Since Ruth Bogan couldn't attend the meeting, Grace removed her metadata report from the original agenda.
Since this was Ruth Bogan's last meeting, Grace Agnew wanted to state for the minutes: that we are really appreciative of Ruth's talents and skills, especially her efforts in revitalizing recon and working on the metadata for the repository. Agnew sighted specifically Bogan's critical role as the coordinator between the programmer and the workflow management system manager and the repository.
Agnew also noted that this will be Mary Page's last meeting for awhile since she will be on sabbatical starting in July.
Agnew also noted that this is the last meeting for Vincent Pelote, Kayo Denda, and Jim Niessen as their terms of service end. They will be replaced by Rebecca Gardner (Public Services), Jane Sloan (Collections Development Council), and Ron Jantz (Technical and Automated Services).
Agnew talked about the 3 different conferences she attended (i.e., 2 conferences and a NSF Grant Review Board) in May 2005, specifically the National Science Foundation (NSF) and the National Science Digital Library (NSDL), emphasizing Rutgers' eventual involvement with the NSDL.
Agnew discussed some of the highlights of this workshop (invitational) sponsored by OCLC and the International Federation of Library Associations on the FRBR (Functional Requirements For Bibliographic Records) model and what we (Rutgers) can do to integrate that better into libraries.
NISO Digital Rights Management Workshop
Agnew reported on this workshop held by the National Information Standards Organization (NISO) in an effort to identify library and museum needs for digital rights management. Agnew would very much like to see Rutgers take a leadership role in NISO's initiative to come up with a digital rights expression standard.
Agnew asked for the members of TSC to give their opinion of the name and logo chosen for the Rutgers Repository (RKIVE : Rutgers Knowledge Repository). Discussion followed.
We discussed software purchases for fiscal year 2006--needed to make recommendations. We discussed purchasing ERM. Agreed it was premature and we can both wait for the standard and participate in the standard.
Agnew asked for other needs and concerns for discussion and received the following:
Montanaro started her report by focusing on the repository's software issues stating the product needs to evolve. It will require modifications and upgrades in the foreseeable future. It will not be stable until we are using lots of metadata schemes and have worked out lots of different formats in it as well. Montanaro stated that we will continue to have an issue with processing speed then went on to explain how the workflow management system functions. She further reported that the server, which currently resides at SCC, will be moving to Systems in July to a Sun Solaris environment. Montanaro was quite concerned about issues of policies, management, content and the direction that the repository is going to go. In terms of hardware and software, we are going to be ready within the next couple of months. Montanaro feels that we need to be looking at what's going to happen at Rutgers in terms of how the repository is going to be managed and where the policies are going to be set.
Agnew followed with comments and the recommendation to have a Technical Steering Committee (chaired by Agnew) that is going to decide what the functionalities for version one (the version that actually supports the archive) should be. Then form working groups to work on each of the different areas (like metadata). She also expressed a need to start building a sustainability model and really look at how we are going to sustain the repository.
Both Montanaro and Agnew spoke glowingly about this conference planned by Montanaro, Ron Jantz, and Ruth Bogan. Agnew mentioned the positive feedback received from the attendees. Both Montanaro and Agnew felt that Fedora could do a better job promoting and marketing itself.
Page went over the Excel spreadsheet handed out at the meeting and came to the following conclusions:
Smulewitz passed out a handout titled: Accompanying Materials -- A Proposal for RUL Standards. The proposal is a recommendation to unify procedures for cataloging, processing, labeling, shelving, and circulating books with accompanying materials, nonbook materials with accompanying materials, and accompanying materials in general at Rutgers University Libraries. Basically the proposal states that accompanying materials must remain with the main body at all times unless appropriate for reference work or periodical locations which do not circulate. The practice is to be followed for all general collections throughout Rutgers University Libraries with some exceptions (e.g., Music Library, Institute of Jazz Studies, etc.). Much discussion followed Smulewitz's presention. --Concerns were raised about tattletaping accompanying CDs in books.
This presentation was accompanied by a handout titled: Goal: Improve and Expand the Effectiveness and Efficiency of the Distributed Technical Services Functions
Smulewitz felt the most important thing about the groups work was the opportunity it afforded for her to look at the institution holistically.
Mary Beth Weber gave an update on hiring of Asian Languages Librarian and filling a staff position.
Pelote had 3 "parting shots" he felt he had to make at his last meeting. They were:
I. concerns that audio and video material is treated as carefully as printed material in terms on preservation
II. concerns that uniform policies may not work for every library in the Rutgers system
III. hope that retrospective conversion of older books at IJS be considered in the near future
Mary Beth Weber brilliantly responded to each of Pelote's concerns and Agnew had further comments about how hard Erika Gorder has been working in the area of preservation of Rutgers Libraries' audio and visual materials.
Further discussion ensued about the importance of uniform processing of materials.
Meeting was adjourned.