Left Menu Right Menu

Location

Via GoToMeeting

Agenda

EAD Database WG Appointments
BOD Response to DPLA Proposal; Next Steps
Digital Content JWG Appointments
Primo Assessment JWG Nomination from CCD

Members Present

Ann Lally, Devin Becker, Rose Krause, Karen Bjork, Maija Anderson, Isaac Gilman, Trevor Bond, Mark Dahl, Jodi Allison-Bunnell

Members Absent

None

Key Documents

None

Minutes

EAD Database WG Appointments

Insufficient nominations to make appointments; postponed to October 5.

BOD Response to DPLA Proposal; Next Steps

The following feedback from the BOD was sent out prior to the meeting:

First, Mark, I hear you did a fantastic job introducing the topic and handling questions—thank you!

Our overall result: The BOD feels that the process that we propose is a good one. They understand that exterior factors (DPLA”s membership model among them) means that we can”t have a fully detailed proposal with all potential costs in November. They had a good discussion of how to help the Team move this proposal forward: how to get the BOD solidly on board and able to advocate with Council.

They characterize the situation as ‘the benefits are clear; the implications are not":

  • The BOD and Council understand the broad benefits of DPLA and are generally supportive of this effort
  • We do not yet have a clear picture of the implications, specifically:
    • Why does an institution want to want to do this? What are the benefits? ‘What”s in it for my institution?"We will need to account for this for October BOD and November Council.
    • What are the costs for institutions that participate? We will have this for February BOD and March Council. We should not try to project costs for October/November.
It”s clear organizationally that an opt-in cost model (most likely together with a cafeteria-style opt-in model for the two components of A&M—EAD database and archival collection management) is going to be the most viable at this time.

Most important question: How does DPLA participation benefit my library? What are the benefits and impacts?

How do we deal with the finances? Issues around opt-in vs. all-in. Need to look beyond LSTA for funding since that comes with some strings attached.

Relationship with ARTSTOR shared shelf: this deals with a specific subset of content. May be an issue if products start to be hubs (as with Shared Shelf Commons). Good question for Emily.

Having Emily present to Council at some point may be an open question, but focus is inward (what this means to an institution).

We will also need to provide scenarios for whether we have a user interface regionally (and what that is: SILS Primo or special-purpose interface?), or if we just feed up to DPLA without a regional user interface.

Set up next steps: What to do by Monday Oct 5?

  • Team members should seek out colleagues at institutions who have been part of DPLA for some time (not emergent experiences) to seek out stories: What difference has DPLA made for that institution and its researchers? Characterize when they joined, how much stuff they have in, what it is, and what impacts (metadata work, researchers, usage)

  • Team members to explore DPLA apps for teaching and learning

  • Draw on work of Digital Content Metadata group, which is having its members try applying proposed standards in order to characterize how much work it is

Digital Content JWG Appointments
Insufficient nominations to make appointments; postponed to October 5.

Primo Assessment JWG Nomination from CCD
CCD needs to nominate a Representative to this Joint Working Group. Completed by email; nomination submitted.

Minutes compiled by Jodi Allison-Bunnell, CCD Program Manager