[DPLAsteering] Prototype budget and narrative

Fri Jan 22 14:19:59 EST 2016

Laurie,

An initial look at the Digital Collection Gateways shows that costs seem low and OCLC membership for contributors is not necessary. But it looks as if we'd have to consider some of the legal language in the EULA's that OCLC has written governing services.

As background, though I think we'd have to double-check with OCLC, from what Taylor told me and my staff in a recent phone meeting, the Digital Collection Gateway (the thing, he said, that the old OAIster project turned into) could be used without charge pretty much by anyone, even those without an OCLC membership, to contribute digital content to WorldCat:
https://www.oclc.org/content/dam/oclc/services/brochures/214005usf_DigitalCollectionGateway.pdf

Contribute to the Digital Collection Gateway, and your records also automatically go into WorldCat with an institutional symbol.  This is how that can happen -- the potential Digital Collection Gateway user  creates an institutional profile. Creating a profile entails agreement to a set of terms, the most recent of which is in the link below. Note the terms regarding third party sharing of information for creating databases, here:
http://www.worldcat.org/webservices/registry/xsl/terms

Also, if I recall correctly what Taylor said on the phone call, OAI compliant data contributions can be made using an OAI server or even a flat XML file.  That's a pretty low threshold for contribution. I've got a help call in with OCLC to check this. But if all true, it's pretty easy to get digital collection metadata *into* WorldCat.

Once the data is in WorldCat, is the use of the data derived from data in WorldCat systems may be governed by the EULA for affiliates, here:

https://www.worldcat.org/wcpa/content/ldap/terms.jsp

[note sections 3.A.i, 3.B.5, 3.B.6]

or may be governed by the EULA for WorldCat users, here:

https://www.oclc.org/worldcat/community/terms.en.html

[note sections 3.1.2, 3.1.5, and 3.1.6 regarding reuse of WorldCat data]

Of course, perhaps the metadata could be controlled by some other, additional, agreement negotiated with OCLC. An agreement for contributing information from WorldCat or the Digital Collection Gateway might have to work around the terms in the EULAs above. We have to ask OCLC. It does seem that the terms highlighted from the EULAs do not seem very favorable to data sharing outside of the OCLC environment.

As many in our group correctly point out, the problem for us with regard to DPLA is about getting data *out of* WorldCat.  More specifically, this is potentially a question governed by the relevant sections of the EULA's, above, as well as whether OCLC wants to insist on the open metadata license with BY on metadata coming out of WorldCat.
 https://www.oclc.org/news/releases/2012/201248.en.html
Note that this is only a recommendation, and seems much more open in philosophy than the EULA's above.  So it is much more than a question of whether, perhaps, OCLC might accept a softer BY in one of the appropriate DPLA MAP 4.0 fields. Or whether DPLA would soften on the CC-0.

As I see it, what we have before us is as we craft an Ohio proposal is a question of potentially getting data out quickly and cost effectively through a tool like OCLC's, but then we have to accept OCLC's strong limitations on the reuse and sharing of the data. And OCLC may just bend on its approach, but it's not likely.  Or we take another, less certain path, getting data out more slowly, and spending additional resources on building a separate system, but with an eye towards creating long-term conditions for open access.

C/

________________________________

From: dplasteering-bounces at lists.oplin.org <dplasteering-bounces at lists.oplin.org> on behalf of Laurie Arp <laurie.arp at lyrasis.org>
Sent: Friday, January 22, 2016 12:13 PM
To: Tallman, Nathan (tallmann); 'dplasteering at lists.oplin.org'
Subject: Re: [DPLAsteering] Prototype budget and narrative

I worry about many of the “C” institutions – they are the least likely to have (or otherwise need) OCLC membership.

Many smaller libraries, archives and historical societies already have many barriers to participation (more limited resources, staffing, experience with standardization and metadata) and I worry about putting one more barrier in their path to participation and sharing.

Laurie Gemmill Arp

Director, Collections Services & Community Supported Software

laurie.arp at lyrasis.org<mailto:laurie.arp at lyrasis.org>

800.999.8558 x 2908

From: dplasteering-bounces at lists.oplin.org [mailto:dplasteering-bounces at lists.oplin.org] On Behalf Of Tallman, Nathan (tallmann)
Sent: Friday, January 22, 2016 9:55 AM
To: 'dplasteering at lists.oplin.org'
Subject: Re: [DPLAsteering] Prototype budget and narrative

I think type C institutions are the least likely to have an OCLC membership and wouldn’t have access to the OCLC Gateway. My last institution was not an OCLC member and would be classified as a type C, I know they wouldn’t join OCLC just to contribute to Ohio DPLA, though they would probably love to contribute.

Personally, I’m not in favor of an OCLC pilot. I don’t think we should let them use our project as a way to expand their business. But, I understand the politics may require something.

Many thanks to Terry for having the meeting with Taylor and providing us with detailed notes. And also for installing/hosting our sandbox!

Nathan

From: dplasteering-bounces at lists.oplin.org<mailto:dplasteering-bounces at lists.oplin.org> [mailto:dplasteering-bounces at lists.oplin.org] On Behalf Of Reese, Terry P.
Sent: Friday, January 22, 2016 8:16 AM
To: Stephen Hedges <stephen at oplin.ohio.gov<mailto:stephen at oplin.ohio.gov>>; dplasteering at lists.oplin.org<mailto:dplasteering at lists.oplin.org>
Subject: Re: [DPLAsteering] Prototype budget and narrative

Unless the licensing issue is corrected – no.  And certainly not at first as it only provides a data dump, not an interactive stream that notes adds, deletes, etc. that we’d expect and want from oai pmh.  So, this would fall into functionality that we’ve classified in the type C groups (those that can’t implement oai pmh on their collections).

But again, until OCLC solves the license problem, we couldn’t touch their metadata.  Doing so would put the hub in violation of the agreement you sign with DPLA (because the metadata coming from the collection manager would be license encumbered).

--tr

From: dplasteering-bounces at lists.oplin.org<mailto:dplasteering-bounces at lists.oplin.org> [mailto:dplasteering-bounces at lists.oplin.org] On Behalf Of Stephen Hedges
Sent: Friday, January 22, 2016 8:10 AM
To: dplasteering at lists.oplin.org<mailto:dplasteering at lists.oplin.org>
Subject: Re: [DPLAsteering] Prototype budget and narrative

Isn't there a possibility that the OCLC Gateway could be just another path for getting data into the aggregator? So a ContentDM customer could streamline their workflow and prepare metadata for the local collection, WorldCat, and DPLA all in one step?

I think we certainly need to spend some time on the call today talking about OCLC.

--

Stephen

614-728-5250

On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 9:56 PM, Reese, Terry P. <reese.2179 at osu.edu<mailto:reese.2179 at osu.edu>> wrote:

>> Is this a serious deal-breaker for participants who have no reason to be

>> an OCLC member (smaller museums and other cultural heritage institutions, for example?)

I have no idea how it works here in Ohio but I’ve worked with a number of folks on the west coast that had strong reasons why they weren’t OCLC members.  My guess is that this probably isn’t so much of a problem here in Ohio.   Regardless, any work with OCLC would require membership for all participants.

>> I wouldn’t say that anyone (OhioLINK, in this case) is anti-hub hosting

I didn’t mean to imply that anyone was anti-hub hosting – but as you’ve noted here – there has been a good deal of hesitancy to volunteer to pick this up because, even for a pilot, there will be a significant commitment of resources not just for new staff, but for staff with a very specific set of skills.  So while OCLC definitely has their own agendas, I wanted to make sure we’d fleshed out OCLC’s interest and talked about if this fits or not.

Best,

--tr

From: Evans, Gwen
Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2016 5:32 PM
To: Reese, Terry P. <reese.2179 at osu.edu<mailto:reese.2179 at osu.edu>>; mlodge at library.ohio.gov<mailto:mlodge at library.ohio.gov>; dplasteering at lists.oplin.org<mailto:dplasteering at lists.oplin.org>
Subject: Re: [DPLAsteering] Prototype budget and narrative

>>>> obviously, in order to use the harvester and infrastructure, everyone would need to be an OCLC member and have an OCLC symbol.

Is this a serious deal-breaker for participants who have no reason to be an OCLC member (smaller museums and other cultural heritage institutions, for example?) If OCLC is serious about this, it seems to me that they need to get their head out of library-only space.

I wouldn’t say that anyone (OhioLINK, in this case) is anti-hub hosting — we are willing to do it. However, we are not willing to do it without a robust sustainability and funding plan, and I would expect that to be true of any other organization in dplaOhio. I’ve discussed this briefly with Missy and Beverly, and there are some possibilities for the three year pilot that don’t depend on OhioLINK funding; but funding 1.5 - 2 FTE on a permanent basis has to be planned in an equitable manner.

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<tel:614-485-6608>

gwen at ohiolink.edu<mailto: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)

From: <dplasteering-bounces at lists.oplin.org<mailto:dplasteering-bounces at lists.oplin.org>> on behalf of "Reese, Terry P." <reese.2179 at osu.edu<mailto:reese.2179 at osu.edu>>
Date: Thursday, January 21, 2016 at 4:13 PM
To: "mlodge at library.ohio.gov<mailto:mlodge at library.ohio.gov>" <mlodge at library.ohio.gov<mailto:mlodge at library.ohio.gov>>, "dplasteering at lists.oplin.org<mailto:dplasteering at lists.oplin.org>" <dplasteering at lists.oplin.org<mailto:dplasteering at lists.oplin.org>>
Subject: Re: [DPLAsteering] Prototype budget and narrative

Hi folks,

I looked over Liz’s DPLA Prototype narrative and it’s probably close.  What I would say about the Hydra solution, based on our own experiences, you’d likely need 1.5-2 fte.  There is the system itself (which needs a good deal of work if we were to move it forward to current Hydra/fedora), but Fedora is its own animal – then there is solr, etc.  I think the first two years, you’ll need significant developer time to move the project forward (or partner closely with Penn. or NY).  After two years, I think the role will be reduced – but the technical person will still need a very specific set of skills.  You will need a Programmer who is familiar with DevOps.  A traditional technologist or admin won’t be sufficient.

Also, I followed up from our last conversation with Taylor at OCLC.  They are keen to do a pilot, and talked about what they see as being able to offer.  I’m still not completely sold – but they are interested in a pilot, or at least having some further discussions.  I did find it interesting that they are also having some conversations with DPLA, mostly to see what complications DPLA might see on their end.

I’ve put together my notes from my meeting today.

--tr

From: dplasteering-bounces at lists.oplin.org<mailto:dplasteering-bounces at lists.oplin.org> [mailto:dplasteering-bounces at lists.oplin.org] On Behalf Of mlodge at library.ohio.gov<mailto:mlodge at library.ohio.gov>
Sent: Tuesday, January 19, 2016 8:11 AM
To: dplasteering at lists.oplin.org<mailto:dplasteering at lists.oplin.org>
Subject: [DPLAsteering] Prototype budget and narrative

Good Morning:

Attached is the draft budget and narrative Liz prepared for the DPLA Prototype.  It has been shared with the State Librarian and the Executive Team and is now ready to be shared with the full Steering Committee in preparation for Friday’s call.  Please let Tom, Liz or I if you have any questions or concerns.  This will be an agenda item on Friday.

Have a good week,

Missy

[cid:image001.jpg at 01D1550E.54DD56F0]

Missy Lodge

Associate State Librarian for Library Development

274 E. 1st Avenue

Columbus, OH 43201

Tel: 614-644-6914<tel:614-644-6914>

Fax: 614-466-3584<tel:614-466-3584>

library.ohio.gov<http://library.ohio.gov/>

[cid:image002.png at 01D1550E.54DD56F0]<https://www.facebook.com/StateLibraryOhio>  [Description: Twitter logo - links to the State Library of Ohio's Twitter page] <http://twitter.com/statelibohio>   [Description: Blog logo - Links to the State Library of Ohio's blog] <http://library.ohio.gov/blog/>   [cid:image005.png at 01D1550E.54DD56F0] <http://pinterest.com/stlibohio/>
Share Your Story<http://library.ohio.gov/state-librarian/share-your-story> by telling us how a
State Library service or resource helped
you or your library.

_______________________________________________
DPLAsteering mailing list
DPLAsteering at lists.oplin.org<mailto:DPLAsteering at lists.oplin.org>
http://lists.oplin.org/mailman/listinfo/dplasteering

NOTICE: This e-mail message and all attachments transmitted with it are intended solely for the use of the addressees and may contain legally privileged, protected or confidential information. If you have received this message in error, and/or you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately by e-mail reply and please delete this message from your computer and destroy any copies. Any unauthorized use, reproduction, forwarding, distribution, or other dissemination of this transmission is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful.

NOTICE: This e-mail message and all attachments transmitted with it are intended solely for the use of the addressees and may contain legally privileged, protected or confidential information. If you have received this message in error, and/or you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately by e-mail reply and please delete this message from your computer and destroy any copies. Any unauthorized use, reproduction, forwarding, distribution, or other dissemination of this transmission is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.oplin.org/pipermail/dplasteering/attachments/20160122/545db15e/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 4806 bytes
Desc: image001.jpg
URL: <http://lists.oplin.org/pipermail/dplasteering/attachments/20160122/545db15e/attachment-0002.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.png
Type: image/png
Size: 949 bytes
Desc: image002.png
URL: <http://lists.oplin.org/pipermail/dplasteering/attachments/20160122/545db15e/attachment-0003.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image003.png
Type: image/png
Size: 4667 bytes
Desc: image003.png
URL: <http://lists.oplin.org/pipermail/dplasteering/attachments/20160122/545db15e/attachment-0004.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image004.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 1063 bytes
Desc: image004.jpg
URL: <http://lists.oplin.org/pipermail/dplasteering/attachments/20160122/545db15e/attachment-0003.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image005.png
Type: image/png
Size: 2203 bytes
Desc: image005.png
URL: <http://lists.oplin.org/pipermail/dplasteering/attachments/20160122/545db15e/attachment-0005.png>