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.

• The workflow analysis for government document electronic records: will move from testbed to a component of ongoing workflow. The dates for this item were moved to February/May
• Electronic subscriptions database: Montanaro, Agnew will work with others on this. Will be a web-mounted Access database, at least initially. The committee discussed information that should be included. It was agreed that management information was important, and that information should be updated promptly, or at least regularly. Database should link to Serial Solutions, or another product if we don’t keep SS. We need to get this working, even if not perfect, and regularly updatable
• Systems calendar: is intended to give Montanaro guidance in prioritizing projects
• ISAWG (Inventory & Stacks Mgmt Automation Working Group): Bogan’s new graduate assistant will design post-recon inventory. Apropos inventory: the "History Project" AEF proposal was commented favorably upon in Cabinet. Tom Glynn will be the P.I. for the project if it is funded. The project can help move toward a process for identifying brittle books and prioritizing them for selector action. ISAWG aims to design batch automated processes. Agnew noted that the time is ripe for a good preservation project in the Annex
• RUL Security Plan: Montanaro will present the initial plan in February
• Impact & Sustainability Criteria for Database Mgmt: Digital projects, once selected according to the CDC’s criteria for digital collection proposals, must be worked into the workflow
• Distributed Tech Services Process: Marker will chair, Still will be Camden rep. Group will prioritize common standards, a difficult but necessary task. Turnaround time must be examined, and a standardized vocabulary established across RUL. We have done a lot of workflow analysis now, and need to start looking toward the future. Marker will present an initial report by March, and a final report by June
• Sidebar discussion on digitization: Smulewitz noted binders should be encouraged to offer digitization as one of their services. We are being contacted by many offshore digitizers; Agnew and Sewell will consult about how to coordinate CDC and TSC on preservation digitization, observe current practices in librarianship. ISAWG could help identify candidates for batch digitization. Agnew would like to know if there are any listings of books that have been digitized. Montararo will ask OCLC if it has information about its records of digitized books.

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):

• Descriptive metadata: more conventional, we’re already doing it
• Administrative metadata: like, when was record added to IRIS; serials control #. 5 components to administrative metadata: METS header; rights metadata; source; technical; digital provenance metadata. There are some redundancies among the latter three

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