2019-06-28 Meeting notes - Digital Archives
Date
Jun 28, 2019
Participants
Tanya Hollis, Kevin Cloud, Steve Kutay, Bin Zhang, Mark Braden, Maria Pena, Elyse Fox, Carmen Mitchell, Erik Beck, April Gilbert, Julie Dinkins
Recording: https://sfsu.zoom.us/recording/share/gLiyF5KHhwRkBZflswM2FqN8s5c1aJZFD02JCuveso2wIumekTziMw
Samvera Requirements (Steve) Online at https://docs.google.com/document/d/1hIMSc6Qu58MQTkR1zL4R3msXavVhzRow35oIAFCB_wI/edit?usp=sharing
Steve gave an overview of the requirements, and said that they are close to being ready to be pushed out; they welcome additional feedback and edits, but believe that all the core content is there. They turned the Summary into an Appendix, and used bullet points in the main report. Expanded the Related Studies to show work done by others, as time did not allow Steve and Allysa to do any focus groups. The Data and Analysis puts in context how that affects the implementation of the system, and how we need to think about the development of the tool. Create an Executive Summary, focussed on perceived benefits and detriments, to include major ideas, thoughts, and what we’re excited about and what we’re concerned about. A statement that the functional requirements and data were put together to optimise benefits of what we found in the report and mitigate the concerns.
Requirements:
Recommendation: Adopt technical and functional requirements as a road map
Assign official governance body in perpetuity drawn from all participating campuses to support fair voting and decision making
Steve asked about the possibility of the governance body. Kevin: the Implementation Group is recommending a governance structure body, including subsuming the current IG structure into the new structure. One of the COLD decisions is to impose a scope limitation to the new ScholarWorks; those items that fall outside the ScholarWorks might then be taken up by a Digital Archives governance body. Steve feels there should be equal representation in the governance structure between the IR and any Digital Archives platform. Kevin: ScholarWorks is still the primary priority of COLD at this stage. Carmen added some historical background on how the IGs were formed at the ScholarWorks meeting at Chico; the themes were arrived at through interested groups, largely formed ad hoc, to start building a structure to support ScholarWorks. Carmen suggested we should talk about how we want the governance structure to be, rather than relying on what has been. Tanya clarified that the group at Chico originally was formed to push for a shared CSU-wide ArchivesSpace, and that many of the members were looking for alternatives to CONTENTdm, and how the SWAT report finally moved the project forward and solidifies this intention, which is now more concretely described in Steve and Alyssa’s work.
The current document doesn’t give any clear recommendation on what the ideal governance structure would be; Steve will leave this vague for now. Kevin: has been tracking of Cdm migrations into Samver; there is an opportunity with the move into the Samvera/Hyrax system to allow for a much more robust DAMS, that will be different from the IR implementation.
2. Create a Team for the continued development of shared Metadata will require participation by all of the CSU campuses; Tanya supported having a dedicated
3. Analyze the ability of adding additional CO staff: It was suggested that monies that are currently directed to outside vendors such as OCLC could be redirected, and/or a fee structure based on # of items could be implemented to support paid staff
4. Assess willingness and capacity of campuses to help design and program features
5. Metadata (Elyse): Elyse shared the work of the Metadata Interest Group, including the draft data dictionary, which will be shared with ScholarWorks PMs for review after the pilot project is complete: https://docs.google.com/document/d/10eIvlm6kglYsb4P8731qHlgK71-m9YAIYng74JfTduQ/edit?usp=sharing
6. Agenda for ScholarWorks August meeting at CSUN (All)
7. Future of the IG (Kevin)