DISC Summary of August 21, 2002 meeting
Present: Wes Boomgaarden, Maureen Donovan, Susan Logan, Sally Rogers, Beth
Russell, Stephen Westman.
Next meeting: September 4, 2002: 8:30 a.m. to 10:15 a.m. (followed by Knowledge
Bank Inventory subcommittee, 10:15-11:30) Room 124 Main Library
1. Minutes: DISC agreed to rotate the minute taking for the Committee. We will
proceed alphabetically, with Nena being next to record. The laptop computer will
be provided for this purpose.
2. Discussion of the Six Proposals: Metadata:
SEL proposal. We considered if these 300 reports could simply be added to the
imaging done in the Brittle Books Unit as a way of expediting them. In brief, the
answer is “no,” primarily because of lack of cataloging records, and low-contrast
of the source documents that would impede the routine imaging that our vendor
can do.
Wes reported that one member of the CAC noted that a traditional catalog record
for each of these – which we do not have – might suffice to provide the added
access desired. Another CAC response was that Cataloging Department has
competing priorities within which this project may not rise to the top, even with
K-level OCLC records, which are non-standard for the Libraries.
Action: After some discussion about the possibility of consulting the proposal
developer, Mary Scott, to ask if routine cataloging -- at either K-level or I-level
records -- would suffice (i.e., with no digitizing being done), we agreed that it is
not appropriate for DISC to try to address cataloging priorities. CAC had the
opportunity to say if they felt any of the proposed projects should not be
considered for digitization at all, but they found all projects worthy of
consideration. Therefore, DISC will proceed with evaluating the SEL project for
technical and economic feasibility along with the other 5 projects.
FIN / Baggs Project: Beth has obtained and examined examples of the metadata
/ cataloging records used by Jim Murphy and those involved with the Baggs
collection in cataloging the materials in this project. Beth will compare the
cataloging worksheet to the VRA template. DMC has fields for the description of
this material. Needed: a collection-level OSCAR record for the Baggs collection.
Those proposing this collection advocate that each object receive a MARC record
in our OPAC, as a byproduct of this project. If this is to be done, we need a way
to map to (or from) MARC in addition to the VRA metadata creation.
1
Single-object records in OSCAR: This brought up a philosophical policy
discussion related to the nature of our online public access catalog: specifically,
are we ready to add records for individual pictures of objects to the catalog? Our
history involves adding collection level record bibliographic and item records, but
not records for individual items in non-print special collections. However, adding
records of these art works does add value to the catalog by enabling manipulation
of those objects’ metadata. Because book records from the Baggs collection have
been added to the catalog, the existence of art objects also in the catalog would
help researchers using the key words or subject headings or artists’ works or
student theses, etc.
Action: This may require future discussion at the Technical Services Committee
(TSC), but will be discussed with the Library Executive Committee (LEC) first if
FIN’s proposal is one recommended to be sent to OhioLINK. This is
fundamental to the FIN / Baggs project, and so we would need a decision on
creation of the MARC records. Some observed that those involved with the
Baggs collection think that the MARC record is nearly as valuable as access to the
digital surrogates.
EHS project metadata. Susan Logan reported that Leta Hendricks considers the
buttons to be the highest priority in the collection; this includes 467 items, some
individual buttons and some as grouped buttons on cards. Gayle Strege (Historic
Costumes Collection curator) has produced a Mac-based database (using 4D
software), to which Leta has access. We need to learn if it can be exported for
our purposes. There is some difference of opinion over whether the buttons on
the “cards” should be considered as individual buttons or as a set. (The
Huntington Archive has used the 4D database system; British Library reportedly
uses it, too. Maureen offered that the 4D company entertained grant proposals.
4D includes both the image and the metadata fields.).
Action: We need to learn if the 4D database can be exported for our purposes.
OARDC metadata: This project could be designated for the DMC science
database, using Dublin Core metadata standards. Connie Britton reports that there
is considerable metadata recorded on each slide image. She reports that OARDC
personnel could produce the metadata entry for the DMC. We lack a precise
count of the slides, but consider 1500 to be an accurate number of those at
OARDC. (Others have been distributed over the years for “safe keeping.”)
Connie proposes to do those at hand. Person at OARDC who has access to the
collection is taking a leave to work at the Ohio Forestry Ass’n. There may be
funding from that source, but this is no certainty.
Action: Imaging work is as-yet undecided, but it is expected to be work to be
done on a high-quality flat-bed scanner.
2
Observation regarding future DISC calls for proposals: In future we should
ask project proposal writers to provide more information with concrete examples,
which might include photocopies or digital photographs as attachments.
3. Coming to a DISC decision on technical and economic feasibility (or,
estimated ease of conversion).
DISC discussed how to evaluate the entirety of its group of six proposals, and to
rank them for recommendation to Library Executive Committee and then to
OhioLINK.
To inform the decision process, we must evaluate the technical and economic
feasibility of each. The technical feasibility factors involve:
1) metadata factors might be evaluated by “least” to “greatest” effort
2) imaging factors to be considered by
a. Number of images
b. Effort required to capture the images.
Ranking the metadata factors: Ranked in order of “least effort required” to “most
effort required”:
1. BPL’s Ohio Journal of Science can be a routine job of “cut and paste”.
However, size of the run is financial factor.
2. EHS – The metadata on the 467 buttons is essentially complete and in the 4D
database.
3. OARDC has complete intellectual info on each slide, but is it sufficiently
useful? Age of the collection is also a factor. Labels are on the slide and may be
adequate. There is no proposal to add more metadata.
4. Baggs: The metadata for this collection partially exists today; part of it needs to
be created.
5. TRI: some metadata exists, but it is being edited as part of the project. 200
pieces are ready; 800+ unknown. This may be relatively easy to do because it’s in
a database that we control (Access).
6. SEL : virtually no metadata is prepared for this collection.
All metadata is available: BPL, EHS, OARDC
Some metadata available: FIN, TRI
No metadata is available: .SEL
Other factors: Can we easily export from one system to another (e.g., from 4D to
VRA)?
3
Ranking the imaging factors:
1. Images exist in useable format: Baggs has 200 of 3000 objects as images
No images yet exist in useable format: EHS, OARDC, BPL, SEL, TRI
2. Number of images required to produce:
BPL: 24,000 images
OARDC : 1,500
Baggs: 3,000 items, as many as 9,000 views
TRI: 1,000
SEL: 4,000 - 6,000
EHS: under 1,000
Method for gathering the images:
OARDC: flatbed scanner
BPL: scanned page image and OCR
SEL: scanned page image and OCR
EHS, FIN, TRI: photographic images, with some scans
Some additional points to ponder as we weigh these six proposals to fairly evaluate
them:
With the BPL project, the large number of images to be created reduces its
feasibility. On the surface, the BPL OJS project looks fairly simple, but will
require written specifications, vendor selection and oversight.
FIN has a head start with its set-up phase completed; this could be factored into
the formula to raise its perceived feasibility.
EHS also has a process underway and a database well underway.
TRI has some experience with imaging, and has set up their database.
Financial factor: impact on library budget.
What information is still needed for us to arrive at our ultimate decision?
The number of proposals we will submit to OhioLINK in our first round is
unknown at this point, and is dependent upon the scope and expense of the
projects.
4
4. Agenda for September 4 meeting:
Ranking project costs and other factors.
Evaluating the projects as a group and avoiding any potential conflicts of
interest.
Coming to consensus on priority ranking.
WB
DISC 20020821.doc
5