NDSA:Content WG October 5, 2011 Meeting Minutes: Difference between revisions

← Older edit Newer edit →

Revision as of 14:55, 5 October 2011

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

Blog Preservation Action Team

Web Archiving Survey

Misc.

Next Meeting

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

-End-

@@ Line 33: / Line 33: @@
 Danial and Kris reported out on the recent activities of the registry action team.
-Daniel: Started with ALA definitions, found some issues. So Kris O. put together a set of labels:  silver, gold and platinum with a check list.
+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: Platinum level is based on ALA definition
+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
-Will share it with other groups in alliance so they will have a clearer idea of what will be registering.
+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.
-Some interaction with clearinghouse with "at risk" content.  Differentiate between digitizing and digital preservation
+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.
-Kris O. has a lot of notes which she will send and we will post.
+Michael S. suggest adding: "appropriate" intellectual property rights. Others agreed. As long as content provider has rights to preserve the content.
-Michael S. suggest adding: "appropriate" intellectual property rights
+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.
-Daniel: Agree: as long as content provider has rights to preserve the content
+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.
-Glen: 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: more of a check list than an audit. tried to leave it open enough that organizations could use it as works for them
-Daniel: intention for this registry to be a self reporting one. Few resources for robust auditing program. Trust system. Alliance would not demand
-John: are you seeing a spread sheet for the labels?  how will this be presented?
-Daniel: It is up to institution 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 spread sheet to keep a relatively simple display.
-Daniel: a week for comments
 ==Clearinghouse Action Team==