diglib Archive
Date: Tue Apr 17 14:33:01 2007
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: diglib: RE: Proposal for a DCC working group

Mark, et al.,

Before Corey left, a group of us (Corey, Duncan, Erin) were fairly far along as a sub group examining file naming conventions for digital repositories including digital video, images, and more.

We have a small working paper of file naming conventions that Corey and I wrote with the help of Erin and Duncan.

Here is a quick summary of where we we left off (sorry for the length).


******* Summary *********

We last met to discuss this file-naming stuff on May 12. During that meeting, we came up with a number of questions for DCC. I'll forward my notes from that meeting in a moment.

- DCC agreed that file-organization and file-naming were intricately tied and deserved to be addressed in the same document.

- Our recommendations can and should include additional guidelines about what information project managers should keep track of, where to store that information for easy access and in what format. This amounts to a an administrative metadata standard, that includes basic information about the collection, responsible parties, work-flows as well as file-naming / file-organization schema (including staging areas and alternate versions of files that are stored in various places).

******** Agenda / Work-plan ********

So, here's what I see as our work-plan at this point:

We should be close to finalizing the "absolute rules" and general best practices for file-names. We have a draft of those from our earlier meeting, and need to incorporate feedback received from DCC in April.

DCC has agreed that 4 examples is a good starting point. These examples should include a well-defined and well-explained file-name / file-organization schema as well as some necessary administrative metadata about the collection / project itself. Our four examples will be:

-Percent for Art (which is almost done)
-Tinder - URN example
-A to be determined SpecColl photo collection where digital file-name identifier corresponds to analog.
-An archival project - probably Office of the President so that we can get help writing things up from Kate Ball and also so that Kate and I can take the opportunity to clean up Clark.

***** END SUMMARY ***************

Cheers,

JD

Mark Watson wrote:
I have no problem with a sub-group formed to meet the needs that Kate
describes.  Not having been directly involved with DCC to date, I was unsure
about the granularity of Lesli's proposal.  So far, I have received
favorable comments/reactions to the idea of DIG.

Mark

-----Original Message-----
From: Kate Ball [mailto:kdball@uoregon.edu]
Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2007 12:12 PM
To: Mark Watson
Cc: lalarson@uoregon.edu; Digital Collections Group
Subject: Re: diglib: RE: Proposal for a DCC working group


I think this is a great direction for DCC (DIG) - I think the DCC should be
focusing on Digital Infrastructure, yet I still feel a need for a smaller
users group for the people involved in the day-to-day building of the
digital collections to share expertise, ask questions, troubleshoot
problems, and develop and deeper understanding of each others' projects so
that the UO digital projects can grow into a really unified and efficient
program that best uses staffing and equipment resources.  The conversations
that take place in smaller working group meetings that I have attended get
more in-depth on technical issues and the 'nuts and bolts' details of
scanning, ContentDM, and other hardware/software than the scope of the DCC
meetings that I have attended.   When DCC meetings have turned toward more
technical details, they tend to alienate some people in attendance who have
a lot to offer the group in the planning of digital infrastructure, but who
aren't involved in the day-to-day creation of digital content.  I think it's
vital to have both a group that focuses on the big picture issues and a
sub-group that can focus on more of the technical and practical details of
building the digital collections.  I hope you will take this perspective
into consideration.

Thanks!
-Kate Ball


On Wed, 11 Apr 2007 09:04:53 -0700, "Mark Watson" <mrwatson@uoregon.edu>
wrote:

Lesli & DCC:

Interesting ... actually you've written down a good description of the
direction in which I'd like to see DCC move as a committee.  In

discussions

with Faye, leading up to her acceptance of the position at OSU, she made

an

excellent point that DCC should not be in the business of digital content
selection as that role properly belongs to the subject specialists but
rather in the business of digital infrastructure.  I think she's right and
would like to see us re-focus DCC more on the technology and procedures

for

digitization and building digital collections.

So, in the absence of a meeting this month, let me through this out for
online discussion.  How about renaming DCC to DIG:  Digital Infrastructure
Group.  We will abandon the idea that DCC will review and recommendation

new

digital content but rather make sure there is a working forum for all
practitioners.   We'd need to decide whether the topics you are writing
about will be the "bread and butter" of DIG or if they are truly so "nuts
and bolts" that they require a sub-group.

Mark

-----Original Message-----
From: Lesli Larson [mailto:lalarson@uoregon.edu]
Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2007 5:16 PM
To: mrwatson@uoregon.edu
Subject: Proposal for a DCC working group




Mark--

Kate Ball and I have been talking with Mary about putting together a

digital

content creators-type working group, perhaps as a subgroup of DCC.  We'd
like to form an inter-departmental working group through which we could
share info on scanning practices, content DM issues, file naming
conventions, digital file management, equipment calibrations, etc, and

also

review ongoing and future digital projects.  Group could also host
presentations or training sessions by outside experts and put forward
suggestions for future, broadscale, even grant funded digital projects.  I
see this group as having a more nuts and bolts focus--while still relying

on

DCC for advice/direction on more broad based policy issues such as file
naming conventions, digital preservation, etc.

We thought that the group could meet on a monthly basis--perhaps during

the

same time slot as DCC (but on an alternative date).

Let me know what you think.

Regards,

LL


____
____
____

Lesli Larson
Image Services Coordinator
Metadata Services and Digital Projects Department
Knight Library
University of Oregon
541-346-1946
lalarson@uoregon.edu