[DPLAsteering] Prototype budget and narrative

Fri Jan 22 16:46:13 EST 2016

It would be interesting to hear directly from OCLC on this (and we'll likely have to) - because technically, the records generated by the Gateway are derived records.  OCLC doesn't directly take the metadata from the user and put it into WorldCat - they convert it, normalize it, enrich it.  So, any data that comes out of the Collections Manager would not be your data, but would be enhanced metadata.  With MARC records and Connection, this is a little more cut and dry - with digital records, it's less so.  But again, this is something that would need clarity on.  Just from my conversation with Emily at the symposia, I have a feeling DPLA would want, in writing, something from OCLC if the data was coming out of OCLC.

I'm sure you remember Liz, but OCLC's data license essentially was created in response to libraries sending OpenLibrary their data early in the project.  OpenLibrary tried to work directly with OCLC and those talks got really, really contentious - so they encouraged libraries to just work around OCLC.  OCLC's statement was in effect, a way to tell libraries that they were free to contribute their own data - but not anything derived from WorldCat without attribution (which had to be maintained by anyone upstream using the data).  Since Libraries obviously can't easily tell which data was derived and which wasn't - this had the effect of requiring all data to have this attribution MARC - which is fine if you are providing the data for download on your website - less fine if you are OpenLibrary.

I think that there are a lot of folks at OCLC that would like to see this changed.  I've talked to lots of folks at the VP level, and while there isn't always universal agreement at the level of openness - I think those involved in the linked data side of things realize that within that environment, this notion of attribution is an antiquated one.  However, whether they will make that jump is hard to say - but I think much more likely than say, DPLA softening their stance.

Personally, I find these discussions around licensing really interesting - especially in the context of the linked data work I've been doing with the PCC lately.  I have a feeling that more and more metadata providers will need to think about how their data works within a more semantic space - because, as you know, the semantic web works on trust, and if rights to the data are ambiguous due to licensing restrictions, I am much more likely to prefer my data from other sources.  There was a time when OCLC was needed for bibliographic data - but that time has long past.  The infrastructure exists to have a truly federated metadata repository - what doesn't exist is ILL - those holdings have become OCLC's most valuable asset, much more valuable than their metadata, in my opinion.

--tr

From: Liz Bishoff [mailto:liz.bishoff at gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, January 22, 2016 3:51 PM
To: 'Chatham Ewing' <chatham.ewing at cpl.org>; Reese, Terry P. <reese.2179 at osu.edu>; 'Stephen Hedges' <stephen at oplin.ohio.gov>; dplasteering at lists.oplin.org
Subject: RE: [DPLAsteering] Prototype budget and narrative

I've just looked at this document and I think that the key phrase here is OCLC derived records-most records for digital objects from cultural heritage organizations are original cataloging contributed by the owning institutions, they are not derived records or copy cataloging.  Do we believe that OCLC may wish to say that once it's contributed to WorldCat and the owning institution wishes to share it, it becomes a derived records, it seems to be a real stretch of the definition of derived record and is not what was the intent of the 2012 policy.

Certainly I've misinterpreted OCLC intent over the last 40 years...Liz

From: dplasteering-bounces at lists.oplin.org<mailto:dplasteering-bounces at lists.oplin.org> [mailto:dplasteering-bounces at lists.oplin.org] On Behalf Of Chatham Ewing
Sent: Friday, January 22, 2016 9:52 AM
To: Reese, Terry P. <reese.2179 at osu.edu<mailto:reese.2179 at osu.edu>>; 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

So per a 2012 release, OCLC recommends ODC-BY:

https://www.oclc.org/news/releases/2012/201248.en.html

Here is the Open Data Commons organization and a list of their licenses.

http://opendatacommons.org/licenses/

Did this set of licenses find a way into the legal discussions of DPLA and Creative Commons?

On one hand, though the terms of participation don't seem to allow us to ask the question, can someone explain to me what justifies DPLA's requirement regarding CC-0 in a world of open data where something like ODC-BY does not seem to be technically difficult?

On the other hand, I wonder if OCLC would bend far enough to release their data and enter a strong community oriented statement info into the MAP 4.0 'provider' or 'intermediate provider' field?

C/

________________________________
From: Reese, Terry P. <reese.2179 at osu.edu<mailto:reese.2179 at osu.edu>>
Sent: Friday, January 22, 2016 11:18 AM
To: Chatham Ewing; Stephen Hedges; dplasteering at lists.oplin.org<mailto:dplasteering at lists.oplin.org>
Subject: RE: [DPLAsteering] Prototype budget and narrative

Have we heard directly yet from OCLC and/or DPLA about how licensing and metadata might work with DPLA? Have we asked? Are there possible workarounds? And if we choose to work on parallel tracks, what happens to metadata that gets contributed to both Collection Manager *and* DPLA from a ContentDM instance?

Yes - DPLA won't accept the data unless it's CC0, if OCLC can accommodate that, they are happy to investigate OCLC as a data-feed.  Speaking to Taylor yesterday, they have been meeting with Emily Gore and others at DPLA to try and determine if DPLA would be open to working with OCLC, and he relayed that they are not opposed to it, but OCLC would need to comply with the terms laid out in the DPLA agreements.  While DPLA is flexible in some things, the pain points around metadata they are not.  At present, this is the biggest roadblock, but Taylor is taking this question to OCLC legal.  Parallel tracks would be fine - you personally can deliver your data to multiple resources...it would just have to be a parallel harvest in that they would have to be two separate harvest feeds.  This would mean that enhancements made to the data via oclc's tools wouldn't be represented in the dpla data, and vise versa.

--tr

From: Chatham Ewing [mailto:chatham.ewing at cpl.org]
Sent: Friday, January 22, 2016 10:03 AM
To: Reese, Terry P. <reese.2179 at osu.edu<mailto:reese.2179 at osu.edu>>; 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

All,

I can be argued out of my thinking on this, and I'm willing to set my concerns aside and work with my library to pull our weight within a consortium. I would prefer what you called a "lightweight feed" in a previous conversation, but in the right circumstances, CPL could and would be willing to find a way to contribute to a shared network staffed collectively doing what seems to have evolved into more heavyweight work.

I work at a public library that hopes to avoid being banished to the a "Type C" category,  but I still think trying to work with OCLC on a proof of concept/pilot OAI feed for DPLA might  be productive (though I will concede that Taylor and OCLC have not offered any concrete written responses to licensing and technology concerns). And, from my perspective as a library consumer, OCLC ,as much as I have concerns about their fees and costs and, er, other things (and I do), has managed to stay in business for quite some time and has a business model that from my perspective (no matter how much I resent it sometimes) seems to be sustainable.  RLG, the other public utility, failed for a variety of reasons having to do with addressing long-term sustainability, and as of yet DPLA seems to be murky on issues having to do with sustainability beyond a three year trial.

Having stated that as a concern,  I very much want to work with DPLA and share our data, but I also want to hedge my bets by multiplying the tools that enable presentation of my collection data and access to my libraries digital collections. As I see it, OCLC's Digital Collection Manager presents numerous potential benefits regarding aggregation and points of access created through WorldCat. At least on the face of it,  those benefits are very attractive. I want to have my data in both WorldCat and DPLA if that is at all possible.

Have we heard directly yet from OCLC and/or DPLA about how licensing and metadata might work with DPLA? Have we asked? Are there possible workarounds? And if we choose to work on parallel tracks, what happens to metadata that gets contributed to both Collection Manager *and* DPLA from a ContentDM instance?

Also, have we gotten any word from DPLA on whether there might be terms and specifications under which they'd accept a data feed from OCLC?

At the risk of being accused of being a flak for OCLC (which I am not), we have a significant number of digital collections in Ohio that use ContentDM and have put in significant financial, staff development, workflow development, and content into that database, and that seems to obligate us to push hard to investigate avenues of collaboration with OCLC to see how we might move that data and those resources easily into DPLA to share.

Chatham

Chatham Ewing
Digital Library Strategist
Cleveland Public Library
325 Superior Ave., N.E.

Cleveland, OH 44114-1271

216.213.3962 (mobile)
chatham.ewing at cpl.org<mailto:chatham.ewing at cpl.org>
http://www.cpl.org

________________________________

From: dplasteering-bounces at lists.oplin.org<mailto:dplasteering-bounces at lists.oplin.org> <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>>
Sent: Friday, January 22, 2016 8:15 AM
To: Stephen Hedges; 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 01D15534.66F2BEE0]

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 01D15534.66F2BEE0]<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 01D15534.66F2BEE0] <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/20160122/84925306/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/20160122/84925306/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/20160122/84925306/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/20160122/84925306/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/20160122/84925306/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/20160122/84925306/attachment-0005.png>