AgendaFirst part of DPLA proposal development
Members PresentTrevor Bond, Devin Becker, Isaac Gilman, Karen Bjork, Maija Anderson, Rose Krause, Ann Lally, Jodi Allison-Bunnell, Mark Dahl
Update from DC (Trevor)
Mellon-funded project for Council of Independent Colleges about teaching and learning with primary sources that Trevor attended and presented at (also attended by some Alliance directors). Emily Gore presented at conference as well. DPLA will have a tiered membership model starting January 2016, not based on number of objects contributed but providing some sustainability.
They have made progress with teaching/learning applications for the content, which will support our process for gaining support.
Update on rights statements: That report is coming out very soon; dovetails into our work on shared metadata standards.
Update from Digital Content Metadata Standards Group (Ann)
Met for the first time last week. Members of this short-term group are Ann Lally (chair), Theo Gerontakos, Devin Becker, Michael Boock, Stephanie Beene, and Rick Block.
Ultimately everyone thinks that the draft standards with have are a good start, with some questions about dates, coverage, and some other details. Next two weeks will focus on applying the draft standards to some recent collections and seeing where the match/non-match points are. This will show where the specifications may need refinement, and will also use tools that could be adapted in implementation. Should still be finished by mid-October.
How these are presented to the community is critical: high-level overview as background, details that metadata experts can dig into, medium-level with both text and graphics.
DPLA Proposal Elements
|Who’s included||Alliance members only, or non-Alliance members too||Most viable to do for Alliance members only, with possibility of expansion in future||Non-starter to included non-members; Jodi is checking on what DPLA says (they have always said Alliance-only is OK--did this change?). Most likely Alliance members only *at this time*|
|Complicated institutions||UW and Oregon Digital with existing/potential DPLA hubs; existing projects with external organizations||Need to account for this||Most likely future conversation; institutions that host digital content from other organizations need to be accounted for|
|DPLA hub and SILS aggregation||Are these parallel initiatives or combined?||Can go either way, ultimately complementary in aims and objectives. More of a question of technical efficiency.||Efficiency in doing this work together|
|Hub type||Service hub or content hub||A definition that confuses people. Multiple institutions equals service hub.||Service hub|
|Metadata remediation||Correction, normalization, enhancement: lots, some, (almost) none||More remediation increases central staff costs; will always be some need even with best practices||Light centralized metadata remediation.|
|Adherence to shared best practices||Compliance enforced for inclusion or not||Compliance decreases need for central staffing for metadata remediation||Adherence to shared best practices. Important to link into CW efforts and CW model.|
|Approaches to legacy collections||Existing metadata versus new||General focus on metadata moving forward; cleanup on legacy metadata as possible (and by institutions’ choice); automation of cleanup with shared tools as possible|
|Enforcement of shared standards||Institutions ensure they adhere versus central review of compliance||Basic-level validation tools to ensure compliance, and sensible to tie into an LSTA grant application (development or adaptation). Can also include decentralized support for metadata compliance. Standards need to have compelling outcomes that are the carrot for compliance.|
|Technology for hosting at institutions||Need current list of how many sites there are||In the charge of DC JWG; will be generated soon||Need to have for Council meeting for sure; possible to have for October BOD meeting?|
|Technology for aggregation||SILS/Primo or metadata harvester||Harvester is in place for Archives West; AEW WG recommended not using SILS||Search engines and Primo are a serious limitation; putting digital objects in SILS can be a serious problem in terms of usability;|
|Staffing: technical||Alliance, member, or contracted (with MWDL?)||Consistent with CW model||Need to talk with MWDL staff|
|Staffing: training, support||Alliance, member, or contracted||Consistent with CW model|
|Cost distribution||Supported by all or opt-in||Always controversial!||What will justify new costs? Where are any cost savings?|
|Role of external funding||Oregon LSTA, federal, foundation sources||Oregon LSTA known good bet; others to be investigated|
|Timing||FY16, FY17, other? How fast do we make this happen?||DPLA app cycles in January and July with expectation that you are live 6 months later; Oregon LSTA posted January with full proposals due April and grants start July; need to fund activities not in FY16 budget||Probably apply July 2016 pending budget authority, go live January 2017|
|Support for scholarship and teaching||DPLA has emerging information||Solid examples will be essential to any viable proposal||DPLA’s examples are increasing|
Minutes compiled by Jodi Allison-Bunnell, CCD Program Manager