Left Menu Right Menu

Location

Via GoToMeeting

Agenda

Digital Collections Aggregation Update
EAD Database Working Group Report
ArchivesSpace Implementation Update
Digital Preservation Working Group Update
Exploration Working Group/Data Sets Group Report
Exploration Working Group/Share Collections Group Update

Members Present

Trevor Bond, Mark Dahl, Rose Krause, Karen Bjork, Eva Guggemos (until 9:20), Devin Becker, Jodi Allison-Bunnell

Members Absent

Ann Lally, Isaac Gilman

Key Documents

EAD Database Working Group Report
Exploration Working Group/Data Sets Group Report

Minutes

Digital Content Initiative (Jodi)
We are waiting on news of the LSTA grant but have received positive early indications. We will hear after April 10. In the meantime, Jodi is working on laying out plans and has convened a short-term advisory group of Ann Lally, Kyle Banerjee, and Julie Simic to advise on some approaches to metadata sampling and review, which will be critical in the early stages of the project.

EAD DB WG/Technical Support/User Testing (Rose)
The Team reviewed the following recommendations from the report of the EAD Database Working Group:
  • The Alliance should postpone implementation of EAD3 until after the ArchivesSpace implementation in FY17-18 to avoid fee increases to the A&M Service annual fees. The Alliance should consider looking for a different infrastructure at that time, in concert with the implementation of EAD3. The CCD Team accepted this recommendation from the EAD3 group in March 2016.
  • The Alliance should consider working with other EAD groups on best practices, if all parties are equally committed to substantial participation. The CCD will also need to continue tracking on national-level EAD3 study groups, one of which is looking at national-level EAD standards.
  • The program should keep the web encoding template available until the end of the ArchivesSpace implementation (June 2018) with minimal maintenance.
  • The program needs to put some resources into the digital object harvester, resolving known problems and encouraging use.
  • The program should encourage institutions to make sure that their finding aids have adequate <controlaccess> headings beyond browsing terms to support complete and accurate faceting of search results.
  • The program should fully identify and develop a mitigation plan for accessibility issues on the AW site, gathering needed information from institutions that are under or are vulnerable to Department of Justice scrutiny on this issue. The site must be in compliance with the WCAG, Level AA (https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/) and VPAT (http://www.umt.edu/accessibility/getstarted/procurement/vendor.php#vpat) as a minimum standard.
  • Implement the proposed schedule of AW maintenance in concert with Systems Program so that the AW site and its associated infrastructure remains up to date and responsive to issues identified in user testing and feedback from participating institutions.
  • The next round of end user testing should focus on the following specific issues:
    • Display of the <controlaccess> section (as ‘Find Related Collections)
    • Digital objects display
    • Search pathways and refining with facets. What are the desired pathways for searching only the finding aids of a particular institution, and where are the points of confusion that need to be resolved?
  • In order for the user testing described above to be effective, participating institutions must recruit end users more actively. We cannot come to useful conclusions on how to change the site with such low numbers of subjects, and this is not a problem that central staff can solve.
  • Change the current reports on Archives West:
    • Move to quarterly and annual reports rather than monthly starting in FY17
    • Rework analytics workflow
    • Revise keyword analysis to the AW side if possible (which it may not be)
    • Explore feasibility of:
      • Reporting on the top finding aid from each institution
      • Automatic reports by institution, quarterly or annually
The Team approved these recommendations without reservations.

ArchivesSpace Implementation Plan (Eva/Jodi)
The WG has been meeting and has created an implementation plan, then met individually with all institutions that indicated an interest in migrating. The full plan will come to CCD on June 22, but overall contains a migration plan through 2018 June (four six-month periods: preparation, cohort 1, cohort 2, cohort 3); a training plan; and a documentation plan.

What the next WG will need from CCD is quick action on forming the group and creating the charge. There is a lot of work to do and time delays will make that work really difficult. CCD should plan to do this at summer meeting.

Digital Preservation WG Update (Devin)
Had a very successful survey response (33 out of 39), learned a good amount. 25 out of 33 are doing some form of digital preservation according to standard definition. Digital photographs are the biggest category being managed. There are about 146 TB of data being preserved, expecting significant growth in coming years. Desires to develop plans, or have some in place. Some geographic distribution of copies.

This is a preview; full report comes to June 22 meeting. CCD”s next steps will be to recommend further action in FY17; we left this part of our goals non-specific.

Exploration WG/Data Sets Group (Maija)
The group decided to do two open calls rather than a survey. Great participation rate and lively conversations, particularly on the second call. The group made sure to focus beyond the technical issues, into instruction and outreach.

Many interesting issues raised: the mixed role of mandates, working across disciplines, the place of the library in the researcher cycle (and varying opinions on what is ideal), lack of support/staffing, libraries a little ahead of the curve.

Three tiers: libraries providing/planning to provide RD services (small group, large institutions); libraries providing targeted services and focus on instruction (four-year colleges); those not committed (big group--interested but not able to provide).

Group”s recommendation:
We suggest that the clearest role for the Alliance is as a convener. This role would increase exposure of expertise and activity that already exists in the Alliance, but is siloed within libraries or small teams. There is interest in Alliance-supported programming such as a stand-alone symposium, perhaps coordinated with the summer meeting. There is also interest in having the Alliance facilitate the sharing of learning tools, both for end users (such as Libguides and OERs), and for library professionals (such as marketing guides and toolkits).
We do not recommend that the Alliance take on a major role in providing training, since there is no consensus around the specific needs that training would support, and what standards or best practices training could draw from. However, the Alliance could support member-driven training opportunities, particularly in developing best practices for data management plans. Some libraries already provide DMP best practices training, while others expressed interest in learning from their colleagues to develop similar services. Training could be designed by experts in Alliance libraries, and offered in the context of an Alliance-supported program.

Few participants reported that RDM is an institutional priority. Even at institutions prioritizing RDM, it is not yet clear how libraries would be involved. In this light, we conclude that there is not enough traction for the Alliance to pursue an expansive consortial role at this time.

Discussion: use of open calls rather than surveys for working groups: Depends on the type of feedback desired; gives more impressionistic feedback, gets good interchange. Are there other organizations besides the Alliance playing that convenor role? Yes, PNW IR group is one place (and we should connect with that group); NW 5 consortium (a lot of work with faculty-student teams that do research); national-level groups around scholarly communications.

What is CCD role if so few libraries are actively working on this? May depend on funding mandates, what role libraries take ultimately. Advocacy and outreach were predominant in the calls rather than technical infrastructure, for instance.

Next steps:It”s fine to decide to work on something that is not of interest to all Alliance members--but in this case there is wide enthusiasm and interest. We have time now, June 22, and at summer meeting to work on this. Come to a conclusion by end of day on July 14.Daylighting to Council and BOD? Certainly the newsletter; Jodi will talk to Dana about what would be a good next step to validate next step(s).Tracking on NW IR group, NW 5 consortium a productive direction 

Exploration WG/Share Collections Group (Trevor)
Submitted a summer meeting lightning talkReport is largely drafted and can come to June 22 meetingOverall: Have reviewed existing projects and literature, perhaps convening symposium on topic, doing some open calls after summer meeting.

Thanks to Trevor as it is his last meeting with us!