Print

Print


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 collection 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=Content_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  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?
> Constructed 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