Skip to Search


Minutes of the
Institutional Repository Task Force
Focus Groups


Nov. 2, 2004
Task Force on Institutional Repositories
November 2, 2004
8:30-9:30 AM, DLC

In attendance: Stephanie Haas (Chair), Peter McKay, Suzy Covey, Winston Harris, Vernon Kisling, Cathy Mook, Carl Van Ness, and Priscilla Williams

The Task Force reviewed the charge and discussed the goal, objectives, and time frame. It was decided that the focus of activities would be on digital products, as the archiving of legacy hardcopy publications is already designated as the responsibility of individual selectors and the university archivist.

In discussing the range of digital assets produced by members of the university community, the group enumerated the following types of materials:
1) Materials produced by departments, colleges, administrative units, centers, student organizations
2) Materials residing on desktops of individual faculty/staff/students including curricular support materials, e.g., video lectures, etc.
3) Intellectual content created by professors that were archived by another body, e.g., journal articles

By consensus, the Task Force decided that the following parameters would define the content of the current study and recommendations:

1) Focus is to be on Web available digital assets of the University of Florida excluding health and law;
2) Desktop materials and non-Web digital materials cannot be addressed within the current time framework;
3) Digital asset creators that will be surveyed include departments, colleges, centers, and administrative departments;
4) Information on serial digital titles and individual digital titles will be solicited;
5) Questions concerning value of any born digital publications are to be determined by the appropriate selector and/or archivist at a future time; and
6) Digital ingesting and archiving is a fundamental extension of current archiving activities and at a minimum, any printed series selected for retention should have the same curatorial status in its digital instantiation.

Because of recognized time constraints, Stephanie had drafted a survey that would collect extensive data about digital titles. Members of the task force commented that the complexity would probably prohibit a reasonable response rate. As an alternative, the task force suggested that an initial survey be constructed that asked university units to list their digital titles and a contact person for the titles. Winston is to discuss creating the initial survey with Bill Covey. Approval by Dale would allow us to use the DDD list.

Responses will be sent to Vernon Kisling who will redistribute based on subject lines to Peter McKay (social sciences & humanities), Carl Van Ness (UF administration), and Vernon Kisling (science.) These individuals will be responsible for collating results.

The next meeting is scheduled for November 16, 2004.

Nov. 30, 2004
Task Force on Institutional Repositories
November 11, 2004
8:30-9:30 AM, DLC

In attendance: Stephanie Haas (Chair), Peter McKay, Suzy Covey, Winston Harris, Vernon Kisling, Cathy Mook, Carl Van Ness, and Priscilla Williams

The Task Force reviewed the 71 survey responses received from the message sent out on the Dean's mailing list. It was determined that while some useful data was submitted that a more exploration of college/departmental web sites was justified.

The list below indicates sites that will be reviewed by each member:

Carl- university administrative units
Peter-College of Business Administration & School of Accounting and departmental sites for
Social Sciences: Anthropology, Political Science, Psychology, Sociology
Vernon-agricultural and the sciences
Priscilla-African & Asian Languages and Literatures Dept., Communication Sciences & Disorders Dept., English Dept., Philosophy Dept., and Romance Languages and Literatures Adept
Cathy-Classics, Criminology, German and Slavic studies, History and Religion.
Religion and she will be skimming some of the Department web sites from the College of Fine Arts.

Priscilla, Peter, and Cathy decided not to review Journalism, Education, or Health and Human Performance.

Stephanie, Suzy, and Winston- will review the Web sites maintained by the various Centers of the University

Data will be collected in individual seven column Excel spreadsheets: Adept/Center, Title, URL, Format, Frequency, Audience, Notes. Individual spreadsheets will be integrated to facilitate analysis.

There was continued discussion on the content and value of the proposed IR, as well as the exact role of the Task Force. Once basic data on the Web sites is compiled who will make the decision of what to capture and retain? Cathy and Vernon both felt that some basic guidelines should be developed as to what should be retained. Stephanie suggested that library selectors and even the departments themselves should also have input in to that decision. Peter indicated that while some sites might have a limited amount of research value creating either a database or individual records to the materials and the actual capture and maintenance of sites might not be cost effective. Suzy also indicated that if retention of sites were a major concern that more departments would be actively seeking solutions to archiving problems.

There was consensus that the Task Force could at least provide an environmental scan of the digital environment at UF and summarize those findings for future actions.

The next meeting will be in two weeks.

March 29, 2005 MINUTES
Task Force on Institutional Repositories
March 29, 2005
8:30-9:30 AM, DLC

In attendance: Stephanie Haas (Chair), Peter McKay, Vernon Kisling, Carl Van Ness, and Priscilla Williams

The Task Force discussed our next assignment of outlining metadata requirements, authentication, etc. and how to enlist selector assistance in completing the survey of UF's digital assets.

On April 7, Stephanie, Vernon, and Peter will meet with the CM group to explain the purpose of the survey and give examples of the type of content that might be appropriate to include in the IR. Several members thought that an April 22 deadline was too short and that the project would be better served by having selectors include survey activities as part of their goals for 2005-06. Martha was contacted, concurred with that opinion and will talk to Shelley Arlen and John Ingram. Peter and Stephanie will prepare a one page handout on what we hope to accomplish with the survey.

Stephanie will arrange a meeting with Cecilia Botero and a representative from the Law Library to broaden the discussion of the IR.

For the next meeting, members will review several functioning IR sites to look at the self archiving input form. Please bring a suggested list of elements for inclusion on the form.

(In absentia) Suzy and Winston will be asked to look at authentication issues. While the obvious choice seems to be UFID, there may be security/privacy, etc. reasons for choosing another option.

The next meeting will be held April 12 at 8:30 AM in the DLC.
Please note: Mark Sullivan will be joining us for the discussion on the metadata template.

April 12, 2005 MINUTES
Task Force on Institutional Repositories
April 12, 2005
8:30-9:30 AM, DLC

In attendance: Stephanie Haas (Chair), Suzy Covey, Winston Harris, Vernon Kisling, Cathy Mook, Carl Van Ness, Priscilla Williams, Mark Sullivan, Kathie Price, and Cecilia Botero

Introduction of new members to Task Force.

The members discussed some of the issues surrounding the development of the input template for digital objects. Minimally unqualified Dublin Core fields must be included to create OAI compliant metadata. Of concern to many was authority control over name format for submitters.

In reviewing other repositories, the organization of the California Digital Library was suggested as a model.

In an initital discussion of search functionality, members indicated that they wanted to be able to search by academic unit, personal name (author), and keywords in addition to title. Future discussions need to review document type and series fields.

Copyright issues carried the discussion beyond the digital assets of academic units to the question of pre and post prints of individual faculty. Rights issues related to faculty scholarly publishing are far more complex then those related to most digital production emanating from university units. Recognizing that the same input form will be used for faculty self-archiving of published or non-published materials, the Task Force acknowledged the need to deal with copyright issues as part of the total submittal architecture.

The next meeting will be held April 26, 2005 at 9:30 at the DLC; purpose of this meeting is to submit an electronic document to E-LIS as a learning exercise.

May 24, 2005 MINUTES
Task Force on Institutional Repositories
May 24, 2005
9:30-11:00 AM, DLC

In attendance: Stephanie Haas (Chair), Suzy Covey, Cathy Mook, Carl Van Ness, Peter McKay, Priscilla Williams, and Kathie Price

Stephanie gave a demonstration on how to put an electronic file into E-LIS, a repository for library and information science documents.

The task force members began the discussion of the draft of "Metadata Elements for Digital Object Registration v.1" that defines fields to be included in the submittal template. Suggestions were incorporated in the revision. [On 5/24/05, the second revision was reviewed by some of the project programmers and substantial changes were made. [See Metadata Elements for Digital Object Registration v.2 ]

Carl suggested that there might be a thesaurus for "Type" of digital object and will see if he can find it. Type is defined as the "category of the resource." An authorized listing is preferable to free text.

The MARC mapping in the document will be reviewed by Priscilla and other catalogers.

Members believe it would be useful to have a precise definition of Article (preprint), as traditionally preprints were distribution copies of published articles. Now preprint applies to articles that have not yet been peer reviewed or formated for publication. Members wonder whether there is a legal question of copyright if the preprint and the published article are exactly the same except for formatting.

The input form should contain brief explanations for terms; use the I in a circle for identification.

Do we need a length/extent element?

The members decided that 8 input elements should be required from users to form the basic record: discussion of the Publishing/Refereeing element remains open for possible inclusion. System generated data are not considered required because they are automatically populated.

A preliminary workflow was also distributed. It has been revised in light of the programmer discussion and is also available online.

The next meeting is scheduled tentatively for June 7, 2005 at 9:30 AM in the DLC.

University of Florida Home Page