Meeting Agendas & Minutes

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 employing that stategy, 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 to have guest speaker come 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 require to meet the needs of service providers and users currently using DSpace or Digital Commons.
• Method:
  
  • Started with User Stories generated by last SubGroup 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 be feel good 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 repositories is marked as "critical" in this list (or at least evaluate that) - would help with buy-in of 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 step backwards. 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: WRT brandablilty, 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?

    • Check Hyrda wiki 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
• Policy document will be disseminated widely.
• Not represented in current version of report - 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. Ideally will have unified front end for digital collections (in Blacklight to dovetail with D&A) that allows robust search. 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 with in house code for making this work. Need to push back on ArtStor, since they're still in demo on 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, but IRs haven'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 is on a 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", or will costs be passed along to libraries via subscriptions, licensing etc.
• Gail: there was questions 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/Sufia based system, but also need to consider infrastructure, sustainability, etc.

Discussion: facilitating “communication” (all)

• Group will share agendas ahead of meeting, 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 attentions on on identifying functional and resource requirements for Hydra development, 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 chosen this path, 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 made by bepress for a 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 consideration of bepress as a “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 developments there have are 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 of focus, 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 the grey 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