LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.5

Help for NDSA-CONTENT Archives


NDSA-CONTENT Archives

NDSA-CONTENT Archives


NDSA-CONTENT@LISTS.CLIR.ORG


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

NDSA-CONTENT Home

NDSA-CONTENT Home

NDSA-CONTENT  April 2012, Week 2

NDSA-CONTENT April 2012, Week 2

Subject:

Re: Meeting Minutes from today's call

From:

John Weise <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

The NDSA Content working group list <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Tue, 10 Apr 2012 12:58:45 -0400

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (631 lines)

I appreciate Daniel's recapitulation of the charge. I'm also revisiting the
CWG's scope of work (excerpted below). Perhaps opening the registry more
widely to include collections that don't meet minimum "silver" preservation
requirements would be a good strategy for getting collections that are
"silver" or better registered. Perhaps. Or, maybe it would just create
noise in the system. I'm thinking now it is too soon to go down that path.

I'll say, I'm not clear on how the registry would be used once adequately
populated. What are the selling points? What will it achieve? Why should
people care? Is this clearly articulated and posted somewhere? Maybe
something of this nature went out with the announcement of the registry? If
so, it would be good to bring it out again now. If not, it seems like
something we very much need. As a group it seems we don't have a grasp on
this, or maybe it's just me.

I wonder if it would be possible to identify *repositories* that meet level
1 and higher requirements as a first step toward finding
content/collections that meets level 1 criteria. Once the repositories are
identified, the types, or collections, of content could be identified and
registered. Are preservation levels achieved at the collection level, or at
the repository level? HathiTrust is TRAC certified (i.e., at least
"silver"). Should it be entered once in the registry, or once for each
source contributing content, or once for each virtual collection within it?
If only once for all of HathiTrust, would it actually tell us what is
preserved in a meaningful way? Probably not. Even at the institution/source
level it wouldn't be particularly meaningful. And if done at the collection
level, only a sliver of the content preserved by HathiTrust would be
represented. It's a conundrum.

TRAC/TDR is very beneficial, but it raises the bar very high.

http://www.digitalpreservation.gov/ndsa/working_groups/content.html

The Content Working Groupís current scope of work is to:

   - Develop or contribute to a registry of content already preserved by
   NDSA members.
   - Develop a clearinghouse that will enable a variety of stakeholders
   (content producers, archives and libraries and other potential
   preservationists) to:
      - Determine what specific types of content or collections are at risk.
      - Identify at-risk content or collections for preservation.
      - Match orphan collections with appropriate trusted partner for
      access and preservation.
      -




On Mon, Apr 9, 2012 at 3:21 PM, David Kepley <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> If that was the goal, then why not use the TRAC or the recently released
> TDR ISO standard?  Is the reason that we have not used those standards
> is because they relate exclusively to the long term preservation of
> digital content, while the piece that Dan sent around includes short
> term preservation as a goal?  Is that the difference?  Or did the
> silver/gold platinum model evolve before we had TRAC and the ISO
> standard?  Or perhaps the gold silver /platinum model is a short hand
> way of drawing a conclusion, which TRAC/TDR does not really do?
>
> Again I apologize for coming into the conversation late.
>
> DAVID R. KEPLEY
> Preservation Programs (RX)
> Office of Research Services
> tel: 301-837-1878
> fax: 301-837-3232
> Blackberry:  301-974-7419
> email:  [log in to unmask]
>
>
> >>> "Grotke, Abigail" <[log in to unmask]> 4/9/2012 3:08 PM >>>
> Some of the latest discussion (in terms of the Leadership meeting a few
> weeks ago; not the original discussions about what the levels were to
> be) was thinking about the levels outside of the scope of the registry -
> perhaps NDSA could use them in a broader sense, for things like a way
> for our members and others to do internal assessments, and for goal
> setting purposes (ie. we're level 1 but want to get to level 2, how do
> we do that? can we ask our management for more resources?).
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: The NDSA Content working group list
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of David
> Kepley
> Sent: Monday, April 09, 2012 2:57 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [NDSA-CONTENT] Meeting Minutes from today's call
>
> Sorry to be coming to the discussion late without the background that
> the rest of you have, so please permit a few naive questions.
>
> What does it get us to say that a collection is in an institution that
> self-certifies at the [fill in the blank] level?  If the collection is
> in an institution that is at the silver level, for example, what do we
> expect to do with that information?  Are we trying to encourage that
> institution to work at going up a level?  If so, then that seems like a
> separate question from what content they may have in their possession.
> Or are we subtly trying to encourage those at the Silver level and
> below to surrender their content to an institution at a higher level?  I
> guess I thought the point of the content group is to ensure that
> valuable digital content has a home in an institution.  Sorry if I am
> just not getting it!
>
>
>
>
> DAVID R. KEPLEY
> Preservation Programs (RX)
> Office of Research Services
> tel: 301-837-1878
> fax: 301-837-3232
> Blackberry:  301-974-7419
> email:  [log in to unmask]
>
>
> >>> "Cornwall, Daniel D (EED)" <[log in to unmask]> 4/9/2012
> 2:00 PM >>>
> Hi All,
>
> As I understood our charge, our action team was supposed to develop a
> registry where digital collections under active digital preservation
> measures could be identified. If the desire of this group is to add
> collections that are not under active digital preservation measures,
> then we should just put our collections in the digitization registry of
> our choice and not attempt a PRESERVATION registry.
>
> I say this as an institution who cannot yet lay claim to level 1. I
> feel bad about this, but the answer isn't to lower the bar so we can
> feel better about ourselves.
>
> I've attached our last draft outlining the levels, which were sent out
> for comment to this group last year. We derived these levels from
> several sources including an ALA/ALCTS definition at
>
> http://www.ala.org/ala/mgrps/divs/alcts/resources/preserv/defdigpres0408.cfm
>
> and the Digital Preservation Coalition at
>
> http://www.dpconline.org/advice/preservationhandbook/introduction/definitions-and-concepts
> .
> OAIS and TRAC were considered, but as others have noted, those two
> systems are even more extensive that what we've proposed.
>
> If the preservation levels are adjusted, it should be on the basis of
> whether, in the Content Group's judgment, an insti
> tution that follows
> the recommendations provided at the lowest level would be able to access
> their collection at some period in the future (say 10 or 20 years). If
> we can't provide that level of prescription, then we should give up on
> having annotations of preservation levels. Digitization registries are
> plentiful and easy to join, we don't need another.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> =======================================
> Daniel Cornwall
> Head of Technical and Imaging Services
> Division of Libraries, Archives and Museums PO Box 110571 Juneau, AK
> 99811-0571 Phone (907) 465-6332 Fax (907) 465-2665
> E-Mail: [log in to unmask]
> Web: http://lam.alaska.gov.
> NOTE: I first check e-mail at 9:00am. If you need to reach me before
> then, please call.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: The NDSA Content working group list
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of
> Moffatt, Christie (NIH/NLM) [E]
> Sent: Monday, April 09, 2012 6:52 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [NDSA-CONTENT] Meeting Minutes from today's call
>
> I like the idea of the additional values of "Undetermined" and "Less
> than one" if we want to keep the preservation level field as a required
> one.  We could also consider something like "Assessment needed" or "To
> be determined" to add more action to the response.
>
> I am still thinking that we might best be able to achieve the goal of
> "developing or contributing to a registry of content already preserved
> by NDSA members" if the preservation level field is an optional one.
> Completing the level information could then be a second step once c
> ollections are identified.
>
> Is there any way we can take advantage of the partners meeting this
> summer to gather preservation level information?  Should we consider
> reaching out to institutions on the NDIIPP collections page for
> information on their preservation levels? That information could then be
> added to the content registry.
>
> Christie
>
>
> Christie Moffatt
> Digital Manuscripts Program
> History of Medicine Division
> National Library of Medicine
> Building 38, Room 1E-21
> 8600 Rockville Pike
> Bethesda, MD 20894
> Phone: 301-496-9136
> Fax: 301-402-7034
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Weise [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Friday, April 06, 2012 4:47 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [NDSA-CONTENT] Meeting Minutes from today's call
>
> Sorry I was not on the last call. Thanks for the notes.
>
> Regarding levels, and more generally the registry submission process, I
> have a few thoughts.
>
> It probably *would* help to make the levels field optional. Another
> approach would be to keep it required, but allow a couple of additional
> values, "Undetermined", and "Less than 1" or something similar. It's
> slightly more informative than no value, and slightly more accepting
> than requiring values of 1-3. If totally optional, it is too easy to not
> provide an answer out of laziness (looking in the mirrror, here). Just a
> thought. I also like Abby Rumsey's ideas on this matter.
>
> I think the Subject Matter field is a little daunting, especially for
> an organization with a lot of collections. It's not horrible, but for
> Michigan it is the difference between being able to generate a completed
> spreadsheet with ~175 collections in it using a single database query,
> and having to manually edit 175 rows in a spreadsheet to map the
> subjects.
>
> And up until a few years ago, the description would have been the deal
> breaker for us. Now we have descriptions, which is nice. But does
> everybody?
>
> Michigan has quite a few collections, so our perspective on what the
> obstacles are will be a bit different than an organization with just a
> few collections, where, choosing subjects and even writing descriptions
> is not much overhead.
>
> You can see what we have, here...
>
> http://quod.lib.umich.edu/lib/colllist/
>
> Perhaps other collection registries would be willing to share data.
> Illinois is doing a lot in this realm, including collection level
> descriptions. OCLC has a c
> ollection registry for the OAI harvesting they
> do. Would this be weird?
>
> Another possible approach would be to reach out to a few big
> organizations that have a lot of collections to see if they could
> provide fully populated tabulated data for import into the registry. At
> the same time, reach out more directly to a couple dozen small
> organizations and ask that they each make at least one submission.
> (Sorry if these approaches have been tried and I'm unaware.)
>
> OK, well, I wrote kind of a lot. I hope it helps a little. :)
>
> On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 4:56 PM, Grotke, Abigail <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> > Hello all,
> > Many thanks to Rachel Howard for our notetaking this call. The
> minutes
> > have been posted to the wiki and are below.
> >
> >
> http://www.loc.gov/extranet/wiki/osi/ndiip/ndsa/index.php?title=Conten
>
>
> > t_WG_April_4,_2012_Meeting_Minutes
> >
> > If I missed anyone who was on the call but not listed on the
> attendees
> > list, feel free to add yourself. I know some folks called in without
>
> > the webex so I may have missed some names.
> >
> > I encourage those of you with thoughts about the levels of
> > preservation to chime in on the list...
> > Thanks!
> > Abbie
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------
> > Attendees (16)
> >
> >  *   Faundeen, John, Archivist | U.S. Geological Survey |
> > [log in to unmask]
> >  *   Grotke, Abbie | Web Archiving Team Lead, Library of Congress,
> and
> > Co-Chair of the NDSA Content Working Group | [log in to unmask] |
> > 202-707-2833
> > | @agrotke
> >  *   Harrison, Anne | Federal Library & Information Center Committee
> > (FLICC) | [log in to unmask]
> >  *
> Hartman, Cathy | Associate Dean of Libraries, University of North
> > Texas/ Co-Chair of the NDSA Content Working Group |
> [log in to unmask]
> >  *   Howard, Rachel | Digital Initiatives Librarian, University of
> > Louisville | [log in to unmask]
> >  *   Kepley, David | NARA | [log in to unmask]
> >  *   Maes, Margaret | Legal Information Preservation Alliance |
> > [log in to unmask]
> >  *   McAninch, Glen | Kentucky Department for Libraries and Archives
> |
> > [log in to unmask]
> >  *   McGlone, Jonathan | University of Michigan Library |
> > [log in to unmask]
> >  *   Moffatt, Christie | National Library of Medicine |
> > [log in to unmask]
> >  *   Muller, Chris | Muller Media Conversions |
> > [log in to unmask]
> >  *   Rau, Erik | Hagley Museum and Library | [log in to unmask]
> >  *   Reib, Linda | Arizona State Library, Archives, and Public
> Records |
> > [log in to unmask]
> >  *   Rumsey, Abby Smith | Library of Congress/NDIIPP |
> [log in to unmask]
> >  *   Seneca, Tracy | California Digital Library |
> [log in to unmask]
> >  *   Stoller, Michael | New York University | [log in to unmask]
>
>
> >
> > Report from the NDSA Leadership Meeting
> >
> > Abbie and Cathy attended the meeting last Thursday and Friday. It
> was
>
> > the first time that working group co-chairs and Coordinating
> Committee
> > got together in one room for 1 Ĺ days. Discussion covered how things
>
> > are going, what working groups are doing, where we could use support
>
> > from Coordinating Committee. Abbie and Cathy shared the challenges
> our
> > working group has experienced as we've grown to over 70; we're the
> > largest, but also have fairly good attendance on our calls and with
> our content teams.
> >
> > Outcomes of overall meeting include having press kit to guide
> members
>
> > in talking about NDSA's purpose, plans, and accomplishments - common
>
> > topics to address rather than working in silos. The Outreach Team
> will
> > work on that and make it available to all members. An action list
> will
> > help drive what work the Coordinating Committee can/should be doing
> for the organization.
> > Watch for more details on NDSA-all listserv.
> >
> > Report from the Registry Action Team
> >
> > Daniel sent an update over the list. There's been a bit of concern
> at
>
> > low number of submissions to registry, and worry that levels were
> > stumbling block due to uncertainty or embarrassment. We've been
> > talking about having
>  interns help feed info into the registry, and
> > also looking again at levels and at each item listed in the levels
> and
> > expand upon them so that it becomes an internal assessment tool for
> > deciding where we're at and what resources are needed to get to a
> > higher level . Levels of preservation were also discussed at the
> NDSA
>
> > Leadership Meeting last week. The Infrastructure Team was interested
>
> > in looking at the levels more closely and building something around
> > them that could benefit the membership more widely. We need to
> figure
> out where to go with that next.
> >
> > Margie agreed that expansion/better description of levels will
> > encourage more libraries to participate.
> >
> > Christie suggested exploring the possibility of not making levels
> > required, just get people to register content and over time, with
> > assistance of interns, fill in the gaps. Levels are a stumbling
> block
>
> > because they seem to be all or nothing - you have to meet everything
>
> > in the level.
> >
> > Glen reported that he's involved in another survey of state archives
>
> > in U.S. with regard to preservation activities; it's even more
> complex
> > in state archives to identify who's doing what, and then to go
> beyond
>
> > that and try to figure out a standard entry is even more intensive
> in
> terms of staff.
> >
> > Michael agreed that assigning levels can be a really helpful
> exercise,
> > but for some institutions it's too big an exercise.
> >
> > Abby Rumsey suggested identifying activities in each level as being
> > benchmarks of excellence as a way to acknowledge progress, or things
>
> > that are
> not relevant/priority for mission. It could just be that
> > libraries and archives look at the set of things in each class/level
>
> > and pick out the priorities that are highest for their mission and
> > assess themselves against themselves rather than engage in a
> > self-defeating one-size-fits-all exercise.
> >
> > Tracy questioned the fundamental goal of the registry - is it more
> > about content or about practices across the organization? Abbie
> > explained that the original goal was to identify content, but then
> we
>
> > had to grapple with what you mean when you say you've preserved
> > content. Levels maybe should not be part of the registry at all,
> which
> > is why there's interest in it being elevated to cross-NDSA.
> >
> > Michael agreed that we shouldn't let the perfect be the enemy of the
> good.
> > How easy can we make the registry so the basic info can get out
> there
>
> > without burdening institutions with extensive self-evaluation
> process?
> >
> > Abby reiterated that it should be possible to come up with cluster
> of
>
> > things that characterize each level and then each institution can
> > identify sets that apply to them at that level.
> >
> > Glen suggested looking at Charles Dollar's Data Maturity levels
> > because that's what they're using for the latest survey of state
> > archives. It spells out 10 or 11 different categories of
> preservation
>
> > and offers levels in each one of those categories, along with a
> point
>
> > system. David wondered why we weren't using the TRAC checklist.
> Rachel
> > pointed out that it's more complicated than the levels as we
> currently
> > state them. Others said that Dollar's system is more complex than
> TRAC.
> >
> > Abbie suggested moving this discussion to the listserv, where Kris
> and
> > Daniel can provide input.
> >
> > Report from the Content Teams
> >
> > John (Geospatial) - Didn't meet last month. Will meet end of this
> > month to further refine scope and areas of focus - they have more
> than
> > enough input (several pages of comments), now need to figure out
> what
>
> > to concentrate on/prioritize.
> >
> > Glen (Government) - Started at beginning talking about issues with
> > regard to electronic records risk. Seemed to be an emphasis on
> working
> > with records creators to better refine what we get so that we can
> > preserve it better. The front end was of major concern. Sense that
> > respondents are daunted by all of the things to be concerned about -
> where do you start?
> > Constructe
> d sample document of purpose/objectives/statement but
> > haven't yet received comments. Scheduling next meeting for end of
> month.
> >
> > Abbie (News, Media & Journalism) - Met once and came up with
> > categories to pursue; narrowing it down. Citizen journalism,
> > born-digital journalism content case study that came through from
> UNT.
> > Don't have another meeting set but will be working over email on
> those topic areas.
> >
> > Christie (Science, Tech, Medicine, Mathematics ) - Met last week and
>
> > identified some areas of at-risk content; still in brainstorming
> mode
>
> > and plan to meet after using the Wiki to identify different types of
>
> > data, develop case studies.
> >
> > Social Sciences: Think they have met at least once but haven't heard
>
> > anything lately.
> >
> > Erik Rau volunteered to facilitate History. Jon volunteered to be
> the
>
> > catalyst to get meeting going with Arts & Humanities group.
> >
> > Next Meeting
> >
> > Next meeting will be June 6 at 11am. There will also be an in-person
>
> > meeting at NDSA meeting on Wednesday afternoon July 25, for which
> > they're also trying to get a conference call set up. Will send out
> details.
> >
> >
> >
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > Abbie Grotke | Web Archiving Team Lead | Office of Strategic
> > Initiatives National Digital Information and Infrastructure
> > Preservation Program | Library of Congress
> > http://www.loc.gov/webarchiving/ |
> http://www.digitalpreservation.gov<
> > http://www.digitalpreservation.gov/>
> > 202-707-2833 | [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> | @agrotke
> >
> >
> >
>  ############################
> >
> > To unsubscribe from the NDSA-CONTENT list:
> > write to:
> > mailto:[log in to unmask]
> > or click the following link:
> >
> >
> http://list.digitalpreservation.gov/SCRIPTS/WA-DIGITAL.EXE?SUBED1=NDSA
>
>
> > -CONTENT&A=1
> >
>
>
>
> --
> John Weise <http://www.lib.umich.edu/users/jweise> -
> DLPS<http://www.lib.umich.edu/digital-library-production-service-dlps>-
> MLibrary <http://www.lib.umich.edu/>
>
> ############################
>
> To unsubscribe from the NDSA-CONTENT list:
> write to:
> mailto:[log in to unmask]
> or click the following link:
>
> http://list.digitalpreservation.gov/SCRIPTS/WA-DIGITAL.EXE?SUBED1=NDSA-CONTENT&A=1
>
>
>
> ############################
>
> To unsubscribe from the NDSA-CONTENT list:
> write to:
> mailto:[log in to unmask]
> or click the following link:
>
> http://list.digitalpreservation.gov/SCRIPTS/WA-DIGITAL.EXE?SUBED1=NDSA-CONTENT&A=1
>
>
>
> ############################
>
> To unsubscribe from the NDSA-CONTENT list:
> write to:
> mailto:[log in to unmask]
> or click the following link:
>
> http://list.digitalpreservation.gov/SCRIPTS/WA-DIGITAL.EXE?SUBED1=NDSA-CONTENT&A=1
>
>
> ############################
>
> To unsubscribe from the NDSA-CONTENT list:
> write to:
> mailto:[log in to unmask]
> or click the following link:
>
> http://list.digitalpreservation.gov/SCRIPTS/WA-DIGITAL.EXE?SUBED1=NDSA-CONTENT&A=1
>
>
> ############################
>
> To unsubscribe from the NDSA-CONTENT list:
> write to:
> mailto:[log in to unmask]
> or click the following link:
>
> http://list.digitalpreservation.gov/SCRIPTS/WA-DIGITAL.EXE?SUBED1=NDSA-CONTENT&A=1
>
> ############################
>
> To unsubscribe from the NDSA-CONTENT list:
> write to: mailto:[log in to unmask]
> or click the following link:
>
> http://list.digitalpreservation.gov/SCRIPTS/WA-DIGITAL.EXE?SUBED1=NDSA-CONTENT&A=1
>



-- 
John Weise <http://www.lib.umich.edu/users/jweise> -
DLPS<http://www.lib.umich.edu/digital-library-production-service-dlps>-
MLibrary <http://www.lib.umich.edu/>

############################

To unsubscribe from the NDSA-CONTENT list:
write to: mailto:[log in to unmask]
or click the following link:
http://list.digitalpreservation.gov/SCRIPTS/WA-DIGITAL.EXE?SUBED1=NDSA-CONTENT&A=1

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
September 2020
June 2020
February 2019
May 2018
March 2018
February 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014, Week 2
March 2014, Week 1
March 2014
February 2014, Week 4
February 2014, Week 2
February 2014, Week 1
January 2014, Week 4
January 2014, Week 3
January 2014, Week 2
January 2014, Week 1
December 2013, Week 1
November 2013, Week 2
November 2013, Week 1
October 2013, Week 5
October 2013, Week 3
October 2013, Week 2
September 2013, Week 5
September 2013, Week 4
September 2013, Week 3
August 2013, Week 5
August 2013, Week 4
August 2013, Week 3
August 2013, Week 2
August 2013, Week 1
July 2013, Week 5
July 2013, Week 4
July 2013, Week 3
July 2013, Week 2
July 2013, Week 1
June 2013, Week 3
June 2013, Week 2
June 2013, Week 1
May 2013, Week 4
May 2013, Week 3
May 2013, Week 2
May 2013, Week 1
April 2013, Week 5
April 2013, Week 4
April 2013, Week 3
April 2013, Week 2
April 2013, Week 1
March 2013, Week 5
March 2013, Week 2
March 2013, Week 1
February 2013, Week 3
February 2013, Week 2
January 2013, Week 5
January 2013, Week 4
January 2013, Week 3
January 2013, Week 2
December 2012, Week 1
November 2012, Week 5
November 2012, Week 3
November 2012, Week 2
November 2012, Week 1
October 2012, Week 5
October 2012, Week 4
October 2012, Week 1
September 2012, Week 3
September 2012, Week 2
September 2012, Week 1
August 2012, Week 5
August 2012, Week 4
August 2012, Week 2
August 2012, Week 1
July 2012, Week 5
July 2012, Week 3
July 2012, Week 1
June 2012, Week 3
June 2012, Week 2
June 2012, Week 1
May 2012, Week 2
May 2012, Week 1
April 2012, Week 4
April 2012, Week 3
April 2012, Week 2
April 2012, Week 1
March 2012, Week 4
March 2012, Week 3
March 2012, Week 2
March 2012, Week 1
February 2012, Week 2
February 2012, Week 1
January 2012, Week 5
January 2012, Week 4
January 2012, Week 3
January 2012, Week 2
January 2012, Week 1
December 2011, Week 5
December 2011, Week 3
December 2011, Week 2
December 2011, Week 1
November 2011, Week 3
November 2011, Week 1
October 2011, Week 5
October 2011, Week 3
October 2011, Week 2
October 2011, Week 1
September 2011, Week 5
September 2011, Week 4
September 2011, Week 3
September 2011, Week 2
September 2011, Week 1
August 2011, Week 4
August 2011, Week 3
August 2011, Week 1
July 2011, Week 4
July 2011, Week 3
July 2011, Week 2
July 2011, Week 1
June 2011, Week 4
June 2011, Week 2
June 2011, Week 1
May 2011, Week 5
May 2011, Week 1
April 2011, Week 4
April 2011, Week 3
April 2011, Week 2
April 2011, Week 1
March 2011, Week 5
March 2011, Week 1
February 2011, Week 2
February 2011, Week 1
January 2011, Week 3
January 2011, Week 2
January 2011, Week 1
December 2010, Week 3
December 2010, Week 2
December 2010, Week 1
November 2010, Week 3
November 2010, Week 2
November 2010, Week 1
October 2010, Week 5
October 2010, Week 4
October 2010, Week 2
September 2010, Week 4
September 2010, Week 3
September 2010, Week 2
September 2010, Week 1
August 2010, Week 5

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTS.CLIR.ORG

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager