NDSA:Content Team To-Dos - Revision history

Dlfadm: 7 revisions imported: Migrate NDSA content from Library of Congress

2016-02-11T19:19:07Z

7 revisions imported: Migrate NDSA content from Library of Congress

← Older revision	Revision as of 15:19, 11 February 2016
(No difference)

Abgr: /* Development of Content Case Studies */

2012-02-01T14:21:28Z

Development of Content Case Studies

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:21, 1 February 2012
Line 9:		Line 9:
	+DRAFT+DRAFT+DRAFT+		+DRAFT+DRAFT+DRAFT+

	1. Content teams decide categories of content that are important in their groups (ie. Blogs of NGOs, legal blogs, citizen science ~~sites~~, local newspaper websites, ~~etc~~.)		1. Content teams decide categories of content that are important in their groups at whatever granularity works best for the exercise (ie. Blogs of NGOs, legal blogs, citizen science, local newspaper websites, digital art, local government information).

	2. Develop one or more case studies that could be shared broadly to get others thinking about the topic. One way to approach it might be for content team members to share experiences they’ve had already, document successes and failure in negotiating such relationships around content they know and care about.		2. Develop one or more case studies that could be shared broadly to get others thinking about the topic. One way to approach it might be for content team members to share experiences they’ve had already, document successes and failure in negotiating such relationships around content they know and care about.

Abgr at 14:19, 1 February 2012

2012-02-01T14:19:05Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:19, 1 February 2012
Line 1:		Line 1:



	==Background Reading: Blue Ribbon Task Force Report==		==Background Reading: Blue Ribbon Task Force Report==
Line 5:		Line 7:
	==Development of Content Case Studies==		==Development of Content Case Studies==

	~~1. Content teams decide categories of content that are important in their groups (ie. Blogs of NGOs, legal blogs, citizen science sites, local newspaper websites, etc.)~~		+DRAFT+DRAFT+DRAFT+

	2. Develop one or more case studies that could be shared broadly to get others thinking about the topic. One way to approach it might be for content team members to share experiences they’ve had already, document successes and failure in negotiating such relationships around content they know and care about.

	~~Case studies ideally would define:~~		1. Content teams decide categories of content that are important in their groups (ie. Blogs of NGOs, legal blogs, citizen science sites, local newspaper websites, etc.)

	*Establish Value/Rationale for collecting – why is this at risk, what value does the content have?		2. Develop one or more case studies that could be shared broadly to get others thinking about the topic. One way to approach it might be for content team members to share experiences they’ve had already, document successes and failure in negotiating such relationships around content they know and care about.
	*Document recognized opportunities - are there workflows in the creation or ~~distribution of content~~ that ~~preservation~~ could be ~~worked into?~~
	*Description of Target Audiences: who would find value in this content ~~(short term or long term)~~
	*Outline a plan for educating Stakeholders - how might NDSA or an organization go about raising awareness, and ~~to whom? (~~content ~~creators, publishers, educators, libraries, researchers, donors)~~
	*What are the obstacles or risk factors? - describe barriers for users/creators/preservationists – what challenges have you/might you face?

	~~[next step~~? ~~after we gather case studies~~?]		Case studies ideally would define:
	*Actionable items – what can we do next, as a community (or individual institution)?		*Establish Value/Rationale for collecting – what value does the content have? Is anyone collecting it? What factors affect its risk of disappearance—small audience, gnarly formats, proprietary software, tight copyright restrictions, etc.?
			*Document recognized opportunities - are there workflows in the creation or distribution of content that preservation could be worked into?
			*Description of Target Audiences: who would find value in this content,. is the short-term audience different from the long-term audience? How?
			*Outline a plan for educating Stakeholders - how might NDSA or an organization go about raising awareness, and to whom? (content creators, publishers, educators, libraries, researchers, donors)
			*What are the obstacles or risk factors? - describe barriers for users/creators/preservationists – what challenges have you/might you face?
			*Actionable items – what can we do next, as a community (or individual institution)? ''[is this a next step? after we gather case studies?]''

	UNT will provide a sample from a recent experience they've had that could serve as a useful model.		UNT will provide a sample from a recent experience they've had that could serve as a useful model.

	3. Share results with broader CWG members, for discussion and feedback. Ultimately, we'll want to share more broadly to raise awareness about risk and value of content.		3. Share results with broader CWG members for discussion and feedback. Ultimately, we'll want to share more broadly to raise awareness about risk and value of content.

Abgr: /* Development of Content Case Studies */

2012-01-31T16:56:34Z

Development of Content Case Studies

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:56, 31 January 2012
Line 12:		Line 12:

	*Establish Value/Rationale for collecting – why is this at risk, what value does the content have?		*Establish Value/Rationale for collecting – why is this at risk, what value does the content have?
	*Document recognized opportunities - ~~[needs work]~~ are there workflows in the creation or distribution of content that preservation could be worked into?		*Document recognized opportunities - are there workflows in the creation or distribution of content that preservation could be worked into?
	*Description of Target Audiences: who would find value in this content (short term or long term)		*Description of Target Audiences: who would find value in this content (short term or long term)
	*Outline a plan for educating Stakeholders - how might NDSA or an organization go about raising awareness, and to whom? (content creators, publishers, educators, libraries, researchers, donors)		*Outline a plan for educating Stakeholders - how might NDSA or an organization go about raising awareness, and to whom? (content creators, publishers, educators, libraries, researchers, donors)

Abgr: /* Development of Content Case Studies */

2012-01-31T16:56:23Z

Development of Content Case Studies

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:56, 31 January 2012
Line 11:		Line 11:
	Case studies ideally would define:		Case studies ideally would define:

	*Rationale for collecting – why is this at risk, what value does the content have?		*Establish Value/Rationale for collecting – why is this at risk, what value does the content have?
	*~~Pitch to donors –~~ how ~~did you~~ or ~~do you plan~~ to ~~build your approach~~?		*Document recognized opportunities - [needs work] are there workflows in the creation or distribution of content that preservation could be worked into?
	*~~Barriers~~ for users/creators – what challenges ~~did~~ you/might you face?		*Description of Target Audiences: who would find value in this content (short term or long term)
			*Outline a plan for educating Stakeholders - how might NDSA or an organization go about raising awareness, and to whom? (content creators, publishers, educators, libraries, researchers, donors)
			*What are the obstacles or risk factors? - describe barriers for users/creators/preservationists – what challenges have you/might you face?

			[next step? after we gather case studies?]
	*Actionable items – what can we do next, as a community (or individual institution)?		*Actionable items – what can we do next, as a community (or individual institution)?

Abgr: /* BACKGROUND DOCUMENT */

2012-01-30T19:44:31Z

BACKGROUND DOCUMENT

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:44, 30 January 2012
Line 1:		Line 1:

	==~~BACKGROUND DOCUMENT~~==		==Background Reading: Blue Ribbon Task Force Report==
	As we prepare for working together on Content Teams, Abby Rumsey recommended CWG might want to read (or reread) the Blue Ribbon Task Force report [ http://brtf.sdsc.edu/biblio/BRTF_Final_Report.pdf] executive summary (p1) and also the sections on the four content domains and recommendations for stakeholders to take action – how archives can be there before (to help them create archival content) and when donors are ready to hand-off content in need of preservation.		As we prepare for working together on Content Teams, Abby Rumsey recommended CWG might want to read (or reread) the Blue Ribbon Task Force report [ http://brtf.sdsc.edu/biblio/BRTF_Final_Report.pdf] executive summary (p1) and also the sections on the four content domains and recommendations for stakeholders to take action – how archives can be there before (to help them create archival content) and when donors are ready to hand-off content in need of preservation.


	==Development of Content Case Studies==		==Development of Content Case Studies==

Abgr: /* DEVELOPING CASE STUDIES */

2012-01-30T19:42:00Z

DEVELOPING CASE STUDIES

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:42, 30 January 2012
Line 4:		Line 4:


	==~~DEVELOPING CASE STUDIES~~==		==Development of Content Case Studies==

	1. Content teams decide categories of content that are important in their groups (ie. Blogs of NGOs, legal blogs, citizen science sites, local newspaper websites, etc.)		1. Content teams decide categories of content that are important in their groups (ie. Blogs of NGOs, legal blogs, citizen science sites, local newspaper websites, etc.)

	2. Develop one or more case studies that could be shared broadly to get others thinking about the topic. ~~Show why things are at risk. Encourage the cultivation of relationships. Content~~ team members ~~could~~ share experiences they’ve had, document successes and failure in negotiating such relationships around content they know and care about.		2. Develop one or more case studies that could be shared broadly to get others thinking about the topic. One way to approach it might be for content team members to share experiences they’ve had already, document successes and failure in negotiating such relationships around content they know and care about.

	Case studies ideally would define:		Case studies ideally would define:

Abgr: Created page with ' ==BACKGROUND DOCUMENT== As we prepare for working together on Content Teams, Abby Rumsey recommended CWG might want to read (or reread) the Blue Ribbon Task Force report [ http:…'

2012-01-30T19:39:30Z

Created page with ' ==BACKGROUND DOCUMENT== As we prepare for working together on Content Teams, Abby Rumsey recommended CWG might want to read (or reread) the Blue Ribbon Task Force report [ http:…'

New page

==BACKGROUND DOCUMENT==
As we prepare for working together on Content Teams, Abby Rumsey recommended CWG might want to read (or reread) the Blue Ribbon Task Force report [ http://brtf.sdsc.edu/biblio/BRTF_Final_Report.pdf] executive summary (p1) and also the sections on the four content domains and recommendations for stakeholders to take action – how archives can be there before (to help them create archival content) and when donors are ready to hand-off content in need of preservation.

==DEVELOPING CASE STUDIES==

1. Content teams decide categories of content that are important in their groups (ie. Blogs of NGOs, legal blogs, citizen science sites, local newspaper websites, etc.)

2. Develop one or more case studies that could be shared broadly to get others thinking about the topic. Show why things are at risk. Encourage the cultivation of relationships. Content team members could share experiences they’ve had, document successes and failure in negotiating such relationships around content they know and care about.

Case studies ideally would define:

*Rationale for collecting – why is this at risk, what value does the content have?
*Pitch to donors – how did you or do you plan to build your approach?
*Barriers for users/creators – what challenges did you/might you face?
*Actionable items – what can we do next, as a community (or individual institution)?

UNT will provide a sample from a recent experience they've had that could serve as a useful model.

3. Share results with broader CWG members, for discussion and feedback. Ultimately, we'll want to share more broadly to raise awareness about risk and value of content.