Information Resources Council Minutes
February 28, 2006
Discussion of Digital Assets Management
Led by Beth Dupont, Lisa Aronson and Andy Ashton
Present: Tim Casey, Mark Bauer, Phylise Banner Klein, Elizabeth Putnam, Kelly
Dempsey Little, Margo Mensing, Susan Zappen, Rob Linrothe, Joanne Devine, Leslie
Mechem, Susi Kerr, Bob Jones, Beth Dupont, John Cosgrove, Andy Ashton, Mimi
Hellman, Cameron Dunn, Justin Sipher, Lisa Aronson, Katie Hauser, David Seiler, Jeff
Clark, Ann Henderson
1.
Minutes from February 14, 2006 were approved as submitted.
2.
Beth Dupont talked about the scope of digital assets management: it includes
storage and management not only of images but of all of the college’s digital archives.
How doe we store them? How do we retrieve them? Who has access to them? The
questions affect College Relations (archives), Art History (image databases), the Tang
(which is digitizing their collection), and just about every group on campus in some way.
How can we get different campus groups to collaborate so we don’t have different,
disconnected pockets of digital assets? Can we consolidate into as few as two systems
instead of five or six?
Beth, Lisa Aronson, and Andy Ashton attended a NITLE conference recently on digital
assets management. The other colleges represented there are facing the same issues. They
learned that we need to start now identifying the collections we need to manage, and to
start getting people together to plan and work on this.
3.
Lisa Aronson talked about the NITLE conference and what she learned. Most
importantly, the college needs to be undertaking all-college discussions. There could be
an all-college database into which everyone’s images could be imported.
Andy Ashton, too, said the NITLE conference was “eye-opening” and noted his longstanding interest in digital archives and preservation. Libraries facilitate access to
physical and digital collections. They put a lot of effort into collections and need to
ensure that people will have ongoing access to them. No single system is likely to meet
all the needs of every constituency.
4. Discussion followed. Some major points:
Beth agreed that we need to do this planning, noting it is a good time because of the
development of ARTstor, which is moving us along. Lisa added that the retirement of
Jane Graves opens a position in the Library that remains to be defined and represents an
opportunity to redefine processes and responsibilities. Phylise noted that right now access
to slides, videos, etc. has been based on where they were located physically; we shouldn’t
define digital access based on where things have been kept in the past.
David Seiler noted that the slide library was started in the library in 1948 and is currently
used regularly by about 40 faculty. We have been digitalizing images for some time
now. We’re limited now only by what we’re able to do, physically. As of Jan. 04 there
were no high resolution digital archive images; now we have 8,500 in a searchable
database. Our slide collection has 25-40,000 images. Susi Kerr noted that Smith College
has a whole department of staff dedicated to images, including a full-time person to scan
images; she also asked how we will configure the library position. It was noted that
people are scanning images throughout the college but much of that will have to be
redone for a more permanent database because we have no college standards for
resolution levels or for meta-data (descriptive data, artist, title, dates – the work’s “index
card”).
Lisa Aronson noted that the people at the NITLE conference just seemed to be learning
that Art Historians have the highest quality standards. She asked whether the college as a
whole can adopt high standards for resolution for all images. Sue Zappen noted
consistent observation of copyright is also necessary.
Andy Ashton said consistent meta-data is of crucial importance. What’s really needed is
a comprehensive needs assessment. We need a broad view. What is being produced?
What do we want to save and what don’t we?
Lisa noted the NITLE conference also discussed archiving senior capstone projects;
online publishing; and preserving faculty scholarship (e.g. data, field notes, library
materials). Can we provide a storage system? The team visiting the conference also
heard the message: Don’t worry about making a mistake and getting the wrong system.
Some mistakes are inevitable.
Justin talked about IT concerns: storage, infrastructure, presentation, support. We should
be making some changes and decisions rather than stand still. Andy noted there may be
grant opportunities, as well as opportunities to collaborate. Bob Jones noted we have a
unique set of problems with GIS maps. They are too large to store in a jpeg format so we
have to us gif format. We are digitizing old maps at the minimal resolution possible, just
to keep the size manageable.
Phylise asked whether scalable vector graphics might help. A brief discussion followed
that was unintelligible to this author. David Seiler noted it might be worth it to
investigate compression systems such as Mr. Sid. Justin noted that we are in the process
here of making short-term decisions that may not have longevity. He also noted that he
and IT colleagues will be visiting Hamilton and Bowdoin, who are evidently doing
interesting digital asset management. projects. Justin also recently visited the ornithology
lab at Cornell, with the world’s largest archive on birds; they are in the process of
migrating analog to digital formats and are using multiple formats.
Lisa Aronson asked how the community should proceed in gathering the information we
need for the decisions. NITLE would fund and help organize bringing some consultants
here. Leslie Mechem suggested we should first conduct a needs assessment. Andy
Ashton suggested forming a task force who would gather the information in consultation
with different departments. Jo Devine felt some people would need first to understand
the issues before they could define and articulate their needs. Andy noted that the NSF is
expecting colleges to be undertaking this work; they expect projects they fund to provide
information about where and how their data will be stored and accessed.
Katie Hauser pointed out that a larger repository makes it possible for multiple users to
have access at once. Ironically, ease of scanning makes it more likely that faculty will
make their own images rather than contribute to and use a communal database. Margo
Mensing pointed out there are real costs to having an individual scan all images.
Those present agreed there should be a taskforce. The taskforce should include
representation from the library, IT, Art History, Alumni Affairs, College Relations, the
Tang, and/or Admissions. It shouldn’t be too big, and should work with lots of groups on
campus. Andy noted the job of a task force is not to prescribe but to listen.
It was decided that Sarah will confer with Muriel and Chuck and if they concur will
propose to FEC that we form a task force.