Apr. 5, 2006

From Metadata-Registry
Jump to: navigation, search

Agenda and Notes, April 5, 2006

1. UIUC contract

  • Quick review of where we are, what still needs action on our part

Our goal is to leverage as much of that as we can to achieve our goals. We promised them that we would take their records (that they harvested), analyze them to see what would need to be done to them to play well in GEM. Outcome of that is some report to them that says we think X% of the records are usable by teachers. Suggest some strategies for "purposing" them for education. Second is to load them into a separate partition of GEM and see how they play.

Action: Stuart still needs to send a request to Tim for the information we need.

Action: Jon will zip up the collection records and send them to Stuart as a start. Stuart will try to load the Collection Records

Something has to be in GEM by the end of July, which can be done, analysis comes later.

Jon: Not clear how many records they have to actually serve up. Other things in their "browsable collections" are being served via GetRecord requests from other servers.

  • Anything new on the money? Jon is worried about funding after April. No firm planning done yet because of Diny's illness. Intensive treatment ends this week, after that the plans for the NEA money can be finalized.

Action: Stuart will query Karen about the money from JES&Co.

2. Registry screenshots (Jon will distribute prior to the meeting) ...at the bottom.

Some of the changes Jon and Diane had decided on aren't reflected in the screenshots because of an unrefreshed cache.

3. New version document (Stuart has distributed)

  • Question: What criteria should we use to determine how we will decide among options?
    • Possible criteria: Whether software can make the distinction (given that reliance on humans, particularly untrained ones, is problematic)?
    • Possible criteria: Whether the additional complexity enables a useful service to be created (if not, is purity or completeness sufficient reason)?
  • Question: Is the ability for users to see previous versions (and perhaps view "diffs") a reasonable substitute for the complex typed tracking options, such as Melanie describes?

This will be be a good topic for discussion at our Friday meeting.

4. Registry demo at UB meeting

  • What should it include?

Diane: The goal is to get them to see this as a tool, and also as a way to get the discussion about how application profiles get managed by the UB.

Stuart: This could have the same relationship to DCMI as AskDCMI has. Having people look at it is good in and of itself because they may have good suggestions. We may ask for structured feedback, based on usefulness to DCMI.

  • Is a live demo important? Yes, especially the automated portions.
  • How important will it be to demonstrate versioning? Stuart thinks this could be dangerous, given the short time. Might be better to talk about it. Small term change might be okay.

Registry screenshots: