RE: diglib: RE: Proposal for a DCC working group

["Mark Watson" <mrwatson@uoregon.edu>]

I agree with Ed.  We might have originally envisioned DCC as a prime mover
for digital projects, but its work has not evolved that way.  In order for a
project to truly take flight, there is a need for a different kind of
synergy.  Ed correctly lists the factors that gave the AAA images initiative
its wings.

Mark

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-diglib@lists.uoregon.edu
[mailto:owner-diglib@lists.uoregon.edu]On Behalf Of Edward H. Teague
Sent: Friday, April 13, 2007 9:25 AM
To: Jon R Jablonski
Cc: Digital Collections Group
Subject: Re: diglib: RE: Proposal for a DCC working group


I think Jon makes a good point that the conceptualizing should go beyond
contentdm and imaging as we know it.
As for Art & Arch images in contentdm (soon to number 36,000 records),  it
was initiative status, Ed Tech grant, Ross funds, local control (AAA Lib.),
and personnel changes that pushed as ahead, not DCC.
- Ed

 On Fri, 13 Apr 2007 09:02:50 -0700 (PDT), Jon R Jablonski
<jonjab@uoregon.edu> wrote:
> All this sounds good to me.  But I do want to point out 2 things:
>
> 1:  I never though DCC was about reviewing and recommending content.  I
> thought it was about reviewing recommended content.  So if a subject
> specialist (or anyone else) suggested buying a product (or accepting
> donated content or developing local content) there would be a group to vet
> and plan for that content.
>
> 2:  As we move forward, I think we really have to start thinking about the
> different genres of digital content.  A lot of DCC's efforts have been
> very much about locally created image content.  Scholar's Bank to an
> extent as well, but that seems more like a stand-alone project.
> Discussions about tabular data and text have been few and far between, but
> they have occured (or maybe they've been occuring but I've been absent?).
> Either way, I do think we need BOTH a more integrated approach to
> locally-created/hosted digital content in all of its genres AS WELL AS a
> more hands-on technical forum such as Kate describes.
>
> You can certainly read between the lines that my own content falls into
> these categories.  And yes, I feel like I could use more support from the
> institution for GIS efforts.  But there are other projects as well:  the
> Oregonian and Emerald indexes, the Doc Center's local documents project,
> the VRC's digitizing efforts (admittedly ContentDM based, so maybe that's
> a bad example), streaming media.  There's most likely more.  I'm very
> curious about whether the shepherds of those projects feel like DCC has
> been a help or a hindrance to them? Or even involved with them at all?  Or
> should it be?
>
> Jon Jablonski
> jonjab@uoregon.edu
> ___________________________________David & Nancy Petrone MAP/GIS Librarian
> Knight Library Document Center
> University of Oregon.
> 541-346-3051
>
>
>
> On Wed, 11 Apr 2007, Mark Watson wrote:
>
> > Lesli & DCC:
> >
> > Interesting ... actually you've written down a good description of the
> > direction in which I'd like to see DCC move as a committee.  In
discussions
> > with Faye, leading up to her acceptance of the position at OSU, she made
an
> > excellent point that DCC should not be in the business of digital
content
> > selection as that role properly belongs to the subject specialists but
> > rather in the business of digital infrastructure.  I think she's right
and
> > would like to see us re-focus DCC more on the technology and procedures
for
> > digitization and building digital collections.
> >
> > So, in the absence of a meeting this month, let me through this out for
> > online discussion.  How about renaming DCC to DIG:  Digital
Infrastructure
> > Group.  We will abandon the idea that DCC will review and recommendation
new
> > digital content but rather make sure there is a working forum for all
> > practitioners.   We'd need to decide whether the topics you are writing
> > about will be the "bread and butter" of DIG or if they are truly so
"nuts
> > and bolts" that they require a sub-group.
> >
> > Mark
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Lesli Larson [mailto:lalarson@uoregon.edu]
> > Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2007 5:16 PM
> > To: mrwatson@uoregon.edu
> > Subject: Proposal for a DCC working group
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Mark--
> >
> > Kate Ball and I have been talking with Mary about putting together a
digital
> > content creators-type working group, perhaps as a subgroup of DCC.  We'd
> > like to form an inter-departmental working group through which we could
> > share info on scanning practices, content DM issues, file naming
> > conventions, digital file management, equipment calibrations, etc, and
also
> > review ongoing and future digital projects.  Group could also host
> > presentations or training sessions by outside experts and put forward
> > suggestions for future, broadscale, even grant funded digital projects.
I
> > see this group as having a more nuts and bolts focus--while still
relying on
> > DCC for advice/direction on more broad based policy issues such as file
> > naming conventions, digital preservation, etc.
> >
> > We thought that the group could meet on a monthly basis--perhaps during
the
> > same time slot as DCC (but on an alternative date).
> >
> > Let me know what you think.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > LL
> >
> >
> > ____
> > ____
> > ____
> >
> > Lesli Larson
> > Image Services Coordinator
> > Metadata Services and Digital Projects Department
> > Knight Library
> > University of Oregon
> > 541-346-1946
> > lalarson@uoregon.edu
> >
> >
>
> --
>


--
Edward H. Teague
Head, Architecture & Allied Arts Library
205C Lawrence Hall
University of Oregon
Eugene, OR 97401