I'd like to draw your attention to a series of recent DLF reports: 1) DLF Newsletters -- Volume 5, Number 1. Fall 2004 Thanks to the hard work of individuals at each of the following institutions, and to Michael Pelikan (Pennsylvania State University), the Newsletter editor, the following reports are available at http://www.diglib.org/pubs/news05_01/ California Digital Library Carnegie-Mellon University Emory University Harvard University Johns Hopkins University University of Michigan Massachusetts Institute of Technology New York University University of Tennessee, Knoxville University of Virginia University of Washington Yale University These reports are rich in details of locally created collections, publications, initiatives, and priorities and are an important way for us to learn what is underway at member institutions. Thanks to Michigan's continuing good graces in hosting them, the Collections and Publications Registries that are extracted from the newsletters are current except for some items in these most recent 12 submissions, and Christie is adding those to the databases that lie behind the registries this week. Work is about to start soliciting the spring 2005 reports from those who report then. 2) ERA Update from NARA available Ken Thibodeau has provided us with a report -- "An Electronic Records Archives (ERA) Update" -- to bring us up to date with the current state of NARA's strategic response to the enormous electronic records challenge that they face. http://www.diglib.org/preserve/ERA2004.htm 3) DLF Scholars' Panel The final version of the Report from the panel of scholars we convened this summer is now online at http://www.diglib.org/use/scholars0406/. These faculty members from the humanities and social sciences are all actively building and manipulating content from our digital libraries, and we brought them together to discuss what they want from digital library services, and to show them some of the initiatives DLF is working on. Discussion ranged widely over such topics as federated searching; mass digitizing ambitions; institutional repositories; tools; shareable metadata; courseware; the critical need for persistent identifiers; digital preservation; online communities; the lack of professional recognition for digital scholarship; and examples of scholarship that is made possible by digital content and online authoring. The report clusters the main findings under the following headings: 1) Barriers to Digital Scholarship 2) The Need for Tools 3) Services: Repositories and Harvestable Metadata 4) Digital Library Collections This was a productive, satisfying, and lively first meeting. The group, or some variation of it, is likely to meet again in spring 2005. Best, David