Wednesday, September 22, 2010
Metadata meeting
In the coming months the Technical Infrastructure Committee will host a meeting to bring together metadata experts from the five colleges. At the meeting we hope to build on Ohio Link's Metadata Application Profile to create best practices for the various digital projects the colleges are undertaking. Stay tuned for more information.
Tuesday, September 7, 2010
September 1 Meeting Summary and Action Items
Summary
Each school’s representative described the projects underway or coming soon at their institution. There are a few opportunities taking shape to collaborate, for example there are natural history projects going on at Oberlin, Ohio Wesleyan and Denison. Implementing lightbox (aka gallery, browse by image) display in DSpace is high on everyone’s priority list, as many folks are looking for collections more graphically similar to ContentDM.
We also discussed in some depth a Wooster project involving oral histories, and the best means to capture those interviews digitally. There is a need for high quality audio recording equipment, but we should consider if we want students to take that equipment into the field.
There is a need to standardize our metadata best practices, to each other’s and OhioLink’s. As such, we’d like to have a work session/training with the relevant digital and technical services folks in the room. We will have a planning session for this mid-September to better define the agenda, and then shoot for holding the session late September/early October. We’ll do the scheduling for both with Doodle polls.
John Davison from OhioLink participated in our discussion regarding the hiring of an interface specialist, and the skills that person might need in order to achieve the interface development we think we need. Based on our conversation and job descriptions sent to us from John, Alan and Catalina are going to work on putting a draft job description together, send it to the group and then on to the steering committee for discussion. We’re thinking the search committee will be comprised largely of our committee and a representative from the steering committee.
We also discussed the allocation of the shared $40K hardware/software budget, and how to determine if a purchase should come from a project’s proposed budget or the central pool. Mark Christel suggested that TIC categorize the central pool and determine how to split the central funds between categories such as development consulting, software, and hardware, items in each of which should benefit all five institutions.
Action Items
Each school’s representative described the projects underway or coming soon at their institution. There are a few opportunities taking shape to collaborate, for example there are natural history projects going on at Oberlin, Ohio Wesleyan and Denison. Implementing lightbox (aka gallery, browse by image) display in DSpace is high on everyone’s priority list, as many folks are looking for collections more graphically similar to ContentDM.
We also discussed in some depth a Wooster project involving oral histories, and the best means to capture those interviews digitally. There is a need for high quality audio recording equipment, but we should consider if we want students to take that equipment into the field.
There is a need to standardize our metadata best practices, to each other’s and OhioLink’s. As such, we’d like to have a work session/training with the relevant digital and technical services folks in the room. We will have a planning session for this mid-September to better define the agenda, and then shoot for holding the session late September/early October. We’ll do the scheduling for both with Doodle polls.
John Davison from OhioLink participated in our discussion regarding the hiring of an interface specialist, and the skills that person might need in order to achieve the interface development we think we need. Based on our conversation and job descriptions sent to us from John, Alan and Catalina are going to work on putting a draft job description together, send it to the group and then on to the steering committee for discussion. We’re thinking the search committee will be comprised largely of our committee and a representative from the steering committee.
We also discussed the allocation of the shared $40K hardware/software budget, and how to determine if a purchase should come from a project’s proposed budget or the central pool. Mark Christel suggested that TIC categorize the central pool and determine how to split the central funds between categories such as development consulting, software, and hardware, items in each of which should benefit all five institutions.
Action Items
- Meghan will send link to TIC for NITLE gallery theme (grid display example) and U of Texas Folio Collection (map display example)
- each institution will survey their audio recording capability.
- send out Metadata Application Profile spreadsheets (Meghan and Catalina)
- regarding determining what we need, hardware and software-wise, Catalina will send out cleaned up spreadsheet of what we have and and team will see what’s missing. Team, in the meantime, will find out what individual projects are using
- using John’s position descriptions, Alan and Catalina will come up with a first pass and send it around for input.
- Doodle polls to schedule metadata session planning and session itself.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
