NDSA:Content WG July 19, 2011 Meeting Minutes

Return to NDSA:Content Working Group Home

NDSA Content Meeting Minutes

Wednesday, July 19, 2011 10:30 am ET

Attendees (13)

• Apt, Ira | MAM-A | Ira.apt@mam-a.com
• Baker, Timothy D. | Maryland State Archives | timb@MDSA.NET
• Cornwall, Daniel | Alaska State Library | daniel.cornwall@ALASKA.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
• Hartman, Cathy | Associate Dean of Libraries, University of North Texas/ Co-Chair of the NDSA Content Working Group | cathy.hartman@UNT.EDU
• Knies, Jennie | Manager, Digital Collections, University of Maryland | levjen@UMD.EDU
• Maes, Margaret | Legal Information Preservation Alliance | mkmaes@gmail.com
• Maynard, Marc | University of Connecticut | marc.maynard@UCONN.EDU
• Rossum, Deborah |Digital Content Manager| SCOLA |712-566-2202| drossum@SCOLA.ORG
• Rumsey, Abby Smith | Library of Congress/NDIIPP | abby@arumsey.com
• Stoller, Michael | New York University | Michael.stoller@NYU.EDU
• Wurl, Joel | National Endowment for the Humanities | jwurl@neh.gov

Introductions

Since it was our first in-person meeting, we spent some time introducing ourselves to each other and what our interests were related to the the Content Working Group.

Group A: Registry Update

Not much knew to report on but Daniel talked about the tentative list of fields with us (via web conferencing from Alaska!). Comments were received after the last call, and comments still welcome. The refined list is going out to whole alliance, hope to start working with Recollection and Trevor soon to get something set up. Again stressed that it should be as easy as possible, and he wondered if we could harvest information from NDSA members? Not sure about that.

Coordinating Committee Report Out

Cathy and Abbie reported to the NDSA coordinating committee that same morning, and gave an update on the work of our group. One of the members mentioned a photographer that might be able to help with metadata, though after discussion our group worried about getting too focused on one discipline's way of describing collections for the registry. Perhaps that person would be more useful in the Standards WG?

General discussion/New Action Team?

Abby stated that the clearinghouse is a good idea, but live brokers are needed to help pair people and collections. We should think of ourselves as collection and archiving brokers. The gap between demand and preservationists is huge.

It was suggested that we should discuss role of funders - the people who have leverage. Data management planning is important. Joel commented that at NEH, their program has long asked for data management planning information, but recently this has been brought up to higher level of awareness. Start up grants in future will ask for data management plans. Michael commented that part of problem is that people don't know what those plans look like. Means different things to different people. Attention needs to be given, people are becoming more aware.

There is generally a mandate for data management, but not necessarily a plan to help people do this. Maybe the NDSA CWG can help guide people? Perhaps room for a NEW ACTION TEAM regarding selection (not everything is worth saving)? Daniel commented that there is generally a reluctance to do selection. We want to save it all.

Abby suggested we need to spend time with creators of data, or their immediate user communities, to help develop strategies.

Michael commented that we have never cared for/preserved the whole print culture - we have to translate those decision-making skills to digital. Cathy noted there is not agreement about it at all, about value in this environment. The digital world has enable so many more to publish without controls. There will always be disagreement about what to save.

At-Risk Workshop/Group B: Clearinghouse

Kristine talked through PowerPoint she had prepared for the workshop tomorrow.

We reviewed the workshop goals: basically vetting the categories, then see if something is left out. Determine what are next steps in this process. We plan to discuss what is at risk, what is not at risk. Face to face dialog should help illustrate the problem and need.

Curators are lacking in institutions, maybe there are other resources out there that could help - crowd sourcing was mentioned to help identify content at risk.

Marc noted that there are differences in level of what's at risk. Are there gradations to be aware of? Things that are critical to save, vs not so much at risk, ranking them will help us prioritize. Things can change quickly, with budgets as they currently are. What is not at risk now could be tomorrow.

Michael commented that there is a macro-category. Born digital on the web is one thing, born digital living elsewhere might have different level of risk.

Margaret asked if we had mapped the clearinghouse risk categories with the registry? We have not yet, and probably should. Link the two activities more.

Abby brought up the Blue Ribbon Task Force report, lots of good stuff there about risk, including categories of risk to content, what makes something at risk. Legal risks, economic risk, staffing, etc. Web content was particularly at risk. She suggested members take a look at executive summary of that report. We talked about share with participants at the workshop (although this was not ultimately done).

Joel asked if we had we talked about digital public library of America in our Working Group discussions? He thought the two camps should make sure there is cross dialog. Abby stated that she has been in some of the discussions about their content, they are having trouble thinking about it, working on low hanging fruit: Hathi trust, public domain. They haven't decided if they are a public library or research, and are not currently interested in preservation, just access. She didn't think they are ready to talk preservation. They are working on software, enabling collection building and sharing of data. Is it more of a discovery service. Focus is on facilitate distributed storage. They are building a brand. We agreed that we should make sure their brand incorporates what we are doing.

Next Meeting

Our next call will be August 3 at 11am EST. Agenda and call details to be sent a few days prior.

-End-