Unofficial Transcript of unofficial audio session provided by James Staub. Non-anonymous corrections are welcome.
200704180830 FDLP-DLC DIGITIZATION
0834 BS opens session
0836 TIM BYRNE
0836 slide Technical reports â€“ definition from DoD
0837 slide technical report production
0837 slide technical report production 2
0838 slide technical report production 3
0838 slide technical report production 4 space
0839 slide University of Arizona
0840 slide University of Arizona 2
0840 slide Greater Western Library Alliance
0841 slide GWLA strategic plan
0841 slide GWLA Proposal
0842 slide taskforce members
0843 slide charge to the taskforce
0844 slide taskfoce objectives
0845 slide [task chart]
0846 slide prototype collection
0847 slide prototype technology â€“ streetprint software
0849 slide proposed structure â€“ preservation, includes one set of print material
0850 slide proposed structure 2 – access
0850 slide proposed structure 3 – coordination
[TB wanders away from the mic]
0851 slide implementation schedule
0851 slide digitization
0852 slide cost model summary
0853 slide prototype demonstration – http://digicoll.manoa.hawaii.edu/…
0853 slide the future of the project
0854 slide next collection to be digitized â€“ AEC MDDC series
0855 slide TB contact info
0855 QUESTIONS FROM COUNCIL
RA â€“ possibility for creating brief records â€“ have you thought about what constitutes a brief record? Is there an evolving standard?
TB we are using Dublin Core, and identified ten fields that would be used as standard. AEC material will be associated with OSTI records.
0857 CYNTHIA ETKIN
0857 slide DARTS: A NTIS/GPO PILOT PROJECT
0858 slide goals of the pilot project â€“ provide access through depositories; compare bib records to identify fugitive publications. We discovered there was only a 58% overlap in a collection of 1200 technical reports from 2006.
0859 slide what is darts? – 240K reports, 1964-2000, full text
0901 slide beta testing
0902 slide screenshot catalog record
0902 slide about the pilot project â€“ one library had to be removed from the pilot
0904 slide obligations of depositories â€“ don’t share your password, that’s why the one library was removed from the pilot. Document delivery to your community is OK. Also, NTIS is OK with passing passwords to other service providers, e.g., branch libraries.
0906 slide frequently asked questions â€“ we can use proxy authorization for primary clientele.
0910 slide summer special – $1 per title from 1999-2006
0911 slide questions/comments
0911 AM I can’t pull up the URL.
0912 CE that’s the right URL
0912 AM NTIS only says back to 1987, not 1964.
CE are you using the login
CE only finding 1987 forward
TB earliset date I found is 1912
[off mic council whispering]
Marsha X, UC Davis â€“ can you articulate the exclusions?
CE â€“ 1964-2000, only items with online equivalents
MX â€“ what are they deliberately excluding due to revenue
CE everything since 2000
MX what old stuff will we not find?
CE things without online equivalents. DOE, NASA, DTIC are in there. We originally talked about them not being there. Fairly good coverage.
0916 TED PRIEBY on behalf of Robin Haun-Mohammed
0916 slide initial steps
0917 slide digital demonstration project
0918 slide digital demonstration project 2 â€“ January 2007
0919 slide digital demonstration project 3 â€“ suggestions put forth by the reviewers…
0921 slide other efforts
0923 slide current status
0923 slide general assumptions
2.GPO will coordinate…
0924 EF can we add â€œto standards and best practicesâ€?
TB something to hand to the vendors is very helpful
0925 3.GPO will employ preservation level standards…
0925 4. GPO will set up near free partnerships with a variety of sources…
KS assumption 3 â€“ have you considered having access standards â€“ when that’s good enough for now
EF there is a role for that type of activity â€“ I’m more comfortable if it has a tangible object behind it.
KS Oh sure
EF … you’re not going to get the kind of resistance you expected
KS help a larger body to get digitized faster
EF GPO discussed allowing partners to participate at the level they can
EF these discussions also need to include cost and duplication of effort
0929 EF question on 4. Partners assume minimal cost â€“ and this does not include the cost of digitization? What are the partners picking up in terms of cost?
TP near free means partner is willing to digitize the legacy documents, and/or pay for postage.
EF if they don’t have digitization ability, to they mail to GPO or another partner?
TB RD on the mic
RD strategic vision states goal of complete digitization, and assumed GPO would do it all. GPO should seriously consider the role of partners in this process. There is still a critical role for GPO in ensuring standards are met. We need to scope â€œnear-freeâ€ and what that means for GPO. We need validation from JCP on what role they want GPO to pursue
0932 RA look at developed models. CONSER assures a certain level of cataloging
0933 assumption 5 all converted content for the legacy…
KS yeah, some day, 100 years from now
0934 assumption 6 access level…
KS no comment
0934 assumption 7 as the legacy documents…
0935 MARK SANDLER
0938 back to the questions…
0938 slide quesiton 1 what is the appropriate role for GPO to pursue for digitization in terms of the hands-on…
GS if GPO has a role in doing its own digitization, it’s to look first at titles not likely to be digitized by the partners
EF we covered this in Council’s recommendation â€“ GPO has a coordinating role, and a role in capturing congressional documents and other titles difficult for partners
Beth Harper, U Wisconsin â€“ train has left the station â€“ UW Madison is involved in one. We take our copies and work with Google to have them digitized â€“ these will not be official, authentic copies …
Mary Alice Baish, AALL â€“ list of partners â€“ include law library of congress â€“ they digitized with google a collection of hearings that will be made freely available
TP in no way do we want to exclude any potential partner.
0943 Barbie Selby, LofVA â€“ perhaps authenticate already-scanned materials. I thought digitization was in part to make sure GPO had something to do.
RD â€“ BJ in vision document thought 500 or more GPO staff underemployed could be repurposed to digitization. That number is more like 150. …
BS â€“ what information is done at GPO with the registry of digitization projects?
RD â€“ we would really like to see â€“ expand that registry. It’s not expanding as much as we hoped.
KS â€“ the registry is broken. KB emailed me that she’s not sure when it will be fixed. GPO should link expert registry with this registry.
MS â€“ there is a very active discussion on the value of registries in the larger digital library community.
AM â€“ what are they discussing in terms of alternatives?
MS â€“ â€œwouldn’t we be better off entering manifestations in OCLC?â€
BS â€“ Registries are important for identifying partners. Libraries should look at it when their administrators say it’s time to do this
GS DLF has standards for recording digital projects in OCLC. Getting them out is always an issue.
GS authentication and authentic copies, we were told, is the purview of GPO. I think we need to explore doing this out in the field
0951 question 2 what is the appropriate look for preservation of legacy digitized documents (i.e., yellowed paper color made white, depository library stamp removed)?
MS faded ink on yellow paper â€“ low contrast â€“ if you scan bitonal, are you losing history, and the debate degenerates from here…
RA what we need is the best possible accessibility â€“ let’s make sure they get the information they’re looking for
PH the important point â€“ given disasters â€“ capture the content
MS – EF?
EF I would agree â€“ subject experts might want to weigh in on the historical context â€“ where is the look and feel important
MS foxing was talked about for instance
0954 question 3 are there particular format issues unique to Government publications where different methods of capture or representation…
GS no. you will find similar things all over the place
EF this question could argue for higher quality â€“ access level scan might not cut it for the user
KS yes, but I’m not sure it’s GPO’s role to do it, e.g., data tables.
EF can you expand
KS I expect readable, but I don’t expect tables to be reformatted into numeric data.
Steve Hayes, Notre Dame â€“ we have microfiche that is great and you can’t use the content easily.
SH â€“ standard has to be defined closely
0958 question 4 when access derivatives are available, should re-digitization…
EF are we implying that there is
EF for me there’s an issue of authenticity that comes into play here
AM there needs to be an assessment of the quality of the access-level scan
BS I wouldn’t want to discourage a partner from going back and doing a collection better. Are we supposed to read this as GPO doing stuff?
TP this is specific to GPO… do we lower the priority…
BS I wouldn’t want to hinder…
GS yes, unless other considerations warrant moving into another priority. We’re looking globally where to put our priorities…
1002 question 5 How does the GPO’s initiative fit with other…
AM that’s the question, isn’t it? Seamlessly! I don’t know how we’re supposed to answer.
MS should complement
BS recommendation yesterday covers this
1003 question 6 To what extent does the diversity of our user community influence the ways content should be represented?
PH access for the elderly should remain as simple as possible. [personal story about his parents]
GS I look at this in terms of derivative products. You want to provide a lot of methods of access for different user groups.
AM make sure this content can be delivered to users without high bandwidth, old browsers
Barbie Selby â€“ the official stuff has to be represented in the authenticated way
RA back to question 5 â€“ I’ll be here for NLLD. In preparation, I hear need to advocate for NARA, LoC budgets. Who has convening authority for these agencies â€“ to keep from duplicating effort. I want someone to assume that convening authority…
DD â€“ it might be NCLIS
1008 MS concludes
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.