2018-11-12 Meeting notes- ETD plan

Owned by Gabe Galson
Last updated: Feb 25, 2020
3 min read

Date

Nov 14, 2018

Attendees

  • @Gabe Galson@Holly Tomren @Margery Sly (Unlicensed) @Annie Johnson (Unlicensed)

 

The ETD migration timeline

  • When will the Services group’s work be done? Annie: Tentatively, fall ‘19, when go-live could hypothetically happen.

  • ETD Migration and establishment of proquest->dspace workflow should happen concurrently. The switch from CDM to DSpace will happen after the front end is ready to go, or the content in DSpace is discoverable.

  • Under this tentative plan the August 19 batch should be last batch we do through the old method, January 20 would be the first direct ingest into dspace.

The ETD migration plan

Who will do the work:

  • Gabe will do the ingest, the approval step will be turned off so no student help will be needed.

  • Phil and Stefanie [or IR manager?] will be brought into the new ProQuest->Dspace workflow asap.

    • Will the IR Manager manage this process from top to bottom?

      • Holly: MADS staff will still be doing quality control and metadata intensive work. The IR Manager would do the final approvals, while a metadata specialist would do the preliminary approval and correction of the metadata. Annie’s ok with this.

  • Stefanie will do the removal of the items in CDM (assuming they will be removed).

  • The fate of the pre-digital theses & dissertations currently housed in the ETD collection (they were digitized by DLI or SCRC)

    • These will be migrated to DSpace along with the rest

    • But, what will happen to pre-digital T&Ds digitized in the future? A new ingest process will be created.

  • The [tentative] plan for the long-term maintenance of the ETDs in DSpace.

    • Too early to seriously discuss this.

  • Issues of archival custody and permanence

    • Harvesting in DSpace would mirror current harvesting strategy… it will go to worldcat, OATD, etc.

    • ETDs are a TU university asset for which we’re responsible. Margery: the best practice would be to store copies of the files and the metadata on the Isilon. How would we do this through DSpace? Possibilities:

      • Extraction from DSpace, post ingest, would replace the current process, which is more cumbersome. This could be positive bc of DSpace’s built in checksumming, digipres capacity.

Open questions:

How to handle supplemental files related to regular ETD PDFs?

How do we contend with the cdm links currently in the records worldcat’s harvested? Ditto the other harvesters that currently ingest our ETDs.

IDs and file names currently used in ContentDM… think about how this relates to our digital preservation strategy. Must they be retained? Were they sound to begin with? Should they be replaced?

How will the QA step work?

Holly’s notes on ingestion of new content:

Strategy for working with the grad school.

Proquest’s IR agreement… a license that could be added to the grad school’s submission interface.

Embargoes… Separate embargo terms available for ProQuest and IR. Would we want to standardize these? The grad school workflow could be left in place and we could apply their selection across systems.

Decisions:

For digital preservation purposes, copies of ETD files will continue to be stored on the Isilon

ETD Migration and establishment of proquest->dspace workflow should happen concurrently. The switch from CDM to DSpace will happen after the front end is ready to go, or the content in DSpace is discoverable.

MADS staff will handle the removal of the redundant items in CDM (assuming they will be removed).

A new ingest process will be created for pre-digital ETDs digitized in the future.