3/27/07 1st meeting of EAPPT
MCL let us all look at some materials she'd received on metadata from a workshop she'd attended. Did some brain-storming & came up with:
- The group thinks that all items that are submitted [in the future] be in PDF format, i.e. not scanned into PDF, as the History Honors theses currently are
- Have a form/template available for those who are submitting items that should be followed; form might have help buttons
The grp. agreed that we need to hunt for an example of an application profile that uses D-Space.
SB is to email R[oberta] W[injum] to share all emails, etc. on past decisions that were made on items that have been submitted
Next meeting time: 4/3/07 from 10-11-30 a.m.
4/3/07 We reviewed our charge and noted the following: 1) We are to create an application profile document 2) We need to start looking at Dublin Core and the various communities we have already in place and start to "plug in" Dublin Core, noting inconsistencies (also called mapping) 3) Develop general, scalable guideline for future collections
We carved up the following among the existing collections between ourselves, 1st step in mapping:
SB-History Honors items JG-News Service MCL-Biomedical SN-Comparative Literature NBK-Economics
We agreed that each of us would come back with which Dublin Core elements have been used, how the fields are currently formatted, specific variables one sees, and any decision we might know that were reached in connection to the specific collection one is reviewing.
4/17/07 (SB got to this mtg. late so hopefully others can "fill in" gaps in her note-taking.)
We found inconsistencies in how information is currently presented in subjects, title, publisher, citation fields,
We all agree "subjects" should be consistently formatted, i.e. if LCSH is used then all who input LCSH should use the dash dash between subject divisions
Don't end subject strings with a period
"Access" needs to be right (wasn't correct in any of the examples already in place)
"Citation" is used differently in any collection; we might want to use a "Style Manual" type for each group
We agree that at our next meeting, to be held 5/1/07, we'll continue more mapping: MCL-Earth & Science JG-Faculty/Senate minutes NBK-Robert Penn Warren Letters plus we'll do History (didn't have time for last meeting)
- Jodie makes a great point: Any/all POST-input editing has to be done by either RW or Dale; Someone should point this out at the next Metadata committee meeting.
5/1/07 SB showed the rest the first Capstone submission she'd received; MUCH discussion followed. Observations/suggestions:
Question: What is the relevance of Capstone collection to the rest of the communities in VU-Archives; how does it relate and to what? (Who names the communities?)
- EAPPT wants to suggest (to RW, others?) that a "front-end" description be created that would explain how, in this case Capstone but goes for future communities too, "relates" to the community "Teaching & Learning".
- Another question/suggestion:
As much as possible submissions need to formatted in PDF; this ensures little modification can be made to the "original" document. PLUS, provides more access to a wider audience as PDF is more readily available to everyone as free PDF is everywhere. (We hinted at this during our 1st meeting but what we suggest is clearer here.)
Query: is it possible to have certain collection, or communities have different fields "enabled" to display in the brief display? (Is this a Dale question?) Date has been enabled in some but not all; WHY not? Needs to be available for ALL, we think.
SN noted the spaces between each word of some files (URLs, in Capstone???) might not be found; most programs (browsers) supply underscores to replace spaces in titles searched on the web with spaces but not ALL programs do)
Mapping review, observations:
Robert Penn Warren Letters. Observation: the "title" IS Letters but the "item" is actually the Newsletter of the Robert Penn Warren Letters. Description displays oddly (usage of Vol, Number) We wondered who edited the metadata for this community. Odd.
Faculty/Senate Minutes. Brutally brief. ONLY title (date of the meeting) input. Everything else is contained within the document itself. How minimum is TOO minimum? We think this one is too brief.
5/15/07
Steven Nordstrom absent.
Susan solicited the group's advice on a question that Heidi Welch, History Dept. Honors Theses contact, had raised about a recent submission where a blank, numbered page in the thesis had been left out (by her) when she put the thesis into PDF. Heidi wants the information that the skip in paging did not omit any text from the thesis to somehow be communicated in the thesis's VU-EArchive form. We agreed that SB should ask Roberta to authorize/insert an additional description field for this particular thesis, to which SB could then add the appropriate information.
Agenda items:
1)Review whether we've done all the mapping needed; consider the next logical step. Decided we'd done all needed mapping. We then went over our recommendations that NBK had submitted to the Metadata Committee's Wiki. Decided to reorder them in order of importance and/or modify/add to these. NBK took notes and will make the suggested modifications in the Wiki.
2) Identifying possible stake-holders We already know some of the stake-holders within the VU-EArchives (Heidi Welch/History, Lee Ann Lammon or Karon LeCompte, the faculty member in the Department of Teaching & Learning who's leading the Capstone Project. We want to clarify/list, within each community/collection in the VU-EArchives, a contact person/stake-holder, probably in most cases the person who submitted the item, who would have the MOST knowledge about it if questions/concerns arise.
We decided that although we're not convinced are true "stake-holders" in the VU-EArchives,it would be helpful if Jody Combs and Dale Poulter would agree to come discuss with our group their D-Space background/experiences. NBK agreed to review their respective Corporate Time Calendars to see if both had time available during our regular meeting time. If so, Susan will email an invitation to both for our next meeting, 5/22/07. MCL said she & Steven were both scheduled for more NACO training that day but was agreeable to a pause for this purpose; IF Dale & Jody can come 5/22/07 we'll have our meeting down in the Electronic classroom. If not, we'll attempt to be flexible with OUR schedules & try to meet together as a group whenever Dale and Jody are available.
Assignments:
We need someone(s) to seriously review other libraries for their e-archives application profiles and bring back to our group concrete examples. Jodie and Steven were assigned to this task; no firm date assigned.
We needed someone to consult with Dale & Jody about specifics (who does what, when, etc.) NBK agreed she's the most logical person for this task.
Susan agreed to take on the assignment of reviewing stake-holder Heidi Welch plus get a specific stake-holder name for the Capstone projects from Lee Ann Lannom.
Next meeting: 5/22/07 tentatively in the E-Classroom.