CURATEcamp DLF 2012 Discussion Ideas

From CURATEcamp
Revision as of 20:00, 3 November 2012 by Mjgiarlo (talk | contribs) (→‎Fighting the "One Tool to Rule Them All" Mindset)
Jump to: navigation, search

Agenda

Contribution and Ingest: Lowering Barriers

  • just-in-case vs. just-in-time metadata
  • what's "good enough": department, creator, hit send?
  • how can we get digital stuff with the minimum amount of effort?
  • set up a pre-ingest staging area for review to make sure content is "repository worthy"
  • build in metadata and structure requirements as part of data creation - "data counseling" for reuse
  • your digital ingest backlog already exists, it's just distributed across your institution
  • should it be the content creators' job to deposit? mediated deposit yields better results
  • set minimum compliance requirements for researchers
  • this is a "knowledge translation" problem--it won't be easy
  • tempting to scale back to absolute minimums, but that's not a good long term solution for reuse, discovery. Need a better balance.
  • Email and Dropbox submission: accounts/authentication already built in, why not use it?
  • Do mediated deposit and self deposit need to be mutually exclusive? How about "mediate on demand"?
  • Levels of Service: process and team to spec out how long ingest will take. Data prioritized by content type/project.
  • Help clean up existing content, and apply "lessons learned" to make templates for future data/metadata creation
  • Summary: long process with a lot of complexity - make small, incremental steps. It's OK to do what you can for now. Doing what you can is better than over-promising.
  • recap of C4L 2011 discussion: why does ingest suck?
    • promise of permanence sets up a barrier (forever is intimidating)
    • perception that ingest makes objects less discoverable
    • rights - need to be cleared before ingest?
    • metadata - requires too much? need a way to ingest easily and augment later
    • curation happens outside repository, preservation happens inside
    • more content in staging area than the "actual" repository
    • content creators don't have time to ingest
    • lessons learned

Fighting the "One Tool to Rule Them All" Mindset

  • need to understand what each tool does well and its limitations
  • the only way to cope with the weaknesses in each tool is multiple access/use layers. interoperability is our job security
  • what is the usefulness of the comparison matrix? really have to install and use the tools to evaluate them, but sometimes that isn't possible
  • more useful to think about a "framework" than "tools" -- but it's hard to do anything without programmers. Is outsourcing/contracting really feasible?
  • compare to the times when we only had an OPAC and that was good enough--then came ERMs, discovery layers
  • managing any preservation repository takes resources, so it's difficult to have more than one. Have one repository with multiple access/view layers.
  • Managing/displaying many different types of descriptive metadata--do you need multiple tools to do this?
  • The discovery layer is going to be Google! (or other search engines) - use RDF/schema.org and focus on how to expose metadata as broadly and usefully as possible
  • cultural heritage interests are so specific--Google can actually work pretty well with basic information
  • How to do SEO? are the typical methods of improving relevancy rankings applicable to library content/metadata? the approach that's worked for us
  • Search engines are "dumb" - don't tolerate AJAX, JavaScript, etc. sitemaps can help
  • schema.org extension project for books in the works

Cylinders of Excellence: living with multiple systems (interoperability, one system to rule them all?) combatting "one tool" philosophy (three tools: DAMS for simple items, repo for authorial/ETD workflow, GIS data somethingsomethin'), how not to shoehorn everything (platform/layers vs. monolithic) - especially issues with multiple workflows - 18

  • project is done, now what? - proving value of investment - ROI ALSO funding models for repository/curation services (grants, etc.)- 18
  • long-term preservation of complex objects (16)
  • UI/UX development and reuse (how to do this, formal roles, community development)- usage of curation tools by users (vs. curators) - 16
  • bootstrapping repository services (getting started with minimal resources) curation & preservation in the wild (sans repo) - 15
  • Has the digital realm affected our idea of what digital preservation means? selection (e.g. of content types) for digital preservation -

are we saving too much? who decides? - 15

  • Gather round for demos at 3:30 - 25ish
    • data model from UCSD (17)
  • Wrap-up session: community-building: future of CURATEcamp, sustainability - 19

Topics

  • linked data (7)
  • digital curation
  • records management
  • metadata & authority control (10)
  • long-term preservation of complex objects (16)
  • data model from UCSD (17)
  • bootstrapping repository services (getting started with minimal resources) curation & preservation in the wild (sans repo) - 15
  • development trends
  • standards
  • data management tools & processes
  • Cylinders of Excellence: living with multiple systems (interoperability, one system to rule them all?) combatting "one tool" philosophy (three tools: DAMS for simple items, repo for authorial/ETD workflow, GIS data somethingsomethin'), how not to shoehorn everything (platform/layers vs. monolithic) - especially issues with multiple workflows - 18
  • expanding the value of library infrastructure/tools (business use, scholarship) - 12
  • Contribution/ingest - 20
  • Abstraction layer for repositories especially from early and/or bespoke systems - 2
  • community development (e.g. Hydra project on top of not Fedora) - 15
  • METS development - 1
  • UI/UX development and reuse (how to do this, formal roles, community development)- usage of curation tools by users (vs. curators) - 16
  • Has the digital realm affected our idea of what digital preservation means? selection (e.g. of content types) for digital preservation -

are we saving too much? who decides? - 15

  • Now that the bits are preserved, how do we preserve behavior/experience - 7
  • multi-institutional repositories (UC, CIC, etc.)
  • Wrap-up session: community-building: future of CURATEcamp, sustainability - 19
  • PREMIS for preservation metadata (user feedback, requests) and changes coming in PREMIS 3 - 4
  • persistent identifiers, e.g., ARKs - 8
  • Gather round for demos at 3:30 - 25ish
  • service models for ingest: internal repos vs external or subject repos - 8
  • project is done, now what? - proving value of investment - ROI ALSO funding models for repository/curation services (grants, etc.)- 18
  • e-book preservation - 4

Timeline

  • 09:00-09:40 Introductions
  • 09:40-10:00 Break
  • 10:00-10:45 Voting/Ranking
  • 10:45-11:15 Session 1: Ingest Barriers
  • 11:30-12:00 Session 2:
  • 12:00-1:30 Lunch
  • 1:30-2:00 Session 3:
  • 2:00-2:30 Session 4:
  • 2:30-3:00 Session 5:
  • 3:00-3:30 Session 6:
  • 3:30-4:00 Break
  • 4:00-4:30 Demos
  • 4:30-5:00 Wrap-up/Future of Curate Camp
Retrieved from "https://wiki.curatecamp.org/index.php?title=CURATEcamp_DLF_2012_Discussion_Ideas&oldid=2224"