From Metadata-Registry
Jump to: navigation, search

Meeting Notes, 10/15/05

In attendence: Diane and Stuart

Overall goal is to get IMLS to see this set of capabilities as a fundamental piece of the evolving world of distributed metadata and aggregations. Builds on certain premises: substantial work has been done, research has been done and has been tested in a particular environment. It has more general utility. This is about generalizing the tool, and completing the work, distribution, documentation,etc.

Proposal will need to address:

What is generalization? How does the end result plug & play? Where does UIUC IMLS fit in? Even without that, it needs to demonstrate how it works. GEM will be on instance (with or without the IMLS data)

Description of current components and where they are now Where we want to get them by the end Interactions with two repositories

Need match of 50% for more than $250,000 If GEM/IMLS, will have some money If not leave at personnel expenses, some match with UW infrastructure If we keep it under $250,000, only at 1/3 match

Action item: See if Cornell will give back a portion of overhead if we're not doing anything but setting up and administering grant? Diane will ask Tom about this.

Action item: Stuart will check and see if they accept appendices, so we can include screenshots


Need bulleted list about who could use this tool (including traditional libraries who have a digital library/institutional repository component)

JP: Need more information about components, and what they do specifically (functions), plus a statement about what's still needed, what needs to be reconceptualized based on experience. Also:

  1. Check overview and conceptual framework docs for missing pieces, if you need more detail do it on another page, don't loose conciseness.
  2. Add bit about plugging into other user authentication systems
  3. What are the implementing technologies for each piece and what do you envision as a 'new' implementation environment.
  4. Text about how the tool operates to enable non-technical person to problem-solve complex processes, and how that can be improved.

Action item: Ask Steve about participation and support letter.

Other support letter possibilities:

  1. GEM
  2. Tim Cole
  3. Tom Baker
  4. Stu Weibel (or someone else at OCLC)
  5. Dan Greenstein