Left Menu Right Menu


Concordia University Library


DPLA Proposal

ArchivesSpace Implementation

FY17 Budget

FY17 Goals

Working Group Appointments

Members Present

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

Members Absent


Key Documents

Please see the group's Google Drive folder.


DPLA Proposal

The group reviewed the current directions for developing a DPLA hub at the Alliance, including an overview of DAMs and IRs and the potential number of digital objects available to contribute to a hub.

Since DPLA requires 50,000 objects for the initial ingest, and because our previously stated framework on cleanup--that it will be for metadata going forward only--needs to be revised.

      • Question of submission choices

      • Complexity with some institutions and complexity (e.g. Uidaho, UW, Oregon Digital)

      • This is a change from the direction that we thought we would do

      • Will need to account for hosted systems (BePress the most common) and situations in which institutions don”t have choices

      • Distributing metadata cleanup may need to come from high-level leadership, and is often not the choice of the line staff

      • Strongly leaning toward some level of institutional cleanup, some done on ingest by the harvester

      • What is the direction that best facilitates do things once/do them together/do them the same

      • Institutional decisions about collections with external focus, internal focus

      • What the search engine exposure of DPLA? Fairly good for unique/known items. This is an important question for both DPLA and SILS

      • Are we using the right-size framework to begin doing this work together? Having the harvester take care of a few things is probably what assuages many of the concerns, lowering the barrier to entry. CCD Team feels that this is the right balance.

      • Rights statements could also be part of submission/harvester: DPLA is still working on this and the details will have to be worked out.

      • Re-ingest of cleaned up metadata? Probably not, particularly since it”s so difficult in CtDM.

      • All of this facilitates adding digital objects to SILS

    • Presentation (Ann): Overview of state of metadata standards

      • Group met this week to begin its next stage of work

      • When the metadata standards were circulated there was strong support for standards in general but some really great comments on the details

      • The group is on track to complete their work productively by March

      • Final step may be another set of detailed comments or general up/down; this will be up to group

      • Discussion: Rolling deadline for DPLA is to our advantage, as we can confirm our own budget, whether we get grant funding, before we go through their application process

      • Recent discussions with DPLA and MWDL on handling non-members, timeline for considering this question

      • What is the scalability of infrastructure, people, need to support

      • Talked about incentives vs. disincentives for different cost distribution schemes

      • Ultimately ties into Collaborative Workforce work, part of which relates to ‘funnels’ for checking records for compliance; there might be a convergence here.

      • Presentation (Jodi): Overview of scenarios and budget options

      • Approach surfaces continuing costs in the first year along with identifying continuing costs

      • May make sense to move infrastructure extension to Alliance funds to ensure that it gets done soon, not dependent on grant

      • Mark: Interesting contrast with fees paid to OCLC. Isaac: How do we balance what we pay for purchased content with what we pay for unique content.

      • Opportunity cost of not doing something now

      • First priority is to ask for all-in approach; connect to SILS; best rhetorical strategy. Have an opt-in as a backup

      • We should compare opt-in fees with MWDL fees (and show that this is more affordable because of our internal efficiencies)

      • Collective project that fulfills the first part of the strategic agenda; community of practice.

      • Funding sources: check Murdoch, Delmas. Probably not leaning toward federal sources because of long timelines and DPLA's own heavy use of them.

      • Move infrastructure costs to Alliance for FY17; should we not get a grant we have the capacity to carry infrastructure extension forward, understanding that the grant-funded position then moves largely to W2 work. Back-pocket option: come together to self-fund some cleanup assistance (this could also create haves/have nots)

ArchivesSpace Implementation

  • Review outcomes of feedback from A&M participants

    • Prep document (Sent Jan 13): Survey feedback (sent via email)

    • Jodi is in process of checking in with individuals/institutions to confirm understanding

    • Contributors need clear parameters on what hosting means for institutions that choose that: what”s taken off of local staff, what”s not

    • Consensus: We move forward as proposed; we communicate with institutions not sure/not clear; we commit to revisiting the fee structure for FY19 to consider full opt-in opt-out

  • Use feedback to develop plan going forward

    • Charge ACM WG to get started on documentation this year? If Eva is available to chair, then charge them to get started documentation scope and some work as possible

    • Jodi to start identifying cohorts once the budget vote is done in March

FY17 Budget

The Team discussed the overall FY17 budget for CCD, which includes the normal support for the program, a proposed DPLA hub, and the A&M fees with the ArchivesSpace implementation. The Team supported the overall direction.

FY17 Goals

    • Discussion themes for FY17:

      • Digital collections

        • If approved, proceed with development of DPLA hub

        • Fully implement digital content metadata standards

        • Facilitate cleanup of digital content metadata

        • Streamline piping digital collections into Primo (training, workflows, support)

        • Continue discussions of how digital collections support teaching and research

        • Connect the Alliance”s efforts in this area with other initiatives in the region

      • Archives infrastructure (ACM and EAD; collection sharing)

        • Implement ArchivesSpace as successor to Archivist”s Toolkit, including support for migration (documentation and training)

        • Streamline workflows between Archives West and the SILS, accounting for others uses of descriptive records, adopting CW approaches to archival description

        • Continue to monitor and make recommendations about external standards (including but not limited to EAD3 and EAC-CPF)

      • Digital preservation

        • Environmental scan of digital preservation landscape with movement toward creating best practices

        • Identify Alliance role in digital preservation

      • New frontiers (OERs, data)

        • Build on FY16 work of groups that identified what types of OERs and data to focus on and Alliance role(s)

        • [connect OERs and how digital collections support teaching and research]

      • Organizational integration

        • Collaboration with Discovery & Delivery to develop an Alliance-wide approach to usability and accessibility [consider embedding this in every group charge]

    • Assessment measures (to be applied more specifically to final goals):

      • Use metrics

        • Adoption of metatadata standards

        • Successful AS migrations

        • Number of digital objects aggregated

        • Number of AW finding aids in SILS

      • Engagement metrics

        • Use of training

        • Internal user satisfaction with program”s services

        • End user satisfaction with program”s services

      • [metrics that measure work in digital preservation, OERs, and data sets--probably whether we complete the recommendations]

  • Trevor, Isaac, and Jodi will meet before the Team's next meeting to refine the above into goals and bring them for review. They will then go to the Program Manager's meeting on Jan 29 and on to the Board for the February 11 meeting.

Working Group Appointments

The Team made appointments to the Digital Preservation Working Group.

They will make Exploration Working Group appointments once there are sufficient candidates in all areas.

The Team recommended that the Archival Collection Management Working Group be re-convened in FY16 to prepare for an ArchivesSpace implementation after the March budget vote.

Rose gave an update on the EAD Database Working Group

    • Update on direction for EAD3 (completing exploration), AW technical support plan (nearly complete with medium-term support, revisiting analytics and reporting, feedback from program participants), user experience plan (convening group)

Minutes compiled by Jodi Allison-Bunnell, CCD Program Manager