[DPLAsteering] Meeting with OCLC

Wed Feb 10 11:36:37 EST 2016

I've just had the opportunity to read thus very long email chain--phew.
First off thanks to all who have been working on this really important and
challenging issue. Here are my thoughts
1. Allow the technology working group to develop their draft report.
2. Allow gwen to hear back from OCLC we still need answers from them
regarding licensing.
3. DPLA expects a strong technology partner that will be able to not only
stand up the platform and support ingest but also support ohio in being a
full active DPLA participant.  Hopefully the technology working group
recommendations can address that issue along with the others terry and
Nathan noted.

Liz
On Feb 10, 2016 7:37 AM, "Tallman, Nathan (tallmann)" <
tallmann at ucmail.uc.edu> wrote:

> I completely agree with Gwen’s plan of action. I made much the same
> suggestion when Liz was asking to schedule another adhoc technology call,
> asking to wait until the Tech working group had a chance to meet and
> discuss things. I feel like the technology stack has gotten out of the
> hands of the working group which has complicated matters.
>
>
>
> The working group has not had the opportunity to discuss the options and
> make a report. Terry and I have made ourselves available to the executive
> committee to discuss the possibilities upon request but it seems to have
> confused things by others interpreting our discussions as recommendations.
>
>
>
> I reiterate that I think we should cancel this Friday’s call and let the
> working group prepare its report to the steering committee. Then the
> steering committee will be fully informed and prepared for discussion and
> decision making.
>
>
>
> Nathan
>
>
>
> *From:* DPLAsteering [mailto:dplasteering-bounces at lists.oplin.org] *On
> Behalf Of *Evans, Gwen
> *Sent:* Wednesday, February 10, 2016 8:56 AM
> *To:* DPLAsteering <dplasteering at lists.oplin.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [DPLAsteering] Meeting with OCLC
>
>
>
> My understanding of what I was doing at this meeting with OCLC was
> determining whether they were even a possible option by engaging senior
> leadership who would be capable of making this decision. We still don’t
> know for sure, but based on Terry’s reports of his discussions with Taylor
> at OCLC, Terry identified that as the missing piece — OCLC senior
> leadership attitude and ability to make a commitment. I think it is
> premature to commit to them for many reasons. However, they seem rather
> eager to commit to us, which was the point of the meeting.
>
>
>
> I’m going to disagree with Tom, here. We’ve spent an enormous amount of
> time discussing putative and in many cases apparently speculative
> technology options at the steering committee meetings in advance of the
> actual technology committee’s deliberations — all members of the committee
> should be discussing these options in depth and making recommendations
> before the steering committee discusses these. In the interests of
> everyone’s time and sanity, I would like to propose the following plan of
> action:
>
>    1. The steering committee does not discuss technology until the full
>    technology committee meets, discusses, and delivers its draft report.
>    2. SLO/the steering committee hold off on any decisions or
>    recommendations on technology staffing until that report is delivered,
>    since the actual person or entity hired will depend so much on the actual
>    technology.
>
> I know we have a smaller group phone call this Friday to discuss what
> should be in the technology report, but I feel like we are chasing our own
> tails too far in advance of the discussions at the actual technology
> committee, which does not meet until the 17th of February, and which has
> not yet had these discussions.
>
>
>
> Best, Gwen
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Gwen Evans
>
> Executive Director, OhioLINK
>
> http://www.ohiolink.edu/
> <https://email.osu.edu/owa/redir.aspx?C=yABf3LFOkkWRenaUhIeuu8fgj9Eh09EIzjzYk8LZChVNExG8a_rLuGXWeDNyfAo-Yn1uw1Chvck.&URL=http%3a%2f%2fwww.ohiolink.edu%2f>
>
>
>
> ph: 614-485-6608
>
> gwen at ohiolink.edu
>
> 1224 Kinnear Rd
>
> Columbus, Ohio 43212
>
> ORCID ID:0000-0002-4560-0435
>
> *Per Ohio Revised Code, this communication and any attachments may
> constitute a public record. (**http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/149.43*
> <http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/149.43>*)*
>
>
>
>
>
> *From: *"Reese, Terry P." <reese.2179 at osu.edu>
> *Date: *Wednesday, February 10, 2016 at 2:48 AM
> *To: *Gwen Evans <gwen at ohiolink.edu>, DPLAsteering <
> dplasteering at lists.oplin.org>
> *Subject: *RE: Meeting with OCLC
>
>
>
> Thanks for the update Gwen.  I’ve gotten the same impression that this is
> something OCLC seems pretty interested in thinking about.  I will say, even
> if OCLC were willing to go forward, I’m still not sure this would be the
> best option for Ohio.  I could see working in parallel , maybe a pilot to
> test aggregation, and a separate track working with a well-known technology
> stack.  I think OCLC could potentially offer institutions an avenue for
> providing metadata to the project, I just wouldn’t be enthusiastic of
> turning the technology stack over to them.  While doing so frees the state
> hub from managing a system, it also comes with a significant technology
> cost, and I think, only kicks the technology question down the road for
> another 3 years.  I also have significant reservations that 1) this is a
> project that will hold their interest to get the kind of updates it needs,
> and 2) that they can modify the gateway to meet our needs.  I work with
> OCLC a lot on these types of projects (that fall outside of WorldCat) and
> their track record of bringing these types of things to fruition and
> supporting them long-term has not been good in my opinion.  Things tend to
> get half done, and I would prefer not to work with a 1Ž2 solution.
>
>
>
> My personal option (and I may be the only one) – but if we don’t have an
> organization in this state willing, and able to handle the aggregation
> component – it’s not time for Ohio to submit a proposal.  OCLC may have a
> role to play and place in that space, but I don’t have a lot of enthusiasm
> for them being our technology infrastructure.  But as I say, that could be
> just me.  I know that is what Nathan and I will be working with the
> subcommittee to make more clear.  Because I see a number of scenerios based
> on the different hub homes, and OCLC managing the technology certainly is
> one.  I just don’t think it would be my first or second choice.
>
>
>
> --tr
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* DPLAsteering [mailto:dplasteering-bounces at lists.oplin.org
> <dplasteering-bounces at lists.oplin.org>] *On Behalf Of *Evans, Gwen
> *Sent:* Tuesday, February 9, 2016 5:25 PM
> *To:* DPLAsteering <dplasteering at lists.oplin.org>
> *Subject:* [DPLAsteering] Meeting with OCLC
>
>
>
> Hello All — I met with Bruce Crocco and Mary Sauer-Games today about DPLA.
> I asked two things of them: Can they get past the CC-0 requirement for
> metadata, and if they could, could they make a decision quickly about
> partnering with the DPLA in Ohio group to work on the aggregator. They said
> they think they could have a yes/no answer about metadata by next Friday’s
> Steering Committee meeting, and shortly after that  they would confirm
> whether they would be willing to be the technology hub aggregator (I
> mentioned that we were planning to apply early summer, but we had meetings
> scheduled each month and would expect an answer on that question in March.
> Mary has been talking to Taylor so he has the level of detail needed. I
> emphasized that this was a three year commitment, not for all time, and the
> benefits of OCLC engagement would be that they would be able to assess what
> the business opportunities were, if any. We did discuss the necessity of
> being more or less ready to go (or ready to start) implementing if DPLA
> accepts our application.
>
>
>
> They (Mary, really) expressed serious interest; I think if they deliver on
> the metadata yes/no on time, then we can press them on the next commitment.
> I would recommend that we have a “plan A” for hub hosting and management
> just in case they say no, or waffle too long.
>
>
>
> Best, Gwen
>
>
>
> Gwen Evans
>
> Executive Director, OhioLINK
>
> http://www.ohiolink.edu/
> <https://email.osu.edu/owa/redir.aspx?C=yABf3LFOkkWRenaUhIeuu8fgj9Eh09EIzjzYk8LZChVNExG8a_rLuGXWeDNyfAo-Yn1uw1Chvck.&URL=http%3a%2f%2fwww.ohiolink.edu%2f>
>
>
>
> ph: 614-485-6608
>
> gwen at ohiolink.edu
>
> 1224 Kinnear Rd
>
> Columbus, Ohio 43212
>
> ORCID ID:0000-0002-4560-0435
>
> *Per Ohio Revised Code, this communication and any attachments may
> constitute a public record. (**http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/149.43*
> <http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/149.43>*)*
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> DPLAsteering mailing list
> DPLAsteering at lists.oplin.org
> http://lists.oplin.org/mailman/listinfo/dplasteering
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.oplin.org/pipermail/dplasteering/attachments/20160210/682901be/attachment-0001.html>