Content Comparison

...

• Complete! The next batch can be delivered directly to ScholarShare

• Formally transition process from FTP to SWORD through ProQuest (Gabe)

  • Overview- this won’t change anything about Christa’s

  • Any reason to wait on this?

    • No

  • There are always items delivered after the main batch; we’ll have to take this into account before starting the workflow

  • There are also corrections and conditions placed on certain items ('wait 6 months on this one', for example)

    • Stefanie has these backed up on the Isilon and has a system for uploading in line with Christa’s conditions. This will require some coordination and further workflow definition down the line.

...

1. Coordinating delivery-Who communicates with Christa? (NA mostly, Alicia if necessary) 

   1. Christa will do this in the same way, through the ETD listserv

   2. The list of graduates should also go to Alicia

   3. Discrepancies, and the workflow to Identify identify them (Alicia)

2. Vetting and removing supplemental files upon delivery (Alicia)

   1. What’s the criteria for selection currently? Who was assigned to this last?

      1. Stefanie does this currently, in consultation with Margery and Holly. Margery would bring this to uni counsel if necessary. Stefanie can forward the documentation used.

      2. Note that if copyrighted materials are included, a copyright permission letter is supposed to be included.

   2. Should this happen later in the workflow, given the new structure?

      1. no

3. Embargoes- who applies them (Alicia)

   1. A new workflow for this is needed

      1. OpenRefine process is used for XML files. This isn’t necessarily applicable to the new SWORD process

      2. This workflow will be based on exports from ETD administrator, which will allow easy identification of embargoed items

         1. Gabe will request ETD administrator access for Alicia, as well as ProQuest support center

4. Additional QA to conform with MAP and system constraints (Alicia?)

   1. Does this need to be a separate step, or can it be bundled with step 4?

5. Publication (Alicia)

6. QA and metadata standardization, post-publication (Celio?)

   1. How will this workflow work, generally? 

      1. Advisor and committee member names are what’s standardized

      2. DSpace’s browse functionality will make this easier

      3. Open Question: how can we use a metadata field to allow Celio to isolate the latest load.

      4. Note: Celio will be working remotely for the foreseeable future; we’ll have to think about how to coordinate the training

   2. Will Celio do this in ScholarShare, or through metadata exports from the system? 

      1. Any retraining necessary before next batch? If so, who will do this?

         1. We should schedule a training session for Carla and Celio, get their input on this workflow step

      2. Additional documentation needed?

         1. Yes. Carla will be the one to write that up.

7. Preservation- Triggered when Celio’s ETD work is complete

   1. Generating exports from the system (Alicia? Stefanie?)

   2. Application of retention schedule (is this necessary?)

   3. Moving exports to the Isilon (Alicia? Stefanie?)

...