STAFF RESOURCES

Minutes of November 6, 2003 Meeting

Present:
Agnew, Au, Calhoun, Denda, Marker, Niessen (recorder), Sewell, Smulewitz, Weber; via video: Pelote, Still; excused: Boyle, Joseph, Page

1. AUL Report (Agnew)

Discussed projects on the TSC agenda for the current year. Smulewitz will report in December on the bindery module.

Invited us to read the “Committees and Projects of the TSC,” consider the draft reporting dates.

2. Data Architecture Working Group (DAWG) (Marker)

Major focus this year has been on developing administrative metadata.
Marker proceeded to enumerate the kinds of metadata defined by METS (metadata encoding transmission standard):

Marker appreciated the regular participation of the ca. 15 DAWG members, including non-faculty staff. Pelote will join DAWG.

Agnew asked Marker to talk about sustainability. Marker noted that proposers of projects should consider the level of support needed. Interoperability with the rest of the data architecture will also be needed.

3. Systems (Montanaro)

Distributed the documents "Systems Organizational Chart" and "Establishing Work Priorities". Systems has to prioritize infrastructure issues, be aware of security issues, time-sensitive projects and contractual obligations. Montanaro monitors the Councils, watches out for "artificial crises," seeks to understand where things fall into our list of priorities. Respond to hardware/software upgrades if they are needed by a significant number of users.

Document: "Systems Dept. Project Chart"
It is noted that some projects sit on the chart for an extended period because adequate support is lacking to get them done. We’re working better now with the SCC, which is close to concluding work on the new interface for the African American Poetry Database. We’re currently working on the mass storage system, and federated searching. Our federated search will likely work with a currently available product, rather than be developed in-house.

Only three Systems staff are currently dealing with Big Picture issues.
Day-to-day projects do not intrude on their Big Picture work.

Q: How do old projects drop off the list?
A: Only if permission is granted by the person who put them on.
It is agreed: add a column for the name of the requester to the chart.

Agnew suggests nothing should stay on the chart for as long as five years.

Montanaro uses the list at Systems staff meetings, for internal planning. It is agreed the chart doesn’t need to be on a public website. But Systems should stay mindful of who the requester is, periodically ask if something is still a priority. Agreed: as with selectors’ orders, staff assigned to specific projects will send requesters a list of their requested projects once a year.

Discussion on DAWG: postponed till December 2003 meeting



 
URL: http://www.libraries.rutgers.edu/rul/staff/groups/tsc/minutes/tsc_03_11_06.shtml
Website Feedback  |  Privacy Policy

© Copyright 1997-2013, Rutgers University Libraries   (Further Copyright Information)