Meeting Agendas & Minutes

September 26, 2017

Agenda

• Review Access: Discovery and Delivery section of Repository Principles Document
• Revew Service Planning section of Repository Principles Document

Access: Discovery and Delivery Section (Erin/Jenn)

• "Good job"!
• From mediating access section, consider adding link or info about infrastructure
• Some redundancy - eg needs assessment, user community sections
• Acknowledged that we have it; have decided to address it once we have all docs complete
• Intro talks about discovery and delivery but text then jumps to three other items - just to consider for presentation
• There are a few more links that might be useful to add, even if redundant would be useful to have them whenever a linkable service or group is mentioned

Service Planning (Jim/Sarah)

• Really a "pull it together" section because it pulls from lots of other existing content
• In needs assessment section, there is "extant service" that is slightly different from how later in the document there is a concept of an "extant system"
• Circular presentation of roles with "Service Sponsor" in roles section
• Content selector - aren't we trying to get these to be IN CUL??  Not always…

Additional comments:

• Should we add a glossary, that might include roles and other definitions? Has been discussed and will reconsider when pulling whole document together.
• Remaining sections all underway
  • Infrastructure and Interoperability (Chris and Michelle)
  • Outreach (Library A&C Office)
  • Assessment (Library A&C Office)
  • Documentation (Erin and Dianne)
• Hope to wrap up project for presentation to group and sponsors by end of year; present to CUL at large in Jan/Feb.
  
  

July 25, 2017

Agenda

• Announcements and Updates
  
• Repository Principles subgroup update
• HathiTrust release project presentation for Charlston Conference

Announcements and Updates (all)

• (Gail) eCommons upgrade to 6.1, but time TBD
• (Gail) DLXS collections moving to eCommons
• (Gail) Scholarly Comm team talking to units not served by bpress about their use/lack of use of eCommons
  • Sending anything appropriate to Haiti there to be preserved
  • For content that has structural requirements will go into Hyrax
  • Collection brand requirements would have portal pages built for them with catalog metadata
  • Working with Collection Development (Kizer) to work through what collections need what
• (Jenn) Getting ready to take content from A&S grants into Hyrax
• (Gail) eCommons exploring a change-management workflow with help of Chris Manly and Michelle
• (Jenn) with google going away, will index eCommons into solar with digital collections to allow display in a bento box of ecommons items
• (Jim) ILR has two inquiries about journal support - will let us know how it progresses
  • One from another publisher - faculty member wants to transfer from another bpress instance
  • One not yet published digitally
  • Their license has 5 instances they can use for publishing, so no added costs
  • Would run like ILR Review and library would not get involved unless really needed

Repository Principles working group update (Jim, Wendy, Sarah)

• Content under development
  • Service Planning
  • Access
• Content recently added to wiki
  • Metadata
• 2-4 more sections to go
• Formatting questions
  • Accordions
    • Danger of the expand macro going away in confluence is real
    • No strong opinions, generally printed, so accordions don’t help
  • Terse TOC's
    • If we like the terse headings, why are we asking the questions in the first place?
  • Other suggestions
    • Footer - release vs update
    • Add last reviewed date - check how CUL does other policies

Summary of ongoing work on HathiTrust release project, including proposal for concurrent session at Charleston Conference (Nov 6-10) (Sarah)

May 23, 2017

Agenda

• Announcements and Updates

• Discuss presentation of repositories in the discovery layer

• Present Metadata principles document / get feedback from group at large

Announcements and Updates

• Trip to Bentley for Michelle's group to look at Archivemata is upcoming

• Mann has finished phase 1 of sending Hathi Trust 1700 documents 

Discuss presentation of repositories in the discovery layer

• Item level representation in the discovery layer would be preferred
• Will need to work with individual repo managers to discuss capabilities
• Repos that can be harvested via OAI-PMH or APIs would be the ones to incorporate

Present Metadata principles document / get feedback from group at large

• Refer to box document for feedback
• Please email additional comments
  
  

April 25, 2017

Agenda

•  Announcementes and Updates
• Repository Principles Subgroup Work Discussion

Announcements and Updates

• Michelle updated us on the IT work onsetupof Preservation Storage Service. They're looking for letters of intent to present withcharterto Dave Lifka for approval.
• Mann submittedsetof items toHaithiforfull textsharing.
• Reminderof two Scholarlycommunicationsworking groups that are currently active:
  • One team gathering information onuseof eCommons.
  • Another team is looking into what and University-wide Open Access policy would mean for the library and how to models for how to makea OApolicy requiring local submission work.
• CULAR maxed out at 16TB last fall so looking for a different storage model and have been able to find a solution.

Repository Principles Subgroup Work Discussion

• Review of Preservation section – let us know what you think!

  • GS: Section on content steward - maybe make this clear that stewards may also be from outside the library

• Review of online content https://confluence.cornell.edu/display/culpublic/Cornell+University+Library+Repository+Principles+and+Strategies

  • Could we put it on eCommons? Theoretically yes… but ideally would like also to have the ability to have comments/feedback on the document.

    • Could add to the landing page a link to a place for people to provide feedback (eg Google form, or box document)
  • Move things there annually or when a new version is needed.

    • Confluence CAN support commenting (even online), so that's a benefit of that.

      • Add a note to the top of the page encouraging people to add comments inline and how to do that.
    • Make sure we have contact info for every section

    • What's the relationship b/w this doc and the CUL policy documents? 

      • Sharepoint site has policies - section on both private and public
      • Somewhere else onstaffwebthat might be appropriate
    • Add dates to documents - created, reviewed, next review due

    • Maybe do both eCommons and Confluence - link back and forth between the two in both the online and print versions. Consider a table with changes by people, when and change-log

    • Look into Expand Macro for confluence - maybe we could use that

    • MP: is any of the curation content in the preservation document duplicative to the intro curation document

    • For long document, can also create a page with two column and put a TOCinthe left to aid in navigation.

    • GS: Re Rights Management - much of it would be interesting public-facing info, could it live elsewhere and be pointed to from this document

February 28, 2017

Agenda

• Announcements and Updates
• Repository Principles Updates
• Mann Digitization Workflow Discussion

Announcements and Updates

• eCommons is Testing Dspace 6, with 7 not too far away
• Two Scholarly Comminication working group activities
• Foster more productive relations b/w eCommons and unit libraries who use them - understanding workflows and needs
  • Open Access Policy at Cornell - what would the library do if we adopted this at a university

Repository Principles Updates

• Reviewed group charge and status update - next documents on deck are preservation and metadata
• Reviewed the draft of the Rights Management Section of the Repository Principles Document
  • What isn’t in this document that you think should be addressed?
    • Maybe present in terms of audience?
  • Is there anything in this document you think is superfluous or inappropriate?
    • Maybe too much overhead - present as what's a minimum?
    • On self-submission repos, much of this document is not applicable
    • At law, like eCommons, responsibility if fully on the shoulders of the submitter.
    • At HLM, they do a little more to help determine copyright status and get permission, sometimes even ask publishers for permission, but generally don't have to do this.
    • Mann does have to address these issues with BHL and Haiti so really good for them.
    • Add something if/when and Open Access Policy is passed at Cornell?
  • What’s the easiest way for you to engage with the Repository Principles document? Please consider both format and location.
    • Have so far considered public confluence site.
    • More visuals along with the text
    • Libguide?
    • PDF Attachement for visuals
    • Tie into org charts for providing context
    • What is "public"? Can we point to it from StaffWeb?
    • Is there any concerns about too much traffic to copyright@cornell.edu it might generate if public? General feeling was "no"
  • We are considering including “checklists” to each section – would people find this useful? Should those remain part of the topical sections, or be pulled together into an appendix or other document?
  • Thinking about outreach: how should we let people outside this group know about this document?
  • Thinking about maintenance: what is a sustainable schedule for review and updating of this material?
    • Yes, needs to be done!
  • Remaining sections that might be included in this document are listed below. How should we prioritize these?
    • Security/Infrastructure (1 vote)
    • Service planning (1 vote)
    • Discovery/Delivery/Access
    • Outreach

Mann Digitization Workflow Discussion

• Reviewed Sarah Kennedy's digitization workflow chart from Mann - she will incorporate feedback and thanks the group for their input
  

November 21, 2016

Agenda

• Announcements and Updates
• Agriknowledge Demo and Update

Announcements and Updates

• New Repo-Exec Member: Sarah Kennedy from Mann - Collection Development & Digital Collections Librarian
• New CUL employee: Jasmine Burns - Visual Resources Metadata Librarian started today
• Hydra community user experience group distributed testing on 7.2 which is what Mann will be using - looking for 3-5 testers from each institution. Cornell looking for volunteers - contact Jenn. Looking for Staff - repo technicians, managers, archivists etc.
• Repo Principles Subgroup - Rights management subgroup and metadata sections work underway
• arXiv sustainable management grant (see Oya's DSPS blog post), and Gail putting more time on that. Chloe McClaren will be picking up time/effort for eCommons
• In area of Digital Scholarship: finding new homes for DPubs content, and documenting local code changes for eCommons 

Agriknowledge Demo and Update (Lynette Rayle)

• https://agriknowledge.org/
• Wanted ability to do search and browse by controlled vocabularies and by particular collections.
• Search in background is Blacklight
• Controlled vocabularies are represented in the facets
• Previously, metadata team had to add documents by hand - complex and time consuming, but Sufia now provides user interface to meet metadata needs
  • Can add metadata in bulk to a batch of files
  • Can pull in keywords from externally controlled vocabularies
• Have metadata tips
• Currently based over Sufia 6, so use same metadata for all documents
  • Sufia 7 has concept of a work type, so different metadata can show up based on type
• Sufia 6 also has no workflow built in - 7 has configurable, mediated workflow built in
• In 7, can assign roles (editors, publishers, reviewers) with automated transfer between states expected to have PR with that functionality
  • Multiple work types is already available in 7
• Workflow states are available
• Q: Batch upload by spreadsheet? In progress from CSV using bags technology
• Sufia 7 upgrade for Agriknowledge - not sure when it's happening, but is part of the new contract which has been granted. ESMIS project currently being built ON 7 is a priority before an Agriknowledge transition

September 26, 2016

Agenda

• Repository Principles Subgroup Work Discussion
• Announcements

Repository Principles Discussion

• Four Over-arching Principles as shared in Jim's email "define" what a repository is in this context. Key point is that a repository isn't a "thing", it's a "service".

• Audienceforthe document? A: Not defined originally, but writing it for repository service managers.

• There may be cases where the repo doesn't exist yet and this document would be useful, so perhaps a wider audience?

• Think about this in terms of projects, which may begin before the repository exists.

• The current definition may be a little broad, including things like digital content. Would push to include the definition in the actual document

• Can seeutilityin sharing this more widely - could bea helpfulin flushing out job descriptions, etc.

• Found very useful for work with Extension, esp for those creatingreposbut don't even know it. Liked the idea of "ecosystem"

• Wordsmithing suggestion: current draft flips back and forth between "setup" and "maintenance" and while content useful to both, maybe separate them for clarity?

• Include a section with definitions, eg. "curation"

• Echo need for definition of what a repository IS (perhaps rather that what it isn't?), at least in the context of this document

• Would this document be a place where we could include examples/references, and link to the inventory work already done?

• Document about policy development for data (https://www.coar-repositories.org/files/guide.pdf)

• Suggestion: Includetableof contents!

• Suggestion: Be sure to point to this group as a resource

• There is, at times in CUL, a belief that we can make a new repo that can handle things better than what's already existing. Can we use this document to encourage conversations to help make these decisions?

  • That conversation needs to include cost - is it worth the cost to get the added features.

  • The role of LibExec is also to also encourage these conversations, and have the transparency that will make things seem less top-down.

• Question about "roles" in creating the document. Roles are parsed out inthisdocument,butknow that they're not always as clear as it makes them seem here.

• Idea: make a document that lays out roles for each of our existing repositories?

• We often focus on what the repo does, rather than what we hope it aspires to… trying to change that mentality will help with the discussion of when it's better to merge/expand rather than start a new one from scratch.

• Suggestion: So far we're not talking about creating much documentation - be sure that's included!

• Additional sections to create as the subgroup continues its work:  Service Planning/Sustainability - curation - preservation - metadata - security and rights management - assessment - outreach - security - interoperability - infrastructure and maintenance - discovery - inject - documentation

• Subgroup wants to be thinking of this as a living document. Will put out calls for help on each section.

Announcements:

• Gail: eCommons: grad school migration to ProQuest is happening, and the first batch will be January. Including eCommons license visible during submission, addressing embargos, DOIs upon request, FERPA release storage, collection coordinator workflows.
• Simeon: ORCID - ORCiD update: Met with identity man people at Cornell about what it means to roll ORCiD into institutionID management system. Outcomeis to encourage faculty to use the institutional login now available in ORCiD. Could eventually potentially add a feature that would link ORCiD ID with Cornell ID. If all that happens, it might (again eventually) be that when someone logs in to eCommons, eCommons would know their ORCiD
  
  • How would it work when you're submitting on behalf of someone else?
  • DSpace would need some modeling to get ORCiD's to be associated with the work
  • There is an effort being led by metadata services to look at managing identities across repositories, so this issueisreallyacrossthe board, not just with DSpace!
• Michelle: ICPSR data fair (webinar) this week in Mann Mon-Thur 12-4. Topics include ICPSR, their Open Data Portal, DDI
• Jeff: Work continuing on CUGIR using GeoBlacklight and GeoServer under that. Data will be available as awebservice,

June 27, 2016

Agenda

• Announcements
• Repository Inventory Subgroup Update
• Repository Policy/Strategies Subgroup Update
• Hydra Evaluation Subgroup Update

Announcements

• (Oya) arXiv 25th Anniversary August this year
• "arXiv at 25" sustainability initiative
• User survey - result available this Wednesday
• ~90% happy with the service
• Not about the features, more about stability
• Direct costs currently at about $850,000 annually
• Gift Campaign up now on site - goal of raising $2million for infrastructure improvements
• 190 member libraries at this time
• (Dean) 2-day Cornell IT Security Summit happening tomorrow and Wed
• Security risk analysis and mitigation efforts - will affect our systems too (eg especially legacy systems like GloPad)
• (Michael) July 18th Sarah Kennedy new staff member coming to Mann, with Repository (CALS) efforts at Mann.
• (Oya) Working with Ivies+ to create a private network to preserve our content in ArchiveIt, using LOCKSS

Repository Inventory Subgroup Update

(Michelle and Jenn)

• Draft of document added to Wiki working space
• Removed "Luna", "Locale", "Cornell Domain"
• Re "Cornell Domain" - not a repository that we need to make decisions about preservation, resources dedicated, policy for non-cornell domains, etc.
• Consider separating ArchiveIt into the separate collections because they're handled differently
• Maybe for the purposes of this document, we keep it, but it's possibly something that can be addressed elsewhere in the work of RepoExec
• Ultimately, consider this inventory as a place to start thinking about how we're handling policy, assessing how we're handling our accessioned assets.
• ArchiveIt + Cornell Domain - maybe the efforts to address these question is the work of the policy group?
• Added new Fedora Repos, separated by Fedora3 vs Fedora4 infrastructure, plus others
• How do these all relate to the digital registry and other work of Michelle's group's efforts for digital curation management?  Digital Curation Services will explore ways to bring the registry, DCAPS production practices, and the survey into closer alignment.
  
• Metrics
• Number of "things" and "aggregate size" to give a rough picture of how big the bag is.
• ArchiveIt has additional issues for these metrics (seeds, vs files, vs sites etc)
• Preservation
• Valuable feature would be to use identifiers to connect systems, so descriptors re-worked to address things via that coordination

Repository Policy/Strategies Subgroup Update

• (Jim) Erin Faulder and Jim DelRosso leading
• Met once as whole group, another meeting of chairs
• Set membership, started with high-level principles, but want detailed, useful information included
• First round of ideas out to the subgroup for feedback

Hydra Evaluation Subgroup Update

1. Created features for all user stories
2. Set aside all features that are exclusive to repositories other than eCommons (for example readership maps and cover page creation (bepress), or ties to secondary preservation systems for storage replication (CULAR)). There were also a few features that are not currently done in eCommons, but have been stated as a priority for CUL, so remain in the evaluation (eg. ORCID integration).
3. Evaluated all features against current state of Hydra/Sufia development, marking them as
1. Green (~60%): Can currently be handled, with minimal customization anticipated
2. Yellow (~30%): Sufia can do these to some extent or differently than described in the feature(s). Additional development needed to implement this feature
3. Red (~10%): Not yet underway in the Hydra community; would require significant development to implement
4. Also addressed Policy Issues, Migration Issues (including metadata design) and Maintenance issues
5. Possible stumbling blocks / some of the major hurdles include:
1. OAI-PMH
2. Issues around mediated deposit
3. Mapping of communities and collections
4. Batch handling
5. Versioning - not surfaced in Sufia (not currently a high priority in community)
6. There was a DSpace -> Hydra migration discussion/conf call 6/22 (there are other institutions work on this, none very far along).

From Lynette:

• Multi-part works are part of Sufia 7
• Multiple-part work types work is going on too
• Lynette has a list of 7 things she thinks will need significant work, but 4 are actively being worked on in Sufia Community
• Not addressed: batch editing, reporting,
• Worked on: admin features, mediated workflow, work types, configurable metadata (only for whole site, not for work type, or by collection)

From Dean:

• DSpace/eCommons is not necessarily high on the list of things to move (in terms of urgency due to problems with current system). Gail noted that DSpace upgrades expected within the next year will change to a new programming language, which might require staffing changes, and therefore might be a logical time to transition.

From Oya:

• Remember to think about and address in evaluation: "What does it mean, why should we be doing it?"
  
  

April 25, 2016

Agenda

• Announcements
• Strategies discussion

Announcements

• Introductions, including new members: Michelle Edwards (CISER Data Librarian) and Erin Faulder (Digital Archivist at RMC)
• (Jason) Funded: IMLS Grant for National Forum for Addressing Local Sharable Authorities
• (Michelle P) Hathi expanding access to groups with print disabilities, all copyright materials, regardless of print holdings
• (Oya) COAR (Conf for Open Access Repositories) meeting - partnering with SPARK - international body looking into repositories. Working group on "next generation IRs", led by Herbert Van de Sompel from Los Alamos.
  
  • Four main focus areas (draft):
    

    • Develop global interoperability through web-friendly repository technologies and architectures. The current reliance on OAI-PMH is not optimal for discovery and interoperability. Future repositories and repository networks should rely less on “passive” aggregation and develop services based on “active” dissemination (like peer-to-peer architectures).

    • Develop/improve repository functionality relatedwithpublication and quality assessment,defining  amodel for an overlay layer on top of repositories. This overlay layer will use standardized, open peer-review to add value to the network of repositories.

    • Improve repository workflows. This will include better ingest mechanisms and broadening the functionalities of repositories to support the full lifecycle of research.

    • Define and adopt reliable and interoperable usage and impact metrics and tools for repository content.

• Recommends watching talk by Anurag Acharya from Google at Open Repositories 2015 (https://media.dlib.indiana.edu/media_objects/avalon:16122)
• More information about the COAR effort will be posted to: https://www.coar-repositories.org/activities/advocacy-leadership/working-group-next-generation-repositories/
• (Wendy) Funded: SLOAN grant for creation of pilot Data Curation Network (https://sites.google.com/site/datacurationnetwork/)
  

Strategies Discussion

The Strategies Evaluation Subgroup looked at all notes and feedback from November 2015's strategies brainstorming session. Four ideassurfaced,and were presented to the Repository Executive Group in a survey to get feedback on interest in those topics, and people's willingness to participate if the subgroup(s) was formed.

The four suggested groups are:

Survey results show that development of a set of "repository principles" for CUL is most interesting to the most people.

Discussion:

• Group should consider anything from D&A process that might inform these principles
• How to maintain and put in practice??
  • Creating it is a process, but really need to consider how it can be promoted, how to give it broad ownership, how to keep it alive
• Make sure it's something that's USED.
  
• Make it a strategy document, informed by best principles, so it might be implementable
• More than principles that we lobby for, but more that we make it a strategy that has the authority to move it forward.
• Use this to to give agency to RepoExec. Authority is essential - without it, it may be "just another document"
• Work might provide best practices also - a practical aspect  
• What stakeholders need to be represented?
• Metadata Services
• Repository Managers
• If preservation is included, Archives should be involved.
• Consider thinking in terms of streams by which objects get into our current repositories
  
• People who work with the users - liaison, promotion, why our repositories are valuable
• 3-5 month group size
• Make it more iterative - bring to larger group more often
• First goals, then principles, then maybe strategies
• Report back early and often
• Moving forward: Will put out call for participation so group can get started.
  

February 22, 2016

Agenda  

• Guest Speakers
  • Hannah Marshall. Pictor to Shared Shelf Migration
  •  Mira Basara. Luna to Shared Shelf Migration 

Summary Minutes

Pictor Migration

Background:

• Pictor was a local Access database that was movedinto intoArtStore's Shared Shelf
• Shared Shelf has been the go-to tool for images - except for the faculty collection, which had been in Pictor (prev maint by KVRC).
• Pictor was in Access - cataloged locally, periodically, approxevey6 months, exported to Artstore, who would flatten the database, then load and publish
• Shared Shelf is web-based, cuts out turn-around process, more control over the publishing process, reduced publishing time.

Process:

• Projectoverseenby 4 different librarians and many students, so data were messy.
• Had to map their Pictor database to the SS cataloging tool.
• Has been great for streamlining the student training process.

Notes about working with Artstor 

• Web-based is very convenient
• Users benefit from discovery environment
• Integrates with controlled vocabularies
• Can now use hydra-based discovery and delivery options 
• More flexible delivery in terms of faceting, searching 
•  More sophisticated viewers b/c it's stored at Artstor but we're pulling it in and delivering using IIIF

Process and current status

• Some data might not have been transferred with batch upload, but no information about the images lost
• Turn-around now , excluding actual digitization, could be as short as two weeks
• Backlog issue that was resolved?
  
  • When Hannah started, she was cataloging images full time to get through a ~5000 image backlog.
  • New cataloging in Pictor was not happening, but Shared Shelf catalging tool was not ready for use. Despite this, build up only 1000 images during the process, and now have another term-hire metadata librarian to process those.
• Metadata refreshes nightly, so changes reflected within 24h.

Luna Migration

Luna brought by Johnson Museum to Cornell 1998.

Luna limitations:

• One browser link for each collection, so no cross-collection search
• Firstinstallation had four clients, and each held on different servers
• Used to have to export Pictor database to Luna
• Museum collection cataloged in TMS (oraclebased museum system), difficult to publish in Luna
• 24 collections with unique schema
• Luna didn't support bulk data update
• Did create VRA customized model
• Luna moved to MySQL, while all their other databases were in Oracle, which made for very difficult upgrades

Luna advantages lost:

• Annotations, but primarily used only for Johnson collection and they were willing to give up
• Group presentations, but again 90% were with one Johnson collection, which was not moved
• PDF book reader support lost so for images, can't zoom in
• Now upload page by page of book, andwholePDF also
• Luna had more granular user permissions
• Luna had mobile device support, Artstore doesn't support
• Luna customer support was better

Process:

• 2005 three collections sent as pilot to Artstore
• 2009 CUL development partnership with Artstore, worked to develop cataloging tool
  
  • Artstorehas great options for varying level of access for how you publish collections
• Migration from Luna to Artstore started in 2009, but really stepped up in 2015 because of security issues
• Contacted users to inform of migration (helped download and save groups etc)
• Resource migration
• Some collections moved to eMuseum, which did have some issues b/c not all images initially transferred
• Metadata migration
• Relational databases had to be flattened to a spreadsheet
• Luna exported XML, but not useful
• Luna test server was finally shut down last week
• Work Underway still to preserve original metadata
• Goal is to shut down Luna production server by Spring 2016

Lessons learned:

• Technicalreason for movement is helpful!
• MOU with A&S in 2009 hadtwo yeartransition from Luna to Artstore, but still… inertia was hard to overcome and transition never as easy as it looks!

Question: Plantoevaluatehowpeople  areusing/ arethey satisfied?

• Already known issue: ArtStore does not support very granular analytics

November 24, 2015

Agenda

• Announcements and updates
• DSPS reorganization update
• Discussion of 2015 strategies

Summary Minutes

Announcements and updates

(Wendy): Watch for emails to plan/confirm time for 2016 meetings

DSPS reorganization update

(Oya): Shared highlights of the ongoing reorganization plan for DSPS, including new positions of "Director of Digitization and Conservation" (Tre Berney), "Director of Digital Curation Services" (Michelle Paolillo) and "Director of Scholarly Communication" (Gail Steinhart).

Discussion of 2015 strategies

Broke into smaller groups to discuss strategies previously presented for RepoExec in 2015. Each group discussed how we've done so far employingthatstategy,if it was still needed/appropriate, and then brainstormed specific ideas on how we could potentially further that effort. A small group of volunteers will tally all ideas, and present at a future meeting a prioritized list of efforts for the group to focus on in 2016.

October 26, 2015

Agenda

• Hydra/Sufia Development Update
• Digital Collections Portal Development Update
• Announcements and updates from group

Summary Minutes

Hydra/Sufia Update (Lynette Rayle)

Digital Collections Portal Development Update (Jenn Colt)

http://digital-stg.library.cornell.edu/
 

• Working in Hydra
• Currently for content in places like DLXS, Fedora, Kaltura, Shared Shelf
  
• Law and SEAV have separate access portals
• Immediate needs
• Contain contextual sites
• Replace DLXS
• Addressing those collections that are going "through" shared shelf
• Question: is there any plan to work with GeoBlacklight to allow geospatial searching (Stanford - Earthworks)
• Darcy might also be looking into GeoBlacklight
• Needed: defining scope of what collections are in this portal
• Some collections need customized access points

Additional Discussion:

• What are the arguments against or for using Digital Portal for eCommons?
  • User interfaces.
  • What about using the portal to present eCommons content (not moving it over… using it instead as a discovery tool)?
• This might be a good place to help pull the content into the catalog?
• UBC Open Collections work (https://open.library.ubc.ca/)
  
• Digital Portal effort might be a good use case for the "customized" collections that some of the CCE needs
• Relationship between portal and registry of digital collections?

Announcements and updates (all)

Oya: Cornell meeting on campus' open access policy happening today.

Wendy: Tentative plan tohaveguestspeakercome to Cornell: Ben Fino-Radin, Digital Repository Manager at MoMA. Would be co-"sponsored" by RepoExec and Metadata Working Group; date TBD, possibly January.

September 28, 2015

Agenda

• Announcements and updates from group
• IR Subgroup Update
• AV Streaming Group Updates

Summary Minutes

Announcements and updates (all)

• Jim: Hotel school moved to new website so all publications content now in Scholarly Commons

IR Subgroup Update (Jim DelRosso, with Wendy Kozlowski, Michelle Paolillo, David Ruddy and Simeon Warner)

• Charge: Determine what features the future Hydra implementation will requireto meetthe needs of service providers and users currently using DSpace or Digital Commons.
• Method:
  
  • Started with User Stories generated bylastSubGroup and built features from them.
  • Used JIRA and organized them by "Feature Category" and made "Issues" for each feature.
  • Built relationships between User stores and Features, User Stories and User Stories and Features and Features.
  • Prioritized the features - Critical, Major, Minor
• Feedback:

  • Question: User stories supposed to represent all IR content? Ans: No, just eCommons and bePress.

  • Question: Meant to inform the development a single repository, or multiple? Ans: working under the assumption of "repository framework". Informed by LEG saying we're moving with Hydra.

  • Suggestion:  Scope - maybe explicitly state this?

  • Comment: Document might be a good framework to judge/build more generally, and characterizing our need

  • Question: Have we compared this to current development? Ans: not yet, but that's supposed to be our next step.

  • Comment: This should be a live, growing document and needs to be added to as repo development progresses.

  • Comment: One thought was that if something like this is used going forward, "critical" would be "minimal viable product" - if we had those items, would befeelgood about the system?

  • Question: Assessment against Hydra is next, but have we compared them against bePress and eCommons current capabilities? Ans: not systematically, but user stories spun directly out of user stories.

  • Comment: One way to reality check the priorities would be that the things we can do now in our repositoriesismarked as "critical"inthis list (or at least evaluate that) - would help withbuy-inof a new system.

  • Comment: What is prioritized in this document is the features, not the user stories. It might be possible for those to be "calculated" and perhaps it would be a useful exercise.

  • Comment: We might use this idea of "MVP" - a system you can migrate other content to, or would we be "stuck" in this new system just like we currently are?

    • Comment: We'd need to be confident that development will go beyond the MVP stage.

    • Comment: If we use critical functionalities as MVP, but we might already be in good shape. (128 - might be too lofty)

    • Comment: If we're deciding on what the critical elements are going live, make sure we don't take a stepbackwards. Example 1.2.7 should be critical.

    • Comment: Need to launch from a perspective that you need to launch from a point that someone would want to continue development.

  • Comment: This dovetails with Digital portal work - couldn't one day these all coalesce and merge - do we really need more than one repository - some might have more branding and some less.

  • Comment: Someday the distinction (branding) might be less, but might be driven by the systems we're currently using or available at the time

  • Comment: Seems to be a lot of overlap with the delivery and discovery side, but not so much on the deposit side (WRT Digital Portal)

    • Comment: Shared Shelf and Kaltura also include a cataloging workflow… maybe this should be done in phases?

  • Comment: WRTbrandablilty,customability- maybe some of these could be broken down - comparison with AV group deciding on what content pushed to eCommons and what to Digital Portal?

• Moving Forward:
  • New Subgroup Activity: Compare this list of features with current development of Hydra/Sufia
  • New Subgroup Activity: Begin thinking about roadmap and budget for development
  • Other considerations:
    

    • Consider commonalities of current image portal work with our work… what's implicit vs what current requirements are?

    • CheckHyrdawiki for that document.

    • Do we make a recommendation that we start to consider not just eCommons but digital portal content too?? (Will need further discussion).

AV Streaming Group Update (Danielle Mericle)

• Closing in on recommendations
• Policydocument will be disseminated widely.
• Not represented incurrentversion ofreport- cheat sheet that Peter H and Danielle and others created for people to know how to preserve specific content.
• Reviewed content types

1. Licensed content
2. Collection Development - possible integration with this work and the IR development here.
3. Self-Submission content

• Next phases
  1. Approval from RepoExec
  2. Disseminate policies
  3. Shift content where needed
  4. Preservation plan
     
     

July 27, 2015

Agenda

• Announcements and updates from group
• SHARE update and CHORUS introduction
• eCommons upgrade update
• IR subgroup update
• Discussion: facilitating "communication"

Summary Minutes

Announcements and updates (all)

• Danielle:
  
  • Hydra group will present to CUL soon. Exploratory work on integrating some of the collections (Shared Shelf, Kaltura, DLXS) has been successful.Ideallywill haveunifiedfront end for digital collections (in Blacklight to dovetail with D&A) that allowsrobustsearch. Continuing to work on incorporating/supporting contextual pages for each collection.
  • We are not working on the Johnson Museum collections; they're going with eMuseum, which they will support.
  • Luna is being deaccessioned.
• Dean: We are an IIIF founding sponsor. Jenn: working within housecode for making this work. Need to push back on ArtStor, since they're still indemoon it.
• Gail: working with Zsuzsa to get stories out about http://blogs.cornell.edu/publicaccesshelp/. This is in support of new funding requirements.

SHARE update and CHORUS introduction (Gail Steinhart and Wendy Kozlowski)

• Gail attended f2f meeting of SHARE working group (http://www.share-research.org/)
• SHARE was planned to be a federated search engine on research outputs that are federally funded, and it still is, butIRshaven't contributed as much as anticipated.
• SHARE Notify puts out a constant stream of (sometimes messy) data from CRossRef, arXiv,IRs. Plan to develop curatorial systems to provide clean data to the registry.
• SHARE working groups
  • moving data from campus to SHARE (and possibly back again?)
  • another looking at providing information to funding agencies
  • Gail isona working group looking at interoperability with VIVO
• There's a group (IRIS) looking at using data to demonstrate the impact of research on the university. IRIS may tackle the stories around the data, while SHARE tackles the data.
• Wendy talked about CHORUS (http://www.chorusaccess.org/)
  
  • Strictly related to publications response; not handling data.
  • Over 100 publishers participate, have built another data store using CrossRef metadata, and author-supplied funder metadata.
  • This will then be searchable, but they're only using metadata, not supplying the publications themselves.
  • Questions about whether CHORUS is actually "free", orwillcostsbepassed along to libraries via subscriptions, licensing etc.
• Gail: therewasquestions in SHARE about rights to metadata. In order to participate, you need to put your metadata under the CC0 licenses. Questions about whether abstracts are copyrighted. Peter indicated they might pull back on that requirement; we may only need to assert that the metadata is sharable.

eCommons upgrade update (David Ruddy)

• DSpace upgrade happened the July 13th 
  
  • v1.8 to 5.2
  • continuing to work on small improvements and bugs
• Improved features include:
  • responsive front end (thank you Melissa), better search capability,eEmbeddable AV viewer, versioning for datasets
• Moved to a new URL. (ecommons.cornell.edu)
• Talking to Weill about their desired repository solution, which may be eCommons - details yet to be worked out
  
  • Discussion about "What is eCommons?" Is it a set of specific services? Is there policy integrity? Weill may want more autonomy. RepoExec is an appropriate group to address that question.
• Evan @RMC: patrons are using it, having some trouble with phrased searching. Asking for specific issues, so they can be sent along to eCommons admins

IR subgroup update (Jim DelRosso)

• Bepress recommendation to LEG was to not accept offer
• Working in JIRA but will create output useful to larger group for review and feedback
• Starting with User Stories to create features needed in Hydra/Sufiabased system, but also need to consider infrastructure, sustainability, etc.

Discussion: facilitating “communication” (all)

• Group will share agendas aheadofmeeting, minutes will be posted to public Wiki, both will be announced on CU-LIB.
• Will accept agenda item requests via email to Wendy, and also create a spot on the Wiki for this
• Wendy raised the questions of sharing minutes/agenda
• Wendy: do we need to broader communications?
• Dean: Schedule broader presentations for specific topics
  • Use forums such as R&O and Metadata Working Group

June 22, 2015

Agenda

1. IR subgroup update: It has been a very interesting month for the IR subgroup, as events of the last several weeks have led to alterations in our original mission and timeline. Specifically,bepress put forth an offer for a campus-wide Digital Commons contract, and LEG weighed in on strategies for system evaluation and the CUL's move to Hydra.Discussion will focus not just on these events, but where the subgroup is headed for the next months.
2. Member updates: An opportunity will be given for committee members to communicate what they've been working on.

Summary

• The IR subgroup will be focusing their attentionson on identifying functional and resourcerequirementsforHydradevelopment, since CUL is committed to that development.
• Potential challenges were discussed, along with the history of the development to date, including Blacklight. Timelines were discussed, with three years being put forth as the time needed to develop a system to handle new repository projects. Migration would likely take longer, to ensure that extant user needs were being effectively met. The importance of how this would interact with the larger discovery environment was discussed. When thinking about costs and timelines, plans must include migration, implementation, oversight, assessment, not just development.
• CALS-CHE is not at the moment going to be a Hydra/Sufia pilot, but Agriknowledge is. Development there is proceeding well.
• The need for increased communication, as well as staff support and buy-in, was mentioned. This communication should not only focus on why we've chosenthispath,but how we're going to be proceeding.
• The need was expressed for service agreements covering new repository services, covering development, maintenance, and ongoing tech support.
• Overall, the importance of stakeholder involvement throughout development and implementation was stressed.
• An offer has been madebybepressfora CUL-wide contract, which has impacted the work of the IR group. The group talked about the formation of a second subgroup to specifically address the question of considerationofbepressasa “bridge” IR for new collections that need a home before Hydra is ready to take on new content. Interested parties should reach out to Jim and/or Wendy.

April 30, 2015

Agenda

1. Report back from meeting with LEG 
2. Report back on user stories progress
3. Updates from committee members
4. Continued discussion of ongoing strategies for RepoExec

March 19, 2015 

Agenda

1. General updates and announcements
2. eCommons & Weill (David Ruddy)
3. RepoExec evaluation and discussion (Oya Rieger)

January 26, 2015

"I am happy to report that the subgroup dedicated to producing user stories for IR-style digital repositories has completed a draft of said stories for your perusal. I'd like to thank Wendy, Jenn, Simeon, Jeff, Mark, and David for all their hard work on this! The project could not have happened without them.

November 17, 2014 

1. Chris Manly will talk to us about security issues surrounding repositories at Cornell.
2. David Ruddy will give us an update on eCommons
3. Discussion of how collections are prioritized for Hydra
4. Report on the RepoExec presentation at R&O
5. Report on the activities of the IR subgroup

SUMMARY

Chris Manly spoke about security issues surrounding repositories at Cornell

October 27, 2014 

Agenda

1. Jean Pajerek will talk about Law's implementation of Selected Works
2. Mary Ochs will update everyone on the work of the CHE-CALS Sufia-Hydra pilot group
3. Jim DelRosso will give an update on what the digital repository user needs subgroup is working on

September 22, 2014 

Agenda

1. Report from the Mann Repositories Group: Mann Library has been making strides in establishing a digital repository; Mary Ochs and others from Mann will share with RepoExec what they're working on and where they're at with it.
2. Report from the Hydra Pilot Group: Similarly, the Hydra pilot group has successfully migrated the Southeast Asia Visions Collection from DLXS to Hydra, and developmentstherehaveare highly relevant to the work RepoExec is doing. Danielle Mericle will report on their work.
3. Discussion of content subgroups: Attached please find the current draft of the content subgroup responsibilities. The first two items of discussion will inform what our subgroups will focus on, so I hope to wrap up with designating those areas offocus, and approve the description of responsibilities. Interested people can then volunteer via email.

August 25, 2014 

Agenda

1. Oya and Dean will not be in attendance.
2. We will be discussing the purpose of RepoExec: not just the charge, but also what's been accomplished thus far, and where we need to go next.
3. While the functionality team will discuss what we've been working on, it will be in the context of the aforementioned discussion of purpose.

June 30, 2014 

Agenda

1. Ohio State University Library Digital Initiatives Program: Gail brought this to our attention, and it seems very relevant to our committee's work. The Ohio State University Library created a Strategic Digital Initiatives Working Group to tackle a similar set of issues to those we're facing, and that group's work has resulted into a poster and a set of guiding principles (detailed here and here). We'll start our meeting by the OSUL work, as well as what areas are relevant to the work of RepoExec. (See also CUL's somewhat older Operating Principles for Digital Assets as a potential point of comparison.)
2. Repository Functionality Working Group: This subgroup -- consisting of Danielle, Wendy, Michelle, Melissa, and Jim -- will discuss the progress we've made on constructing a framework for describing CUL repositories. We'll also have some questions for the committee as a whole.
3. Talking shop: The remaining time will be dedicated to committee members describing their current projects. 

April 22, 2014

Agenda

1. Repository Functionality Working Group: The group met earlier this week, and put together a plan of action for the coming weeks/months. We'll present that plan to the full committee for feedback.
2. What we're working on: Jean Pajerek, Melissa Wallace, and Michelle Paolillo will speak about the repository-related projects they're currently engaged in.
3. Open floor: With the time remaining, the floor will be opened for general feedback and questions, or for other committee members to report on their current projects.

SUMMARY

February 6, 2014

Agenda

1. RepoInventory: I've attached a copy of the current version. Wendy, Michelle, Jason, and Jim will discuss our methodology, as well as thegrey areas that remain. We will also answer questions that you may have about the survey.
2. Next steps: The survey is meant to be a jumping off point for further exploration and recommendation, and that's where I'd like to focus our energies tomorrow. I think splitting into working groups to focus on areas such as preservation, access/discoverability, service commitments, etc., will be the best way to spend the next couple of months. It's my hope that we can determine what those groups will be, and have at least an informal sense of their charges, by the end of the meeting. As with the survey, the actual lineups can be determined via email.
   
   

January 6, 2014

Agenda

1. Answer discussion questions (round robin)

• What experiences have you had that led you to accept your spot on RepoExec?
• What groups of stakeholders do you feel you can best represent on RepoExec?
• What do you believe RepoExec's highest priority should be in our first year? What should we have to show for our work at year's end?

2. Determine highest priority items for the coming year

3. Determine small work groups for priority items

SUMMARY