diglib: Notes from March 16, 2005 meeting

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

Included here are my imperfect notes from our
special meeting on March 16. Please send
corrections and clarifications to the list.--Carol
***********************************************************
A special meeting of the Digital Content Coordinators
was called for March 16, 2005 to discuss how the
UO Libraries propose to handle new digital content
that is donated or purchased - especially when it does
not come with its own delivery mechanism. Most
DCC members and many other interested library staff
were present.

Hixson handed out a list of questions that she
and Faye Chadwell drafted on February 25
that could help the group identify issues. Those
questions were:

- appropriateness of content (fit with CD policy)?
- funding priority compared to other materials?
- expectations of donors?
- is material in public domain or is copyright clear?
- restrictions on public access?
- prioritization with in-house collections of digital
        content?
- prioritization with other types of materials?
- how many objects?
- what types of files?
- do files meet our standards (for display, storing, etc.)?
- are we equipped to handle the file formats?
- average size of files and total size?
- long or short-term retention?
- is there enough information about the files to
        preserve them?
- expected timeframe for accessibility?
- expected use of materials?
- type of access desired?
- how will they be searched? displayed? downloaded?
- do materials come with any metadata?
- can material be made available through an
        existing digital asset management system
        or will it require local development of an
        interface?
- how do the materials and the interface to them
        fit it with other collections?

Andrew Bonamici asked for people to identify some
of the digital content that had been acquired or was
in the process of being acquired that would need to
be evaluated. These collections included:

- a collection of digital photos on CD-ROM (part of
a Greenfiled request). This consists of images on
CD-ROM and an access database with some information
about the photos. There are TIFFs and GIFs. The
version of Access used in the database is newer than
the version on library workstations. We didn't have an
agreement with the individual who created the files
that we could make them available and Faye had
to draft some terms and conditions for their use

- a request made by Ed Teague for a $20,000
purchase of digital slides from Art on File. The
vendor initially wanted to ship them to us on CD-ROM
but there is also a web site with some searching
capability. The images have descriptions available
that could be used in making them available
locally

- Saskia files - it now looks as if this will be
licensed access that will be hosted remotely.
We may also want to mount the image files
locally.

- digital content acquired as part of other
collections in Special Collections

- Portland metro images (Greenfield request)

- GIS and image files with a variety of licensing
and access issues

- LCOG data

The group began to discuss the specific questions
that would need to be answered and whether some
issues would take precedence over others. Selection,
copyright, and licensing issues would need to come first.

Regarding copyright, group consensus was that we
needed to accept materials in good faith on the word
of vendors or suppliers until we find out that the content
is restricted under some copyright provisions. The reality
is that the vast majority of collections have a mix of materials,
some in the public domain and others not. It was felt
that we shouldn't reject a collection just because we
didn't have absolute clarity.

Are there factors that will trump (or override) the
appropriateness of content? There was discussion
over whether an inability to provide access might
cause us to reject a donation or a purchase. This
would be a relatively new approach for us because
our ability to "catalog" materials in the past has not
stopped us from acquiring collections. It was noted
that if it would take too much time and effort to make
something available, we might not acquire it.

Tom Stave provided an overview of a discussion that had
taken place with Document Center staff, CDA, Systems,
and MDLS for making a set of files available. The
dataset covers all federal government contracts of
$25,000 or more, by county, for the period 1979-2002
(one disk per year).  The dataset has been used by the
faculty member who gave it to us to copy to analyze
the changing behavior of the Forest Service in awarding
tree planting and thinning projects.The questions
we asked in that discussion were many of the same ones
that Chadwell and Hixson later drafted as a list. The
end result was a decision just to make the CD-ROMs
available for check out and not build a local interface
to them. We may also back the files up on a local
server. Low-tech solutions may sometimes be the best that
we can offer and all that the user group will need.

Hixson asked if the DCC group could function as
a review group for purchased or donated digital
content - to help the library good decisions. The general
sense was that this would be a good starting point.
There was some discussion about the makeup of the
group. (The history of the group and its work can be
seen on the web at: http://libweb.uoregon.edu/diglib/digcon.html)
Hixson noted that al meetings were open and that
discussions proceeded much as they did today - with
anyone expressing opinions and with the group reaching
a consensus. There was some feeling that more
subject specialist involvement was needed. Hixson
noted that one subject specialist had resigned from the
group and another had declined to serve. If there are
interested people, they can sign on to the list,
attend meetings, and speak up. More people can
be added to the official group, if needed.

The purpose of the DCC is to set policy and general
directions for digital content at the library. Final
decisions about use of library resources rest
with Library Administration.

Notes provided by cgh