diglib: DCC Meeting February 20, 2006: Notes

[Carol Hixson <chixson@darkwing.uoregon.edu>]

Below are my notes from today's meeting. Please
send corrections or clarifications directly to the
list--Carol
**********************************************************
Attending:  Eliz Breakstone, Sara Brownmiller, Bob Felsing,
Corey Harper, J.D. Hauger, Carol Hixson, Jon Jablonski, Laura Willey

The group reviewed the survey data that several people
had provided and discussed changes needed to the form
and next steps to be taken. Problem questions or those needing
clarification were identified as:

#15 - Bob was unsure what the question was asking because of the mention of 
retention schedules. Perhaps need to rephrase or break up into 2 questions.

#17 - answers revealed a need for guidance in this area. Corey and Carol 
discussed some of the challenges with naming files to be used in CONTENTdm. 
File names serve several different functions in CONTENTdm - the normal 
purpose of identifying a file uniquely, ordering pages in a compound 
object, and display. This makes it hard to come up with a good file naming 
convention. J.D. commented that it seemed as if one of the purposes was to 
make it hard to export files out of the system.
While we have recognized the problems with our file naming, we have been 
reluctant to use two different sets of file names for the same objects and 
provide a map between the names. The group decided to leave this question 
as it is for now since it will help us identify some of the problems that 
will need to be addressed. J.D. volunteered to come up with a file naming 
best practices document for the group to review.

#19 - would work better if it requested people to provide answers both in
terms of files and bytes

#28 - needs more context. If we keep numbers, ask people who rank a 
collection at 4 or 5 to explain the criteria they used for arriving at the 
ranking. Carol will look up the criteria that was developed for ranking the 
libraries' uncataloged analog collections and see if they can be adapted 
for this effort.

Next steps: The group discussed the challenge of getting people to fill out 
the survey. Admin will need to support the effort and issue the call
(with wording supplied by us). Various incentives and threats were 
discussed. Jon volunteered to allow us to use the aerial photography 
collection as a good horror story of how badly wrong the digital colelction 
process can go.

It was suggested that Systems provide a site map of one of the servers and 
Carol set up a meeting time with the responsible curators and the DCC to 
help them get a handle on what portions of the digital content would need 
to be surveyed.

What can people hope for if they comply with the survey? They can expect 
the institution to help them manage their digital content, including 
migrating and preserving files, as needed. Failure to participate in the 
survey will make it less likely that the institution will be able to 
provide support the care and maintenance of digital content.

Action items:

- J.D. will draft best practices document for file names. Corey will review 
it in light of CONTENTdm. This will be discussed at next DCC meeting.
- Carol will find ranking criteria used for the analog collections and 
distribute to the DCC
-  Carol and Corey will revise the survey form one last time before a call 
for participation is issued to the library
- Carol will approach Admin again and ask for their support in getting the 
survey filled out
-  Sara will work with her staff to generate a site map of one of the 
servers and will let Carol know if some staff assistance from MDLS would be 
useful
-  Carol will set up a meeting between the DCC and selected collection 
curators to begin review of the digital content on the MSU with an eye to 
filling out the survey

Next meeting time: March 20, 2-3:30