NDSA:Content WG October 5, 2011 Meeting Minutes

Return to NDSA:Content Working Group Home

NDSA Content Meeting Minutes

DRAFT Wednesday, October 5, 2011 11:00 am ET

Attendees (21)

• Abrams, Brett | National Records and Archives Administration | Brett.Abrams@nara.gov
• Baker, Timothy D. | Maryland State Archives | timb@MDSA.NET
• Cornwall, Daniel | Alaska State Library | daniel.cornwall@ALASKA.GOV
• Downs, Robert | CIESIN, Columbia University | rdowns@ciesin.columbia.edu
• Faundeen, John, Archivist | U.S. Geological Survey | faundeen@usgs.gov
• Grotke, Abbie | Web Archiving Team Lead, Library of Congress, and Co-Chair of the NDSA Content Working Group | abgr@LOC.GOV | 202-707-2833 | @agrotke
• Hanna, Kristine | Internet Archive | kristine@ARCHIVE.ORG
• Howard, Rachel | Digital Initiatives Librarian, University of Louisville | rachel.howard@LOUISVILLE.EDU
• Kepley, David | NARA | david.kepley@nara.gov
• Martin, Kevin | Hagley Museum and Library | kmartin@hagley.org
• McAninch, Glen | Kentucky Department for Libraries and Archives | Glen.McAninch@ky.gov
• Moffatt, Christie | National Library of Medicine | moffattc@mail.nlm.nih.gov
• Nicholson, Shawn | Assistant Director of Libraries| Michigan State University | nicho147@msu.edu
• Ogilvie, Kris | Digital Programs Consultant, California State Library | kogilvie@LIBRARY.CA.GOV
• Rau, Erik | Hagley Museum and Library | erau@hagley.org
• Rossum, Deborah |Digital Content Manager| SCOLA |712-566-2202| drossum@SCOLA.ORG
• Rumsey, Abby Smith | Library of Congress/NDIIPP | abby@arumsey.com
• Simon, James | Center for Research Libraries | jsimon@crl.edu
• Stoller, Michael | New York University | Michael.stoller@NYU.EDU
• Swanson, Rebecca | SCOLA | rswanson@scola.org
• Weise, John | Manager of the Digital Library Production Service (DLPS) at the University of Michigan | jweise@UMICH.EDU

Registry Action Team

Danial and Kris reported out on the recent activities of the registry action team.

Started with ALA definitions, found some issues when we surveyed members, reluctance with those. So the group has been working on an improved checklist/levels of preservation. Kris O. took the lead on drafting new levels, and used labels: silver, gold and platinum with a check list so that members can self-identify as they are entering collections into registry. Kris walked through the various levels.

Note: Our platinum level is based on ALA definition. The others allow for those who haven't quite met those goals to participate in the registry. Upon review of the levels we realized

Kris O. has a few documents that she will send to the list and post to the wiki - please review and comment within a week. Will then share it with other groups in alliance so they will have a clearer idea of what will be registering.

The group recognizes there is some interaction that needs to happen with clearinghouse with "at risk" content. Differentiate between digitizing and digital preservation is also key and is covered with document Kris developed.

Michael S. suggest adding: "appropriate" intellectual property rights. Others agreed. As long as content provider has rights to preserve the content.

Glen asked, what other sources extracting information - consider ISO Auditing and Trac criteria? Fairly recent to establish a standard and looking for what organization will help implement. Kris O: Consulted a number of sources but we are thinking of this as more of a check list than an audit. Tried to leave it open enough that organizations could use it as works for them. Daniel agreed: the intention for this registry to be a self reporting one. Few resources for robust auditing program. Trust system. Alliance doesn't have the resources to audit/monitor - self-reporting is the only way we can see doing this.

John: are you seeing a spreadsheet for the levels? How will this be presented? Kris said how this will look is still to be determined by the CWG. Danial responded that it is up to the institution submitting collections to define what a collection will be. To qualify for a level, would need a collection to fill as many criteria as possible on the spreadsheet to keep a relatively simple display. But each collection could be at different levels of preservation.

Clearinghouse Action Team

Kristine reported that she and Cathy and Abbie had been discussing where to get next with the Clearinghouse work, how to tackle the next phase. An objective is to keep it low-barrier so that people will contribute. We want to provide a way to allow nominations of at-risk content and collections. Anyone should be able to nominate. It's up the submitters to determine what gets nominated - be it a specific object, or a collection, or what have you. So proposed for moving forward: 1) Create a simple checklist of what we mean by "at risk" to help submitters determine what should be added to the clearinghouse. 2) NDSA's strength is in its network - we as a community can help make connections between content in need of preservation and organizations who could help preserve. 3) Provide a tool for nomination. The outreach working group has been working with Omeka on a project to gather up stories about data loss. Maybe we could use something simple like that?

John F. mentioned a tool that might be useful that is being released soon from a data task group that he's involved with. UNC is working on it; maybe there could be another "view" for NDSA use? He will investigate whether it might be something we could adopt.

Abby R. asked about incentives for people to contribute and identify at-risk content - do they get something in return? How do we motivate people? We agreed these are all good questions that we have to sort out together.

Perhaps one element could be that the clearinghouse has the potential to help tell the baseline story of what's at risk, at a national level, to perhaps help generate press and funding (could LC or other federal institutions or IMLS use this to rally financial support for digital preservation?). And the Registry can help tell the story of what we are preserving.

Another incentive might be in documenting the condition of collections.

We talked about the need to link the two activities - perhaps there are links between the two that allow gaps in the Registry to be identified and made note of in the Clearinghouse. Perhaps organizations that don't meet the levels of preservation for the registry would self identify as in need of help with preservation in the clearinghouse. Much to still be determined.

Next steps: everyone agreed the approach outlined seems good. We will try to break the work down into discrete tasks that people can volunteer to help with: building the tool, doing out reach, drafting the text to help determine what's at risk, and so forth.

Abbie encouraged all to continue the discussion on the listserv.

Blog Preservation Action Team

Abbie and Kristine reported on the status of the blog preservation action team. They had a good meeting (minutes posted here: http://www.loc.gov/extranet/wiki/osi/ndiip/ndsa/index.php?title=Blog_Preservation) with Andrew Nacin at Wordpress who is eager to help us develop something (whatever we want really) to enable preservation of blogs or opt in to preservation. There are some policy decisions to make still - LC will try to set up a meeting by early November to discuss those. Any interested NDSA members and others will be invited.

Web Archiving Survey

The Web Archiving Survey was launched this week (see blog post here: http://blogs.loc.gov/digitalpreservation/2011/10/take-our-web-archiving-survey/). So far we've received about 25 responses. We got a few questions about it (answers posted to the blog post). Abbie encouraged members to fill out and spread the word.

Next Meeting

Our next call will be November 2 at 11am EST. Agenda and call details to be sent a few days prior.

-End-