12/12-13/05

From Metadata-Registry
Jump to: navigation, search

Agenda & Notes: Meeting, Dec. 12-13, 2005, Jacksonville, NY

Agenda, Monday

A. What are our goals for the meeting?

  1. Resurrect the MMS for the use of GEM and other partners
    • Funding first two months from IMLS evaluation funding
  2. Provide GEM with a working metadata management system allowing easier ingest and exposure of data and expansion of reach
  3. Harvest and evaluate UIUC-IMLS data for possible integration with GEM (in time for inclusion into IMLS grant)
    • Possible sustainability option for IMLS data and DLESE?
  4. Determine
    • What pieces of the overall project will be funded by whom
    • What timelines and deliverables will be needed to move forward efficiently and sensibly, and satisfy our various constituencies
    • Who we will need to collaborate with and how we will manage that collaboration
    • What do we want from the UIUC eval?
      • How does it play with GEM records? Can these records be as useful as current GEM records? If no, why? What would it take to make them work? What would it cost to upgrade them?
      • Diane can create chart
      • Should also include analysis of their collection data
      • UIUC money cannot be used for software, only for personnel (potential six weeks of Jon)
      • NEA money can be used to purchase Spotfire

B. Review Re-implementing the MMS

  1. Determine if steps and timelines are appropriate
    • How much will we be implementing for GEM and how much for IMLS? Where is the line?
      • For Phase I, steps 1,5 & 6 will be funded by IMLS-GEM
      • Other pieces of Phase I will be funded by Gateway money
  2. Determine where partner interaction occurs
  3. How much interaction will be needed with GEM data partners and who will do it?
  4. Discussed opportunity with Oracle
    • Oracle funding could finish Phase I, and the majority of Phase II

C. Scoping out the IMLS grant due Feb. 1

  1. Lead agency:
    • Prefer Cornell, because Stuart is at his limits
    • Diane will check with Bill and see if a CIS proposal is an option, will also check with Sarah about how much Tom's attitude matters: can CUL be lead agency? Subcontract with GEM?
  2. Where are matching funds coming from?
    • Cornell indirect contribution
  3. Research questions:
    • Using user-supplied data for integration in Repository
    • Distributed data networks as sources for K-12 education, how do we bring them on?
      • Privacy considerations, security considerations
    • Diny: It's about push/pull: what has to take place for a classroom teacher to be able to use materials from IMLS in the classroom
    • Diny: How can education agencies and organizations share their resources or information about the use of resources in ways that enhance their value
    • How best can we augment the IMLS records? How does augmenting these increase their value and how can we measure that?
    • How can we improve our processes and distribution to increase the use and value of the resources?
  4. Challenge is figuring out who will fund what, and how the multiple sources of funding can be leveraged
  5. Grant will seek funding for all phases, will be supporting GEM exchange, IMLS data, the data distribution network
    • Narrative doesn't need to include all the steps, but will need to be included in the budget and resources
    • Lessons learned from GEM, from NSDL, from UIUC, will be incorporated
  6. Proposal assumptions:
    • Include pre-collection service provider interactions (a la GEM, NSDL)
    • We will take over the production service component from UIUC
    • Need to move help desk component earlier on the list
    • Include a jump start tool like SPT/CWIS/GEMCAT/Recommender
    • Explain it so people without technical people can understand


Questions

  1. How to we determine the interactions between the MMS and the RDF datastore maintained by Siderian in the GEM context?

Jon would like to spend about an hour discussing the NSDL Registry project.