Coordinating Committees
Digital Initiatives Coordinating Committee (DICC)
January 7, 2008, UW Baraboo
Present - Joshua Ranger (chair), Paul Beck, Michael Doylen, Lisa Jewell, Carol Hagness, Peter Gorman (minutes), Mark Rozmarynowski, Vicki Tobias (by phone), Dorothea Salo (by phone)
Call to order at 9:30
Hello to Lisa - new OLIT Library Consultant. Lisa was WITC director of learning resources, member of WILS board. Paul will be working full-time through January, then back to part time. Lisa will work full-time on library issues.
Report from October CUWL meeting.
Josh gave report about plans for our four action items. A few concerns were expressed about devoting more resources for assessment, particularly if it would affect specific planned or ongoing projects. OLIT's budget reduced our budget $45K for MINDS@UW. There was talk about use of a reserve fund, but that's no longer available. OLIT/CUWL want a new financial plan for MINDS@UW, in addition to plan for a new role for MINDS@UW. Josh recommends revising the charge of the Repository Working Group in light of this, focusing on:
1. Better define MINDS@UW's role
2. Develop plan or additional services or options to attract more use
3. Develop/recommend a funding model that restores or increases overall funding
Discussion and initial planning for MINDS@UW study/report
The concept of a 'role' seems vague - what do we mean by that? We need a summary that can be used to better market the service. Better articulated selection criteria - how can we spot appropriate projects for MINDS as opposed to UWDC?
Vicki: MINDS projects can compete with UWDC for digitization capacity; it can be hard to sort out those priorities. It's not a problem for born-digital materials. Some workflows may be easier to accommodate, like high-speed scanning. But that leads to uncertainty - what exceptions can we make? Can we codify the exceptions: up to x pages or y bytes? Any specifics (max size, within certain schedule) would help. We don't want to overly restrict the options, as they'll tend to drive potential users away.
MINDS@UW can help archives in accepting faculty material, particularly if it's research materials instead of records. At Milwaukee it's been the former.
MINDS may have different roles on different campuses, which makes it very flexible and adaptable, but may diffuse the message - no good elevator pitch. It would be good to define the role in terms of services.
We need to talk about how Xythos relates to this - it could be source of confusion. It would help to address the entire information ecosystem, explaining how the services relate to each other. That would put MINDS in context.
Funding issues: there's some optimism that there could be more funding for libraries in the next biennium. But we still have to plan for no increase, and hope for the best. The Metalib situation is similar: it's more important to some campuses than to others, and not all want to have to pay. Pay for play needs to be considered, at least for the $45K shortfall. Pay per Mb? Ask that repository funding be built into grant proposals?
But how will we measure success? Meeting CUWL's goals? What if only one department uses it on a campus, but it's very important for them? Similar to e-resources that are expensive and support only a few departments.
In all this, the Working Group should propose measures, but CUWL will make the ultimate decision.
We will keep the October 2008 deadline, sending a draft to Paul and Lisa before then - August 1?
Members of MINDS@UW Working Group : Dorothea (chair), Patrick, Michael, Carol, Mark. Dorothea will talk to Heidi Southworth about joining.
The group will meet Wed, Feb 27, 2008
Comprehensive Digital Plan (CDP)
Charge is to develop a CDP, delivered to CUWL October 2008.
Members of Comprehensive Plan Working Group: Josh, Michael Edmonds, Peter, Patrick (advisory). We could solicit others. This came out of our charge, but was vague. Paul M.’s suggestion was that we should come up with what we think is best and submit that as our draft.
To what extent should DICC CDP relate to GLS? It shouldn't: if the Madison priorities diverge from CUWL's, it's up to UWDCC to bring it to their attention, and manage it internally. But in most cases, and certainly at the level of strategic planning, they agree closely. Will preservation and museum collections be as important to CUWL as they are to Madison?
The CDP should address both MINDS and UWDC, noting differences - the turf covered by each. It should also look at individual campuses' own digitization efforts, and how that affects collection/project development. Technical development priorities should also be addressed, as well as assessment. Discovering unmet needs is important. Usability testing will also happen.
Potential collection development issues: how much do we put into EADs, as opposed to the underlying collections? How many books, with the Google project underway?
What about copyright policy? Digitizing copyrighted material is an unmet need. We haven't explored limited access collections. Past practice has been to favor open-access collections as more effective use of funds - most bang for the buck. Digitization of offline materials - how does that fit in? How does it relate to reserves? We should recommend a policy.
How can we address the changes in the landscape - new ways of collecting, aggregating, and providing access to material? We can't make hard decisions about it now, but the report should have a 'futures' section committing us to planning for change, and laying the technical infrastructure for that now. Things to consider: individual libraries' collections, regional initiatives, important resources outside UW System, Google, licensed resources.
The group will meet in Madison Wed, February 20, 2008
Assessment
Outsourcing will make the accounting easier. How much budget should we allocate for it? We need to figure it out, protecting proposed Eau Claire/River Falls Klan project if possible. The first progress report should be at the June CUWL meeting, but it can be a report on work in progress.
Milwaukee, Madison library schools may be able to help. Who can conduct focus groups and other assessment activities across the state? We may be able to package a protocol that local staff could carry out, but we should reserve transcription, analysis for a centralized/outsourced effort.
Some campuses are experiencing survey fatigue, so the timing could be tricky. Vicki will start to talk to potential vendors, to get prices so we can start planning a budget.
Other efforts to bring into consideration: EAD survey underway at WHS - we will want their conclusions. UWDCC conducted a faculty survey at Madison two years ago. A SLIS student did a paper evaluating the Pioneer Experience, published in an Emerald Press journal. FRUS, Ada James assessments. Iris ____'s classes at UW Milwaukee SLIS have also evaluated UWDC, but we have not seen the results.
Usability testing can use small samples, at a couple of sites. Needs assessment will have to cast a much wider net, as many campuses as possible.
Assessment working group at this time is limited to appropriate UWDCC staff.
Best practices document
Members of the best practices working group: Josh, Paul, Michael Doylen, Steven Dast. John Solon or Ron Wiecki (Josh will talk to Jeanette)? Troy Reeves's working group?
the group will create a set of recommendations for digitizing materials that for various reasons (copyright, privacy, volume) cannot or will not be put online. The original April deadline will probably not be met, but an update could be provided.
Could CUWL set aside a fund for creation of use copies for requests between campuses? Does this relate to this group's charge, or does it call for a service model that's outside its scope? UW Milwaukee found that it was cheaper to outsource the digitization rather than build a pipeline in house. Colorado Digitization Center has a good publication for audio standards. How can we avoid reinventing the wheel? It would be good to have a go-to source for UW System, even if it's a clearinghouse pointing to existing standards. The group could develop a priority list for at-risk media (do DAT first, then reel to reel, etc.).
If a document is created, how can it but put in the hands of its users? Will it be any easier to find that the other documents out there? Can UWSAC get grants to support reformatting/preservation activities?
Levels of preservation might be a good way to organize it: Level 0, Level 1, etc.. At each level, risks and downstream costs should be identified - need for long-term management of results, replacement of media, etc.
CUWL Coordinating Committee wiki and other communication issues
CUWL is using WetPaint for its wiki: http://cuwlwiki.wetpaint.com/
How can we use this most effectively? Should we put documents here, or on University servers and link to them from here? If our documents are public records, we should probably maintain them on University-owned servers.
Josh is on a monthly phone call with other coordinating committee heads.
Announcements:
- UWDC received a $97K Baldwin Grantrom the Madison campus to digitize statewide historical aerial photographs
- The first batch of Aldo Leopold materials will go live in early February
- Feb 11, Josh will present the Ada James project at OCLC Members' Council.
Adjourned at 1:30 pm.