/ndsa-standards-working-group?hl=en

NDSA:List of places/people we want to receive the survey

2012-07-20T11:45:58Z

Jjones:

'''Add the name of an institution or person who should receive the preservation staffing survey'''

Please write your name after it if you will send it to this list/group, etc.

DONE - NDSA-ALL - Andrea

DONE - digipres@ala.org - Andrea

International Association of Social Science Information Services and Technology (IASSIST) List -- Mary

iasst-l@lists.columbia.edu -- Mary

Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research (ICPSR) Web Site Announcement -- Mary

www.icpsr.umich.edu -- Mary

archives@forums.archivists.org -- Jennifer Gunter King (Hampshire)

DONE - Digital Curation google group - Andrea

DONE - International Internet Preservation Consortium (IIPC) preservation working group list - Andrea

DONE - Association of Moving Image Archivists (AMIA)-- Jimi

AMIA-L@LSV.UKY.EDU

DONE - Association of Recorded Sound Collections (ARSC) -- Jimi

ARSCLIST@LISTSERV.LOC.GOV

Museum Computer Network (MCN) list: mcn-l@mcn.edu <mcn-l@mcn.edu> -- Linda

NDSA:List of places/people we want to receive the survey

2012-06-19T15:00:44Z

Jjones:

'''Add the name of an institution or person who should receive the preservation staffing survey'''

Please write your name after it if you will send it to this list/group, etc.

NDSA-ALL - Andrea

digipres@ala.org - Andrea

International Association of Social Science Information Services and Technology (IASSIST) List -- Mary

iasst-l@lists.columbia.edu -- Mary

Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research (ICPSR) Web Site Announcement -- Mary

www.icpsr.umich.edu -- Mary

archives@forums.archivists.org -- Jennifer Gunter King (Hampshire)

Digital Curation google group - Andrea

International Internet Preservation Consortium (IIPC) preservation working group list - Andrea

Association of Moving Image Archivists (AMIA)-- Jimi

AMIA-L@LSV.UKY.EDU

Association of Recorded Sound Collections (ARSC) -- Jimi

ARSCLIST@LISTSERV.LOC.GOV

NDSA:Survey-related action teams and timeline

2012-06-18T18:13:20Z

Jjones:

'''NDSA Standards Group'''

'''iPres 2012 Poster'''

July 18 – August 17: Staffing survey goes out

Week of August 20: Close out survey, collate data, generate graphs

Week of September 4: 1st draft of text for poster (action team works off-line)

September 13: WebEx for 2nd draft for poster

Week of September 17: Polish up final draft of poster text, copy edit, finalize graphs/images

September 24-26: Poster is printed

September 27: Poster is done and ready to transport to iPres

October 1-5: iPres conference

----

''If you would like to help with the survey and/or iPres poster, lease sign up for the following action teams by adding your name under the appropriate team:''

'''Action team for collating data and preparing graphs'''

Jimi Jones

'''Action team for drafting/editing text for the iPres poster'''

Jimi Jones

NDSA:Survey-related action teams and timeline

2012-06-18T18:11:58Z

Jjones: Created page with ''''NDSA Standards Group''' '''iPres 2012 Poster''' July 18 – August 17: Staffing survey goes out Week of August 20: Close out survey, collate data, generate graphs W…'

'''NDSA Standards Group'''

'''iPres 2012 Poster'''

July 18 – August 17: Staffing survey goes out

Week of August 20: Close out survey, collate data, generate graphs

Week of September 4: 1st draft of text for poster (action team works off-line)

September 13: WebEx for 2nd draft for poster

Week of September 17: Polish up final draft of poster text, copy edit, finalize graphs/images

September 24-26: Poster is printed

September 27: Poster is done and ready to transport to iPres

October 1-5: iPres conference

If you would like to help with the survey and/or iPres poster, lease sign up for the following action teams by adding your name under the team:

'''Action team for collating data and preparing graphs'''

Jimi Jones

'''Action team for drafting/editing text for the iPres poster'''

Jimi Jones

NDSA:List of places/people we want to receive the survey

2012-06-18T18:07:47Z

Jjones: Created page with ''''Add the name of an institution or person who should receive the preservation staffing survey''''

'''Add the name of an institution or person who should receive the preservation staffing survey'''

NDSA:Staffing survey planning page

2012-06-18T18:06:56Z

Jjones:

== Project Origin ==
Excerpt from Meg's email that started this project:

"Recently I've had several interesting conversations with people at other institutions about how the work of digital preservation is and should be organized and staffed within organizations. We've touched on issues like: what different roles are necessary to do digital preservation, what is the division of labor, what kinds of skills are needed, are developers within a digital preservation unit or outside it, would people be willing to share org charts and position descriptions, and on and on.

Information like this could be useful for many reasons, including simply finding out how many different ways of doing this there are, benchmarking, identifying effective practices, and maybe making a case to strengthen staffing at our own institutions.

This topic clearly isn't related to "standards", but it probably is related to "practices." I was wondering if other members of this group would have any interest in conducting a survey of institutions to find out how they organize and staff the digital preservation function, and how they would like to organize and staff it. We could do something relatively simple, on the model of the storage survey recently conducted by another NDSA working group."

'''[[NDSA:List of places/people we want to receive the survey]]'''

'''[[NDSA:Survey-related action teams and timeline]]'''

== Use Cases ==

In order to get a handle on what kinds of questions we'd like to ask, we should consider what we want to do with this survey. As you come up with questions and insert them in the section below, think about use cases for this survey and put them in this section.

* An institution wants to compare their digital preservation staffing levels and functions with those of other similar organizations.
* An institution is planning to implement a digital preservation program and wants to know what is both typical and considered ideal for staffing.
* A person wants to advocate for additional digital preservation resources to upper management and needs data about typical and ideal staffing levels.

== Notes ==

Section 3.2 of the latest version of the TRAC successor is about Organizational Structure and Staffing. Specifically it requires the following:
* 3.2.1 The repository shall have identified and established the duties that it needs to perform and shall have appointed staff with adequate skills and experience to fulfill these duties.
** 3.2.1.1 The repository shall have identified and established the duties that it needs to perform.
** 3.2.1.2 The repository shall have the appropriate number of staff to support all functions and services.
** 3.2.1.3 The repository shall have in place an active professional development program that provides staff with skills and expertise development opportunities.

Should the survey start with a definition of digital preservation? If so, which one?
** from http://www.digitalpreservation.gov/about/:
***"Digital preservation is the active management of digital content over time to ensure ongoing access"
** from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_preservation:
***"Digital preservation is the set of processes, activities and management of digital information over time to ensure its long term accessibility. The goal of digital preservation is to preserve materials resulting from digital reformatting, and particularly information that is born-digital with no analog counterpart."

== Draft questions ==

'''Survey Introduction'''

This survey is intended for institutions that currently preserve content in-house or plan to in the near future. Only one response should be submitted per institution.

'''Questions about the Institution'''

* Which of the following most closely describes the type or function of your organization? ''[Pull-down list: archives, historical society, library, museum, research group, other]''
* Which of the following most closely describes the sector of your organization? ''[Pull-down list: academic, corporate, local government agency, state government agency, federal government agency, other]''
* Is preservation the principle mission of your organization? ''[radio button: yes, no]''
** (Not sure if we need this question if we only ask this to those preserving content, and we can infer their overall mission by the kind of institution it is)
* Approximately how many people work within your organization? ''[Free text box]''
* Approximately, how many terabytes of storage space do you require for all copies of your content that you manage? ''[Free text box]''

'''Questions about Current Practices'''

* Are the staff who do digital preservation in your organization centralized within one unit or are they scattered throughout your organization? ''[radio button: centralized, scattered throughout, not applicable]''
** If they are centralized, does that group include IT staff (e.g. software developers, system administrators)? ''[radio button: yes, no, not applicable]''
* How many people in your organization do digital preservation work either full or part time? ''[free text box]''
* What are the titles of the people who do digital preservation work in your organization? ''[free text box]''
* What department(s) are they in? ''[free text box]''
* What are the major functions you include in your organization's digital preservation work at present? Select all that apply. ''[checkboxes: selection, digitization and processing, metadata creation, creation of derivatives and access copies, deposit to storage, fixity checks, file format verification, auditing, migration, refreshing, emulation, creation and maintenance of software tools, research, preservation planning]''
* Did you hire digital preservation specialists or "grow your own" (or both)? ''[radio button: hire, grow your own, both]''
* How much work experience, in years, do most of your digital preservation staff have? ''[free text box]''
* What skills do you think are necessary in the people who perform these functions? ''[free text box]''
* What educational background do you think is necessary to perform these functions? ''[free text box]''
* Where do you turn for professional development opportunities for your digital preservation staff? ''[free text box]''
* What types of professional development opportunities have you used? ''[free text box]''

'''Questions about the Ideal Practice'''

* Do you think that the number of people you have working in digital preservation is sufficient? ''[radio button: yes, no]''
* In what areas are you missing expertise that you need for digital preservation? ''[free text box]''
* Is your digitization setup right for you at the moment? ''[radio button: yes, no]''
* How many people do you think you need for digital preservation? ''[free text box]''
* What are the major functions you wish to include in your organization's digital preservation work in the future? ''[checkboxes: selection, digitization and processing, metadata creation, creation of derivatives and access copies, deposit to storage, fixity checks, file format verification, auditing, migration, refreshing, emulation, creation and maintenance of software tools, research, preservation planning]''
* What do you think the '''ideal''' functions, structure, and staffing of a digital preservation function would be (setting aside anything you actually have or are likely to have)? ''[free text box]''

'''More Information'''

* Do you have org charts, mission statements, position descriptions that you'd be willing to share? ''[radio button: yes, no]''
** If they are on-line, what is the URL(s)? ''[free text box]''
** If they are not on-line please email them to X.

NDSA:Staffing survey planning page

2012-06-18T18:06:38Z

Jjones:

== Project Origin ==
Excerpt from Meg's email that started this project:

"Recently I've had several interesting conversations with people at other institutions about how the work of digital preservation is and should be organized and staffed within organizations. We've touched on issues like: what different roles are necessary to do digital preservation, what is the division of labor, what kinds of skills are needed, are developers within a digital preservation unit or outside it, would people be willing to share org charts and position descriptions, and on and on.

Information like this could be useful for many reasons, including simply finding out how many different ways of doing this there are, benchmarking, identifying effective practices, and maybe making a case to strengthen staffing at our own institutions.

This topic clearly isn't related to "standards", but it probably is related to "practices." I was wondering if other members of this group would have any interest in conducting a survey of institutions to find out how they organize and staff the digital preservation function, and how they would like to organize and staff it. We could do something relatively simple, on the model of the storage survey recently conducted by another NDSA working group."

'''[[NDSA:List of places/people we want to receive the survey]]'''

"[[NDSA:Survey-related action teams and timeline]]"

== Use Cases ==

In order to get a handle on what kinds of questions we'd like to ask, we should consider what we want to do with this survey. As you come up with questions and insert them in the section below, think about use cases for this survey and put them in this section.

* An institution wants to compare their digital preservation staffing levels and functions with those of other similar organizations.
* An institution is planning to implement a digital preservation program and wants to know what is both typical and considered ideal for staffing.
* A person wants to advocate for additional digital preservation resources to upper management and needs data about typical and ideal staffing levels.

== Notes ==

Section 3.2 of the latest version of the TRAC successor is about Organizational Structure and Staffing. Specifically it requires the following:
* 3.2.1 The repository shall have identified and established the duties that it needs to perform and shall have appointed staff with adequate skills and experience to fulfill these duties.
** 3.2.1.1 The repository shall have identified and established the duties that it needs to perform.
** 3.2.1.2 The repository shall have the appropriate number of staff to support all functions and services.
** 3.2.1.3 The repository shall have in place an active professional development program that provides staff with skills and expertise development opportunities.

Should the survey start with a definition of digital preservation? If so, which one?
** from http://www.digitalpreservation.gov/about/:
***"Digital preservation is the active management of digital content over time to ensure ongoing access"
** from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_preservation:
***"Digital preservation is the set of processes, activities and management of digital information over time to ensure its long term accessibility. The goal of digital preservation is to preserve materials resulting from digital reformatting, and particularly information that is born-digital with no analog counterpart."

== Draft questions ==

'''Survey Introduction'''

This survey is intended for institutions that currently preserve content in-house or plan to in the near future. Only one response should be submitted per institution.

'''Questions about the Institution'''

* Which of the following most closely describes the type or function of your organization? ''[Pull-down list: archives, historical society, library, museum, research group, other]''
* Which of the following most closely describes the sector of your organization? ''[Pull-down list: academic, corporate, local government agency, state government agency, federal government agency, other]''
* Is preservation the principle mission of your organization? ''[radio button: yes, no]''
** (Not sure if we need this question if we only ask this to those preserving content, and we can infer their overall mission by the kind of institution it is)
* Approximately how many people work within your organization? ''[Free text box]''
* Approximately, how many terabytes of storage space do you require for all copies of your content that you manage? ''[Free text box]''

'''Questions about Current Practices'''

* Are the staff who do digital preservation in your organization centralized within one unit or are they scattered throughout your organization? ''[radio button: centralized, scattered throughout, not applicable]''
** If they are centralized, does that group include IT staff (e.g. software developers, system administrators)? ''[radio button: yes, no, not applicable]''
* How many people in your organization do digital preservation work either full or part time? ''[free text box]''
* What are the titles of the people who do digital preservation work in your organization? ''[free text box]''
* What department(s) are they in? ''[free text box]''
* What are the major functions you include in your organization's digital preservation work at present? Select all that apply. ''[checkboxes: selection, digitization and processing, metadata creation, creation of derivatives and access copies, deposit to storage, fixity checks, file format verification, auditing, migration, refreshing, emulation, creation and maintenance of software tools, research, preservation planning]''
* Did you hire digital preservation specialists or "grow your own" (or both)? ''[radio button: hire, grow your own, both]''
* How much work experience, in years, do most of your digital preservation staff have? ''[free text box]''
* What skills do you think are necessary in the people who perform these functions? ''[free text box]''
* What educational background do you think is necessary to perform these functions? ''[free text box]''
* Where do you turn for professional development opportunities for your digital preservation staff? ''[free text box]''
* What types of professional development opportunities have you used? ''[free text box]''

'''Questions about the Ideal Practice'''

* Do you think that the number of people you have working in digital preservation is sufficient? ''[radio button: yes, no]''
* In what areas are you missing expertise that you need for digital preservation? ''[free text box]''
* Is your digitization setup right for you at the moment? ''[radio button: yes, no]''
* How many people do you think you need for digital preservation? ''[free text box]''
* What are the major functions you wish to include in your organization's digital preservation work in the future? ''[checkboxes: selection, digitization and processing, metadata creation, creation of derivatives and access copies, deposit to storage, fixity checks, file format verification, auditing, migration, refreshing, emulation, creation and maintenance of software tools, research, preservation planning]''
* What do you think the '''ideal''' functions, structure, and staffing of a digital preservation function would be (setting aside anything you actually have or are likely to have)? ''[free text box]''

'''More Information'''

* Do you have org charts, mission statements, position descriptions that you'd be willing to share? ''[radio button: yes, no]''
** If they are on-line, what is the URL(s)? ''[free text box]''
** If they are not on-line please email them to X.

NDSA:Staffing survey planning page

2012-06-18T18:06:14Z

Jjones:

== Project Origin ==
Excerpt from Meg's email that started this project:

"Recently I've had several interesting conversations with people at other institutions about how the work of digital preservation is and should be organized and staffed within organizations. We've touched on issues like: what different roles are necessary to do digital preservation, what is the division of labor, what kinds of skills are needed, are developers within a digital preservation unit or outside it, would people be willing to share org charts and position descriptions, and on and on.

Information like this could be useful for many reasons, including simply finding out how many different ways of doing this there are, benchmarking, identifying effective practices, and maybe making a case to strengthen staffing at our own institutions.

This topic clearly isn't related to "standards", but it probably is related to "practices." I was wondering if other members of this group would have any interest in conducting a survey of institutions to find out how they organize and staff the digital preservation function, and how they would like to organize and staff it. We could do something relatively simple, on the model of the storage survey recently conducted by another NDSA working group."

[[NDSA:'''List of places/people we want to receive the survey''']]

"[[NDSA:Survey-related action teams and timeline]]"

== Use Cases ==

In order to get a handle on what kinds of questions we'd like to ask, we should consider what we want to do with this survey. As you come up with questions and insert them in the section below, think about use cases for this survey and put them in this section.

* An institution wants to compare their digital preservation staffing levels and functions with those of other similar organizations.
* An institution is planning to implement a digital preservation program and wants to know what is both typical and considered ideal for staffing.
* A person wants to advocate for additional digital preservation resources to upper management and needs data about typical and ideal staffing levels.

== Notes ==

Section 3.2 of the latest version of the TRAC successor is about Organizational Structure and Staffing. Specifically it requires the following:
* 3.2.1 The repository shall have identified and established the duties that it needs to perform and shall have appointed staff with adequate skills and experience to fulfill these duties.
** 3.2.1.1 The repository shall have identified and established the duties that it needs to perform.
** 3.2.1.2 The repository shall have the appropriate number of staff to support all functions and services.
** 3.2.1.3 The repository shall have in place an active professional development program that provides staff with skills and expertise development opportunities.

Should the survey start with a definition of digital preservation? If so, which one?
** from http://www.digitalpreservation.gov/about/:
***"Digital preservation is the active management of digital content over time to ensure ongoing access"
** from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_preservation:
***"Digital preservation is the set of processes, activities and management of digital information over time to ensure its long term accessibility. The goal of digital preservation is to preserve materials resulting from digital reformatting, and particularly information that is born-digital with no analog counterpart."

== Draft questions ==

'''Survey Introduction'''

This survey is intended for institutions that currently preserve content in-house or plan to in the near future. Only one response should be submitted per institution.

'''Questions about the Institution'''

* Which of the following most closely describes the type or function of your organization? ''[Pull-down list: archives, historical society, library, museum, research group, other]''
* Which of the following most closely describes the sector of your organization? ''[Pull-down list: academic, corporate, local government agency, state government agency, federal government agency, other]''
* Is preservation the principle mission of your organization? ''[radio button: yes, no]''
** (Not sure if we need this question if we only ask this to those preserving content, and we can infer their overall mission by the kind of institution it is)
* Approximately how many people work within your organization? ''[Free text box]''
* Approximately, how many terabytes of storage space do you require for all copies of your content that you manage? ''[Free text box]''

'''Questions about Current Practices'''

* Are the staff who do digital preservation in your organization centralized within one unit or are they scattered throughout your organization? ''[radio button: centralized, scattered throughout, not applicable]''
** If they are centralized, does that group include IT staff (e.g. software developers, system administrators)? ''[radio button: yes, no, not applicable]''
* How many people in your organization do digital preservation work either full or part time? ''[free text box]''
* What are the titles of the people who do digital preservation work in your organization? ''[free text box]''
* What department(s) are they in? ''[free text box]''
* What are the major functions you include in your organization's digital preservation work at present? Select all that apply. ''[checkboxes: selection, digitization and processing, metadata creation, creation of derivatives and access copies, deposit to storage, fixity checks, file format verification, auditing, migration, refreshing, emulation, creation and maintenance of software tools, research, preservation planning]''
* Did you hire digital preservation specialists or "grow your own" (or both)? ''[radio button: hire, grow your own, both]''
* How much work experience, in years, do most of your digital preservation staff have? ''[free text box]''
* What skills do you think are necessary in the people who perform these functions? ''[free text box]''
* What educational background do you think is necessary to perform these functions? ''[free text box]''
* Where do you turn for professional development opportunities for your digital preservation staff? ''[free text box]''
* What types of professional development opportunities have you used? ''[free text box]''

'''Questions about the Ideal Practice'''

* Do you think that the number of people you have working in digital preservation is sufficient? ''[radio button: yes, no]''
* In what areas are you missing expertise that you need for digital preservation? ''[free text box]''
* Is your digitization setup right for you at the moment? ''[radio button: yes, no]''
* How many people do you think you need for digital preservation? ''[free text box]''
* What are the major functions you wish to include in your organization's digital preservation work in the future? ''[checkboxes: selection, digitization and processing, metadata creation, creation of derivatives and access copies, deposit to storage, fixity checks, file format verification, auditing, migration, refreshing, emulation, creation and maintenance of software tools, research, preservation planning]''
* What do you think the '''ideal''' functions, structure, and staffing of a digital preservation function would be (setting aside anything you actually have or are likely to have)? ''[free text box]''

'''More Information'''

* Do you have org charts, mission statements, position descriptions that you'd be willing to share? ''[radio button: yes, no]''
** If they are on-line, what is the URL(s)? ''[free text box]''
** If they are not on-line please email them to X.

NDSA:Staffing survey planning page

2012-06-18T18:05:30Z

Jjones:

== Project Origin ==
Excerpt from Meg's email that started this project:

"Recently I've had several interesting conversations with people at other institutions about how the work of digital preservation is and should be organized and staffed within organizations. We've touched on issues like: what different roles are necessary to do digital preservation, what is the division of labor, what kinds of skills are needed, are developers within a digital preservation unit or outside it, would people be willing to share org charts and position descriptions, and on and on.

Information like this could be useful for many reasons, including simply finding out how many different ways of doing this there are, benchmarking, identifying effective practices, and maybe making a case to strengthen staffing at our own institutions.

This topic clearly isn't related to "standards", but it probably is related to "practices." I was wondering if other members of this group would have any interest in conducting a survey of institutions to find out how they organize and staff the digital preservation function, and how they would like to organize and staff it. We could do something relatively simple, on the model of the storage survey recently conducted by another NDSA working group."

"[[NDSA:List of places/people we want to receive the survey]]"

"[[NDSA:Survey-related action teams and timeline]]"

== Use Cases ==

In order to get a handle on what kinds of questions we'd like to ask, we should consider what we want to do with this survey. As you come up with questions and insert them in the section below, think about use cases for this survey and put them in this section.

* An institution wants to compare their digital preservation staffing levels and functions with those of other similar organizations.
* An institution is planning to implement a digital preservation program and wants to know what is both typical and considered ideal for staffing.
* A person wants to advocate for additional digital preservation resources to upper management and needs data about typical and ideal staffing levels.

== Notes ==

Section 3.2 of the latest version of the TRAC successor is about Organizational Structure and Staffing. Specifically it requires the following:
* 3.2.1 The repository shall have identified and established the duties that it needs to perform and shall have appointed staff with adequate skills and experience to fulfill these duties.
** 3.2.1.1 The repository shall have identified and established the duties that it needs to perform.
** 3.2.1.2 The repository shall have the appropriate number of staff to support all functions and services.
** 3.2.1.3 The repository shall have in place an active professional development program that provides staff with skills and expertise development opportunities.

Should the survey start with a definition of digital preservation? If so, which one?
** from http://www.digitalpreservation.gov/about/:
***"Digital preservation is the active management of digital content over time to ensure ongoing access"
** from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_preservation:
***"Digital preservation is the set of processes, activities and management of digital information over time to ensure its long term accessibility. The goal of digital preservation is to preserve materials resulting from digital reformatting, and particularly information that is born-digital with no analog counterpart."

== Draft questions ==

'''Survey Introduction'''

This survey is intended for institutions that currently preserve content in-house or plan to in the near future. Only one response should be submitted per institution.

'''Questions about the Institution'''

* Which of the following most closely describes the type or function of your organization? ''[Pull-down list: archives, historical society, library, museum, research group, other]''
* Which of the following most closely describes the sector of your organization? ''[Pull-down list: academic, corporate, local government agency, state government agency, federal government agency, other]''
* Is preservation the principle mission of your organization? ''[radio button: yes, no]''
** (Not sure if we need this question if we only ask this to those preserving content, and we can infer their overall mission by the kind of institution it is)
* Approximately how many people work within your organization? ''[Free text box]''
* Approximately, how many terabytes of storage space do you require for all copies of your content that you manage? ''[Free text box]''

'''Questions about Current Practices'''

* Are the staff who do digital preservation in your organization centralized within one unit or are they scattered throughout your organization? ''[radio button: centralized, scattered throughout, not applicable]''
** If they are centralized, does that group include IT staff (e.g. software developers, system administrators)? ''[radio button: yes, no, not applicable]''
* How many people in your organization do digital preservation work either full or part time? ''[free text box]''
* What are the titles of the people who do digital preservation work in your organization? ''[free text box]''
* What department(s) are they in? ''[free text box]''
* What are the major functions you include in your organization's digital preservation work at present? Select all that apply. ''[checkboxes: selection, digitization and processing, metadata creation, creation of derivatives and access copies, deposit to storage, fixity checks, file format verification, auditing, migration, refreshing, emulation, creation and maintenance of software tools, research, preservation planning]''
* Did you hire digital preservation specialists or "grow your own" (or both)? ''[radio button: hire, grow your own, both]''
* How much work experience, in years, do most of your digital preservation staff have? ''[free text box]''
* What skills do you think are necessary in the people who perform these functions? ''[free text box]''
* What educational background do you think is necessary to perform these functions? ''[free text box]''
* Where do you turn for professional development opportunities for your digital preservation staff? ''[free text box]''
* What types of professional development opportunities have you used? ''[free text box]''

'''Questions about the Ideal Practice'''

* Do you think that the number of people you have working in digital preservation is sufficient? ''[radio button: yes, no]''
* In what areas are you missing expertise that you need for digital preservation? ''[free text box]''
* Is your digitization setup right for you at the moment? ''[radio button: yes, no]''
* How many people do you think you need for digital preservation? ''[free text box]''
* What are the major functions you wish to include in your organization's digital preservation work in the future? ''[checkboxes: selection, digitization and processing, metadata creation, creation of derivatives and access copies, deposit to storage, fixity checks, file format verification, auditing, migration, refreshing, emulation, creation and maintenance of software tools, research, preservation planning]''
* What do you think the '''ideal''' functions, structure, and staffing of a digital preservation function would be (setting aside anything you actually have or are likely to have)? ''[free text box]''

'''More Information'''

* Do you have org charts, mission statements, position descriptions that you'd be willing to share? ''[radio button: yes, no]''
** If they are on-line, what is the URL(s)? ''[free text box]''
** If they are not on-line please email them to X.

NDSA:Staffing survey planning page

2012-06-18T18:05:01Z

Jjones:

== Project Origin ==
Excerpt from Meg's email that started this project:

"Recently I've had several interesting conversations with people at other institutions about how the work of digital preservation is and should be organized and staffed within organizations. We've touched on issues like: what different roles are necessary to do digital preservation, what is the division of labor, what kinds of skills are needed, are developers within a digital preservation unit or outside it, would people be willing to share org charts and position descriptions, and on and on.

Information like this could be useful for many reasons, including simply finding out how many different ways of doing this there are, benchmarking, identifying effective practices, and maybe making a case to strengthen staffing at our own institutions.

This topic clearly isn't related to "standards", but it probably is related to "practices." I was wondering if other members of this group would have any interest in conducting a survey of institutions to find out how they organize and staff the digital preservation function, and how they would like to organize and staff it. We could do something relatively simple, on the model of the storage survey recently conducted by another NDSA working group."

=[[NDSA:List of places/people we want to receive the survey]]=

=[[NDSA:Survey-related action teams and timeline]]=

== Use Cases ==

In order to get a handle on what kinds of questions we'd like to ask, we should consider what we want to do with this survey. As you come up with questions and insert them in the section below, think about use cases for this survey and put them in this section.

* An institution wants to compare their digital preservation staffing levels and functions with those of other similar organizations.
* An institution is planning to implement a digital preservation program and wants to know what is both typical and considered ideal for staffing.
* A person wants to advocate for additional digital preservation resources to upper management and needs data about typical and ideal staffing levels.

== Notes ==

Section 3.2 of the latest version of the TRAC successor is about Organizational Structure and Staffing. Specifically it requires the following:
* 3.2.1 The repository shall have identified and established the duties that it needs to perform and shall have appointed staff with adequate skills and experience to fulfill these duties.
** 3.2.1.1 The repository shall have identified and established the duties that it needs to perform.
** 3.2.1.2 The repository shall have the appropriate number of staff to support all functions and services.
** 3.2.1.3 The repository shall have in place an active professional development program that provides staff with skills and expertise development opportunities.

Should the survey start with a definition of digital preservation? If so, which one?
** from http://www.digitalpreservation.gov/about/:
***"Digital preservation is the active management of digital content over time to ensure ongoing access"
** from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_preservation:
***"Digital preservation is the set of processes, activities and management of digital information over time to ensure its long term accessibility. The goal of digital preservation is to preserve materials resulting from digital reformatting, and particularly information that is born-digital with no analog counterpart."

== Draft questions ==

'''Survey Introduction'''

This survey is intended for institutions that currently preserve content in-house or plan to in the near future. Only one response should be submitted per institution.

'''Questions about the Institution'''

* Which of the following most closely describes the type or function of your organization? ''[Pull-down list: archives, historical society, library, museum, research group, other]''
* Which of the following most closely describes the sector of your organization? ''[Pull-down list: academic, corporate, local government agency, state government agency, federal government agency, other]''
* Is preservation the principle mission of your organization? ''[radio button: yes, no]''
** (Not sure if we need this question if we only ask this to those preserving content, and we can infer their overall mission by the kind of institution it is)
* Approximately how many people work within your organization? ''[Free text box]''
* Approximately, how many terabytes of storage space do you require for all copies of your content that you manage? ''[Free text box]''

'''Questions about Current Practices'''

* Are the staff who do digital preservation in your organization centralized within one unit or are they scattered throughout your organization? ''[radio button: centralized, scattered throughout, not applicable]''
** If they are centralized, does that group include IT staff (e.g. software developers, system administrators)? ''[radio button: yes, no, not applicable]''
* How many people in your organization do digital preservation work either full or part time? ''[free text box]''
* What are the titles of the people who do digital preservation work in your organization? ''[free text box]''
* What department(s) are they in? ''[free text box]''
* What are the major functions you include in your organization's digital preservation work at present? Select all that apply. ''[checkboxes: selection, digitization and processing, metadata creation, creation of derivatives and access copies, deposit to storage, fixity checks, file format verification, auditing, migration, refreshing, emulation, creation and maintenance of software tools, research, preservation planning]''
* Did you hire digital preservation specialists or "grow your own" (or both)? ''[radio button: hire, grow your own, both]''
* How much work experience, in years, do most of your digital preservation staff have? ''[free text box]''
* What skills do you think are necessary in the people who perform these functions? ''[free text box]''
* What educational background do you think is necessary to perform these functions? ''[free text box]''
* Where do you turn for professional development opportunities for your digital preservation staff? ''[free text box]''
* What types of professional development opportunities have you used? ''[free text box]''

'''Questions about the Ideal Practice'''

* Do you think that the number of people you have working in digital preservation is sufficient? ''[radio button: yes, no]''
* In what areas are you missing expertise that you need for digital preservation? ''[free text box]''
* Is your digitization setup right for you at the moment? ''[radio button: yes, no]''
* How many people do you think you need for digital preservation? ''[free text box]''
* What are the major functions you wish to include in your organization's digital preservation work in the future? ''[checkboxes: selection, digitization and processing, metadata creation, creation of derivatives and access copies, deposit to storage, fixity checks, file format verification, auditing, migration, refreshing, emulation, creation and maintenance of software tools, research, preservation planning]''
* What do you think the '''ideal''' functions, structure, and staffing of a digital preservation function would be (setting aside anything you actually have or are likely to have)? ''[free text box]''

'''More Information'''

* Do you have org charts, mission statements, position descriptions that you'd be willing to share? ''[radio button: yes, no]''
** If they are on-line, what is the URL(s)? ''[free text box]''
** If they are not on-line please email them to X.

NDSA:Staffing survey planning page

2012-06-18T18:04:25Z

Jjones:

== Project Origin ==
Excerpt from Meg's email that started this project:

"Recently I've had several interesting conversations with people at other institutions about how the work of digital preservation is and should be organized and staffed within organizations. We've touched on issues like: what different roles are necessary to do digital preservation, what is the division of labor, what kinds of skills are needed, are developers within a digital preservation unit or outside it, would people be willing to share org charts and position descriptions, and on and on.

Information like this could be useful for many reasons, including simply finding out how many different ways of doing this there are, benchmarking, identifying effective practices, and maybe making a case to strengthen staffing at our own institutions.

This topic clearly isn't related to "standards", but it probably is related to "practices." I was wondering if other members of this group would have any interest in conducting a survey of institutions to find out how they organize and staff the digital preservation function, and how they would like to organize and staff it. We could do something relatively simple, on the model of the storage survey recently conducted by another NDSA working group."

=[[NDSA:List of places/people we want to receive the survey]]=

=[[NDSA:Survey-related action teams and timeline]]=

== Use Cases ==

In order to get a handle on what kinds of questions we'd like to ask, we should consider what we want to do with this survey. As you come up with questions and insert them in the section below, think about use cases for this survey and put them in this section.

* An institution wants to compare their digital preservation staffing levels and functions with those of other similar organizations.
* An institution is planning to implement a digital preservation program and wants to know what is both typical and considered ideal for staffing.
* A person wants to advocate for additional digital preservation resources to upper management and needs data about typical and ideal staffing levels.

== Notes ==

Section 3.2 of the latest version of the TRAC successor is about Organizational Structure and Staffing. Specifically it requires the following:
* 3.2.1 The repository shall have identified and established the duties that it needs to perform and shall have appointed staff with adequate skills and experience to fulfill these duties.
** 3.2.1.1 The repository shall have identified and established the duties that it needs to perform.
** 3.2.1.2 The repository shall have the appropriate number of staff to support all functions and services.
** 3.2.1.3 The repository shall have in place an active professional development program that provides staff with skills and expertise development opportunities.

Should the survey start with a definition of digital preservation? If so, which one?
** from http://www.digitalpreservation.gov/about/:
***"Digital preservation is the active management of digital content over time to ensure ongoing access"
** from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_preservation:
***"Digital preservation is the set of processes, activities and management of digital information over time to ensure its long term accessibility. The goal of digital preservation is to preserve materials resulting from digital reformatting, and particularly information that is born-digital with no analog counterpart."

== Draft questions ==

'''Survey Introduction'''

This survey is intended for institutions that currently preserve content in-house or plan to in the near future. Only one response should be submitted per institution.

'''Questions about the Institution'''

* Which of the following most closely describes the type or function of your organization? ''[Pull-down list: archives, historical society, library, museum, research group, other]''
* Which of the following most closely describes the sector of your organization? ''[Pull-down list: academic, corporate, local government agency, state government agency, federal government agency, other]''
* Is preservation the principle mission of your organization? ''[radio button: yes, no]''
** (Not sure if we need this question if we only ask this to those preserving content, and we can infer their overall mission by the kind of institution it is)
* Approximately how many people work within your organization? ''[Free text box]''
* Approximately, how many terabytes of storage space do you require for all copies of your content that you manage? ''[Free text box]''

'''Questions about Current Practices'''

* Are the staff who do digital preservation in your organization centralized within one unit or are they scattered throughout your organization? ''[radio button: centralized, scattered throughout, not applicable]''
** If they are centralized, does that group include IT staff (e.g. software developers, system administrators)? ''[radio button: yes, no, not applicable]''
* How many people in your organization do digital preservation work either full or part time? ''[free text box]''
* What are the titles of the people who do digital preservation work in your organization? ''[free text box]''
* What department(s) are they in? ''[free text box]''
* What are the major functions you include in your organization's digital preservation work at present? Select all that apply. ''[checkboxes: selection, digitization and processing, metadata creation, creation of derivatives and access copies, deposit to storage, fixity checks, file format verification, auditing, migration, refreshing, emulation, creation and maintenance of software tools, research, preservation planning]''
* Did you hire digital preservation specialists or "grow your own" (or both)? ''[radio button: hire, grow your own, both]''
* How much work experience, in years, do most of your digital preservation staff have? ''[free text box]''
* What skills do you think are necessary in the people who perform these functions? ''[free text box]''
* What educational background do you think is necessary to perform these functions? ''[free text box]''
* Where do you turn for professional development opportunities for your digital preservation staff? ''[free text box]''
* What types of professional development opportunities have you used? ''[free text box]''

'''Questions about the Ideal Practice'''

* Do you think that the number of people you have working in digital preservation is sufficient? ''[radio button: yes, no]''
* In what areas are you missing expertise that you need for digital preservation? ''[free text box]''
* Is your digitization setup right for you at the moment? ''[radio button: yes, no]''
* How many people do you think you need for digital preservation? ''[free text box]''
* What are the major functions you wish to include in your organization's digital preservation work in the future? ''[checkboxes: selection, digitization and processing, metadata creation, creation of derivatives and access copies, deposit to storage, fixity checks, file format verification, auditing, migration, refreshing, emulation, creation and maintenance of software tools, research, preservation planning]''
* What do you think the '''ideal''' functions, structure, and staffing of a digital preservation function would be (setting aside anything you actually have or are likely to have)? ''[free text box]''

'''More Information'''

* Do you have org charts, mission statements, position descriptions that you'd be willing to share? ''[radio button: yes, no]''
** If they are on-line, what is the URL(s)? ''[free text box]''
** If they are not on-line please email them to X.

NDSA:Staffing survey planning page

2012-06-18T18:03:32Z

Jjones:

== Project Origin ==
Excerpt from Meg's email that started this project:

"Recently I've had several interesting conversations with people at other institutions about how the work of digital preservation is and should be organized and staffed within organizations. We've touched on issues like: what different roles are necessary to do digital preservation, what is the division of labor, what kinds of skills are needed, are developers within a digital preservation unit or outside it, would people be willing to share org charts and position descriptions, and on and on.

Information like this could be useful for many reasons, including simply finding out how many different ways of doing this there are, benchmarking, identifying effective practices, and maybe making a case to strengthen staffing at our own institutions.

This topic clearly isn't related to "standards", but it probably is related to "practices." I was wondering if other members of this group would have any interest in conducting a survey of institutions to find out how they organize and staff the digital preservation function, and how they would like to organize and staff it. We could do something relatively simple, on the model of the storage survey recently conducted by another NDSA working group."

* [[NDSA:List of places/people we want to receive the survey]]

* [[NDSA:Survey-related action teams and timeline]]

== Use Cases ==

In order to get a handle on what kinds of questions we'd like to ask, we should consider what we want to do with this survey. As you come up with questions and insert them in the section below, think about use cases for this survey and put them in this section.

* An institution wants to compare their digital preservation staffing levels and functions with those of other similar organizations.
* An institution is planning to implement a digital preservation program and wants to know what is both typical and considered ideal for staffing.
* A person wants to advocate for additional digital preservation resources to upper management and needs data about typical and ideal staffing levels.

== Notes ==

Section 3.2 of the latest version of the TRAC successor is about Organizational Structure and Staffing. Specifically it requires the following:
* 3.2.1 The repository shall have identified and established the duties that it needs to perform and shall have appointed staff with adequate skills and experience to fulfill these duties.
** 3.2.1.1 The repository shall have identified and established the duties that it needs to perform.
** 3.2.1.2 The repository shall have the appropriate number of staff to support all functions and services.
** 3.2.1.3 The repository shall have in place an active professional development program that provides staff with skills and expertise development opportunities.

Should the survey start with a definition of digital preservation? If so, which one?
** from http://www.digitalpreservation.gov/about/:
***"Digital preservation is the active management of digital content over time to ensure ongoing access"
** from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_preservation:
***"Digital preservation is the set of processes, activities and management of digital information over time to ensure its long term accessibility. The goal of digital preservation is to preserve materials resulting from digital reformatting, and particularly information that is born-digital with no analog counterpart."

== Draft questions ==

'''Survey Introduction'''

This survey is intended for institutions that currently preserve content in-house or plan to in the near future. Only one response should be submitted per institution.

'''Questions about the Institution'''

* Which of the following most closely describes the type or function of your organization? ''[Pull-down list: archives, historical society, library, museum, research group, other]''
* Which of the following most closely describes the sector of your organization? ''[Pull-down list: academic, corporate, local government agency, state government agency, federal government agency, other]''
* Is preservation the principle mission of your organization? ''[radio button: yes, no]''
** (Not sure if we need this question if we only ask this to those preserving content, and we can infer their overall mission by the kind of institution it is)
* Approximately how many people work within your organization? ''[Free text box]''
* Approximately, how many terabytes of storage space do you require for all copies of your content that you manage? ''[Free text box]''

'''Questions about Current Practices'''

* Are the staff who do digital preservation in your organization centralized within one unit or are they scattered throughout your organization? ''[radio button: centralized, scattered throughout, not applicable]''
** If they are centralized, does that group include IT staff (e.g. software developers, system administrators)? ''[radio button: yes, no, not applicable]''
* How many people in your organization do digital preservation work either full or part time? ''[free text box]''
* What are the titles of the people who do digital preservation work in your organization? ''[free text box]''
* What department(s) are they in? ''[free text box]''
* What are the major functions you include in your organization's digital preservation work at present? Select all that apply. ''[checkboxes: selection, digitization and processing, metadata creation, creation of derivatives and access copies, deposit to storage, fixity checks, file format verification, auditing, migration, refreshing, emulation, creation and maintenance of software tools, research, preservation planning]''
* Did you hire digital preservation specialists or "grow your own" (or both)? ''[radio button: hire, grow your own, both]''
* How much work experience, in years, do most of your digital preservation staff have? ''[free text box]''
* What skills do you think are necessary in the people who perform these functions? ''[free text box]''
* What educational background do you think is necessary to perform these functions? ''[free text box]''
* Where do you turn for professional development opportunities for your digital preservation staff? ''[free text box]''
* What types of professional development opportunities have you used? ''[free text box]''

'''Questions about the Ideal Practice'''

* Do you think that the number of people you have working in digital preservation is sufficient? ''[radio button: yes, no]''
* In what areas are you missing expertise that you need for digital preservation? ''[free text box]''
* Is your digitization setup right for you at the moment? ''[radio button: yes, no]''
* How many people do you think you need for digital preservation? ''[free text box]''
* What are the major functions you wish to include in your organization's digital preservation work in the future? ''[checkboxes: selection, digitization and processing, metadata creation, creation of derivatives and access copies, deposit to storage, fixity checks, file format verification, auditing, migration, refreshing, emulation, creation and maintenance of software tools, research, preservation planning]''
* What do you think the '''ideal''' functions, structure, and staffing of a digital preservation function would be (setting aside anything you actually have or are likely to have)? ''[free text box]''

'''More Information'''

* Do you have org charts, mission statements, position descriptions that you'd be willing to share? ''[radio button: yes, no]''
** If they are on-line, what is the URL(s)? ''[free text box]''
** If they are not on-line please email them to X.

NDSA:May 16, 2012 Standards Working Group Notes

2012-05-21T19:17:48Z

Jjones: Created page with 'NDSA Standards and Practices Working Group Notes of 5/16/12 meeting 1:00 to 2:00 Eastern WebEx recording is here: https://issevents.webex.com/issevents/lsr.php?AT=pb&SP=MC&rID=…'

NDSA Standards and Practices Working Group
Notes of 5/16/12 meeting
1:00 to 2:00 Eastern

WebEx recording is here: https://issevents.webex.com/issevents/lsr.php?AT=pb&SP=MC&rID=52776352&rKey=81818970e5b4ba12

Topic 1: Digital Preservation Staffing Survey

Meg Phillips said that a subgroup had met since the last Standards webex to finalize the questions in the Google docs version of the survey, but that Andrea had been working on the survey since then.

Andrea Goethals gave the working group a tour of the version of the survey she had created in Qualtrics survey software. She explained that all the questions were optional except the first one, which asks what type of organization the response is for.

Suggestions for improving the survey:

Q5 – suggest adding a column for “not included in our preservation function” or simply “not applicable,” which has the virtue of being shorter. This will allow us to see the different between skipped rows for another reason and a row that doesn’t apply.

Q4 – suggest spelling out FTE and perhaps providing an example

Q15 – suggest adding to the text of the “other” option something like “e.g. vault department,” which may be the only phrasing some respondents would recognize.

There was also a general feeling that the option “one or more archives that steward the collection” was confusing. By the end of the discussion, the question had been edited to “a library, archives, or other department that stewards the collection” [may not be quite right]

There was a comment that an organization like the MetaArchives Collaborative would find questions like 8 and 9 hard to answer, but the “other” options would provide enough of an opportunity for them to explain their real situation.

Q22 – we still need an e-mail address to use for position descriptions, org charts, etc. The sense of the group was that a .gov (or maybe .org) e-mail address would be important to lend credibility to the survey.

Jimi offered to explore the option of getting a Library of Congress e-mail address to use for this purpose. If Jimi gets stuck, Meg can investigate a NARA.gov address. Later we got the comment that (Meg didn’t catch the name and Jimi didn’t remember – please forgive us!) thought it would be easy to get an @nedcc.org address, so that’s also an option.

Andrea asked if the group thought we should request the name of the respondent’s organization. We wanted to get only one response per organization, but without asking this explicitly there will be no way to check. No-one had any objection to adding this question – the consensus was the people don’t mind providing this information. The best place to add the question may be at the very beginning before the current first question about the type of organization.

Kate Murray asked what we planned to do with the data collected? She pointed out that we should explain this in the introduction to the survey itself and/or the e-mail we will draft to invite people to take the survey.

The group agreed that the final report should be distributed widely, but that the individually identifiable responses would only be shared with members of the Standards Working Group.

The group discussed whether the fact that an organization responded to the survey should be widely shared. There were several opinions about whether this was desirable, but the suggestion to add a question that asked “Are you willing to have your responses identified by institution?” [this is what I wrote down during the meeting, but perhaps the sense was closer to “are you willing to be identified as a respondent in this survey if we do not identify any particular responses with your organization”?]

Action item: we need someone to draft the e-mail that will invite people to respond to the survey and an introductory paragraph about the purpose of the survey. Meg Phillips, Andrea Goethals, Jimi Jones, and Matt Schultz all volunteered to work on this.

Topic 2: Report on the National Association of Broadcasters Meeting – Linda Tadic*

Linda had provided written notes on the NAB meeting and she elaborated on her notes and answered questions about the meeting. The NAB meeting is one of two major trade shows for digital audio vendors and users. There were around 30,000 attendees.

Linda is also attending the “Screening the Future” conference, and she also offered to bring a report of that conference back to the working group.

* Following are Linda’s notes:

NAB 2012 notes

Physical media

1. Only physical videotape seen on display was HDCAM in SONY booth.

2. Sony’s optical disc archive. Based on Blu-Ray discs. The cartridge holds 1.5 TB total (similar to LTO5’s compressed state). The archive cartridge holds 12 128 GB discs (1.536 TB). Does spanning. Stores any file format, not XDCAM-specific. LE: 50 years.

3. SONY XDCAM. 2 new versions: (1) Quad layer “archival.” 128 GB. Write once. (2) Triple layer 100 GB. Rewritable. Files are still wrapped in Sony’s proprietary MXF wrapper.

4. LTO5 LTFS. LTO drives only manufactured by HP and IBM, so all other manufacturers of drives are using one of these two.

What’s the difference between tar and LTFS?

Tar: faster. Unix-based so has command-line utility. Interoperability is an issue: if tape written on one deck is given to another deck to read out, must know information on originating deck to add to command line data.

LTFS: Facilitates interoperability/interchange of tapes.

MXF/JPEG2000 interoperability challenges

Ref. George Blood’s study on JPEG2000 files created on SAMMA and Digital Rapids: couldn’t play on each other’s players.

Front Porch Digital: Josef Marc said problem was in SMPTE MXF and JPEG2000 committees not talking to each other. Issue in MXF specification. Two committees working to resolve, and once finalized vendors can “fix” in their software.

Digital Rapids: Said problem was SAMMA: wasn’t proper MXF/JPEF2000. Not their problem.

“Archive” solutions

Increase in systems self-presenting as “archival,” similar to few years ago when most systems that indexed data in any way said they provided digital asset management.

Automatic QC

Digimetrics’ Aurora. Create profile for how a specific format/codec should be defined, and validates. Digital Rapids’ Transcode Manager will be integrating with Aurora; ready September.

USC Digital Repository repository.usc.edu

Sam Gustman started as off-shoot of Shoah project. 40 PB online storage. Redundancy on nodes. Files checked every 3 months.

Using Shoah system to catalog. Plans to license cataloging system as standalone product.

Clients have web access to files. Cloud storage: cost per GB, 1 TB minimum.

Cataloging: quoted per project
Digitization: separate cost

NDSA:Standards and Best Practices Working Group

2012-05-21T19:16:48Z

Jjones: /* Meeting Schedules, Minutes and Agendas */

== Standards and Practices Working Group ==

[[NDSA:Standards and Practices Working Group Charter ]] (December 10, 2010)

== Current Members ==
A list of current members is posted here: [[NDSA:Standards and Practices Working Group Members]].

== Statement of Purpose ==

The Standards and Practices Working Group will work to facilitate a community-wide understanding of the role and benefit of standards in digital preservation and how to use them effectively to ensure durable and usable collections. The Group will also develop, recommend, promote, and disseminate information about effective methods for selecting, organizing, describing, managing, preserving and serving digital content, in collaboration with other individuals and organizations where appropriate.

== Current Scope of Work ==

Working group members may initiate and engage in new work at any time by forming Action Teams focused on specific projects or tasks.

===1. Survey and document the digital preservation standards landscape===
This is an ambitious and on-going project using Wikipedia to promote the use of digital preservation standards and best practices. The objectives are to:
* identify and describe '''existing''' digital preservation standards and best practices
* identify '''gaps''' in digital preservation standards and best practices coverage that could be addressed by this working group in collaboration with others
* sustain this activity by building a community of Wikipedians to join us in this activity

The categories of digital preservation standards and best practices we will focus on include:
* Content models
* Content packaging
* Content transfer
* Digital preservation strategies and techniques
* Digital preservation terms and concepts
* File formats
* Encodings
* Metadata exchange
* Metadata schemas
* Repository architecture
* Repository certification and trustworthiness
* Repository operations
* Repository policies

Specific activities and deliverables of this project include:
* creation and maintenance of a Digital Preservation "WikiProject" within Wikipedia as an umbrella for collaborating with others on this project
* redevelop the current Wikipedia "Digital Preservation" page so that it can serve as an appropriate launch page to more detailed information about standards and best practices
* create / update pages describing current standards and best practices in the field of digital preservation
* consult with others involved in digital preservation to encourage their input and contributions to the effort
* report back to the NDSA steering committee with updates and proposals as to how to continue this effort into the future

Links related to this project:
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Digital_Preservation Digital Preservation WikiProject Page]
* [[NDSA:Digital Preservation Page -- draft outline]]
* [[NDSA:Existing DP-Related Wikipedia Pages]]
* [[NDSA:Survey Template]]
* [[NDSA:Sources of Information about DP Standards and Best Practices]]
* [[NDSA:Categories and Action Teams]] (sign up for an action team here)
* [[NDSA:Parking Spot for other DP-related Standards and Best Practices]]

----

===2. Survey of digital preservation staffing===

* [[NDSA:Staffing survey planning page]]

----

===3. Survey on adoption of digital preservation standards and best practices===

* [[NDSA:Standards survey planning page]]

----

===4. Related action team on distributed digital preservation===

* [[NDSA:DDP_OAIS_Frameworks | Describing a Framework for Applying OAIS to Distributed Digital Preservation]]

----

== Meeting Schedules, Minutes and Agendas==

* [[NDSA:May 16, 2012 Standards Working Group Notes]]
* [[NDSA:April 18, 2012 Standards Working Group Notes]]
* [[NDSA:March 13, 2012 Standards Working Group Notes]]
* [[NDSA:February 22, 2012 Standards Working Group Notes]]
* [[NDSA:January 17, 2012 Standards Working Group Notes]]
* [[NDSA:November 7, 2011 Standards Working Group Notes and Agenda]]
* [[NDSA:June 6, 2011 Standards Working Group Notes and Agenda]]
* [[NDSA:May 2, 2011 Standards Working Group Notes and Agenda]]
* [[NDSA:April 4, 2011 Standards Working Group Notes and Agenda]]
* [[NDSA:Digital Preservation Metadata Action Team -- March 15, 2011]]
* [[NDSA:March 7, 2011 Standards Working Group Notes and Agenda]]
* [[NDSA:February 7, 2011 Standards Working Group Notes and Agenda]]
* [[NDSA:January 12, 2011 Standards Working Group Notes and Agenda]]
* [[NDSA:December 6, 2010 Standards Working Group Notes]]
* [[NDSA:November 17, 2010 Standards Working Group Notes]]

== NDSA Standards Working Group Listserv Archives==

The archives of the Standards Working Group Listserv can be found here (login will be required): http://list.digitalpreservation.gov/SCRIPTS/WA-DIGITAL.EXE?A0=NDSA-STANDARDS&X=25F57E4CACD543490D&Y

== Workshops ==
* I can haz standards workshop, NDIPP 2011 [[NDSA:I can haz standards workshop notes]]

== Deprecated pages kept for historical reasons ==
* [[NDSA:2011 NDIIPP Partners' Meeting Attendees]]
* NDSA Standards Working Group Google Group Space (we never ended up using this): http://groups.google.com/group/ndsa-standards-working-group?hl=en

NDSA:April 18, 2012 Standards Working Group Notes

2012-04-25T16:25:22Z

Jjones:

== NDSA Standards Subgroup ==

== Web Ex meeting notes ==

'''April 18, 2012

Attending:'''

Jimi Jones,
Andrea Goethals,
Kate Murray,
John Spencer,
Kate Boyd,
Barbara Dean (note taker),
Emily Shaw,
Tracy Popp,
Priscilla Caplan,
Jessica Colati,
Meghan Burgin,
Midge Cos

'''The following new members introduced themselves:'''

Kate Boyd – University of South Carolina, Digital Collections Librarian

Midge Cos – Auburn University, Digital Projects Librarian.

== Agenda ==

'''Report on NDSA Coordinating Committee meeting (Jones, Goethals):'''
''''''
Meeting was held March 29-30, 2012 in Washington, D.C. The report of the meeting can be found at http://www.loc.gov/extranet/wiki/osi/ndiip/ndsa/index.php?title=2012_Q1_Meeting.
Primary discussion centered around what makes NDSA unique, digital stewardship in the coming year, and how to leverage the group’s strengths and opportunities. Highlights from the resulting action items included assignment of tasks for defining the “brand”, including communications, creation of a press kit, and engaging and empowering members, which included discussed the creation of a membership kit , orientation for new members to help new members find the right fit for their interests and backgrounds. The committee is interested in leveraging strengths by demonstrating expertise; monthly public webinars by members was suggested.

Further discussion during this meeting included identifying benefits of membership, and the how members interact during the meetings. It was recognized that there are and will be “lurkers”, but need to encourage them to step up and step in when the project or discussion is relevant to them, and to propose projects that are of interest. Jimi added his concern that NDSA members should not feel that the group is heavily driven by the Library of Congress. Everyone has a voice and can bring something to the workgroups.
Meghan asked about the NDIIPP/NDSA Joint conference this summer. It is scheduled for July 24. The call for presentations was due Monday, April 23. Information was sent to the listserv.

Priscilla asked about the relationship between NDSA and DPN (Digital Preservation Network). Andrea noted that there is no formal relationship and commented that DPN could be a model for something broader than NDSA.

'''Staffing Survey'''

A separate Google Doc contains the most up-to-date version of the questions: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1QoNiJkoZuFjGPijnC7KPjk1ry9IDKyPWF_qCRZzo3wg/edit
If you don’t have access to this document, please contact Andrea. We basically started with question 1 again, and discussed through 11. Summary of the discussion appears below. Jimi has scheduled a separate meeting to complete this work on Wednesday, April 25.

'''Survey Question Discussion'''

• Question #1: Accepted

• Question #2. Add 0 and > 500 to the ranges. There was a suggestion to ask for a number for over 500 to see if we have the right ranges. Emily introduced a discussion about including derivative and backup files, noting that it was hard to pull out only content at her location. She also noted that some sites might be including metadata and text in their storage space.

• Question #3. Does the question include born-digital content that sites may acquire, which adds to and may dwarf content from digitization projects. It also adds to the storage and back up requirements for their digital footprint. Should the question be more targeted to an expected annual growth rate over the next three years?

o Seemed to be a consensus that the one year number had value.

• Question #4: Reordered after last meeting. Question is looking for a percentage of the media types. May need to be clarified.

• Questions #6 (now in 5th position): Currently proposed to have 4 columns: Functions performed now, functions outsourced, functions you would like to do, functions you would like to outsource.

o John Spencer commented that as a private entity, their functions don’t align exactly , as they do individual analyses with clients to match needs.

• Question #5 (now in 6th position): Proposed that the functions in the above question be repeated so that responders can indicate the number of people by function.

• Question #7-10: Proposed for elimination

• Question #11: Reframed to include elements of the above questions.
Action Items for group:

Pop up meeting to iron out the Staffing Survey scheduled.

Next meeting will be in May and will be scheduled via the Doodle poll.

NDSA:April 18, 2012 Standards Working Group Notes

2012-04-25T16:24:07Z

Jjones: Created page with 'NDSA Standards Subgroup Web Ex meeting notes April 18, 2012 Attending: Jimi Jones, Andrea Goethals, Kate Murray, John Spencer, Kate Boyd, Barbara Dean (note taker), Em…'

NDSA Standards Subgroup

Web Ex meeting notes

April 18, 2012

Attending:

Jimi Jones,
Andrea Goethals,
Kate Murray,
John Spencer,
Kate Boyd,
Barbara Dean (note taker),
Emily Shaw,
Tracy Popp,
Priscilla Caplan,
Jessica Colati,
Meghan Burgin,
Midge Cos

The following new members introduced themselves:

Kate Boyd – University of South Carolina, Digital Collections Librarian

Midge Cos – Auburn University, Digital Projects Librarian.

Agenda

Report on NDSA Coordinating Committee (Jones, Goethals)

Staffing survey

Report on NDSA Coordinating Committee meeting (Jones, Goethals):

Meeting was held March 29-30, 2012 in Washington, D.C. The report of the meeting can be found at http://www.loc.gov/extranet/wiki/osi/ndiip/ndsa/index.php?title=2012_Q1_Meeting.
Primary discussion centered around what makes NDSA unique, digital stewardship in the coming year, and how to leverage the group’s strengths and opportunities. Highlights from the resulting action items included assignment of tasks for defining the “brand”, including communications, creation of a press kit, and engaging and empowering members, which included discussed the creation of a membership kit , orientation for new members to help new members find the right fit for their interests and backgrounds. The committee is interested in leveraging strengths by demonstrating expertise; monthly public webinars by members was suggested.

Further discussion during this meeting included identifying benefits of membership, and the how members interact during the meetings. It was recognized that there are and will be “lurkers”, but need to encourage them to step up and step in when the project or discussion is relevant to them, and to propose projects that are of interest. Jimi added his concern that NDSA members should not feel that the group is heavily driven by the Library of Congress. Everyone has a voice and can bring something to the workgroups.
Meghan asked about the NDIIPP/NDSA Joint conference this summer. It is scheduled for July 24. The call for presentations was due Monday, April 23. Information was sent to the listserv.

Priscilla asked about the relationship between NDSA and DPN (Digital Preservation Network). Andrea noted that there is no formal relationship and commented that DPN could be a model for something broader than NDSA.

Staffing Survey

A separate Google Doc contains the most up-to-date version of the questions: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1QoNiJkoZuFjGPijnC7KPjk1ry9IDKyPWF_qCRZzo3wg/edit
If you don’t have access to this document, please contact Andrea. We basically started with question 1 again, and discussed through 11. Summary of the discussion appears below. Jimi has scheduled a separate meeting to complete this work on Wednesday, April 25.

Survey Question Discussion

• Question #1: Accepted

• Question #2. Add 0 and > 500 to the ranges. There was a suggestion to ask for a number for over 500 to see if we have the right ranges. Emily introduced a discussion about including derivative and backup files, noting that it was hard to pull out only content at her location. She also noted that some sites might be including metadata and text in their storage space.

• Question #3. Does the question include born-digital content that sites may acquire, which adds to and may dwarf content from digitization projects. It also adds to the storage and back up requirements for their digital footprint. Should the question be more targeted to an expected annual growth rate over the next three years?

o Seemed to be a consensus that the one year number had value.

• Question #4: Reordered after last meeting. Question is looking for a percentage of the media types. May need to be clarified.

• Questions #6 (now in 5th position): Currently proposed to have 4 columns: Functions performed now, functions outsourced, functions you would like to do, functions you would like to outsource.

o John Spencer commented that as a private entity, their functions don’t align exactly , as they do individual analyses with clients to match needs.

• Question #5 (now in 6th position): Proposed that the functions in the above question be repeated so that responders can indicate the number of people by function.

• Question #7-10: Proposed for elimination

• Question #11: Reframed to include elements of the above questions.
Action Items for group:

Pop up meeting to iron out the Staffing Survey scheduled.

Next meeting will be in May and will be scheduled via the Doodle poll.

NDSA:Standards and Best Practices Working Group

2012-04-25T16:21:47Z

Jjones: /* Meeting Schedules, Minutes and Agendas */

== Standards and Practices Working Group ==

[[NDSA:Standards and Practices Working Group Charter ]] (December 10, 2010)

== Current Members ==
A list of current members is posted here: [[NDSA:Standards and Practices Working Group Members]].

== Statement of Purpose ==

The Standards and Practices Working Group will work to facilitate a community-wide understanding of the role and benefit of standards in digital preservation and how to use them effectively to ensure durable and usable collections. The Group will also develop, recommend, promote, and disseminate information about effective methods for selecting, organizing, describing, managing, preserving and serving digital content, in collaboration with other individuals and organizations where appropriate.

== Current Scope of Work ==

Working group members may initiate and engage in new work at any time by forming Action Teams focused on specific projects or tasks.

===1. Survey and document the digital preservation standards landscape===
This is an ambitious and on-going project using Wikipedia to promote the use of digital preservation standards and best practices. The objectives are to:
* identify and describe '''existing''' digital preservation standards and best practices
* identify '''gaps''' in digital preservation standards and best practices coverage that could be addressed by this working group in collaboration with others
* sustain this activity by building a community of Wikipedians to join us in this activity

The categories of digital preservation standards and best practices we will focus on include:
* Content models
* Content packaging
* Content transfer
* Digital preservation strategies and techniques
* Digital preservation terms and concepts
* File formats
* Encodings
* Metadata exchange
* Metadata schemas
* Repository architecture
* Repository certification and trustworthiness
* Repository operations
* Repository policies

Specific activities and deliverables of this project include:
* creation and maintenance of a Digital Preservation "WikiProject" within Wikipedia as an umbrella for collaborating with others on this project
* redevelop the current Wikipedia "Digital Preservation" page so that it can serve as an appropriate launch page to more detailed information about standards and best practices
* create / update pages describing current standards and best practices in the field of digital preservation
* consult with others involved in digital preservation to encourage their input and contributions to the effort
* report back to the NDSA steering committee with updates and proposals as to how to continue this effort into the future

Links related to this project:
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Digital_Preservation Digital Preservation WikiProject Page]
* [[NDSA:Digital Preservation Page -- draft outline]]
* [[NDSA:Existing DP-Related Wikipedia Pages]]
* [[NDSA:Survey Template]]
* [[NDSA:Sources of Information about DP Standards and Best Practices]]
* [[NDSA:Categories and Action Teams]] (sign up for an action team here)
* [[NDSA:Parking Spot for other DP-related Standards and Best Practices]]

----

===2. Survey of digital preservation staffing===

* [[NDSA:Staffing survey planning page]]

----

===3. Survey on adoption of digital preservation standards and best practices===

* [[NDSA:Standards survey planning page]]

----

===4. Related action team on distributed digital preservation===

* [[NDSA:DDP_OAIS_Frameworks | Describing a Framework for Applying OAIS to Distributed Digital Preservation]]

----

== Meeting Schedules, Minutes and Agendas==

* [[NDSA:April 18, 2012 Standards Working Group Notes]]
* [[NDSA:March 13, 2012 Standards Working Group Notes]]
* [[NDSA:February 22, 2012 Standards Working Group Notes]]
* [[NDSA:January 17, 2012 Standards Working Group Notes]]
* [[NDSA:November 7, 2011 Standards Working Group Notes and Agenda]]
* [[NDSA:June 6, 2011 Standards Working Group Notes and Agenda]]
* [[NDSA:May 2, 2011 Standards Working Group Notes and Agenda]]
* [[NDSA:April 4, 2011 Standards Working Group Notes and Agenda]]
* [[NDSA:Digital Preservation Metadata Action Team -- March 15, 2011]]
* [[NDSA:March 7, 2011 Standards Working Group Notes and Agenda]]
* [[NDSA:February 7, 2011 Standards Working Group Notes and Agenda]]
* [[NDSA:January 12, 2011 Standards Working Group Notes and Agenda]]
* [[NDSA:December 6, 2010 Standards Working Group Notes]]
* [[NDSA:November 17, 2010 Standards Working Group Notes]]

== NDSA Standards Working Group Listserv Archives==

The archives of the Standards Working Group Listserv can be found here (login will be required): http://list.digitalpreservation.gov/SCRIPTS/WA-DIGITAL.EXE?A0=NDSA-STANDARDS&X=25F57E4CACD543490D&Y

== Workshops ==
* I can haz standards workshop, NDIPP 2011 [[NDSA:I can haz standards workshop notes]]

== Deprecated pages kept for historical reasons ==
* [[NDSA:2011 NDIIPP Partners' Meeting Attendees]]
* NDSA Standards Working Group Google Group Space (we never ended up using this): http://groups.google.com/group/ndsa-standards-working-group?hl=en

NDSA:March 13, 2012 Standards Working Group Notes

2012-03-19T13:05:16Z

Jjones: Created page with 'WebEx recording: https://issevents.webex.com/issevents/lsr.php?AT=pb&SP=MC&rID=51625197&rKey=710a7e3723d95a98 ---- Meeting Notes (Kate Murray, notetaker) NDSA Standards Su…'

WebEx recording:
https://issevents.webex.com/issevents/lsr.php?AT=pb&SP=MC&rID=51625197&rKey=710a7e3723d95a98

----

Meeting Notes
(Kate Murray, notetaker)

NDSA Standards Subgroup

Web Ex meeting notes

March 13, 2012

Attending:

Jimi Jones, Andrea Goethals, KateMurray, John Spencer, Amy Kirchoff, Barabara Dean, Linda Tadic, Sue DuBois, Meghan Banach, Gary Wright

Meeting will be recorded. No objections noted.

Standards Survey Update:

Priscilla Caplan and Steven Douglas are working on rewrite of Digital Preservation Article. Draft available as Google Doc.

Andrea talked to Open Planets Foundation (http://www.openplanetsfoundation.org/ for more info on this group). They are interested in helping with Standards survey. Need to figure out the best way forward.

Staffing Survey Work.

Meg Phillips started work but not on call today. Goal is to collection information from for profit and non-profit organizations to learn about how they staff preservation and digitization projects. More information is available in NDSA Standards Wiki: http://www.loc.gov/extranet/wiki/osi/ndiip/ndsa/index.php?title=Standards_and_Best_Practices_Working_Group. The wiki includes information about use cases.

A separate Google Doc contains the most up-to-date version of the questions: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1QoNiJkoZuFjGPijnC7KPjk1ry9IDKyPWF_qCRZzo3wg/edit
If you don’t have access to this document, please contact Andrea. .

Survey Question Discussion

• Question #1: Should we add service providers to the possible answer options? What if service provider like OCLC or/and Tessella? Are these covered under for-profit or other? What about consortia?. What about CDL? Would THEY fill it out or would each individual school? Maybe “not for profit” again? Is there a question about outsourcing? No – not specifically. But maybe addressed in #4. Could be added in by adding additional columns to specific in-house or outsource for each task.

o Decision: leave as is.

• Question #2. Minor adjustment for numbers so they don’t overlap. Should we drop <1TB? Would they have an impact for this survey?

o Decision: Leave <1TB and add another line >500TB

• Question #3. Current format of question maybe confusing.

o Decision: Take away response options for a free text field. Easier to aggregate responses.

• Question #4: Is question formatting clear as to how one might provide information?

o Decision: add columns to distinguish between what is done in-house and outsourced. Rewording third column: Select all the functions you believe should be added to your digital preservation program?

o There was much discussion about language involving digital curation, transformation, and transcoding.

o Other editing issues were discussed and resolved and are reflected in the document

o The group was unsure about the ”auditing” and will refer back to Meg Phillips for clarity.

Action Items for group:

All continue to work in it separately before April meeting. Look carefully at questions for deletion: #12 and 13

Meghan is looking for feedback on question #14 which she submitted.

NDSA:Standards and Best Practices Working Group

2012-03-19T13:02:51Z

Jjones:

== Standards and Practices Working Group ==

[[NDSA:Standards and Practices Working Group Charter ]] (December 10, 2010)

== Current Members ==
A list of current members is posted here: [[NDSA:Standards and Practices Working Group Members]].

== Statement of Purpose ==

The Standards and Practices Working Group will work to facilitate a community-wide understanding of the role and benefit of standards in digital preservation and how to use them effectively to ensure durable and usable collections. The Group will also develop, recommend, promote, and disseminate information about effective methods for selecting, organizing, describing, managing, preserving and serving digital content, in collaboration with other individuals and organizations where appropriate.

== Current Scope of Work ==

Working group members may initiate and engage in new work at any time by forming Action Teams focused on specific projects or tasks.

===1. Survey and document the digital preservation standards landscape===
This is an ambitious and on-going project using Wikipedia to promote the use of digital preservation standards and best practices. The objectives are to:
* identify and describe '''existing''' digital preservation standards and best practices
* identify '''gaps''' in digital preservation standards and best practices coverage that could be addressed by this working group in collaboration with others
* sustain this activity by building a community of Wikipedians to join us in this activity

The categories of digital preservation standards and best practices we will focus on include:
* Content models
* Content packaging
* Content transfer
* Digital preservation strategies and techniques
* Digital preservation terms and concepts
* File formats
* Encodings
* Metadata exchange
* Metadata schemas
* Repository architecture
* Repository certification and trustworthiness
* Repository operations
* Repository policies

Specific activities and deliverables of this project include:
* creation and maintenance of a Digital Preservation "WikiProject" within Wikipedia as an umbrella for collaborating with others on this project
* redevelop the current Wikipedia "Digital Preservation" page so that it can serve as an appropriate launch page to more detailed information about standards and best practices
* create / update pages describing current standards and best practices in the field of digital preservation
* consult with others involved in digital preservation to encourage their input and contributions to the effort
* report back to the NDSA steering committee with updates and proposals as to how to continue this effort into the future

Links related to this project:
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Digital_Preservation Digital Preservation WikiProject Page]
* [[NDSA:Digital Preservation Page -- draft outline]]
* [[NDSA:Existing DP-Related Wikipedia Pages]]
* [[NDSA:Survey Template]]
* [[NDSA:Sources of Information about DP Standards and Best Practices]]
* [[NDSA:Categories and Action Teams]] (sign up for an action team here)
* [[NDSA:Parking Spot for other DP-related Standards and Best Practices]]

----

===2. Survey of digital preservation staffing===

* [[NDSA:Staffing survey planning page]]

----

===3. Survey on adoption of digital preservation standards and best practices===

* [[NDSA:Standards survey planning page]]

----

===4. Related action team on distributed digital preservation===

* [[NDSA:DDP_OAIS_Frameworks | Describing a Framework for Applying OAIS to Distributed Digital Preservation]]

----

== Meeting Schedules, Minutes and Agendas==

* [[NDSA:March 13, 2012 Standards Working Group Notes]]
* [[NDSA:February 22, 2012 Standards Working Group Notes]]
* [[NDSA:January 17, 2012 Standards Working Group Notes]]
* [[NDSA:November 7, 2011 Standards Working Group Notes and Agenda]]
* [[NDSA:June 6, 2011 Standards Working Group Notes and Agenda]]
* [[NDSA:May 2, 2011 Standards Working Group Notes and Agenda]]
* [[NDSA:April 4, 2011 Standards Working Group Notes and Agenda]]
* [[NDSA:Digital Preservation Metadata Action Team -- March 15, 2011]]
* [[NDSA:March 7, 2011 Standards Working Group Notes and Agenda]]
* [[NDSA:February 7, 2011 Standards Working Group Notes and Agenda]]
* [[NDSA:January 12, 2011 Standards Working Group Notes and Agenda]]
* [[NDSA:December 6, 2010 Standards Working Group Notes]]
* [[NDSA:November 17, 2010 Standards Working Group Notes]]

== NDSA Standards Working Group Listserv Archives==

The archives of the Standards Working Group Listserv can be found here (login will be required): http://list.digitalpreservation.gov/SCRIPTS/WA-DIGITAL.EXE?A0=NDSA-STANDARDS&X=25F57E4CACD543490D&Y

== Workshops ==
* I can haz standards workshop, NDIPP 2011 [[NDSA:I can haz standards workshop notes]]

== Deprecated pages kept for historical reasons ==
* [[NDSA:2011 NDIIPP Partners' Meeting Attendees]]
* NDSA Standards Working Group Google Group Space (we never ended up using this): http://groups.google.com/group/ndsa-standards-working-group?hl=en

NDSA:January 17, 2012 Standards Working Group Notes

2012-01-19T15:01:05Z

Jjones:

NDSA Standards Working Group

January 17, 2012

WebEx Meeting Notes

WebEx recording is here: https://issevents.webex.com/issevents/lsr.php?AT=pb&SP=MC&rID=50622197&rKey=dcfc0531c816aaaa

In attendance (Please add your name if I’ve left it out.):
* Jimi Jones (co-chair)
* Andrea Goethals (co-chair)
* Amy Kirchhoff
* Barbara Dean
* Emily F. Shaw
* Jess Branco Colati
* Karen Cariani
* Kate Murray
* Linda Tadic
* Meg Phillips
* Stephen Davis
* Sue DuBois

== Intro ==
The new members on the call introduced themselves: Barbara Dean and Emily Shaw.

== What do we want to get out of the group ==
We started with a discussion of what people want to get out of participating in the group. Stephen thought that the Wikipedia project and survey should remain part of our agenda. He thought that we shouldn't take too much on until the projects we started are moving along. Barbara felt that the WG is a good fit for her and her organization. Karen (who co-chairs the Infrastructure WG) participates to see how we can work with the Infrastructure WG and to make sure we're not stepping on each others toes. Meg has been very pleased that we were able to start up and make progress on the staffing survey project despite also working on the Wikipedia project. Amy wants to stay abreast of what's happening in the standards space. In response a few of us, including Amy, said that we should start forwarding new standards information to the mailing list. Karen thinks that we have been taking on work that is manageable. Someone asked if the Coordinating Committee expects particular things from our WG. Jimi said that this is an experimental venture powered by volunteers, so what we do is driven by us.

== Wikipedia Project ==
Andrea gave an update on the WikiProject portion of the Wikipedia project. She showed how the statistics are now working. She asked for opinions on which graphic to use for the project. Several people opted for the binary clock image. Someone asked about the scope. Andrea thought we should at least include the things that are directly linkable from the digital preservation article but that more secondary content will likely be driven by the expertise of the participants (for example we have a lot of audio expertise in the group).

Stephen gave an update on the Wikipedia article restructuring. He has been aggregating authoritative sources to cite in the article. He has also been talking to Priscilla Caplan who has agreed to help with the article rewrite. She is planning to write a book about digital preservation so this work could complement that. Stephen has been drafting the article on the NDSA wiki but it's wiki software isn't completely compatible with Wikipedia's. We decided that the best way to write it may be in a Word Document and then transfer it to the Wikipedia Sandbox as we get closer to publishing it on the Wikipedia site. (The Wikipedia Sandbox gets wiped periodically).

== Staffing Survey ==
Meg explained the context of the staffing survey. We discussed some new questions for the survey which Jimi will add to the staffing survey planning page on the wiki.

Stephen mentioned the ARL spec kit which had similar questions. He saved a copy of Columbia's responses so he'll share that with us.

Someone asked if there were lessons we could learn from the Infrastructure WG's survey. Karen said that Trevor, Micah and Andrea largely shaped that one. Karen said that we could answer it on 2 passes like the Infra. WG did so that we could learn from the first one and refine it. Andrea said that we should try to make the questions quantifiable but that we may need to leave a few open-ended.

Stephen had an idea of developing institutional profiles in part because the information we ask on these surveys will change over time. Institutions could update their profiles. We should keep this in mind for a future project.

Jimi suggested that we all add any questions we'd like answered to the planning page and then we'll work to winnow it down and rewrite them later. We'll also add use cases (how the survey responses will be used) to the page which will help us come up with the final questions.

Next call we will try to make it an hour and 15 minutes since we keep running out of time.

NDSA:Staffing survey planning page

2012-01-18T18:16:16Z

Jjones:

Excerpt from Meg's email that started this project:

"Recently I've had several interesting conversations with people at other institutions about how the work of digital preservation is and should be organized and staffed within organizations. We've touched on issues like: what different roles are necessary to do digital preservation, what is the division of labor, what kinds of skills are needed, are developers within a digital preservation unit or outside it, would people be willing to share org charts and position descriptions, and on and on.

Information like this could be useful for many reasons, including simply finding out how many different ways of doing this there are, benchmarking, identifying effective practices, and maybe making a case to strengthen staffing at our own institutions.

This topic clearly isn't related to "standards", but it probably is related to "practices." I was wondering if other members of this group would have any interest in conducting a survey of institutions to find out how they organize and staff the digital preservation function, and how they would like to organize and staff it. We could do something relatively simple, on the model of the storage survey recently conducted by another NDSA working group."
----
'''Use Cases:'''

In order to get a handle on what kinds of questions we'd like to ask, we should consider what we want to do with this survey. As you come up with questions and insert them in the section below, think about use cases for this survey and put them in this section.

----
'''Notes:'''

Section 3.2 of the latest version of the TRAC successor is about Organizational Structure and Staffing. Specifically it requires the following:
* 3.2.1 The repository shall have identified and established the duties that it needs to perform and shall have appointed staff with adequate skills and experience to fulfill these duties.
** 3.2.1.1 The repository shall have identified and established the duties that it needs to perform.
** 3.2.1.2 The repository shall have the appropriate number of staff to support all functions and services.
** 3.2.1.3 The repository shall have in place an active professional development program that provides staff with skills and expertise development opportunities.

----
Please start a draft of questions we could ask in this survey here:

* What are the titles of the people who do digital preservation work in your organization?
* What department(s) are they in?
* How many people are there?
* What are the major functions you include in your organization's digital preservation work?
* What skills do you think are necessary in the people who perform those functions?
* Do you have org charts, mission statements, position descriptions that you'd be willing to share?

* Approximately, how many terabytes of storage space do you require for all copies of your content that you manage?
* Do you think that the number of people you have working in digital preservation is sufficient?
* In what areas are you missing expertise that you need for digital preservation?
* How many people and in what areas do you think you need for digital preservation?
* What do you think the *ideal* functions, structure, and staffing of a digital preservation function would be (setting aside anything you actually have or are likely to have)?

* Did you hire digital preservation specialists or "grow your own" (or both)?
* Where do you turn for professional development opportunities for your digital preservation staff? What types of professional development opportunities have you used?
* How big is your institution?
* How much work experience, in years, do most of your digital preservation staff have?

* Is your digitization setup right for you at the moment / Are you satisfied with what you have? (please feel free to edit this one)
* Is preservation the principle mandate of your organization or is it a secondary concern?
* Pick from the following list what kind of institution you represent: library, archives, museum, etc.

NDSA:Existing DP-Related Wikipedia Pages

2011-11-08T16:22:25Z

Jjones:

'''Below are the existing digipres-related Wikipedia pages with links. Everyone please add to this list!'''

'''And let's start a list of what digipres pages are NOT on Wikipedia but we think should be!'''

.

NDSA:Existing DP-Related Wikipedia Pages

2011-11-08T16:21:21Z

Jjones: Created page with ''''Below are the existing digipres-related Wikipedia pages with links. Everyone please add to this list!''''

'''Below are the existing digipres-related Wikipedia pages with links. Everyone please add to this list!'''

NDSA:Standards and Best Practices Working Group

2011-11-08T16:20:31Z

Jjones: /* Work Spaces for Standards Survey */

== Standards and Practices Working Group ==

[[NDSA:Standards and Practices Working Group Charter ]] (December 10, 2010)

== Current Members ==
A list of current members is posted here: [[NDSA:Standards and Practices Working Group Members]].

== Statement of Purpose ==

The Standards and Practices Working Group will work to facilitate a community-wide understanding of the role and benefit of standards in digital preservation and how to use them effectively to ensure durable and usable collections. The Group will also develop, recommend, promote, and disseminate information about effective methods for selecting, organizing, describing, managing, preserving and serving digital content, in collaboration with other individuals and organizations where appropriate.

== Current Scope of Work ==

Working group members may initiate and engage in new work at any time by forming Action Teams focused on specific projects or tasks. In addition, the Working Group will conduct the following project.

===Survey and document the digital preservation standards landscape===

====Objectives:====
* Identify and describe existing digital preservation standards and best practices
* Identify opportunities for collaboration with non-NDSA individuals and organizations who are currently working on digital preservation standards and best practices
* Identify gaps in digital preservation standards and best practices coverage that could be addressed by this working group in future activities

====Scope:====
* Compilation of existing digital preservation standards and best practices, including but not limited to:
** Authoring individuals and organizations
** Status of standard or best practice
** Description of standard or best practice
** Characterization of the standard or best practice
Categories:
Content models
Content packaging
Content transfer
Digital preservation strategies and techniques
Digital preservation terms and concepts
File formats
Encodings
Metadata exchange
Metadata schemas
Repository architecture
Repository certification and trustworthiness
Repository operations
Repository policies
** Examples of where and how they are used
** Related documents and Web sites
* Analysis and synthesis
* Identify gaps, areas of potential collaboration, etc.
* Publication of survey as an online resource

====Deliverables:====
* Online resource (perhaps a wiki?) that can be continually updated by the NDSA Standards and Practices group and accessed by the general public
* Report

====Schedule====
* Early Spring 2011: Project planning
* Late Spring 2011: Rough draft of report
* Summer 2011: “Live” online resource
* Summer 2011: Report on work at the NDSA annual conference

====Logistics & methodology====
* Progress will be reported via the regular working group phone meetings.
* Discussions will happen on listserv and via emails and phone calls as needed
* NDSA Standards and Practices working group wiki space will be used to collate resources and work on the deliverables
* A Google Doc Spreadsheet may work better to collate resources because of its support for collaborative editing and column sorting.

====Participants====
* Lead: Small group of Working Group members?
* Responsibilities: Manage the project (keep it on-track, provide status updates), Design contribution process (e.g. who can contribute, editorial review process?, how to publicize contribution process), Design information framework (e.g. the elements to record about each standard, controlled vocabulary values), Perform analysis on collated standards and best practices, Write summary report
* Participants: Entire Working Group
* Responsibilities: Identify and describe relevant standards and best practices

== Work Spaces for Standards Survey==

[[NDSA:Survey Template]]

[[NDSA:Sources of Information about DP Standards and Best Practices]]

[[NDSA:Categories and Action Teams]] (sign up for an action team here)

[[NDSA:Parking Spot for other DP-related Standards and Best Practices]]

[[NDSA:Existing DP-Related Wikipedia Pages]]

== Meeting Schedules, Minutes and Agendas==

* [[NDSA:November 7, 2011 Standards Working Group Notes and Agenda]]
* [[NDSA:June 6, 2011 Standards Working Group Notes and Agenda]]
* [[NDSA:May 2, 2011 Standards Working Group Notes and Agenda]]
* [[NDSA:April 4, 2011 Standards Working Group Notes and Agenda]]
* [[NDSA:March 7, 2011 Standards Working Group Notes and Agenda]]
* [[NDSA:February 7, 2011 Standards Working Group Notes and Agenda]]
* [[NDSA:January 12, 2011 Standards Working Group Notes and Agenda]]
* [[NDSA:December 6, 2010 Standards Working Group Notes]]
* [[NDSA:November 17, 2010 Standards Working Group Notes]]

== NDSA Standards Working Group Listserv Archives==

The archives of the Standards Working Group Listserv can be found here (login will be required): http://list.digitalpreservation.gov/SCRIPTS/WA-DIGITAL.EXE?A0=NDSA-STANDARDS&X=25F57E4CACD543490D&Y

== NDSA Standards Working Group Google Group Space==

http://groups.google.com/group/ndsa-standards-working-group?hl=en

== Related Action Teams==

[[NDSA:DDP_OAIS_Frameworks | Describing a Framework for Applying OAIS to Distributed Digital Preservation]]

== Action Team Meeting Minutes and Summaries==

[[NDSA:Digital Preservation Metadata Action Team -- March 15, 2011]]

== 2011 NDIIPP Partners' Meeting Attendees ==

[[NDSA:2011 NDIIPP Partners' Meeting Attendees]]

== I can haz standards workshop ==

[[NDSA:I can haz standards workshop notes]]

NDSA:November 7, 2011 Standards Working Group Notes and Agenda

2011-11-08T16:19:18Z

Jjones: Created page with 'NDSA Standards Working Group November 7, 2011 WebEx Meeting Notes WebEx recording is here: https://issevents.webex.com/issevents/lsr.php?AT=pb&SP=MC&rID=49484757&rKey=cdb7de…'

NDSA Standards Working Group

November 7, 2011

WebEx Meeting Notes

WebEx recording is here: https://issevents.webex.com/issevents/lsr.php?AT=pb&SP=MC&rID=49484757&rKey=cdb7de22e27e8312

In attendance:

Jimi Jones (co-chair)

Andrea Goethals (co-chair)

Kate Murray

Karen Cariani

Tracy Popp

Amy Kirchhoff

Stephen Davis

Please add your name if I’ve left it out.

Our first bit of business was to take a look at the Broadcast Wave page on Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broadcast_Wave_Format). Andrea added some content to the page in the form of the small box in the upper right. She put as many fields from our Google Docs spreadsheet as Wikipedia’s template for the information box would allow. She compiled a list of the information she was not allowed by the template to add. Some items she was not able to add were document type, category, standard status, cost of the specification and others.

Andrea claimed it didn’t take long to enter the information in the box once she knew how the Wikipedia editing worked. We took a look at the template she used to put together the information box. The template is used by Wikipedians for file formats. In the discussion that ensued we agreed that pages for digital file formats would be relatively easy to edit and add information to but other kinds of digital preservation standards and practices would be harder to conform.

Wikipedia pages have a tab for “Discussion.” We thought it could be possible to put use and best practices-type information in the Discussion area. Other options would be to create a portal page and put that kind of info on there (more on that in a moment) or create a “Best Practices in Digital Preservation” page for Wikipedia and link from it.

The conversation turned to portals. Andrea sent out an email to the NDSA Standards listserv saying that in her research she has found that portals are not that discoverable – not as discoverable as straight-up Wikipedia pages – in searches outside Wikipedia. In our conversations with Sarah Steirch, Wikipedian-in-Residence at the Archives of American Art, we found out that portals aren’t used that much anymore.

Andrea took some time to show us the metrics that Wikipedia compiles for pages about “quality” (information about citations on pages) as well as the pages’ growth over time. These stats could be very important to our group as we gauge interest in the digital preservation-related pages over time.

After some discussion the group decided that the best way to proceed may be to use the Digital Preservation entry on Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_preservation) and conform it to our needs. We can also point to digipres-related standards from there. In effect, this page would become our portal. A cursory glance during the meeting showed that it has a considerable amount of high-level information already and it receives pretty regular hits.

Stephen recommended that anyone on the group who is interested should take a look at this Digital Preservation page and see what’s there and, more importantly, what’s not there. Stephen’s going to take the first crack at this and share his thoughts on the Standards listserv but we should all join in with thoughts. This will have the added benefit of spurring conversation on the listserv, which is always a good thing!

Our other bit of homework is to start compiling a list of existing digipres-related Wikipedia pages. Jimi will make a space on the NDSA Standards wiki for this list. Everyone please add to it so we can see what’s already there and what needs to be!

And a side note – Martha Anderson asked each group if they’d like to send an emissary join the NDSA session at CNI. Stephen Davis expressed interest but Rachel Frick will be presenting briefly about our group and the state of our survey work. A big thanks to Rachel (and thanks to Stephen for being willing to serve)!

NDSA:Standards and Best Practices Working Group

2011-11-08T16:18:32Z

Jjones: /* Meeting Schedules, Minutes and Agendas */

== Standards and Practices Working Group ==

[[NDSA:Standards and Practices Working Group Charter ]] (December 10, 2010)

== Current Members ==
A list of current members is posted here: [[NDSA:Standards and Practices Working Group Members]].

== Statement of Purpose ==

The Standards and Practices Working Group will work to facilitate a community-wide understanding of the role and benefit of standards in digital preservation and how to use them effectively to ensure durable and usable collections. The Group will also develop, recommend, promote, and disseminate information about effective methods for selecting, organizing, describing, managing, preserving and serving digital content, in collaboration with other individuals and organizations where appropriate.

== Current Scope of Work ==

Working group members may initiate and engage in new work at any time by forming Action Teams focused on specific projects or tasks. In addition, the Working Group will conduct the following project.

===Survey and document the digital preservation standards landscape===

====Objectives:====
* Identify and describe existing digital preservation standards and best practices
* Identify opportunities for collaboration with non-NDSA individuals and organizations who are currently working on digital preservation standards and best practices
* Identify gaps in digital preservation standards and best practices coverage that could be addressed by this working group in future activities

====Scope:====
* Compilation of existing digital preservation standards and best practices, including but not limited to:
** Authoring individuals and organizations
** Status of standard or best practice
** Description of standard or best practice
** Characterization of the standard or best practice
Categories:
Content models
Content packaging
Content transfer
Digital preservation strategies and techniques
Digital preservation terms and concepts
File formats
Encodings
Metadata exchange
Metadata schemas
Repository architecture
Repository certification and trustworthiness
Repository operations
Repository policies
** Examples of where and how they are used
** Related documents and Web sites
* Analysis and synthesis
* Identify gaps, areas of potential collaboration, etc.
* Publication of survey as an online resource

====Deliverables:====
* Online resource (perhaps a wiki?) that can be continually updated by the NDSA Standards and Practices group and accessed by the general public
* Report

====Schedule====
* Early Spring 2011: Project planning
* Late Spring 2011: Rough draft of report
* Summer 2011: “Live” online resource
* Summer 2011: Report on work at the NDSA annual conference

====Logistics & methodology====
* Progress will be reported via the regular working group phone meetings.
* Discussions will happen on listserv and via emails and phone calls as needed
* NDSA Standards and Practices working group wiki space will be used to collate resources and work on the deliverables
* A Google Doc Spreadsheet may work better to collate resources because of its support for collaborative editing and column sorting.

====Participants====
* Lead: Small group of Working Group members?
* Responsibilities: Manage the project (keep it on-track, provide status updates), Design contribution process (e.g. who can contribute, editorial review process?, how to publicize contribution process), Design information framework (e.g. the elements to record about each standard, controlled vocabulary values), Perform analysis on collated standards and best practices, Write summary report
* Participants: Entire Working Group
* Responsibilities: Identify and describe relevant standards and best practices

== Work Spaces for Standards Survey==

[[NDSA:Survey Template]]

[[NDSA:Sources of Information about DP Standards and Best Practices]]

[[NDSA:Categories and Action Teams]] (sign up for an action team here)

[[NDSA:Parking Spot for other DP-related Standards and Best Practices]]

== Meeting Schedules, Minutes and Agendas==

* [[NDSA:November 7, 2011 Standards Working Group Notes and Agenda]]
* [[NDSA:June 6, 2011 Standards Working Group Notes and Agenda]]
* [[NDSA:May 2, 2011 Standards Working Group Notes and Agenda]]
* [[NDSA:April 4, 2011 Standards Working Group Notes and Agenda]]
* [[NDSA:March 7, 2011 Standards Working Group Notes and Agenda]]
* [[NDSA:February 7, 2011 Standards Working Group Notes and Agenda]]
* [[NDSA:January 12, 2011 Standards Working Group Notes and Agenda]]
* [[NDSA:December 6, 2010 Standards Working Group Notes]]
* [[NDSA:November 17, 2010 Standards Working Group Notes]]

== NDSA Standards Working Group Listserv Archives==

The archives of the Standards Working Group Listserv can be found here (login will be required): http://list.digitalpreservation.gov/SCRIPTS/WA-DIGITAL.EXE?A0=NDSA-STANDARDS&X=25F57E4CACD543490D&Y

== NDSA Standards Working Group Google Group Space==

http://groups.google.com/group/ndsa-standards-working-group?hl=en

== Related Action Teams==

[[NDSA:DDP_OAIS_Frameworks | Describing a Framework for Applying OAIS to Distributed Digital Preservation]]

== Action Team Meeting Minutes and Summaries==

[[NDSA:Digital Preservation Metadata Action Team -- March 15, 2011]]

== 2011 NDIIPP Partners' Meeting Attendees ==

[[NDSA:2011 NDIIPP Partners' Meeting Attendees]]

== I can haz standards workshop ==

[[NDSA:I can haz standards workshop notes]]

NDSA:Standards and Best Practices Working Group

2011-09-27T17:14:28Z

Jjones: /* Scope: */

== Standards and Practices Working Group ==

[[NDSA:Standards and Practices Working Group Charter ]] (December 10, 2010)

== Current Members ==
A list of current members is posted here: [[NDSA:Standards and Practices Working Group Members]].

== Statement of Purpose ==

The Standards and Practices Working Group will work to facilitate a community-wide understanding of the role and benefit of standards in digital preservation and how to use them effectively to ensure durable and usable collections. The Group will also develop, recommend, promote, and disseminate information about effective methods for selecting, organizing, describing, managing, preserving and serving digital content, in collaboration with other individuals and organizations where appropriate.

== Current Scope of Work ==

Working group members may initiate and engage in new work at any time by forming Action Teams focused on specific projects or tasks. In addition, the Working Group will conduct the following project.

===Survey and document the digital preservation standards landscape===

====Objectives:====
* Identify and describe existing digital preservation standards and best practices
* Identify opportunities for collaboration with non-NDSA individuals and organizations who are currently working on digital preservation standards and best practices
* Identify gaps in digital preservation standards and best practices coverage that could be addressed by this working group in future activities

====Scope:====
* Compilation of existing digital preservation standards and best practices, including but not limited to:
** Authoring individuals and organizations
** Status of standard or best practice
** Description of standard or best practice
** Characterization of the standard or best practice
Categories:
File formats
Encodings
Metadata schemas
** Examples of where and how they are used
** Related documents and Web sites
* Analysis and synthesis
* Identify gaps, areas of potential collaboration, etc.
* Publication of survey as an online resource

====Deliverables:====
* Online resource (perhaps a wiki?) that can be continually updated by the NDSA Standards and Practices group and accessed by the general public
* Report

====Schedule====
* Early Spring 2011: Project planning
* Late Spring 2011: Rough draft of report
* Summer 2011: “Live” online resource
* Summer 2011: Report on work at the NDSA annual conference

====Logistics & methodology====
* Progress will be reported via the regular working group phone meetings.
* Discussions will happen on listserv and via emails and phone calls as needed
* NDSA Standards and Practices working group wiki space will be used to collate resources and work on the deliverables
* A Google Doc Spreadsheet may work better to collate resources because of its support for collaborative editing and column sorting.

====Participants====
* Lead: Small group of Working Group members?
* Responsibilities: Manage the project (keep it on-track, provide status updates), Design contribution process (e.g. who can contribute, editorial review process?, how to publicize contribution process), Design information framework (e.g. the elements to record about each standard, controlled vocabulary values), Perform analysis on collated standards and best practices, Write summary report
* Participants: Entire Working Group
* Responsibilities: Identify and describe relevant standards and best practices

== Work Spaces for Standards Survey==

[[NDSA:Survey Template]]

[[NDSA:Sources of Information about DP Standards and Best Practices]]

[[NDSA:Categories and Action Teams]] (sign up for an action team here)

[[NDSA:Parking Spot for other DP-related Standards and Best Practices]]

== Meeting Schedules, Minutes and Agendas==

* [[NDSA:June 6, 2011 Standards Working Group Notes and Agenda]]
* [[NDSA:May 2, 2011 Standards Working Group Notes and Agenda]]
* [[NDSA:April 4, 2011 Standards Working Group Notes and Agenda]]
* [[NDSA:March 7, 2011 Standards Working Group Notes and Agenda]]
* [[NDSA:February 7, 2011 Standards Working Group Notes and Agenda]]
* [[NDSA:January 12, 2011 Standards Working Group Notes and Agenda]]
* [[NDSA:December 6, 2010 Standards Working Group Notes]]
* [[NDSA:November 17, 2010 Standards Working Group Notes]]

== NDSA Standards Working Group Listserv Archives==

The archives of the Standards Working Group Listserv can be found here (login will be required): http://list.digitalpreservation.gov/SCRIPTS/WA-DIGITAL.EXE?A0=NDSA-STANDARDS&X=25F57E4CACD543490D&Y

== NDSA Standards Working Group Google Group Space==

http://groups.google.com/group/ndsa-standards-working-group?hl=en

== Related Action Teams==

[[NDSA:DDP_OAIS_Frameworks | Describing a Framework for Applying OAIS to Distributed Digital Preservation]]

== Action Team Meeting Minutes and Summaries==

[[NDSA:Digital Preservation Metadata Action Team -- March 15, 2011]]

== 2011 NDIIPP Partners' Meeting Attendees ==

[[NDSA:2011 NDIIPP Partners' Meeting Attendees]]

== I can haz standards workshop ==

[[NDSA:I can haz standards workshop notes]]

NDSA:Standards and Practices Working Group Members

2011-09-27T17:12:18Z

Jjones:

Co-chairs:

* Co-chair: Jimi Jones, Library of Congress

I am Digital Audiovisual Formats Specialist for LC's Office of Strategic Initiatives. I am primarily interested in audiovisual formats and encodings and will probably focus on those in this survey work.

* Co-chair: Andrea Goethals, Harvard University

Members (In order of first names):

* Aaron Trehub, Auburn University
* Allison Munsell, Munsell Studio
* Amy Kirchhoff, ITHAKA
* Amy Rudersdorf, North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
* Andy Maltz, the Academy of Motion Picture Arts & Sciences
* Ben Fino-Radin, Rhizome
* Brian E. C. Schottlaender, University of California San Diego
* Charles Kolb, National Endowment for the Humanities
* Claire W. White, Stock Artists Alliance
* Courtney Michael, WGBH Educational Foundation
* Daniel R. Dodge, Thomson Reuters
* Daphne DeLeon, Nevada State Library and Archives
* Robert R. Downs, CIESIN, Columbia University
* Eileen Fenton, Portico
* Elizabeth Falk, Idaho State Archives
* Eugene Mopsik, American Society of Media Photographers
* Gary Wright, Corporation of the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
* Glenn Clatworthy, Public Broadcasting Service
* Gregory Sanford, Vermont State Archives and Records Administration
* Herbert Van de Sompel, Los Alamos National Laboratory Research Library
* Jennifer Waxman, New York University
* Joe Weisenbach, MAM-A Inc.
* John McCoskey, Public Broadcasting Service (PBS)
* John Spencer, BMS/Chace
* Josh Sternfeld, National Endowment for the Humanities
* Karen Cariani, WGBH Educational Foundation
* Kate Murray, National Archives and Records Administration
* Margaret Maes, Legal Information Preservation Alliance
* Mark Abrahamson, Roper Center for Public Opinion Research
* Mark Evans, Tessella Inc.
* Martin Halbert, University of North Texas
* Mary Vardigan, Inter-University Consortium for Political and Social Research (ICPSR)
* Matt Peters, Utah Automated Geographic Reference Center
* Matt Schultz, Educopia Institute, MetaArchive Cooperative
* Meg Philips, National Archives and Records Administration
* Michael Levy, United States Holocaust Memorial Museum
* Michael L. Nelson, Old Dominion University
* Michele Kimpton, DuraSpace
* Michele Timmons, Minnesota Office of the Revisor of Statutes
* Nancy North, University of Michigan
* Paula De Stefano, New York University (NYU)
* Priscilla Caplan, Florida Center for Library Automation
* Rachel L. Frick, Council on Library and Information Resources: Digital Library Federation
* Robert R. Downs, Center for International Earth Science Information Network (CIESIN), Columbia University
* Shane Beers, University of Michigan
* Shawn Nicholson, Michigan State University Libraries
* Stephen P Davis, Columbia
* Steve Morris, North Carolina State University Libraries
* Tracy Popp, Texas Tech University Libraries
* Victoria Walch, Council of State Archives
* Wayne Shoaf, University of Southern California

[http://www.loc.gov/extranet/wiki/osi/ndiip/ndsa/index.php?title=Standards_and_Best_Practices_Working_Group NDSA Standards Group Home]

NDSA:I can haz standards workshop notes

2011-07-29T17:18:05Z

Jjones: /* Meeting Notes */

== Meeting Notes ==

I Can Haz Standardz, Session #5

NDIIPP/NDSA Partners Meeting Workshop

July 20, 2011

1:45 – 3:00 pm

Presenters: Andrea Goethals and Jimi Jones

Attendees:
Vickie Allen

Micah Altman

Janice Snyder Anderson

Raphael Barbau

David Brooks

Colleen Cahill

Glenn Clatworthy

Stephen Davis

Bob Downs

Lynda Schmitz Fuhrig

Helen Hockx-Yu

Nicole Joniec

Gina Jones

Charles Kolb

Bill Lefurgy

Justin Littman

Sue Manus

John Martinez

Kate Mayo

Gail McMillan

Eugene Mopsik

Steve Morris

Patricia Murphy

Kate Murray

Sone Nalensone

Michael Neubert

Shannon Niou

Kathleen O’Neill

Lesley Parilla

Meg Phillips

Deborah Rossum

Arnold Rots

Joe Servash

John Spencer

Josh Stromfeld

Aaron Trehus

Highlights

The NDSA Standards and Best Practices Working Group is working on a standards survey that has the following objectives:

• Identify and describe existing digital preservation standards and best practices

• Identify opportunities for collaboration with non-NDSA individuals and organizations who are currently working on digital preservation standards and best practices

• Identify gaps in digital preservation standards and best practices coverage that could be addressed by this working group in future activities

At the workshop, the attendees broke up into five separate groups to discuss the standards survey project and to create well-defined use cases for the standards survey project. The groups discussed who would use the survey, why they would use it, and what information would be needed. The groups entered their discussion notes into the NDSA Standards wiki and provided a quick verbal summary at the end of the meeting.
The following lists are a compilation of reports from all groups:

Potential Users

• Educational community

• Content creators

• Digital content managers

• Cultural heritage organizations

• Professional organizations (SLA, ALA, AMIA, etc.)

• Tool developers

Reasons for Use:

• Digital preservation policy development

• Education and training

• Reformatting community

• Data migration

• New standards development

• Gap analysis

• Procurement processes

• Avoid duplicating work

Possible Tools

The survey currently resides in a Google Docs spreadsheet. The data is not easily searchable and becomes more unwieldy as new information is added. The groups discussed various tools that might serve as model frameworks or searchable databases.

• Expression Engine

• Drupal

• LibraryThing (model database – allows for the linking of comments about an item to that item)

• XML database, using Oxygen to develop the user interface

Useful Side Notes
The working group participants came up with a variety of ideas that were out of scope for this particular meeting, but very useful nonetheless. They are presented below:

• The information will need to stay current. Who will maintain this?

• Where will this information reside, and how will users access it?

• It would be good to have a section for comments so that users can see how various formats/applications have worked for other users.

• Set up a prototype for one strict focus (A/V file formats, for example) rather than investing in everything upfront

• Add related projects to the survey tool

• Utilize the metadata model at IU to map out preservation standards

• Allow for searching by type of institutions

• Develop a survey for NDSA members (and later a wider group) to gather information about the most relevant documents and standards. The survey could be sent out every year and used to analyze trends in standards use.

Action Items
This workshop started the conversation for gap analysis and further development of standards.

• Report back to the Standards Working Group about this workshop.

• Post workshop discussion notes on the Working Group wiki and share with the working group to move forward.

Google Doc: https://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0Av48siEcvSxpdDFBcXVtZEpCamJhN2dCS1FHUmhtTlE&hl=en&authkey=CPangt4L#gid=0

== Notes From Breakout Groups (Table 1 had technical difficulties) ==

== Table 2 ==

Should only list institutions that are currently using the standard

Who will maintain this? crowd? or one institution?

Is it important to know who's using the standard?

Do we purge old versions of standards - standards no one is using? (can "dead" stuff go to a separate place)

Would use this as a tool to see what exists and who is using/doing what?

"this is a project that sounds like ours and this is what they're using?" - would mean that we have to be able to search by organization

Be able to search by type of material - "x is doing y - I'm also doing y...."

Take a look at the IU - Jen Riley's metadata organization model

Relational database of some kind - LibraryThing is something we should look at. Some fields that the general user can input and others are protected

We should take a look at WordPress

Talk to Jack Brighton about Expression Engine

== Table 3 ==
'''Possible use cases:'''
Digital preservation policy

Education/Training

Developing funding proposals/research

Funding organizations

Reformatting community: analog to digital

Data migration

Adoption patterns/community

New standards development

Gap analysis for developing new standards

Creating new born digital content need systems. Content must be viable over long term. Need easy to use tool.
Software tool developers

Procurement process (which might mandate use of open standards)

History of digital standards

Avoiding redoing existing work

'''Possibly add to survey:''' related projects

Big issues around presentation and data input for group; usefulness depends on content staying current

== Table 4 ==

test

-- scope: descriptive? standards / guidelines / practices

-- use cases: newbie, student, new project planners, hardware purchase decisions; developers; preparing outsource specification

-- difficulty to maintain over time? distributed mode with editor? Regular request to community for updates?

-- standards in use around table: METS, PREMIS, ASE, DACS, EAD, PeDALS; Astronomy FITS; RDF;

-- what about file format standards? what about best practices for preservation and access?

-- Questions: need more use cases to justify? What about standards and practices still needed? Gap analysis?

-- use format / community-based, investigation / organization

== Table 5 ==
1.
Software developers
-Just need minimal information - titles, links, maybe tags
-goal - need to work in aoarticular problem. Space

Useful to know if the standard is dead, still used

2. Tools
Google fusion tables
Freebase?

NDSA:I can haz standards workshop notes

2011-07-29T15:41:44Z

Jjones: /* Meeting Notes */

== Meeting Notes ==

I Can Haz Standardz, Session #5
NDIIPP/NDSA Partners Meeting Workshop
July 20, 2011
1:45 – 3:00 pm

Presenters: Andrea Goethals and Jimi Jones

Attendees:
Vickie Allen Micah Altman
Janice Snyder Anderson Raphael Barbau
David Brooks Colleen Cahill
Glenn Clatworthy Stephen Davis
Bob Downs Lynda Schmitz Fuhrig
Helen Hockx-Yu Nicole Joniec
Gina Jones Charles Kolb
Bill Lefurgy Justin Littman
Sue Manus John Martinez
Kate Mayo Gail McMillan
Eugene Mopsik Steve Morris
Patricia Murphy Kate Murray
Sone Nalensone Michael Neubert
Shannon Niou Kathleen O’Neill
Lesley Parilla Meg Phillips
Deborah Rossum Arnold Rots
Joe Servash John Spencer
Josh Stromfeld Aaron Trehus

Highlights
The NDSA Standards and Best Practices Working Group is working on a standards survey that has the following objectives:
• Identify and describe existing digital preservation standards and best practices
• Identify opportunities for collaboration with non-NDSA individuals and organizations who are currently working on digital preservation standards and best practices
• Identify gaps in digital preservation standards and best practices coverage that could be addressed by this working group in future activities

At the workshop, the attendees broke up into five separate groups to discuss the standards survey project and to create well-defined use cases for the standards survey project. The groups discussed who would use the survey, why they would use it, and what information would be needed. The groups entered their discussion notes into the NDSA Standards wiki and provided a quick verbal summary at the end of the meeting.
The following lists are a compilation of reports from all groups:

Potential Users
• Educational community
• Content creators
• Digital content managers
• Cultural heritage organizations
• Professional organizations (SLA, ALA, AMIA, etc.)
• Tool developers

Reasons for Use:
• Digital preservation policy development
• Education and training
• Reformatting community
• Data migration
• New standards development
• Gap analysis
• Procurement processes
• Avoid duplicating work

Possible Tools
The survey currently resides in a Google Docs spreadsheet. The data is not easily searchable and becomes more unwieldy as new information is added. The groups discussed various tools that might serve as model frameworks or searchable databases.

• Expression Engine
• Drupal
• LibraryThing (model database – allows for the linking of comments about an item to that item)
• XML database, using Oxygen to develop the user interface

Useful Side Notes
The working group participants came up with a variety of ideas that were out of scope for this particular meeting, but very useful nonetheless. They are presented below:

• The information will need to stay current. Who will maintain this?
• Where will this information reside, and how will users access it?
• It would be good to have a section for comments so that users can see how various formats/applications have worked for other users.
• Set up a prototype for one strict focus (A/V file formats, for example) rather than investing in everything upfront
• Add related projects to the survey tool
• Utilize the metadata model at IU to map out preservation standards
• Allow for searching by type of institutions
• Develop a survey for NDSA members (and later a wider group) to gather information about the most relevant documents and standards. The survey could be sent out every year and used to analyze trends in standards use.

Action Items
This workshop started the conversation for gap analysis and further development of standards.

• Report back to the Standards Working Group about this workshop.
• Post workshop discussion notes on the Working Group wiki and share with the working group to move forward.

Google Doc: https://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0Av48siEcvSxpdDFBcXVtZEpCamJhN2dCS1FHUmhtTlE&hl=en&authkey=CPangt4L#gid=0

== Notes From Breakout Groups (Table 1 had technical difficulties) ==

== Table 2 ==

Should only list institutions that are currently using the standard

Who will maintain this? crowd? or one institution?

Is it important to know who's using the standard?

Do we purge old versions of standards - standards no one is using? (can "dead" stuff go to a separate place)

Would use this as a tool to see what exists and who is using/doing what?

"this is a project that sounds like ours and this is what they're using?" - would mean that we have to be able to search by organization

Be able to search by type of material - "x is doing y - I'm also doing y...."

Take a look at the IU - Jen Riley's metadata organization model

Relational database of some kind - LibraryThing is something we should look at. Some fields that the general user can input and others are protected

We should take a look at WordPress

Talk to Jack Brighton about Expression Engine

== Table 3 ==
'''Possible use cases:'''
Digital preservation policy

Education/Training

Developing funding proposals/research

Funding organizations

Reformatting community: analog to digital

Data migration

Adoption patterns/community

New standards development

Gap analysis for developing new standards

Creating new born digital content need systems. Content must be viable over long term. Need easy to use tool.
Software tool developers

Procurement process (which might mandate use of open standards)

History of digital standards

Avoiding redoing existing work

'''Possibly add to survey:''' related projects

Big issues around presentation and data input for group; usefulness depends on content staying current

== Table 4 ==

test

-- scope: descriptive? standards / guidelines / practices

-- use cases: newbie, student, new project planners, hardware purchase decisions; developers; preparing outsource specification

-- difficulty to maintain over time? distributed mode with editor? Regular request to community for updates?

-- standards in use around table: METS, PREMIS, ASE, DACS, EAD, PeDALS; Astronomy FITS; RDF;

-- what about file format standards? what about best practices for preservation and access?

-- Questions: need more use cases to justify? What about standards and practices still needed? Gap analysis?

-- use format / community-based, investigation / organization

== Table 5 ==
1.
Software developers
-Just need minimal information - titles, links, maybe tags
-goal - need to work in aoarticular problem. Space

Useful to know if the standard is dead, still used

2. Tools
Google fusion tables
Freebase?

NDSA:I can haz standards workshop notes

2011-07-26T13:34:22Z

Jjones: /* Table 2 */

== Meeting Notes ==

I Can Haz Standardz, Session #5

NDIIPP/NDSA Partners Meeting Workshop

July 20, 2011

1:45 – 3:00 pm

Presenters: Andrea Goethals and Jimi Jones

Attendees: Vickie Allen, Micah Altman, Janice Snyder Anderson, Raphael Barbau, David Brooks, Colleen Cahill, Glenn Clatworthy, Bob Downs, Justin Littman, Bill Lefurgy, Eugene Mopsik, Nicole Joniec, Kate Mayo, Aaron Trehus, Gail McMillan, Charles Kolb, Josh Stromfeld, Lesley Parilla, Sone Nalensone, Kathleen O’Neill, Joe Servash, Michael Neubert, Gina Jones, Deborah Rossum, Arnold Rots, John Martinez, Stephen Davis, Sue Manus, Lynda Schmitz Fuhrig, John Spencer, Patricia Murphy, Steve Morris, Helen Hockx-Yu, Meg Phillips, Shannon Niou, Kate Murray

Highlights
The NDSA Standards and Best Practices Working Group is working on a standards survey that has the following objectives:
• Identify and describe existing digital preservation standards and best practices
• Identify opportunities for collaboration with non-NDSA individuals and organizations who are currently working on digital preservation standards and best practices
• Identify gaps in digital preservation standards and best practices coverage that could be addressed by this working group in future activities

At the workshop, the attendees broke up into five separate groups to discuss the standards survey project and to create well-defined use cases for the standards survey project. The groups discussed who would use the survey, why they would use it, and what information would be needed. The groups entered their discussion notes into the NDSA Standards wiki and provided a quick verbal summary at the end of the meeting.

Table 1: Faculty, students, professionals, content creator, managers of digital content, need for international clearinghouse for registry of standards, cultural heritage organizations, SLA, ALA, AMIA, VRA, DLF, BPE, etc. How will it be used? How will people access this? Proprietary formats? Difficult to get manufacturers to move away from proprietary formats. Promote NISO, AES, FADGI, etc. Didn’t get a chance to talk aobut better tool.

Table 2: Issues to consider: who will maintain this? Where will it live? As new versions of standards come into being, what happens to old ones from the survey? Who would use it: search by institutions who are using particular standards. Metadata model at IU to map out preservation standards. LibraryThing (tool) has a way to put a database together. It also has a media tool that allows you to link discussions about an item to the item. Expression Engine, Drupal with Jack Brighton. LibraryThing could be a model, not the tool.

Table 3: Possible use cases. Add related projects to the survey tool. Big issues around the presentation of the data. Data needs to stay current.
Digital presentation policy, education and training, reformatting community, data migration, new standards development, gap analysis, content creators, tool developers, procurement process mandate the use of open standards, avoiding redoing existing work. XML database, use Oxygen to develop user interface.

Table 4: scope of this. Should it extend to best practices rather than standards. Going wider, making the project bigger. Diverse kinds fo file formats flooding in, what kinds of judgements have people made? Ingest grids – share that information. What will the payoff for this effort be? Sustainability. The bigger it gets the more effort it takes to keep it up over time. Set up a prototype for one strict focus (AV file formats) rather than investing in everything from the get-go.

Table 5: Useful, but maintenance is a problem. The current data model is too complicated for Google docs. There are certain cases where you wouldn’t need all that information. Idea of alternative or complementary mechanism to gather information about the most relevant documents and standards. Survey starting with NDSA members and then send it out to wider group. Ask what they are using and what gaps have they found? We could do it annually to see trends in standards use. That would be helpful for standards writers.

Brief overview that highlights the topics covered during the meeting.

Two things for attendees to help with is to determine who would use a standards survey and why. How would you use it? Do you know of any good tools for data entry for surveys like this? The information needs to be entered, stored and then delivered via search, sort, filtering, etc. Initially thought this would be used by information professionals who need access to all the different types of standards in one place. And maybe students. Maybe developers could pick standards they would use with specific tools.

== Notes From Breakout Groups (Table 1 had technical difficulties) ==

== Table 2 ==

Should only list institutions that are currently using the standard

Who will maintain this? crowd? or one institution?

Is it important to know who's using the standard?

Do we purge old versions of standards - standards no one is using? (can "dead" stuff go to a separate place)

Would use this as a tool to see what exists and who is using/doing what?

"this is a project that sounds like ours and this is what they're using?" - would mean that we have to be able to search by organization

Be able to search by type of material - "x is doing y - I'm also doing y...."

Take a look at the IU - Jen Riley's metadata organization model

Relational database of some kind - LibraryThing is something we should look at. Some fields that the general user can input and others are protected

We should take a look at WordPress

Talk to Jack Brighton about Expression Engine

== Table 3 ==
'''Possible use cases:'''
Digital preservation policy

Education/Training

Developing funding proposals/research

Funding organizations

Reformatting community: analog to digital

Data migration

Adoption patterns/community

New standards development

Gap analysis for developing new standards

Creating new born digital content need systems. Content must be viable over long term. Need easy to use tool.
Software tool developers

Procurement process (which might mandate use of open standards)

History of digital standards

Avoiding redoing existing work

'''Possibly add to survey:''' related projects

Big issues around presentation and data input for group; usefulness depends on content staying current

== Table 4 ==

test

-- scope: descriptive? standards / guidelines / practices

-- use cases: newbie, student, new project planners, hardware purchase decisions; developers; preparing outsource specification

-- difficulty to maintain over time? distributed mode with editor? Regular request to community for updates?

-- standards in use around table: METS, PREMIS, ASE, DACS, EAD, PeDALS; Astronomy FITS; RDF;

-- what about file format standards? what about best practices for preservation and access?

-- Questions: need more use cases to justify? What about standards and practices still needed? Gap analysis?

-- use format / community-based, investigation / organization

== Table 5 ==
1.
Software developers
-Just need minimal information - titles, links, maybe tags
-goal - need to work in aoarticular problem. Space

Useful to know if the standard is dead, still used

2. Tools
Google fusion tables
Freebase?

NDSA:I can haz standards workshop notes

2011-07-26T13:33:24Z

Jjones: /* Table 2 */

== Meeting Notes ==

I Can Haz Standardz, Session #5

NDIIPP/NDSA Partners Meeting Workshop

July 20, 2011

1:45 – 3:00 pm

Presenters: Andrea Goethals and Jimi Jones

Attendees: Vickie Allen, Micah Altman, Janice Snyder Anderson, Raphael Barbau, David Brooks, Colleen Cahill, Glenn Clatworthy, Bob Downs, Justin Littman, Bill Lefurgy, Eugene Mopsik, Nicole Joniec, Kate Mayo, Aaron Trehus, Gail McMillan, Charles Kolb, Josh Stromfeld, Lesley Parilla, Sone Nalensone, Kathleen O’Neill, Joe Servash, Michael Neubert, Gina Jones, Deborah Rossum, Arnold Rots, John Martinez, Stephen Davis, Sue Manus, Lynda Schmitz Fuhrig, John Spencer, Patricia Murphy, Steve Morris, Helen Hockx-Yu, Meg Phillips, Shannon Niou, Kate Murray

Highlights
The NDSA Standards and Best Practices Working Group is working on a standards survey that has the following objectives:
• Identify and describe existing digital preservation standards and best practices
• Identify opportunities for collaboration with non-NDSA individuals and organizations who are currently working on digital preservation standards and best practices
• Identify gaps in digital preservation standards and best practices coverage that could be addressed by this working group in future activities

At the workshop, the attendees broke up into five separate groups to discuss the standards survey project and to create well-defined use cases for the standards survey project. The groups discussed who would use the survey, why they would use it, and what information would be needed. The groups entered their discussion notes into the NDSA Standards wiki and provided a quick verbal summary at the end of the meeting.

Table 1: Faculty, students, professionals, content creator, managers of digital content, need for international clearinghouse for registry of standards, cultural heritage organizations, SLA, ALA, AMIA, VRA, DLF, BPE, etc. How will it be used? How will people access this? Proprietary formats? Difficult to get manufacturers to move away from proprietary formats. Promote NISO, AES, FADGI, etc. Didn’t get a chance to talk aobut better tool.

Table 2: Issues to consider: who will maintain this? Where will it live? As new versions of standards come into being, what happens to old ones from the survey? Who would use it: search by institutions who are using particular standards. Metadata model at IU to map out preservation standards. LibraryThing (tool) has a way to put a database together. It also has a media tool that allows you to link discussions about an item to the item. Expression Engine, Drupal with Jack Brighton. LibraryThing could be a model, not the tool.

Table 3: Possible use cases. Add related projects to the survey tool. Big issues around the presentation of the data. Data needs to stay current.
Digital presentation policy, education and training, reformatting community, data migration, new standards development, gap analysis, content creators, tool developers, procurement process mandate the use of open standards, avoiding redoing existing work. XML database, use Oxygen to develop user interface.

Table 4: scope of this. Should it extend to best practices rather than standards. Going wider, making the project bigger. Diverse kinds fo file formats flooding in, what kinds of judgements have people made? Ingest grids – share that information. What will the payoff for this effort be? Sustainability. The bigger it gets the more effort it takes to keep it up over time. Set up a prototype for one strict focus (AV file formats) rather than investing in everything from the get-go.

Table 5: Useful, but maintenance is a problem. The current data model is too complicated for Google docs. There are certain cases where you wouldn’t need all that information. Idea of alternative or complementary mechanism to gather information about the most relevant documents and standards. Survey starting with NDSA members and then send it out to wider group. Ask what they are using and what gaps have they found? We could do it annually to see trends in standards use. That would be helpful for standards writers.

Brief overview that highlights the topics covered during the meeting.

Two things for attendees to help with is to determine who would use a standards survey and why. How would you use it? Do you know of any good tools for data entry for surveys like this? The information needs to be entered, stored and then delivered via search, sort, filtering, etc. Initially thought this would be used by information professionals who need access to all the different types of standards in one place. And maybe students. Maybe developers could pick standards they would use with specific tools.

== Table 2 ==

Should only list institutions that are currently using the standard

Who will maintain this? crowd? or one institution?

Is it important to know who's using the standard?

Do we purge old versions of standards - standards no one is using? (can "dead" stuff go to a separate place)

Would use this as a tool to see what exists and who is using/doing what?

"this is a project that sounds like ours and this is what they're using?" - would mean that we have to be able to search by organization

Be able to search by type of material - "x is doing y - I'm also doing y...."

Take a look at the IU - Jen Riley's metadata organization model

Relational database of some kind - LibraryThing is something we should look at. Some fields that the general user can input and others are protected

We should take a look at WordPress

Talk to Jack Brighton about Expression Engine
== Table 3 ==
'''Possible use cases:'''
Digital preservation policy

Education/Training

Developing funding proposals/research

Funding organizations

Reformatting community: analog to digital

Data migration

Adoption patterns/community

New standards development

Gap analysis for developing new standards

Creating new born digital content need systems. Content must be viable over long term. Need easy to use tool.
Software tool developers

Procurement process (which might mandate use of open standards)

History of digital standards

Avoiding redoing existing work

'''Possibly add to survey:''' related projects

Big issues around presentation and data input for group; usefulness depends on content staying current

== Table 4 ==

test

-- scope: descriptive? standards / guidelines / practices

-- use cases: newbie, student, new project planners, hardware purchase decisions; developers; preparing outsource specification

-- difficulty to maintain over time? distributed mode with editor? Regular request to community for updates?

-- standards in use around table: METS, PREMIS, ASE, DACS, EAD, PeDALS; Astronomy FITS; RDF;

-- what about file format standards? what about best practices for preservation and access?

-- Questions: need more use cases to justify? What about standards and practices still needed? Gap analysis?

-- use format / community-based, investigation / organization

== Table 5 ==
1.
Software developers
-Just need minimal information - titles, links, maybe tags
-goal - need to work in aoarticular problem. Space

Useful to know if the standard is dead, still used

2. Tools
Google fusion tables
Freebase?

NDSA:I can haz standards workshop notes

2011-07-26T13:33:10Z

Jjones: /* Table 1 */

== Meeting Notes ==

I Can Haz Standardz, Session #5

NDIIPP/NDSA Partners Meeting Workshop

July 20, 2011

1:45 – 3:00 pm

Presenters: Andrea Goethals and Jimi Jones

Attendees: Vickie Allen, Micah Altman, Janice Snyder Anderson, Raphael Barbau, David Brooks, Colleen Cahill, Glenn Clatworthy, Bob Downs, Justin Littman, Bill Lefurgy, Eugene Mopsik, Nicole Joniec, Kate Mayo, Aaron Trehus, Gail McMillan, Charles Kolb, Josh Stromfeld, Lesley Parilla, Sone Nalensone, Kathleen O’Neill, Joe Servash, Michael Neubert, Gina Jones, Deborah Rossum, Arnold Rots, John Martinez, Stephen Davis, Sue Manus, Lynda Schmitz Fuhrig, John Spencer, Patricia Murphy, Steve Morris, Helen Hockx-Yu, Meg Phillips, Shannon Niou, Kate Murray

Highlights
The NDSA Standards and Best Practices Working Group is working on a standards survey that has the following objectives:
• Identify and describe existing digital preservation standards and best practices
• Identify opportunities for collaboration with non-NDSA individuals and organizations who are currently working on digital preservation standards and best practices
• Identify gaps in digital preservation standards and best practices coverage that could be addressed by this working group in future activities

At the workshop, the attendees broke up into five separate groups to discuss the standards survey project and to create well-defined use cases for the standards survey project. The groups discussed who would use the survey, why they would use it, and what information would be needed. The groups entered their discussion notes into the NDSA Standards wiki and provided a quick verbal summary at the end of the meeting.

Table 1: Faculty, students, professionals, content creator, managers of digital content, need for international clearinghouse for registry of standards, cultural heritage organizations, SLA, ALA, AMIA, VRA, DLF, BPE, etc. How will it be used? How will people access this? Proprietary formats? Difficult to get manufacturers to move away from proprietary formats. Promote NISO, AES, FADGI, etc. Didn’t get a chance to talk aobut better tool.

Table 2: Issues to consider: who will maintain this? Where will it live? As new versions of standards come into being, what happens to old ones from the survey? Who would use it: search by institutions who are using particular standards. Metadata model at IU to map out preservation standards. LibraryThing (tool) has a way to put a database together. It also has a media tool that allows you to link discussions about an item to the item. Expression Engine, Drupal with Jack Brighton. LibraryThing could be a model, not the tool.

Table 3: Possible use cases. Add related projects to the survey tool. Big issues around the presentation of the data. Data needs to stay current.
Digital presentation policy, education and training, reformatting community, data migration, new standards development, gap analysis, content creators, tool developers, procurement process mandate the use of open standards, avoiding redoing existing work. XML database, use Oxygen to develop user interface.

Table 4: scope of this. Should it extend to best practices rather than standards. Going wider, making the project bigger. Diverse kinds fo file formats flooding in, what kinds of judgements have people made? Ingest grids – share that information. What will the payoff for this effort be? Sustainability. The bigger it gets the more effort it takes to keep it up over time. Set up a prototype for one strict focus (AV file formats) rather than investing in everything from the get-go.

Table 5: Useful, but maintenance is a problem. The current data model is too complicated for Google docs. There are certain cases where you wouldn’t need all that information. Idea of alternative or complementary mechanism to gather information about the most relevant documents and standards. Survey starting with NDSA members and then send it out to wider group. Ask what they are using and what gaps have they found? We could do it annually to see trends in standards use. That would be helpful for standards writers.

Brief overview that highlights the topics covered during the meeting.

Two things for attendees to help with is to determine who would use a standards survey and why. How would you use it? Do you know of any good tools for data entry for surveys like this? The information needs to be entered, stored and then delivered via search, sort, filtering, etc. Initially thought this would be used by information professionals who need access to all the different types of standards in one place. And maybe students. Maybe developers could pick standards they would use with specific tools.

== Table 2 ==
== Table 2 ==

Should only list institutions that are currently using the standard

Who will maintain this? crowd? or one institution?

Is it important to know who's using the standard?

Do we purge old versions of standards - standards no one is using? (can "dead" stuff go to a separate place)

Would use this as a tool to see what exists and who is using/doing what?

"this is a project that sounds like ours and this is what they're using?" - would mean that we have to be able to search by organization

Be able to search by type of material - "x is doing y - I'm also doing y...."

Take a look at the IU - Jen Riley's metadata organization model

Relational database of some kind - LibraryThing is something we should look at. Some fields that the general user can input and others are protected

We should take a look at WordPress

Talk to Jack Brighton about Expression Engine
== Table 3 ==
'''Possible use cases:'''
Digital preservation policy

Education/Training

Developing funding proposals/research

Funding organizations

Reformatting community: analog to digital

Data migration

Adoption patterns/community

New standards development

Gap analysis for developing new standards

Creating new born digital content need systems. Content must be viable over long term. Need easy to use tool.
Software tool developers

Procurement process (which might mandate use of open standards)

History of digital standards

Avoiding redoing existing work

'''Possibly add to survey:''' related projects

Big issues around presentation and data input for group; usefulness depends on content staying current

== Table 4 ==

test

-- scope: descriptive? standards / guidelines / practices

-- use cases: newbie, student, new project planners, hardware purchase decisions; developers; preparing outsource specification

-- difficulty to maintain over time? distributed mode with editor? Regular request to community for updates?

-- standards in use around table: METS, PREMIS, ASE, DACS, EAD, PeDALS; Astronomy FITS; RDF;

-- what about file format standards? what about best practices for preservation and access?

-- Questions: need more use cases to justify? What about standards and practices still needed? Gap analysis?

-- use format / community-based, investigation / organization

== Table 5 ==
1.
Software developers
-Just need minimal information - titles, links, maybe tags
-goal - need to work in aoarticular problem. Space

Useful to know if the standard is dead, still used

2. Tools
Google fusion tables
Freebase?

NDSA:I can haz standards workshop notes

2011-07-20T18:54:44Z

Jjones: /* Table 2 */

== Table 1 ==

== Table 2 ==
== Table 2 ==

Should only list institutions that are currently using the standard

Who will maintain this? crowd? or one institution?

Is it important to know who's using the standard?

Do we purge old versions of standards - standards no one is using? (can "dead" stuff go to a separate place)

Would use this as a tool to see what exists and who is using/doing what?

"this is a project that sounds like ours and this is what they're using?" - would mean that we have to be able to search by organization

Be able to search by type of material - "x is doing y - I'm also doing y...."

Take a look at the IU - Jen Riley's metadata organization model

Relational database of some kind - LibraryThing is something we should look at. Some fields that the general user can input and others are protected

We should take a look at WordPress

Talk to Jack Brighton about Expression Engine
== Table 3 ==

== Table 4 ==

test

-- scope: descriptive? standards / guidelines / practices

-- use cases: newbie, student, new project planners, hardware purchase decisions; developers; preparing outsource specification

-- difficulty to maintain over time? distributed mode with editor? Regular request to community for updates?

-- standards in use around table: METS, PREMIS, ASE, DACS, EAD, PeDALS; Astronomy FITS; RDF;

-- what about file format standards? what about best practices for preservation and access?

-- Questions: need more use cases to justify? What about standards and practices still needed? Gap analysis?

-- use format / community-based, investigation / organization

== Table 5 ==
1.
Software developers
-Just need minimal information - titles, links, maybe tags
-goal - need to work in aoarticular problem. Space

Useful to know if the standard is dead, still used

2. Tools
Google fusion tables
Freebase?

NDSA:June 6, 2011 Standards Working Group Notes and Agenda

2011-06-21T14:45:40Z

Jjones:

'''June 6, 2011 NDSA Standards Working Group Meeting Notes'''

Jimi Jones, note taker

Matt started off our discussion by unpacking his proposal "to develop an approach for implementing the OAIS Reference Model and the derived Trustworthy Repository Auditing & Certification metrics (TRAC) in a distributed digital preservation (DDP) environment." [[NDSA:http://www.loc.gov/extranet/wiki/osi/ndiip/ndsa/index.php?title=DDP_OAIS_Frameworks | OAIS Reference Model Work]]

We then talked about the current state of our wiki. It is difficult to navigate and requires users to drill down through many clicks to get to important content. To that end Jimi plans to redesign the Standards wiki space to make it more navigable.

Andrea talked about her interest in drafting a metadata schema pertaining to containers like zip, tar and so on. She asked if people in this group would like to be a part of the review process for such a schema, to which several members showed interest.

Jimi repeatedly mentioned the need to increase traffic on the Standards email list so as to keep momentum between meetings. The above-mentioned work can help to keep interest up and open up the group to other work besides the standards survey.

Shane discussed his exploration of data-entry/database tools for our survey. So far we've been using the Google Docs spreadsheet but there are not-inconsiderable limitations on it. Shane said that he has yet to find an off-the-shelf solution for our needs with this survey. This will still have to be worked out.

We also discussed the NDIIPP Partner's Meeting July 19-21: [[NDSA:http://www.digitalpreservation.gov/register/ | 2011 NDIIPP Partners' Meeting Registration]] It looks like many of our group members are planning to go. Andrea and I discussed having a happy hour on Wednesday the 20th for our group. We'll likely decide during the conference where we're going to go but all are welcome. We'll be working on use cases for our standards survey, which will help us scope the work, on Wednesday afternoon. We'll discuss that in more depth in our July Standards meeting.

The link to the WebEx recording is here: [[NDSA:https://issevents.webex.com/issevents/lsr.php?AT=pb&SP=MC&rID=46553397&rKey=cdcd073bc237c621 | June 6 Meeting WebEx Recording]]

NDSA:June 6, 2011 Standards Working Group Notes and Agenda

2011-06-21T14:44:02Z

Jjones:

'''June 6, 2011 NDSA Standards Working Group Meeting Notes'''

Jimi Jones, note taker

Matt started off our discussion by unpacking his proposal "to develop an approach for implementing the OAIS Reference Model and the derived Trustworthy Repository Auditing & Certification metrics (TRAC) in a distributed digital preservation (DDP) environment." [[NDSA:http://www.loc.gov/extranet/wiki/osi/ndiip/ndsa/index.php?title=DDP_OAIS_Frameworks | OAIS Reference Model Work]]

We then talked about the current state of our wiki. It is difficult to navigate and requires users to drill down through many clicks to get to important content. To that end Jimi plans to redesign the Standards wiki space to make it more navigable.

Andrea talked about her interest in drafting a metadata schema pertaining to containers like zip, tar and so on. She asked if people in this group would like to be a part of the review process for such a schema, to which several members showed interest.

Jimi repeatedly mentioned the need to increase traffic on the Standards email list so as to keep momentum between meetings. The above-mentioned work can help to keep interest up and open up the group to other work besides the standards survey.

Shane discussed his exploration of data-entry/database tools for our survey. So far we've been using the Google Docs spreadsheet but there are not-inconsiderable limitations on it. Shane said that he has yet to find an off-the-shelf solution for our needs with this survey. This will still have to be worked out.

We also discussed the NDIIPP Partner's Meeting July 19-21: [[NDSA:http://www.digitalpreservation.gov/register/]] It looks like many of our group members are planning to go. Andrea and I discussed having a happy hour on Wednesday the 20th for our group. We'll likely decide during the conference where we're going to go but all are welcome. We'll be working on use cases for our standards survey, which will help us scope the work, on Wednesday afternoon. We'll discuss that in more depth in our July Standards meeting.

The link to the WebEx recording is here: [[NDSA:https://issevents.webex.com/issevents/lsr.php?AT=pb&SP=MC&rID=46553397&rKey=cdcd073bc237c621 ]]

NDSA:June 6, 2011 Standards Working Group Notes and Agenda

2011-06-21T14:43:33Z

Jjones:

'''June 6, 2011 NDSA Standards Working Group Meeting Notes'''

Jimi Jones, note taker

Matt started off our discussion by unpacking his proposal "to develop an approach for implementing the OAIS Reference Model and the derived Trustworthy Repository Auditing & Certification metrics (TRAC) in a distributed digital preservation (DDP) environment." [[NDSA:OAIS Reference Model Work | http://www.loc.gov/extranet/wiki/osi/ndiip/ndsa/index.php?title=DDP_OAIS_Frameworks]]

We then talked about the current state of our wiki. It is difficult to navigate and requires users to drill down through many clicks to get to important content. To that end Jimi plans to redesign the Standards wiki space to make it more navigable.

Andrea talked about her interest in drafting a metadata schema pertaining to containers like zip, tar and so on. She asked if people in this group would like to be a part of the review process for such a schema, to which several members showed interest.

Jimi repeatedly mentioned the need to increase traffic on the Standards email list so as to keep momentum between meetings. The above-mentioned work can help to keep interest up and open up the group to other work besides the standards survey.

Shane discussed his exploration of data-entry/database tools for our survey. So far we've been using the Google Docs spreadsheet but there are not-inconsiderable limitations on it. Shane said that he has yet to find an off-the-shelf solution for our needs with this survey. This will still have to be worked out.

We also discussed the NDIIPP Partner's Meeting July 19-21: [[NDSA:http://www.digitalpreservation.gov/register/]] It looks like many of our group members are planning to go. Andrea and I discussed having a happy hour on Wednesday the 20th for our group. We'll likely decide during the conference where we're going to go but all are welcome. We'll be working on use cases for our standards survey, which will help us scope the work, on Wednesday afternoon. We'll discuss that in more depth in our July Standards meeting.

The link to the WebEx recording is here: [[NDSA:https://issevents.webex.com/issevents/lsr.php?AT=pb&SP=MC&rID=46553397&rKey=cdcd073bc237c621 ]]

NDSA:June 6, 2011 Standards Working Group Notes and Agenda

2011-06-21T14:37:53Z

Jjones:

'''June 6, 2011 NDSA Standards Working Group Meeting Notes'''

Jimi Jones, note taker

Matt started off our discussion by unpacking his proposal "to develop an approach for implementing the OAIS Reference Model and the derived Trustworthy Repository Auditing & Certification metrics (TRAC) in a distributed digital preservation (DDP) environment." [[NDSA:http://www.loc.gov/extranet/wiki/osi/ndiip/ndsa/index.php?title=DDP_OAIS_Frameworks]]

We then talked about the current state of our wiki. It is difficult to navigate and requires users to drill down through many clicks to get to important content. To that end Jimi plans to redesign the Standards wiki space to make it more navigable.

Andrea talked about her interest in drafting a metadata schema pertaining to containers like zip, tar and so on. She asked if people in this group would like to be a part of the review process for such a schema, to which several members showed interest.

Jimi repeatedly mentioned the need to increase traffic on the Standards email list so as to keep momentum between meetings. The above-mentioned work can help to keep interest up and open up the group to other work besides the standards survey.

Shane discussed his exploration of data-entry/database tools for our survey. So far we've been using the Google Docs spreadsheet but there are not-inconsiderable limitations on it. Shane said that he has yet to find an off-the-shelf solution for our needs with this survey. This will still have to be worked out.

We also discussed the NDIIPP Partner's Meeting July 19-21: [[NDSA:http://www.digitalpreservation.gov/register/]] It looks like many of our group members are planning to go. Andrea and I discussed having a happy hour on Wednesday the 20th for our group. We'll likely decide during the conference where we're going to go but all are welcome. We'll be working on use cases for our standards survey, which will help us scope the work, on Wednesday afternoon. We'll discuss that in more depth in our July Standards meeting.

The link to the WebEx recording is here: [[NDSA:https://issevents.webex.com/issevents/lsr.php?AT=pb&SP=MC&rID=46553397&rKey=cdcd073bc237c621 ]]

NDSA:June 6, 2011 Standards Working Group Notes and Agenda

2011-06-21T14:37:35Z

Jjones:

'''June 6, 2011 NDSA Standards Working Group Meeting Notes'''

Jimi Jones, note taker

Matt started off our discussion by unpacking his proposal "to develop an approach for implementing the OAIS Reference Model and the derived Trustworthy Repository Auditing & Certification metrics (TRAC) in a distributed digital preservation (DDP) environment." [[NDSA:http://www.loc.gov/extranet/wiki/osi/ndiip/ndsa/index.php?title=DDP_OAIS_Frameworks]]

We then talked about the current state of our wiki. It is difficult to navigate and requires users to drill down through many clicks to get to important content. To that end Jimi plans to redesign the Standards wiki space to make it more navigable.

Andrea talked about her interest in drafting a metadata schema pertaining to containers like zip, tar and so on. She asked if people in this group would like to be a part of the review process for such a schema, to which several members showed interest.

Jimi repeatedly mentioned the need to increase traffic on the Standards email list so as to keep momentum between meetings. The above-mentioned work can help to keep interest up and open up the group to other work besides the standards survey.

Shane discussed his exploration of data-entry/database tools for our survey. So far we've been using the Google Docs spreadsheet but there are not-inconsiderable limitations on it. Shane said that he has yet to find an off-the-shelf solution for our needs with this survey. This will still have to be worked out.

We also discussed the NDIIPP Partner's Meeting July 19-21: [NDIIPP Partners' Meeting[http://www.digitalpreservation.gov/register/]] It looks like many of our group members are planning to go. Andrea and I discussed having a happy hour on Wednesday the 20th for our group. We'll likely decide during the conference where we're going to go but all are welcome. We'll be working on use cases for our standards survey, which will help us scope the work, on Wednesday afternoon. We'll discuss that in more depth in our July Standards meeting.

The link to the WebEx recording is here: [[NDSA:https://issevents.webex.com/issevents/lsr.php?AT=pb&SP=MC&rID=46553397&rKey=cdcd073bc237c621 ]]

NDSA:June 6, 2011 Standards Working Group Notes and Agenda

2011-06-21T14:34:38Z

Jjones:

'''June 6, 2011 NDSA Standards Working Group Meeting Notes'''

Jimi Jones, note taker

Matt started off our discussion by unpacking his proposal "to develop an approach for implementing the OAIS Reference Model and the derived Trustworthy Repository Auditing & Certification metrics (TRAC) in a distributed digital preservation (DDP) environment." [[NDSA:http://www.loc.gov/extranet/wiki/osi/ndiip/ndsa/index.php?title=DDP_OAIS_Frameworks]]

We then talked about the current state of our wiki. It is difficult to navigate and requires users to drill down through many clicks to get to important content. To that end Jimi plans to redesign the Standards wiki space to make it more navigable.

Andrea talked about her interest in drafting a metadata schema pertaining to containers like zip, tar and so on. She asked if people in this group would like to be a part of the review process for such a schema, to which several members showed interest.

Jimi repeatedly mentioned the need to increase traffic on the Standards email list so as to keep momentum between meetings. The above-mentioned work can help to keep interest up and open up the group to other work besides the standards survey.

Shane discussed his exploration of data-entry/database tools for our survey. So far we've been using the Google Docs spreadsheet but there are not-inconsiderable limitations on it. Shane said that he has yet to find an off-the-shelf solution for our needs with this survey. This will still have to be worked out.

We also discussed the NDIIPP Partner's Meeting July 19-21: [[NDSA:http://www.digitalpreservation.gov/register/]] It looks like many of our group members are planning to go. Andrea and I discussed having a happy hour on Wednesday the 20th for our group. We'll likely decide during the conference where we're going to go but all are welcome. We'll be working on use cases for our standards survey, which will help us scope the work, on Wednesday afternoon. We'll discuss that in more depth in our July Standards meeting.

The link to the WebEx recording is here: [[NDSA:https://issevents.webex.com/issevents/lsr.php?AT=pb&SP=MC&rID=46553397&rKey=cdcd073bc237c621 ]]

NDSA:June 6, 2011 Standards Working Group Notes and Agenda

2011-06-21T13:50:26Z

Jjones:

'''June 6, 2011 NDSA Standards Working Group Meeting Notes'''

Jimi Jones, note taker

[[NDSA:http://www.loc.gov/extranet/wiki/osi/ndiip/ndsa/index.php?title=DDP_OAIS_Frameworks]]

NDSA:June 6, 2011 Standards Working Group Notes and Agenda

2011-06-21T13:49:14Z

Jjones: Created page with ''''June 6, 2011 NDSA Standards Working Group Meeting Notes''' Jimi Jones, note taker NDSA:Describing a Framework for Applying OAIS to Distributed Digital Preservation'

'''June 6, 2011 NDSA Standards Working Group Meeting Notes'''

Jimi Jones, note taker

[[NDSA:Describing a Framework for Applying OAIS to Distributed Digital Preservation]]

NDSA:Standards and Best Practices Working Group

2011-06-21T13:47:12Z

Jjones: /* Meeting Schedules, Minutes and Agendas */

== Standards and Practices Working Group ==

[[NDSA:Standards and Practices Working Group Charter ]] (December 10, 2010)

== Current Members ==
A list of current members is posted here: [[NDSA:Standards and Practices Working Group Members]].

== Statement of Purpose ==

The Standards and Practices Working Group will work to facilitate a community-wide understanding of the role and benefit of standards in digital preservation and how to use them effectively to ensure durable and usable collections. The Group will also develop, recommend, promote, and disseminate information about effective methods for selecting, organizing, describing, managing, preserving and serving digital content, in collaboration with other individuals and organizations where appropriate.

== Current Scope of Work ==

Working group members may initiate and engage in new work at any time by forming Action Teams focused on specific projects or tasks. In addition, the Working Group will conduct the following project.

===Survey and document the digital preservation standards landscape===

====Objectives:====
* Identify and describe existing digital preservation standards and best practices
* Identify opportunities for collaboration with non-NDSA individuals and organizations who are currently working on digital preservation standards and best practices
* Identify gaps in digital preservation standards and best practices coverage that could be addressed by this working group in future activities

====Scope:====
* Compilation of existing digital preservation standards and best practices, including but not limited to:
** Authoring individuals and organizations
** Status of standard or best practice
** Description of standard or best practice
** Characterization of the standard or best practice (need to define categories)
** Examples of where and how they are used
** Related documents and Web sites
* Analysis and synthesis
* Identify gaps, areas of potential collaboration, etc.
* Publication of survey as an online resource

====Deliverables:====
* Online resource (perhaps a wiki?) that can be continually updated by the NDSA Standards and Practices group and accessed by the general public
* Report

====Schedule====
* Early Spring 2011: Project planning
* Late Spring 2011: Rough draft of report
* Summer 2011: “Live” online resource
* Summer 2011: Report on work at the NDSA annual conference

====Logistics & methodology====
* Progress will be reported via the regular working group phone meetings.
* Discussions will happen on listserv and via emails and phone calls as needed
* NDSA Standards and Practices working group wiki space will be used to collate resources and work on the deliverables
* A Google Doc Spreadsheet may work better to collate resources because of its support for collaborative editing and column sorting.

====Participants====
* Lead: Small group of Working Group members?
* Responsibilities: Manage the project (keep it on-track, provide status updates), Design contribution process (e.g. who can contribute, editorial review process?, how to publicize contribution process), Design information framework (e.g. the elements to record about each standard, controlled vocabulary values), Perform analysis on collated standards and best practices, Write summary report
* Participants: Entire Working Group
* Responsibilities: Identify and describe relevant standards and best practices

== Work Spaces for Standards Survey==

[[NDSA:Survey Template]]

[[NDSA:Categories and Action Teams]] (sign up for an action team here)

== Meeting Schedules, Minutes and Agendas==

* [[NDSA:June 6, 2011 Standards Working Group Notes and Agenda]]
* [[NDSA:May 2, 2011 Standards Working Group Notes and Agenda]]
* [[NDSA:April 4, 2011 Standards Working Group Notes and Agenda]]
* [[NDSA:March 7, 2011 Standards Working Group Notes and Agenda]]
* [[NDSA:February 7, 2011 Standards Working Group Notes and Agenda]]
* [[NDSA:January 12, 2011 Standards Working Group Notes and Agenda]]
* [[NDSA:December 6, 2010 Standards Working Group Notes]]
* [[NDSA:November 17, 2010 Standards Working Group Notes]]

== NDSA Standards Working Group Listserv Archives==

The archives of the Standards Working Group Listserv can be found here (login will be required): http://list.digitalpreservation.gov/SCRIPTS/WA-DIGITAL.EXE?A0=NDSA-STANDARDS&X=25F57E4CACD543490D&Y

== NDSA Standards Working Group Google Group Space==

http://groups.google.com/group/ndsa-standards-working-group?hl=en

== Related Action Teams==

[[NDSA:DDP_OAIS_Frameworks | Describing a Framework for Applying OAIS to Distributed Digital Preservation]]

== Action Team Meeting Minutes and Summaries==

[[NDSA:Digital Preservation Metadata Action Team -- March 15, 2011]]

== 2011 NDIIPP Partners' Meeting Attendees ==

[[NDSA:2011 NDIIPP Partners' Meeting Attendees]]

NDSA:2011 NDIIPP Partners' Meeting Attendees

2011-06-01T13:52:13Z

Jjones: Created page with ''''Please enter your name below if you're planning to come to the 2011 NDIIPP Partners' Meeting in Washington DC.''' 1. Jimi Jones'

'''Please enter your name below if you're planning to come to the 2011 NDIIPP Partners' Meeting in Washington DC.'''

1. Jimi Jones

NDSA:Standards and Best Practices Working Group

2011-06-01T13:51:14Z

Jjones:

== Standards and Practices Working Group ==

[[NDSA:Standards and Practices Working Group Charter ]] (December 10, 2010)

== Current Members ==
A list of current members is posted here: [[NDSA:Standards and Practices Working Group Members]].

== Statement of Purpose ==

The Standards and Practices Working Group will work to facilitate a community-wide understanding of the role and benefit of standards in digital preservation and how to use them effectively to ensure durable and usable collections. The Group will also develop, recommend, promote, and disseminate information about effective methods for selecting, organizing, describing, managing, preserving and serving digital content, in collaboration with other individuals and organizations where appropriate.

== Current Scope of Work ==

Working group members may initiate and engage in new work at any time by forming Action Teams focused on specific projects or tasks. In addition, the Working Group will conduct the following project.

===Survey and document the digital preservation standards landscape===

====Objectives:====
* Identify and describe existing digital preservation standards and best practices
* Identify opportunities for collaboration with non-NDSA individuals and organizations who are currently working on digital preservation standards and best practices
* Identify gaps in digital preservation standards and best practices coverage that could be addressed by this working group in future activities

====Scope:====
* Compilation of existing digital preservation standards and best practices, including but not limited to:
** Authoring individuals and organizations
** Status of standard or best practice
** Description of standard or best practice
** Characterization of the standard or best practice (need to define categories)
** Examples of where and how they are used
** Related documents and Web sites
* Analysis and synthesis
* Identify gaps, areas of potential collaboration, etc.
* Publication of survey as an online resource

====Deliverables:====
* Online resource (perhaps a wiki?) that can be continually updated by the NDSA Standards and Practices group and accessed by the general public
* Report

====Schedule====
* Early Spring 2011: Project planning
* Late Spring 2011: Rough draft of report
* Summer 2011: “Live” online resource
* Summer 2011: Report on work at the NDSA annual conference

====Logistics & methodology====
* Progress will be reported via the regular working group phone meetings.
* Discussions will happen on listserv and via emails and phone calls as needed
* NDSA Standards and Practices working group wiki space will be used to collate resources and work on the deliverables
* A Google Doc Spreadsheet may work better to collate resources because of its support for collaborative editing and column sorting.

====Participants====
* Lead: Small group of Working Group members?
* Responsibilities: Manage the project (keep it on-track, provide status updates), Design contribution process (e.g. who can contribute, editorial review process?, how to publicize contribution process), Design information framework (e.g. the elements to record about each standard, controlled vocabulary values), Perform analysis on collated standards and best practices, Write summary report
* Participants: Entire Working Group
* Responsibilities: Identify and describe relevant standards and best practices

== Work Spaces for Standards Survey==

[[NDSA:Survey Template]]

[[NDSA:Categories and Action Teams]] (sign up for an action team here)

== Meeting Schedules, Minutes and Agendas==

* [[NDSA:May 2, 2011 Standards Working Group Notes and Agenda]]
* [[NDSA:April 4, 2011 Standards Working Group Notes and Agenda]]
* [[NDSA:March 7, 2011 Standards Working Group Notes and Agenda]]
* [[NDSA:February 7, 2011 Standards Working Group Notes and Agenda]]
* [[NDSA:January 12, 2011 Standards Working Group Notes and Agenda]]
* [[NDSA:December 6, 2010 Standards Working Group Notes]]
* [[NDSA:November 17, 2010 Standards Working Group Notes]]

== NDSA Standards Working Group Listserv Archives==

The archives of the Standards Working Group Listserv can be found here (login will be required): http://list.digitalpreservation.gov/SCRIPTS/WA-DIGITAL.EXE?A0=NDSA-STANDARDS&X=25F57E4CACD543490D&Y

== NDSA Standards Working Group Google Group Space==

http://groups.google.com/group/ndsa-standards-working-group?hl=en

== Related Action Teams==

[[NDSA:DDP_OAIS_Frameworks | Describing a Framework for Applying OAIS to Distributed Digital Preservation]]

== Action Team Meeting Minutes and Summaries==

[[NDSA:Digital Preservation Metadata Action Team -- March 15, 2011]]

== 2011 NDIIPP Partners' Meeting Attendees ==

[[NDSA:2011 NDIIPP Partners' Meeting Attendees]]

NDSA:April 4, 2011 Standards Working Group Notes and Agenda

2011-04-13T13:54:36Z

Jjones:

'''Agenda'''

• Update on the July NDIIPP annual partners’ meeting and how we’re thinking of folding NDSA working groups in (Jimi)

• Update on the progress of action teams (Kate & John, whoever else)

• Discussion of metadata action team's recent meeting. As part of this we'd like to talk about what factors we should consider to help the teams delineate what is and what is not outside the scope of the larger survey. (Mary Vardigan, Jennifer Waxman, Amy Rudersdorf...) ''This may be folded into the action teams' progress reports cited in the above bullet.''

• Parking spot for standards and best practices that don't fit into any of the current action teams (Andrea)

• The start of a list of guidance documents that we might want to consider in-scope for this project. (on the wiki at http://www.loc.gov/extranet/wiki/osi/ndiip/ndsa/index.php?title=Parking_Spot_for_other_DP-related_Standards_and_Best_Practices) (Andrea)

• the start of a list of existing inventories of dp-related standards, etc. that we can mine for references but also could inform our project (see http://www.loc.gov/extranet/wiki/osi/ndiip/ndsa/index.php?title=Sources_of_Information_about_DP_Standards_and_Best_Practices) (Andrea)

• Any other business

'''WebEx Recording'''

https://issevents.webex.com/issevents/lsr.php?AT=pb&SP=MC&rID=45405947&rKey=8cfe37a67b4d8ee1

'''Notes'''

NDSA Standards Working Group Monthly WebEx

April 4, 2011

In attendance:

Andrea Goethals

Jimi Jones (note taker)

Kate Murray

Amy Rudersdorf

Mary Vardigan

Karen Cariani

John Spencer

'''''If attended this meeting and you don’t see your name above then please add it. Please feel free to edit these notes as well.'''''

The first bit of business was to talk about an idea that the 2011 NDIIPP Partners’ Meeting planning committee has been kicking around. The meeting will be July 19 through 21. The planning committee talked a couple weeks ago about how the NDSA should be a prominent part of the meeting. We figure there’s going to be a lot of NDIIPP people who are also NDSA people. We want to make time in the meeting for the NDSA working groups to actually “do” something instead of just reporting out about our activities. One idea we had is for the working groups to have open meetings – open to all participants at the meeting, NDSA or non-NDSA – with specific tasks that the working groups want to get done during the meeting. This would likely involve the working groups reporting to the planning committee about what they want to do at the meeting and the committee then trying to pair the groups up with appropriate NDIIPP participants. Or it could happen organically during the meeting in July.

I gave an example that, I hope, will illustrate the above. One of the important components in our standards survey is the design of the final product. We know we want a Web resource but we haven’t talked much about what that resource will look like, what its functionality will be and so on. One thing we could work on at the July NDIIPP meeting is the design, layout and functionality of the survey. We could engage with some of the meeting participants who are not in our NDSA working group and try to hammer out some of these details.

Note that the above example I gave is meant to be a straw man. We can refine and proceed with that idea if that’s what the working group decides to do or we can do something else. I would like to see us actually DO something and PRODUCE something at the end of the meeting rather than just report-outs of our progress, even if what we produce is a clear plan of attack for something. Andrea mentioned that if we decide to go with my idea we’d need to come armed with use cases to inform and guide our work. (Regardless, it’s clear we’ll have to put use cases together once we start talking about what the survey resource will look like.)

Over the next month we should all give thought to what we’d like to tackle at the July meeting. At our May working group meeting I would like to decide on what we’re going to do at the July meeting and figure out what we’d need to come to the meeting armed with.

Next we heard from Kate Murray and John Spencer. They are both on the AV file formats action team and have started entering standards related to digital audio in the survey. Kate pointed out some minor idiosyncrasies in the template. She said that it is ultimately perfectly good for data collection but not good for output. In other words it works fine but is a bit inelegant to search through.

Kate recommended that the “alias” field be used for associated standard numbers. She also recommended that the “ISBN” field could be renamed so that any kind of standard number can go into that field.

The upshot of Kate and John’s discussion was that the template action team has done a great job providing us with a survey template that works very well.

Mary Vardigan then gave us a report about the March meeting of the preservation metadata standards action team (their meeting notes can be found on this wiki). Much of their conversation focused on scoping their portion of the survey. In other words, when is something a “standard” and when is it a “best practice”?

Ultimately we decided that it might be most logical to have each section of the survey (AV file formats, metadata standards, etc etc) have its own description statement saying why the action team for that section chose the standards it chose. In other words, each action team could scope their work themselves instead of the entire working group trying to scope the survey en masse.

A question arose about if we have a plan for the long-term maintenance of the survey. This is something we know we will have to treat, but as yet we have no plan for who will maintain the survey into the future and how they will do it. That could be something we discuss at the NDIIPP meeting in July. I wondered if perhaps we can a tip from Wikipedia and “turn it loose” and encourage the greater preservation community maintain it in perpetuity. John thought perhaps our survey could be underwritten by the private sector in some way. We should not overlook the potential for help from the private sector.

Andrea took the helm and showed us a couple pages she’s put on our wiki on the Categories and Action Teams page. The first is dedicated to resources we can mine for info for the survey. She also showed us the “parking lot” area she put up on the wiki. She has put some things that may or may not fit into the survey and should be reviewed by appropriate action teams. Each action team should regularly consult both of these wiki pages as they do their work and should also feel free to add to them.

Andrea highlighted the section in the parking lot page for “guidance documents” which are a kind of gray area – these aren’t quite standards, but are still probably worthy of inclusion in the survey. Kate mentioned that we may need to add the characterization of “guidance document” to the survey template to help us capture these.

Last we heard from Karen Cariani, who is also a member of the Infrastructure working group. At our last meeting we thought it might be advantageous to interface with that working group for the infrastructure-related entries in our survey. Karen, as part of the most recent Infrastructure group monthly meeting, unpacked our survey work for them. Karen reported to us that the Infrastructure group is interested in helping out but would like for us to engage them again further down the road as our survey work is more fully formed.