Minutes – June 19, 2012

Posted on November 2, 2012 by mikec
Present: Simon Neame – Chair (IKBLC), Gordon Coleman (BCELN), Jill Teasley (AABC), Ben Hyman(BCLCoop),  Anita Cocchia (BCELN), Mike Conroy (IKBLC), Alissa Cherry (UBCIC), Kate Russell (VPL)
Telephone: Ken Cooley (UVic), Heather Daly, (BCTLA), James MacDonald (UNBC), Allan Bell (UBC Library), Brian Owen (SFU), Brenda Smith (BCHF)
Guest:
Regrets: Lynn Copeland (Canadiana), Michael Burris (Federations)
Agenda Item Summary Action
  
1. Review of Minutes from Last meeting  Mike to post on website
2. BC Social Studies Teachers’ Association    Heather spoke with the President of the BCSSTA about their interest in working with the Coalition  
3. Digital Preservation 

 

  Jill Teasley (AABC) gave a presentation titled: Investing in the Long-Term Viability of British Columbia’s Digital Collections.  Presentation slides are available on the Coalition website 

 

 

  Mike & Jill to review options for a province-wide needs assessment 

 
4. Technical Subcommittee update Discussion of Digital collection builder hosting options: 

Detailed summary:

Option 1.  All institutions’ digital collections are contained in a single instance of the DCB Software.

Benefits:

  • Unlimited institutional accounts
  • Possible for coalition to administer
  • Centralization could have the unintended consequence of increasing the profile of the Coalition itself
  • Still able to browse at the collection level via the tree structure, though this is cumbersome.

 

Concerns

  • All institutions share the same bucket.
  • While search can be limited to a single institution
  • controlled name, subject & place vocabularies for data-entry and browsing are shared. Therefore browsing capabilities cannot be limited to the institution or collection level but are site-wide
  • Lack of institutional prominence (has a “one of many” feel)
  • Possible implications to how product is viewed by institutions & their boards/funders
  • A controlled vocabulary/ authority shared between institutions is challenging
  • Disable the browse features that would only work site-wide.  The software could build a vocabulary but it would not be used for browsing,
  • Establish centrally controlled authority vocabularies with process for submitting new terms, similar to how memorybc.ca is operated.
  • Still able to customize repository pages

Mitigations

Option 2. BCDC Subsidized the hosting fees of multiple, discrete, DCB instances

Benefits

Full features available to all institutional users

ability to utilize controlled vocabulary at the institutional level

ability to browse places, subjects etc at the institutional level

more prominent theming / branding

Concerns: cost

Mitigations

  • partial cost recovery by transferring portion of annual fee to institutions.

○        how much?, what can they afford?

  • Establish criteria based on BCHDP grant acceptanc

Discussion:

Separate instances would require and extra level of administration for institutions.  The benefit of the union repository model is that less site admin is required from the institutions.

Establishing a site wide controlled vocabulary not necessarily a bad thing.  It provides guidance in metadata creation and consistency.

 Given the costs of hosting discrete DCB instances the Coalition is committed to a union-style hosting service where all institutions share a single instance of the DCB 

Disable the browse features that would only work site-wide.  The software could build a vocabulary but it would not be used for browsing,

Establish centrally controlled authority vocabularies with process for submitting new terms, similar to how memorybc.ca is operated.

Still able to customize repository pages.

 
Next Meeting: October 11, 2012
This entry was posted in Meeting Minutes. Bookmark the permalink.