erpaCHAT: Metadata

Thu Nov 6 03:15:32 2003:Pete [1/] Msg:OK, I guess we should get started then.
Thu Nov 6 03:15:39 2003:Steve_NLNZ [1/] Msg:Who's going to Rome - I'm really sorry I couldn't swing it from here - would be interested in informal feedback
Thu Nov 6 03:16:11 2003:Neuroth [1/] Msg:probably someone from SUB is going and we can give you a feedback
Thu Nov 6 03:16:33 2003:Steve_NLNZ [1/] Msg:Thanks Heike - sorry Pete - away we go
Thu Nov 6 03:16:42 2003:Pete [1/] Msg:Thanks Steve,It's great that you're all online at the same time, and it's a pleasure to welcome you to the first installment of 'erpaChat'.
Thu Nov 6 03:17:04 2003:Pete [1/] Msg:quick note: we will be taking a transcript of the event, is this ok with everyone?
Thu Nov 6 03:17:11 2003:Neuroth [1/] Msg:sur
Thu Nov 6 03:17:13 2003:Neuroth [1/] Msg:e
Thu Nov 6 03:17:15 2003:wendy [1/] Msg:yes
Thu Nov 6 03:17:20 2003:Barbara_Hoen [1/] Msg:Hi, yes
Thu Nov 6 03:17:22 2003:MichaelDay [1/] Msg:fine
Thu Nov 6 03:17:22 2003:Thomas-Severiens [1/] Msg:no problem
Thu Nov 6 03:17:41 2003:Niklaus [1/] Msg:It's O.K. for me as well
Thu Nov 6 03:17:44 2003:Dave_(NLNZ) [1/] Msg:yes
Thu Nov 6 03:18:05 2003:Pete [1/] Msg:I wouldsuggest, if you've seen the list of questions Andi sent out that we use these as a starting point. Which means we'll be startying with Steve.
Thu Nov 6 03:18:43 2003:Steve_NLNZ [1/] Msg:OK
Thu Nov 6 03:18:49 2003:Pete [1/] Msg:the question is this: Speakers indicated the importance of automatic creation and capture as much as possible. - What has been achieved in this respect up to now? What information is automatically captured and has this been successful?
Thu Nov 6 03:20:28 2003:Steve_NLNZ [1/] Msg:Automatic creation looks to be feasible. The work that we've been doing to date suggests that at least 80-90% should be programmatically retrievable. It will very depending on the object in question but we are very confident.
Thu Nov 6 03:21:11 2003:Steve_NLNZ [1/] Msg:We curently have five file types (Word 2, Word 6, TIFF, BMP and WAV and across all five the output is fairly regular.
Thu Nov 6 03:21:24 2003:wendy [1/] Msg:Steve - what type of metadata can not be automatically supplied?
Thu Nov 6 03:22:26 2003:Niklaus [1/] Msg:Steve, How successfull is automativ extraction of Microsoft file format Information (inclusive the versions?)
Thu Nov 6 03:22:27 2003:Steve_NLNZ [1/] Msg:Formats such as text, HTML, XML are more problematic at this stage because they don't have the header fields - which is the downside of our current approach - but we hope to start looking at these shortly.
Thu Nov 6 03:22:30 2003:Neuroth [1/] Msg:what kind of metadata are we talking about, descriptive, analytical, technical...?
Thu Nov 6 03:23:58 2003:Steve_NLNZ [1/] Msg:Wendy, the ptoblem for us at the moment is the limitation to what is in the header. Also there is a renage of more descriptive stuff that is not available to us as yet. But it is important to be clear waht is perservation, what is descriptive, presentation/
Thu Nov 6 03:24:19 2003:Thomas-Severiens [1/] Msg:i agree, what would help in implementing very much, to have a database giving the default values of e.g. authors for most of the office tools. .. you allway can retrieve authors from e.g. DOC-files, but is "word xp" a good result?
Thu Nov 6 03:25:07 2003:Steve_NLNZ [1/] Msg:Niklaus - permissions are importanbt, eg we have an agreement with MS NZ to do this. It does require an 'adaptor' for each version of MS Word eg as the structure of the headers does change from version to version.
Thu Nov 6 03:26:02 2003:wendy [1/] Msg:Steve - do you think MS NZ would be willing to add stuff to their software so we can all have these features.?
Thu Nov 6 03:26:31 2003:Steve_NLNZ [1/] Msg:Heike - as above we are being very anal about our definition of preservation metadata - we have other programme components dealing with structural for delivery, eg multipage/multipart objects.
Thu Nov 6 03:27:17 2003:Steve_NLNZ [1/] Msg:We have tried to be very clear about the demarcations between the different metadata compoennts while still looking at a 'bundled'/complete suite of metadata s the endgame.
Thu Nov 6 03:28:17 2003:andi [0/] Logout:_
Thu Nov 6 03:28:18 2003:wendy [1/] Msg:Steve surely there are lots of elements that overlap though - creator is important both for access - and for understadning the record overtime.
Thu Nov 6 03:29:01 2003:Steve_NLNZ [1/] Msg:Wendy - htis is an interesteing question. RLG are currently working with manufacturers of imaging equipment to see if specific layers of metadata can bee added at creation/capture. I'm not sure how successfull this approach will be as a longterm solution.
Thu Nov 6 03:30:21 2003:Pete [1/] Msg:Any more thoughts on this from anyone?
Thu Nov 6 03:30:47 2003:Steve_NLNZ [1/] Msg:Wendy - this is true but the answer lies in where the metadata resides, where is the control point, ie which metadata strand derives its data from which, eg we will pass metada such as creator, file size, anty reader requirements to the descriptive end.
Thu Nov 6 03:31:45 2003:wendy [1/] Msg:My only thought is that I want to go and visit Steve and see this it all first hand. You guys are doing such great things.
Thu Nov 6 03:32:26 2003:Steve_NLNZ [1/] Msg:We would like that as well and would happily come to you - Pete I missed a comment from Thomas, can i revisit that
Thu Nov 6 03:32:42 2003:Pete [1/] Msg:Steve, yeah, go ahead.
Thu Nov 6 03:33:09 2003:Thomas-Severiens [1/] Msg:sorry, i will try again...
Thu Nov 6 03:33:53 2003:Thomas-Severiens [1/] Msg:when extracting metadata from office-files, it is a big problem to have default values, and not empty fields as default
Thu Nov 6 03:34:16 2003:Steve_NLNZ [1/] Msg:Thomas - you're right but again that's bundled up with the line between descriptive/structural/preservation etc. To a certain extent we create a database with each adapter we add in that we then know the exact position of any given data element
Thu Nov 6 03:34:22 2003:Steve_NLNZ [1/] Msg:within the header of that format
Thu Nov 6 03:35:06 2003:Steve_NLNZ [1/] Msg:Have I got the point of that Thomas?
Thu Nov 6 03:35:11 2003:Thomas-Severiens [1/] Msg:to implement tools without having MS as cooperator, it would be essential to have a public documentation
Thu Nov 6 03:36:18 2003:Steve_NLNZ [1/] Msg:Quite right - one of the things we have discussed here is the potential of some form of escrow for 'registered' organisations to access that documentation but the overheads in setting that up seem a bit too big at this stage.
Thu Nov 6 03:37:57 2003:wendy [1/] Msg:Perhaps a consortium of large national libraries and archives could work to this end.
Thu Nov 6 03:38:23 2003:Steve_NLNZ [1/] Msg:That's a good idea - now to advance it.
Thu Nov 6 03:39:48 2003:Pete [1/] Msg:ok, shall we move on to to the question for Heike?
Thu Nov 6 03:39:55 2003:Steve_NLNZ [1/] Msg:yep
Thu Nov 6 03:39:59 2003:wendy [1/] Msg:If we got a few major players we could get it kick started. Maybe erpanet could take the lead in europe
Thu Nov 6 03:40:20 2003:wendy [1/] Msg:Sorry i agree with sould move on
Thu Nov 6 03:40:26 2003:Steve_NLNZ [1/] Msg:we would be interested in contributing
Thu Nov 6 03:40:29 2003:Pete [1/] Msg:During one of the practical sessions one of the participants made a short but interesting remark regarding interoperability. According to her was interoperability only possible when a system or the data were compliant with a
Thu Nov 6 03:40:52 2003:Pete [1/] Msg:layer model that contains at least 4 or 5 layers. The layers were 1. ontology, taxonomy, thesaurus, 2. schema, 3. language, and 4. protocol. What are the expert’s thoughts on this?!
Thu Nov 6 03:41:21 2003:Neuroth [1/] Msg:I would like to add some details regarding interoperability: level 1 is transport of metadata (e.g. Z39.50, LDAP), level 2 is representation and exchange of metadata (METS, XML)...
Thu Nov 6 03:42:02 2003:Neuroth [1/] Msg:level 3a is attribute space (eg DCMES). level 3b is value space (eg DDC)
Thu Nov 6 03:42:48 2003:Neuroth [1/] Msg:in general the more standardized a service/repository is the more cooperation etc. is supported
Thu Nov 6 03:44:15 2003:wendy [1/] Msg:Standards are good but we should remember that if one can export to the standard - e.g. METS one does not have to hold ones live data that way
Thu Nov 6 03:47:34 2003:MichaelDay [1/] Msg:Interoperabilty itself can have different levels. Co-operating services/repositories may be able to agree (or define) standards /...
Thu Nov 6 03:47:40 2003:Thomas-Severiens [1/] Msg:from my point of view, one of the reasons for producing non-standardized metadata is, that many implementors do not really understand all the standards, or even know of all of them...
Thu Nov 6 03:48:23 2003:Pete [1/] Msg:What if also introduce another relevant question here to be discussed in tandem
Thu Nov 6 03:48:29 2003:Steve_NLNZ [1/] Msg:That's true but we need to distinguish the technological interoperability (which can be articulated as in the the OSI layers) and the semantic operability where Heike's thesaurus and language become important.
Thu Nov 6 03:48:43 2003:Pete [1/] Msg:Is standardisation the only way to attain interoperability? Can interoperability be achieved through cross-walks and dynamic translation? Will the Russian Doll concept (
Thu Nov 6 03:48:48 2003:Pete [1/] Msg:help to achieve interoperability despite possible idiosyncrasies of corporate metadata sets?
Thu Nov 6 03:48:58 2003:MichaelDay [1/] Msg:.../ that support interoperability between them, ensuring consistency in more 'open' contexts is more problematic.
Thu Nov 6 03:49:06 2003:Steve_NLNZ [1/] Msg:DC, EAD, IMS are no use if the guidelines for implementation aren't consistent and if the connecting layer which tends to be DC are not implemented consistently.
Thu Nov 6 03:50:33 2003:Thomas-Severiens [1/] Msg:steve: i absolutely agree with you in this point!
Thu Nov 6 03:50:52 2003:andi [0/] JoinRoom:Marburg_Metadata
Thu Nov 6 03:51:18 2003:wendy [1/] Msg:I think we need to remember that crosswalks are incredibly problematic and the more we use elements consistently the better we are. However presently we do not have a metadata model that incoporates various viewpoints.
Thu Nov 6 03:51:24 2003:Steve_NLNZ [1/] Msg:I worry about crosswalks in terms of proliferation. If standard implementations could be attained that would be preferable, eg we are (with some degree of hubris) hoping to implement national DC implementation guidelines
Thu Nov 6 03:51:43 2003:wendy [1/] Msg:To get us all to agree to a standard - we need something better than DC.
Thu Nov 6 03:52:05 2003:Steve_NLNZ [1/] Msg:In terms of preservation that is certainly true.
Thu Nov 6 03:52:53 2003:Neuroth [1/] Msg:I think we need something additional to DC
Thu Nov 6 03:53:28 2003:wendy [1/] Msg:I would agree - for both prservation and description - or at leasst for images and archvial material.
Thu Nov 6 03:53:46 2003:Thomas-Severiens [1/] Msg:the big question is, does the semantics of such a schema depend on the type of described object?
Thu Nov 6 03:54:21 2003:Neuroth [1/] Msg:Thomas, I think that there is a big dependency...
Thu Nov 6 03:55:11 2003:Thomas-Severiens [1/] Msg:heike, agreement! but this dependency is still not implemented in any of the candidate schemas!
Thu Nov 6 03:55:29 2003:Neuroth [1/] Msg:unfortunately this is true
Thu Nov 6 03:56:07 2003:Neuroth [1/] Msg:in this field I look forward to eg the erpanet conference on scientific data
Thu Nov 6 03:56:10 2003:Thomas-Severiens [1/] Msg:most of them implemented them indirectly, by saying, this is a schema for ... and this is one for ... that is one of the reasons for our zoo
Thu Nov 6 03:56:15 2003:wendy [1/] Msg:WE are trying to create representation of objects that match how users want to seek them. There are reasons to believe that people sometimes look for stuff differently when the format is different
Thu Nov 6 03:56:57 2003:Thomas-Severiens [1/] Msg:format or type?
Thu Nov 6 03:57:07 2003:Neuroth [1/] Msg:document type?
Thu Nov 6 03:57:35 2003:wendy [1/] Msg:I meant document type. Of course it also depends on the domain.
Thu Nov 6 03:58:58 2003:Thomas-Severiens [1/] Msg:that was, what archivists did for hundreds of years... every archive had its own domain and its own metadata set
Thu Nov 6 03:59:14 2003:Steve_NLNZ [1/] Msg:Michael - can you explore a bit more domain specific interoperability?
Thu Nov 6 03:59:57 2003:MichaelDay [1/] Msg:There is always going to be a tension between the metadata requirements of different domains and the needs of interoperability. The question is whether developing 'core' formats is the answer or whether we have to (first) think deeply about underlying .../
Thu Nov 6 04:00:03 2003:MichaelDay [1/] Msg:There is always going to be a tension between the metadata requirements of different domains and the needs of interoperability. The question is whether developing 'core' formats is the answer or whether we have to (first) think deeply about underlying .../
Thu Nov 6 04:00:10 2003:MichaelDay [1/] Msg:.../ models
Thu Nov 6 04:01:13 2003:wendy [1/] Msg:Michael I agree completely I think we have to work on having more robust inclusive models.
Thu Nov 6 04:01:18 2003:Steve_NLNZ [1/] Msg:I think you're right. We always have a tension between what we would like to do for ourselvs and what we want to try and give a more global flavour.
Thu Nov 6 04:01:55 2003:Steve_NLNZ [1/] Msg:Part of the question is allegiances. I have no issue with local application but would still like to se a global component.
Thu Nov 6 04:02:01 2003:wendy [1/] Msg:It would be wonderful to have a truly indisciplinary group to try to get our models to mesh.
Thu Nov 6 04:02:25 2003:Pete [1/] Msg:would a truly interdisciplinary group ever achieve anything though?
Thu Nov 6 04:02:47 2003:wendy [1/] Msg:I think they can if we all have the smae goal in mind
Thu Nov 6 04:03:27 2003:wendy [1/] Msg:I think many want interoperability - we know it needs to work both locally and globally - it would be workth a try.
Thu Nov 6 04:04:07 2003:Steve_NLNZ [1/] Msg:The idea of a core set worries me. We have real concerns that we are trivialising the preservation issue within our own activity. To see that contracted into a core set would would do serious danage to our cholesterol levels.
Thu Nov 6 04:05:14 2003:Steve_NLNZ [1/] Msg:And what would a core set do to the crosswalks if we wanted to act outside that core?
Thu Nov 6 04:06:04 2003:Neuroth [1/] Msg:nobody is able to preserve everything, we need cooperatio n and redundant some way a minimal agreement on some metadata elements for preservation would be helpful
Thu Nov 6 04:06:47 2003:wendy [1/] Msg:I think it is easier to get agreement on preservation metadata than access metadata. Also a minimum set is good - but it will always be enemy of the best
Thu Nov 6 04:07:21 2003:wendy [1/] Msg:Mind you if we wait for the best - we lose incredible number of documents
Thu Nov 6 04:07:43 2003:Neuroth [1/] Msg:wendy, that sounds great... personally, I have more problems with core preservation metadata than access
Thu Nov 6 04:07:46 2003:Pete [1/] Msg:could we expand this thread into the question for Thomas and Michael: What is the relation between preservation metadata and the Semantic Web?
Thu Nov 6 04:07:54 2003:Steve_NLNZ [1/] Msg:yep
Thu Nov 6 04:07:55 2003:Pete [1/] Msg:Can the development of the semantic web be the drive for formulating core preservation metadata. Is the W3C perhaps the prime partner for ERPANET for starting the development of the Core Preservation Metadata?
Thu Nov 6 04:09:05 2003:Pete [1/] Msg:we can substitute 'consortium' for erpanet here I think to make it more general....
Thu Nov 6 04:10:00 2003:Thomas-Severiens [1/] Msg:we've discussed most of this question already ;-) semantic web today talks most about description metadata, but it should also talk ...
Thu Nov 6 04:10:17 2003:MichaelDay [1/] Msg:This is a hard one to answer. The Semantic Web may be able to support certain activities we want to do, e.g. metadata schema management.
Thu Nov 6 04:10:28 2003:Thomas-Severiens [1/] Msg:...include reservation metadata
Thu Nov 6 04:10:40 2003:Neuroth [1/] Msg:and by the way we have OCLC/RLG and DC talking about preservation metadata
Thu Nov 6 04:10:58 2003:Steve_NLNZ [1/] Msg:I don't understand the question. I thought the semnatic web was about extended granularity of retrieval, extra contextual entry points etc. I don't see the link with preservation.
Thu Nov 6 04:11:32 2003:Thomas-Severiens [1/] Msg:heike, correct, so they are already trying to form core sets
Thu Nov 6 04:11:40 2003:MichaelDay [1/] Msg:But, in my opinion, the Semantic Web is currently a bundle of technologies looking for a killer implementation (am I being unfair?)
Thu Nov 6 04:12:13 2003:Neuroth [1/] Msg:Thomas, you can probably help, you are active on some W3C WGs
Thu Nov 6 04:12:35 2003:Steve_NLNZ [1/] Msg:Michael - no - I suspect there are real question marks around the overehads attached to the semantic web.
Thu Nov 6 04:12:46 2003:Pete [1/] Msg:I guess what perhaps the questioner was driving at is that for the semantic web to work properly the metadata for retrieval etc, has to have longevity....
Thu Nov 6 04:13:17 2003:Steve_NLNZ [1/] Msg:To the extent that the described object has longevity, that's a differrent issue.
Thu Nov 6 04:13:53 2003:MichaelDay [1/] Msg:There is some work going on in an MIT/HP Labs project related somehow to DSpace - called SIMILE ( - which may be worth a look.
Thu Nov 6 04:15:10 2003:MichaelDay [1/] Msg:I agree with Steve that the longevity of the schemas and ontologies will be important for the Semantic Web, but at the moment that is not our problem.
Thu Nov 6 04:15:37 2003:

[0/] URL:
Thu Nov 6 04:16:35 2003:Neuroth [1/] Msg:Michael, can't registries help (schemas, format, ontologies) ?
Thu Nov 6 04:18:10 2003:MichaelDay [1/] Msg:Heike, that IS an area where Semantic Web technolgies may have some application, and where there are certainly some shared interests.
Thu Nov 6 04:18:39 2003:MichaelDay [1/] Msg:between WC3 activities and what we are thinking about.
Thu Nov 6 04:19:33 2003:MichaelDay [1/] Msg:They are also thinking about issues like provenance, so there is certainly some scope for working together, even if we don't buy the whole Semantic Web vision thing.
Thu Nov 6 04:19:35 2003:Steve_NLNZ [1/] Msg:Can someone articulate the preservation component please.
Thu Nov 6 04:20:03 2003:wendy [1/] Msg:Also how do they define provenance?
Thu Nov 6 04:20:42 2003:Neuroth [1/] Msg:a definition of provenance is interesting for us as well ...
Thu Nov 6 04:21:58 2003:MichaelDay [1/] Msg:Steve, I meant that technologies like RDF _may_ be worth looking at for the development of registries of preservation metadata, not for preservation itself.
Thu Nov 6 04:22:54 2003:Neuroth [1/] Msg:registries are a good way to preserve the information about (preservation)metadata schemas
Thu Nov 6 04:23:42 2003:Steve_NLNZ [1/] Msg:Gotcha Michael/Heike - so that there is at least a way of playing around with competing possibilities?
Thu Nov 6 04:24:49 2003:Neuroth [1/] Msg:why competing?
Thu Nov 6 04:25:51 2003:Steve_NLNZ [1/] Msg:Uh oh - possibly not the right word - more around alternative options.
Thu Nov 6 04:27:27 2003:Steve_NLNZ [1/] Msg:which need a core for interoperability?
Thu Nov 6 04:27:33 2003:MichaelDay [1/] Msg:Wendy, the Semantic Web depends on metadata from different sources, so 'provenance' for them means something like the metadata source, maybe with some indication of trust and/or context .../
Thu Nov 6 04:28:15 2003:MichaelDay [1/] Msg:.../ I'm no WC3 expert, but that is as good as I can do for now.
Thu Nov 6 04:28:21 2003:wendy [1/] Msg:So it is the provenace or context off the metadata
Thu Nov 6 04:28:29 2003:MichaelDay [1/] Msg:Yes
Thu Nov 6 04:29:11 2003:wendy [1/] Msg:Interesting that they see the link between trust and provenance. Maybe we have more in common than I thought
Thu Nov 6 04:29:30 2003:MichaelDay [1/] Msg:I think that it may depend on who you talk to
Thu Nov 6 04:30:00 2003:wendy [1/] Msg:as always
Thu Nov 6 04:30:59 2003:Pete [1/] Msg:How is everybody doing for time? Are there other points people would like to discuss?
Thu Nov 6 04:31:26 2003:Neuroth [1/] Msg:I'm sorry but I have to leave soon....
Thu Nov 6 04:31:26 2003:MichaelDay [1/] Msg:Pete, I'm OK for time
Thu Nov 6 04:31:57 2003:Thomas-Severiens [1/] Msg:i also will have to leave soon
Thu Nov 6 04:32:23 2003:wendy [1/] Msg:I have some time
Thu Nov 6 04:32:29 2003:Steve_NLNZ [1/] Msg:We're ok - and I'd like to add that this is a very interesteing process for us and we appreciate the time people have made for the conversation.
Thu Nov 6 04:32:47 2003:Pete [1/] Msg:ok, well perhaps time for one more question, are there any from the 'floor' as it were?
Thu Nov 6 04:32:52 2003:Barbara_Hoen [1/] Msg:Sorry I am only watching the discussio. I am still looking for the common interest of librarians and archivists
Thu Nov 6 04:33:19 2003:wendy [1/] Msg:librarians and archivists have many common interests - preservation, access
Thu Nov 6 04:33:39 2003:Steve_NLNZ [1/] Msg:Hi barbara - I'd like to play with that one.
Thu Nov 6 04:34:14 2003:Steve_NLNZ [1/] Msg:Firstly I think that there are some 'religious' demarcations that we should be working through and that don't apply in the digital world.
Thu Nov 6 04:34:48 2003:Steve_NLNZ [1/] Msg:We need to be looking at commonalities and i think that in terms of poreservation there are some eral synergies and potential.
Thu Nov 6 04:34:55 2003:Barbara_Hoen [1/] Msg:I fear we are on another stage. The agencies have traditions in creating the working processes. There we are looking for standards
Thu Nov 6 04:35:20 2003:wendy [1/] Msg:I think first we need models we agree on
Thu Nov 6 04:35:42 2003:wendy [1/] Msg:I think we also need better understanding and respect for what each knowsl
Thu Nov 6 04:35:47 2003:Steve_NLNZ [1/] Msg:A Word doc, TIFF, BMP, WAV in a library or archive does not require any different treatment at the repository level.
Thu Nov 6 04:36:15 2003:wendy [1/] Msg:Depends on the significant properites - what we are trying to preserve
Thu Nov 6 04:36:30 2003:Steve_NLNZ [1/] Msg:There is potential for a shared layer at the digital level and I think that this needs exploring.
Thu Nov 6 04:36:40 2003:wendy [1/] Msg:I agree completely
Thu Nov 6 04:36:56 2003:Barbara_Hoen [1/] Msg:Steve, yes but we have to find first the consens with our clients. You are to fast for me.
Thu Nov 6 04:37:16 2003:Steve_NLNZ [1/] Msg:Signifciant properties for us are a curatorial decision which occurs before the object hits the preservation layer.
Thu Nov 6 04:37:33 2003:wendy [1/] Msg:Barbara I agree - our clients are a big stakeholder and we need to understand what they need better
Thu Nov 6 04:37:54 2003:Steve_NLNZ [1/] Msg:Barbara, I htink you're right but that doesn't mean we shouldn't be trying to find the place where we can interoperate.
Thu Nov 6 04:38:38 2003:Neuroth [1/] Msg:Sorry, but I have to leave now. For me it was a great experience to join the chat - for the first time- and I hope that further discussions will follow, hope to see you soon, have a nice day/evening!
Thu Nov 6 04:38:56 2003:Steve_NLNZ [1/] Msg:Good night Heike.
Thu Nov 6 04:39:00 2003:MichaelDay [1/] Msg:Goodbye Heike
Thu Nov 6 04:39:05 2003:Pete [1/] Msg:Heike, thank you so much for your contribution. have a good day.
Thu Nov 6 04:39:13 2003:Barbara_Hoen [1/] Msg:But what are common subjects for practical projects?
Thu Nov 6 04:39:15 2003:Neuroth [0/] Logout:_
Thu Nov 6 04:39:48 2003:Steve_NLNZ [1/] Msg:I'm not sure that our clients are the issue here. They will want what they have always wanted. The issue is more about how deeply can we assess what the impact of digital material is going to be and how fully we can explore the potential of relationships ..
Thu Nov 6 04:40:20 2003:Steve_NLNZ [1/] Msg:between archives, libraries, museums, galleries, and othetr types of colelctions agencies - specialist gis etc.
Thu Nov 6 04:40:52 2003:wendy [1/] Msg:I partially agree with you Steve but I think our clients are important. They will judge the authenticity of records etc. but we we need to work together and for that we need common goals and models
Thu Nov 6 04:41:09 2003:Steve_NLNZ [1/] Msg:If we take off too soon from our 'traditional' platforms we may lose the opportunity to create a new collaborative paradigm.
Thu Nov 6 04:41:44 2003:wendy [1/] Msg:The can go on in tandem. Institutions can collaborate and researchers like Cedars etc can continue the research.
Thu Nov 6 04:42:03 2003:Steve_NLNZ [1/] Msg:Wendy - to a large extent we - librarians, archivists - mediate the experience our clients have and I think we have the opportunity to enrich the user experience in the digital age.
Thu Nov 6 04:42:35 2003:wendy [1/] Msg:I agree partially but we still need to udnerstand what they want - waht they trust etc.
Thu Nov 6 04:43:34 2003:Steve_NLNZ [1/] Msg:This is not to deny the disciplinary specifics, it's more a mattrer of when they kick in in the layers that we discussed earlier, eg there may be substantial room for a shared technology layer before our respective disciplines
Thu Nov 6 04:43:58 2003:Steve_NLNZ [1/] Msg:... cataloguing/ arrangement and descrionption etc kick in.
Thu Nov 6 04:44:11 2003:wendy [1/] Msg:This I agree completely with this.
Thu Nov 6 04:44:57 2003:Steve_NLNZ [1/] Msg:We are in the process of working this through with Archives New Zealand and the first barreir on both sides is the social/cultural rigidities.
Thu Nov 6 04:45:04 2003:wendy [1/] Msg:Mind you that technology layer needs to meet our requirements - are we sure we have the same requirements
Thu Nov 6 04:45:24 2003:Thomas-Severiens [1/] Msg:sorry, i have to leave our distributed meeting now to join a local meeting. it was a pleasure for me to join your chat. have a good day!
Thu Nov 6 04:45:47 2003:Steve_NLNZ [1/] Msg:That's the conversation to be had Wendy - where is the shared layer, where do we need community specific approaches.
Thu Nov 6 04:45:51 2003:Pete [1/] Msg:Bye Thomas, many thanks.
Thu Nov 6 04:45:53 2003:Steve_NLNZ [1/] Msg:Cheers Thomas
Thu Nov 6 04:46:06 2003:Barbara_Hoen [1/] Msg:Tschüss
Thu Nov 6 04:46:12 2003:Thomas-Severiens [0/] Logout:_
Thu Nov 6 04:46:21 2003:Steve_NLNZ [1/] Msg:Is this covering what you were interested in barabara?
Thu Nov 6 04:46:22 2003:MichaelDay [1/] Msg:Do you think that libraries/archives might at some stage 'outsource' storage to third parties? Would that be another shared layer?
Thu Nov 6 04:47:07 2003:wendy [1/] Msg:Eeven if we outsourced we might have different requirements. We need to figure out how much can be completely shared and where we need to diverge
Thu Nov 6 04:47:38 2003:MichaelDay [1/] Msg:Agreed
Thu Nov 6 04:47:42 2003:Niklaus [1/] Msg:Repositories are of course an area where archives and libraires can cooperate, as they do at the moment in Switzerland and even on the document preservation level there are very much the same issues
Thu Nov 6 04:47:48 2003:Steve_NLNZ [1/] Msg:Entierly possible Michael - how many 'trusted digital repositories' can one world sustain? There are of course for a little South Pacific nation issue sof sovereoignty, identity etc.
Thu Nov 6 04:47:50 2003:wendy [1/] Msg:I also think we have to have really good reasons to diverge - every think that is different must be supported with good evidence.
Thu Nov 6 04:48:16 2003:Barbara_Hoen [1/] Msg:Librarians are much better concerning the technical challenges
Thu Nov 6 04:48:23 2003:Steve_NLNZ [1/] Msg:Niklaus - can you elaborate?
Thu Nov 6 04:48:59 2003:Steve_NLNZ [1/] Msg:Barbara - I suspect that is about education, holding hands, understanding and trying to work through conflicting viewpoints etc.
Thu Nov 6 04:49:48 2003:Niklaus [1/] Msg:I mean the "physical" repository can be shared wihtout any big problems, and witrh "document level" mean we all hjave the preserve objects with the same formats (wp-documents images etc.)
Thu Nov 6 04:50:36 2003:Barbara_Hoen [1/] Msg:The objects are the same, but what is about context information
Thu Nov 6 04:50:43 2003:wendy [1/] Msg:put do libraries and archives agree on the attributes of the images etc. that need to be preserved.
Thu Nov 6 04:50:58 2003:Steve_NLNZ [1/] Msg:Niklaus - I agree - Is there maybe a forced convergence occuring - legal deposit legisalation covering digital stuff, the usual archives legislaation?
Thu Nov 6 04:51:51 2003:wendy [1/] Msg:Is there different metadata for different types of documents or for archival versus library stuff?
Thu Nov 6 04:51:54 2003:Steve_NLNZ [1/] Msg:Barbara - the question is still the same - in an electronic context what do we share and how do we go about doing that and what do we need to do separately - finding that line will be the trick I think.
Thu Nov 6 04:52:34 2003:Niklaus [1/] Msg:Steve, The collaboration between archives an dlibrary in our case is mainly driven by financial reason. we don't know legal deposi in switzerland.
Thu Nov 6 04:53:00 2003:Steve_NLNZ [1/] Msg:That's interesting Niklaus.
Thu Nov 6 04:53:47 2003:Steve_NLNZ [1/] Msg:Wendy - the fact that it is a PDF ought to mean the same care and handling issues for libraries or archives. There may be a layer above that which differentiates the two.
Thu Nov 6 04:54:25 2003:MichaelDay [1/] Msg:What about 'shared services' like format registries?
Thu Nov 6 04:54:46 2003:Steve_NLNZ [1/] Msg:Fundamental I would think?
Thu Nov 6 04:55:07 2003:MichaelDay [1/] Msg:And needed across domains ...
Thu Nov 6 04:55:37 2003:wendy [1/] Msg:I think so.
Thu Nov 6 04:56:22 2003:Steve_NLNZ [1/] Msg:Does domain mean archive, library etc - if so then I would think not because the format attributes would remain the same irrespective of the domain.
Thu Nov 6 04:57:24 2003:MichaelDay [1/] Msg:That was the point I was trying to make
Thu Nov 6 04:57:33 2003:Steve_NLNZ [1/] Msg:Yep
Thu Nov 6 04:57:35 2003:wendy [1/] Msg:Do you mean they need different registries. Across domain means domains share - is that what you meant Michael
Thu Nov 6 04:57:47 2003:wendy [1/] Msg:I think we actually agree
Thu Nov 6 04:57:48 2003:MichaelDay [1/] Msg:Wendy, yes
Thu Nov 6 04:58:17 2003:wendy [1/] Msg:Such agreement even across time zones.!
Thu Nov 6 04:58:39 2003:Steve_NLNZ [1/] Msg:Uh oh again - Michael - which part of Wendy's question are you answering
Thu Nov 6 05:00:04 2003:MichaelDay [1/] Msg:I mean that with things like format registries, libraries, archives and other domains _can_ share. Sorry I wasn't clearer.
Thu Nov 6 05:01:05 2003:Steve_NLNZ [1/] Msg:Beaut.
Thu Nov 6 05:01:57 2003:wendy [1/] Msg:So we all agree
Thu Nov 6 05:02:17 2003:wendy [1/] Msg:Barbara you do agree also
Thu Nov 6 05:02:23 2003:Steve_NLNZ [1/] Msg:Barbara - if you would like to continue this offline I would be happy to talk about where we're up to in our thinking.
Thu Nov 6 05:02:47 2003:Barbara_Hoen [1/] Msg:Yes, we will do.
Thu Nov 6 05:03:07 2003:Pete [1/] Msg:I think it's nearly time to wrap this up -- and on such a nice note! Is there anything else you like to cover?
Thu Nov 6 05:03:26 2003:Barbara_Hoen [1/] Msg:No, I have to leave now
Thu Nov 6 05:04:01 2003:Steve_NLNZ [1/] Msg:Only to reiterate that this has been a very useful and enjoyable conversation for Dave and I - and when's the next one.
Thu Nov 6 05:04:08 2003:Pete [1/] Msg:OK, well thank you all very much indeed, this has been very good. I've got the transcript which I will send on to all of you at the end of today.
Thu Nov 6 05:04:34 2003:Steve_NLNZ [1/] Msg:Bye all
Thu Nov 6 05:04:39 2003:MichaelDay [1/] Msg:Many thanks all! It has been a great and enlightening experience. :-)
Thu Nov 6 05:04:41 2003:Pete [1/] Msg:Once you've had a look at it we may discuss if we can pull anything from it and perhaps synthesis into a brief report and publish it/
Thu Nov 6 05:04:46 2003:wendy [1/] Msg:bye - it was fun.
Thu Nov 6 05:04:56 2003:Niklaus [1/] Msg:Thank's Pete fo rmoderating, Good bye
Thu Nov 6 05:05:03 2003:Pete [1/] Msg:Thanks again, and I'm sure we'll have another one very soon.
Thu Nov 6 05:05:12 2003:andi [1/] Msg:was a pleasure! bye for now
Thu Nov 6 05:05:27 2003:Barbara_Hoen [1/] Msg:Thanks and goodby.
Thu Nov 6 05:05:29 2003:Barbara_Hoen [0/] Logout:_
Thu Nov 6 05:05:36 2003:Dave_(NLNZ) [1/] Msg:Thanks folks, bye
Thu Nov 6 05:05:39 2003:Dave_(NLNZ) [0/] Logout:_
Thu Nov 6 05:05:42 2003:andi [0/] JoinRoom:Marburg_Metadata
Thu Nov 6 05:05:42 2003:andi [0/] JoinRoom:Marburg_Metadata
Thu Nov 6 05:05:44 2003:Steve_NLNZ [0/] Logout:_
Thu Nov 6 05:05:49 2003:MichaelDay [0/] Logout:_
Thu Nov 6 05:05:52 2003:Niklaus [0/] Logout:_
Thu Nov 6 05:06:14 2003:andi [1/] Msg:thanks for coming so early in the morning, wendy!
Thu Nov 6 05:06:42 2003:andi [1/] Msg:you as well, of course, Pete!
Thu Nov 6 05:06:45 2003:andi [1/] Msg:cu
Thu Nov 6 05:06:48 2003:andi [0/] Logout:_
Thu Nov 6 05:06:55 2003:Pete [0/] Logout:_