F2F Meeting, 4/27/06, Seattle

From Metadata-Registry
Revision as of 15:10, 27 April 2006 by Diane (Talk | contribs)

(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search

Meeting Agenda and Notes, 4/27/06, Seattle

1. Planning for Metadata Management System integration with GEM data

  • Report on Wednesday meeting with Jon, Ryan, and Damon

Jon, Damon and Ryan discussed the outcome of their meeting on the previous day. First discussed was how much content we would be storing, and Stuart outlined a first task with NEA and their affiliates, prototyping work with lesson plans.

Extensive discussion about how extended services would relate to the three(?) basic data stores and services. Some questions remain, primarily how extended services may be formed and exposed, and what the incentives are to keep those services open. The consensus is that updating of the ASN will in future be based on the same model as the registry and the MMS, so that SETDA members can rely on ASN to update and maintain their standards. This will be managed through the GEM Plone site.

Extensive discussion of how the bridge between RDF and XML will be created and where the constraints will operate. Question of how the MMS will operate within the already established RDF GEM world. Various possibilities were discussed for managing appropriate output and input, starting with a focus on resource descriptions and moving on to full resource descriptions.

Jon proposed keeping the MMS XML-centric, creating an RDF to XML intermediary that would examine incoming RDF and extract RDF that conforms to XML schemas registered with the MMS. The MMS would then store the XML and store non-schema-conforming RDF as a related package. Data packaged for services requesting RDF would include the complete RDF package with additional aggregated metadata. Data packaged for services requesting XML would just get the XML portion of the original RDF.

2. Diane and Jon's role in re-enabling GEM data collection and augmentation

  • Priorities
    • Short term
      • Updating GEM data, moving selected larger providers to new schemas
      • Getting these selected providers started on setting up OAI servers
      • Starting in June, begining to set up MMS services
      • Prepared to begin harvesting services in the fall
  • Budget expectations?
    • Immediate funding
  • Assistance needs?
  • Do we need a formal contract? If so, what are it's components?

3. GEM cataloging/augmentation services

  • How will they operate?
    • Short-term (Immediate needs)
      • Current Consortium Members needing update (GEM XML schema (new) or GEM RDF/XML schema)
      • NEA affiliates--Kentucky & Connecticut
    • Long-term
  • Who will run them?
    • Short-term
    • Long-term
  • What tools will they need?
    • Short-term
    • Long-term