IR Implementation Group
Minutes / January 13, 2006 Meeting
Present: Cathy Mook-Martyniak, Carl Van Ness, Erich Kesse, Priscilla Willaims, Suzy Covey, Vernon Kisling, Winston Harris // Absent: Jingfeng Xia *
*Membership Note: Jingfeng Xia will no longer be a member of the Group since he is leaving the Libraries. It was mentioned that perhaps someone from HSC Library and Law Library should be on the committee and/or that these two Libraries should be kept up-to-date on the Group’s discussions and activities.
Minutes for the December meeting were approved.
Discussion involved two documents submitted to members prior to this meeting: the IR Specifications (version 2) and the Metadata Elements Chart (version 4). These documents were reviewed and changes made in order to update the versions.
IR Specifications (Refer to document – version 2)
GLOSSARY
- Digital Object [OK]
- Authority Control [OK]
- Vetter [OK] but discussion indicated this may be/should be an Electronic Archivist position with possible (50/50) responsibility to University Archives and DLC – there may even be a need for two FTE depending on the duties assigned as mentioned throughout these minutes]
- FDA - provide link to FDA page
- Add additional terms
- UFDC (UF Digital Collections)
- Authorized Contributor (or more suitable term)
- Reviewer / Vetter / Electronic Archivist (or more suitable term)
- Pre-eminent Faculty
- Community (or more suitable term)
- Type (metadata element equal to format)
MISSION/PURPOSE/GOALS
- IR content [OK] but IR function as repository and as an archive discussed – should be repository with archiving done by FCLA
- Audience [OK]
- DO’s with restrictions: should be accepted - copyright or restricted data (similar to ETD’s) need further policy review - access could be provided to available portions and all portions would be dark archived – restricted portions would be accessible after time limits expire – if restricted portions are not obtained until time limits expire they may not be useable
- Active collection of DO’s - should be responsibility of E-Archivist – keeping DO titles up to date as new versions/issues come out, obtaining missing versions/issues, obtaining correct versions/issues when incorrect/wrong ones were submitted, etc. / need E-Archivists? [YES – one or two FTE - see Vetter definition above] – need to develop job description for this position
- Learning Objects – Fedro Zazueta is Director of OAT – Phase 3+ future goal due to complexity
- Should WebCT/VISTA/Blackboard objects come into IR – faculty permissions?
- Metadata matching?
SUBMITTAL PROCESS FOR METADATA
- Automate submittal process [OK]
- Make submittal easy – use drop down boxes [OK]
- Two versions of data entry form - 1/ simplified submission tool/form for UF authorized contributors (contributors to Vetter) and 2/ comprehensive management tool/form for Vetter/E-Archivist (Vetter to IR database) - contributor validation also discussed: use paper format with signature until electronic verification with UF ID/GatorLink “signature” can be developed
- Copyright permission and “hold harmless” clause [OK]
- Submission tool format - to be determined
SUBMITTAL PROCESS FOR DIGITAL OBJECTS
- IR will accept all formats [OK]
- IR guarantee of long term viability of DO - we should limit guarantee (wording to be determined)
- Normalization to archive standard format [YES] – some of this would be done by DLC but this would be primarily an FCLA function – normalization to display technology format should also be included here and this would be a DLC function / keep original in original format [YES] / workflow needs to be determined for DLC processing and transfer to FCLA & E-Archivist responsibilities
- Obtaining DO’s - policy needs to be developed with role of E-Archivist / need to gather source or original files rather than already processed PDF, etc.
SUBMITTER
- UF Individuals and organizations [OK] but redefine organizations to organization representatives / verification of submitter needed (as discussed above – paper/signature originally and later use electronic form/signature)
- All faculty to be contributors [OK]
- DO with multiple authors - only one (the submitter) needs to be UF affiliated / what if UF contributor leaves UF before DO if final (can it still be submitted)?
- Faculty superstars (pre-eminent faculty) - CM will be working on a policy to identify these faculty is underway and this should be used for an IR policy concerning its proactive role in acquiring their work
SEARCH
- Basic search - should include keyword, author, title search functions
- Advanced search - should include Boolean search function and combination of fields yet to be determined (for instance, subject area, DO type, Faculty name, etc.) – review UFDC and UF Library Catalog for field possibilities
- Data elements - (see Metadata Chart) - some should be searchable - needs review
- Authority control - needs to be determined which DO needs minimal, partial, full AC / use of LC and local UF generated AC needed / system needs to periodically check official UF academic unit names database
- Interaction with ALEPH - needs to be determined which DO needs none or some interaction / DO already in ALEPH should continue interaction / new DO should be considered on a case-by-case basis to determine interaction – this should be done by E-Archivist in consultation with CM
- Search by community [YES] but do we need a different term?
FUNCTIONALITY
- If DO is text should it receive OCR and be full text searchable [YES]
- Quality/accuracy of OCR should be [95-99.9%]
- If DO is non-text should submitter assign keywords [YES]
- Other methods for non-text identification - Phase 3+ should work with CSE on research into image recognition software (grant opportunity)
- Submitter authentication (beyond authorized signature and affiliation / also, submission form should have verification page so submitter can review input before sending and an acknowledgement page with contact information should corrections be needed later) [OMIT]
- Archive formats [OK]
Metadata Elements Chart (Refer to document - version 4)
Column Note: Next to last column on right changed to Management Form/Tool (comprehensive form) & Last column on right changed to Submission Form/Tool (simplified form)
SIP ID
- Description - SIP ID should be same for DO and associated metadata
BIB ID [OK]
TYPE
- Define type in glossary - type as used in Dublin Core is = to format as commonly used
- Basic types should be those used at DLC = image, audio, video, serial, archive (other), text (several sub-categories)
- Continue to review to determine if additional types need to be added to DLC types keeping in mind the user/audience needs
OTHER ELEMENTS - no time left to consider them during this meeting
FOR NEXT MEETING
Review TYPES for the Metadata Elements Chart
Finish reviewing Metadata Elements Chart
Consider user/audience expectations
Minutes submitted by Vernon Kisling
Next meeting is scheduled for February 10, 2006, 10:00 – 12:00 in LE Conference Room
Return to Main IR-IG page
