2018-09-18 Meeting notes-DSpace Project Team meeting

Discussion of this implementation group: 

• What's the exact role of this implementation group? Membership?  Purpose? 
• Do we need to get other people involved (in order to benefit from their expertise)? If so, what's the best way to do that (i.e. enlarge our current group, form some subgroups, etc.)?

Process going forward

Phases and timelines- outline for the group

• Is this timeline still accurate?  Any changes? 

-How are we going to expand out from ETDs?  It's TBD.  

-How to bring in other expertise?  Who? Emily? Rachel A.?

-Going forward at least consulting with a larger group could be helpful, however we still want to keep it lean.  

-A subgroup of people familiar with the project could make decisions related to the IR's scope.  Annie would lead efforts to assemble this group.  

-The advisory group could resemble the strategic partners groups that have been assembled for the blacklight and website projects. 

-Annie proposes this advisory group:  Rachel Appel, Emily Toner, Gretchen Sneff, Fred Rowland

Updates and additions

Overview project progress

Demonstrate workflow

Describe limitations

Gabe's intro and updates

Live demo of RT2 connection

Completed tasks: 

• Repository connection up and running
• Test crosswalk xml files created and working well 
• Departmental data successfully transmitted 
• SHERPA RoMEO advisory data incorporated in Elements deposit interface
• License/advisory submission template created and ready to fill in
• URIs working

Still to do:

• ETDs
• DOI assignment
• Direct submission to DSpace by faculty or Librarians

Limitations affecting workflow and repository structure:

• Deposit button must be globally enabled in Elements
• Crosswalk limitations
  • The crosswalk allows conditional statements that will send an item to a particular collection based on its title, publication type, author name, etc.  However this can't be done using the name of the department, meaning moving individual items into departmental 'collections' would have to be done manually through DSpace.  This can't be done as a part of metadata review, but is a separate process.  

Existing DOI account will be used.  

A submissions form will be created... who will use it (faculty or librarians) is TBD

System Limitations discussion: deposit button is universally enabled.  We can't exclude material types, unless we leave them out of the crosswalk, which would trigger an error that would have to be explained in the submission interface. 

Annie: everything in Elements can go into DSpace. 

Holly: the metadata challenges aren't terrible, in that the RIM team is addressing them already.   

Decision: All material types currently Elements will be accepted into the IR

Holly's updates and additions

Overview- mapping work so far ; Test crosswalk XML

Metadata options: 

1. A 'flat structure' wherein front-end structure (far down the line) could be provided through metadata?
2. A structure based on communities and collections 

'Flat structure' option would still require the following divisions:

• ETDs
• 'Research' (Articles, misc.)
• Data??

Holly- getting the underlying info architecture right is essential, however this has to be informed by our long term plans.  

Holly and David- Back end hierarchy should be simple... support the 'flat' hierarchy.  

Decision: the structure of the repository should be 'flat' utilizing as few DSpace collections and communities as possible

Annie's Updates and additions

The submission template is ready to fill in.  Annie will populate this when the time is right.  

Which material types will we accept?  

How to deal with ETD embargoes?

Decision: Tentatively, all material types currently in Elements will be accepted into DSpace.  

Cynthia's updates, and additions.

David''s updates, and additions.  

Ongoing workflow roles to be filled:

Elements:

• Someone will have to submit.  Faculty? Librarians? Student workers? 

DSpace:

• Metadata from Elements needs to be reviewed.
• ETD workflow... two options at present, but both require metadata review

One-time work to prep for ETD migration:

OCRing older ETD PDFs

Concerns:

How can we ensure that the crosswalk won't be broken by Elements field and system adjustments happening outside the library?

ADA concerns:

Text readable layer is required on all digital objects.  This means that the ETD PDFs will have to be OCRed.  

Videos must be transcribed