Left Menu Right Menu

Location

Via GoToMeeting

Agenda

ArchivesSpace Pilot

Members Present

Trevor Bond, Devin Becker, Eva Guggemos (guest), Karen Bjork, Maija Anderson (for first 40 mins), Rose Krause, Ann Lally (for first 40 mins), Isaac Gilman, Jodi Allison-Bunnell

Members Absent

None

Key Documents

Archival Collection Management WG Report on ArchivesSpace Pilot
Staff Report on AS Pilot (confidential)

Minutes

Archival Collection Management Working Group report on ArchivesSpace Pilot

AS functionality and WG’s recommendation (Eva Guggemos, chair)

  • Background: We started using Archivist’s Toolkit in 2011 knowing that AS was coming along; AT has not been supported for several years. The aim of AS was to meld the best of AT and Archon and create a web-based tool. We’ve been talking about AS for some time. The group was only testing the collection management (AT) function of AS since we have no need of the public interface.

  • WG’s recommendation: Recommend that we begin supporting AS, at minimum modifying the AT2AW script that cleans up EAD output; and that we support a transition to AS over FY17-18. Transitioning now avoids getting caught when AT fails and allows adequate planning for transition at the Alliance and institutional levels.

  • CDL is no longer hosting AT for its contributors because it is too time-consuming to maintain; this has left the non-UC participants without

  • Summary of findings: Hosting and setting up AS is difficult; migration from AT is not; generally works well to replace AT functionality.

  • Webinars scheduled December 8 and 10 for A&M participants to hear about pilot experience and AS functionality. Costs and budget implications will not be discussed specifically at those events, focus is on the tool and the experiences of pilot participants.

Staff Report on implementation costs (Jodi)

The CCD Team received a staff report on implementation costs from Jodi, based on hosting costs in two responses to our RFP and on central staffing costs to support an AS deployment. Central IT staff is likely not available, so we will need to contract out hosting. Clearly an AS implementation is much more costly than our current support for AT.

We will not circulate cost information to A&M contributors until January, when we can be confident in the figures and when we can put them side-by-side with potential DPLA costs.

Discussion

  • Are the additional costs viable at the Alliance? We are potentially proposing a price increase, flat or nearly flat costs for the EAD database, and funding for the DPLA hub as a new program offering

  • If we don’t continue ACM support, does the EAD database remain viable? Probably for larger institutions, probably not for smaller institutions; we started supporting archival collection management in order to facilitate the participation of smaller institutions

  • What does the RSP give us? Training and documentation; what we’ve found is that the price does not appear to justify what it gives us

  • Multi-tenancy: Could small institutions share an instance? Possible, but exposes private information (donors especially) to one another. AS was never designed for multi-tenancy

  • Could we lay out comparative costs per institution? Yes, and we have the materials to provide that. Jodi to provide for Dec 15 meeting with names of institutions anonymized.

  • We will have to be able to take members and A&M participants a menu of choices with corresponding costs for ACM, EAD, and DPLA.

  • Important to keep the A&M community and commitment to collaboration, even if institutions decide to go on their own, and use resources for the common good.

  • How this relates to shared ILS and how we’re working to develop shared practices: where can we create some connections with what’s going on with the SILS? Connect with Collaborative Workforce, other efforts to make things work for the whole.

  • Very important for CCD Team to continue to articulate that moving non-unique materials to network level means that we can also work together on unique materials as well rather than assuming that the primary opportunity is for institutions to go on their own.

Next Steps

  • Understand that this is one step in a long and complex discussion that CCD will undertake for all of December and January, culminating in the FY17 budget and cost distribution

  • Jodi will bring anonymized costs per institutions to December 15 meeting with well articulated what-you-get lists associated with some options

  • Everyone should make travel arrangements for the January 14 in-person meeting in Portland

Minutes compiled by Jodi Allison-Bunnell, CCD Program Manager