diglib: DCC Meeting July 18, 2005: Minutes (workflow)

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

Below are my notes from today's DCC meeting. Please
send corrections, revisions, etc. either to me or to the list.
--Carol
*********************************************************************
Attending: Brownmiller, Chadwell, Felsing, Georgitis, Harper,
Helmer, Hixson, Johnson, Teague

Discussion focused on identifying key steps in the workflow for
acquired digital content to be mounted locally. This includes
purchased, licensed, or donated content. While a generic workflow
was agreed upon, it was understood that details would change
for individual projects. It was also agreed that the process would
not be entirely linear and that some steps might be repeated or
occur in a different order from that outlined below. The followinf
outline will be revised and then circulated widely in the library for
further discussion and information.

1) Subject specialists identify appropriate content and make a request using
the Electronic Resources Request form (or some modified version of
it) at: http://libweb.uoregon.edu/colldev/electronicrequest.html

2) Subject specialists and the DCC discuss delivery options

3) CDA works out licensing agreement, deed, conditions of acquisition

4) CDA staff handle acquisition of material

5) CDA staff initially review content to see if it seems to match what was
expected (i.e., did we get the expected number of files in the expected 
format?)

6) Systems staff run a fixity check on the source files to verify file 
integrity and serve as benchmark for later preservation efforts

7) DCC discusses and recommends project team

8) Systems loads files into MSU and sets up authorizations to folders for 
project team members and announces to the project leader and the diglib 
list that the files are ready for processing when done

9) Project team prioritizes materials for public accessibility. They also 
decide on the appropriate display or access file format for the materials

10) Materials are loaded into the pre-determined delivery system. This is a 
preliminary load that may not be publicaly accessible. This work will be 
done by different units, depending on the delivery mechanism chose. For 
instance, collections destined for CONTENTdm will be loaded in by MDLS; 
collections destined for Virage will be loaded in by Media Services.

11) Technical and administrative metadata will be supplied. At the moment, 
the most likely groups to supply this category of metadata will be MDLS and 
Media Services or other staff trained by them or under their coordination

12) Descriptive metadata will be supplied. The specific standards will be 
worked out with the project team and team members from different 
departments may supply the descriptive metadata.  At the moment, the most 
likely groups to supply this category of metadata will be MDLS and Media 
Services or other staff trained by them or under their coordination

13) Public interfaces are developed. The public interfaces include front 
pages, supporting contextual information, and search interfaces. These may 
also include feedback forms. While the general goal will be to present 
digital collections through a fairly standardized interface to make them 
widely accessible to the library's users, it is recognized that there will 
be some customization. The model also supports supplemental public 
interfaces that may be highly customized to serve a very specific target 
audience or need. The project team will decide on the responsible parties 
for each segment.

14) The project team, in consultation with the DCC, will decide on the 
appropriate preservation strategy for the materials.

15) Project team coordinates PR of the collection, including decisions 
about traditional cataloging of the collection

16) DCC and project team conduct a review and evaluation of the collection