Minutes of the Archives Hub Steering Committee
23 April 2013
Attending: Joy Palmer (JP) Jane Stevenson (JS), Lesley Richmond (LR)(Chair),
Cathy Williams (CW), Pete Johnston (PJ), Kevin Ashley (KA), Graeme Milne (GM),
Victoria Peters (VP), Bill Stockting (BS)
In attendance: John Harrison (JHa) (by invitation), Bethan Ruddock (BR)
(minutes)
Apologies: Mike Mertens, John Hodgson, Paul Watry, Mike Webb
SC = Steering Committee
1) Minutes of last meeting and matters arising
JS updated the Steering Committee on the outstanding actions from the
September 2012 meeting:
3: Impact measurement: being implemented. The Archives Hub has a new team
member (Jane Ronson) starting in June, and work will progress faster once she is
in post, including the ‘impact’ questionnaire to contributors. The Hub team are
working on: referral figures; changing ‘contact’ link in the utility bar to generate
an email to repository; creating stats reports for contributors using Google
analytics.
KA suggested that Mimas as a whole could help with this impact work. JP
mentioned that changes to how services are required to report to Jisc means
Mimas work on impact will be rethought.
**Action: JP to discuss with Mimas cross-service team
6: API: ready to test. Steve Tattersall (ST) to take forward.
Impact of EAD Editor on contributors: not had time to explore this as yet.
Impact report: done.
Lookups for EAD Editor: JS: will return to this in item 4
Hub front page: this has been changed, and now says ‘UK’. Other text changed
and links added to add richer information to the homepage.
Detailed description link: progressing – will happen as part of or after
centralization.
2. Archives Hub Report
JS explained that the usage statistics have been affected by exposure to Google.
This has led to higher page views, but many page views are from google searches
and are instant ‘bounces’. JS has been looking to find new measure of ‘quality’
interaction. Currently we are classing this as people who stay for 30 seconds or
longer.
JS explained that the full report on Hub survey is on Hub website, under
archivists – value (http://archiveshub.ac.uk/value/)
JS noted that it is interesting to see that for 1st time users digital content is as
important as coverage. SC agreed that this reflects their recent experience.
JP mentioned the Ithaka ‘Supporting the Changing Research Practices of
Historians’ report and encouraged the SC to read it.
(http://www.sr.ithaka.org/research-publications/supporting-changingresearch-practices-historians)
JS drew the SC’s attention to the recent ‘using archives’ guide, which she wrote as
result of going to teach students. Not asking ‘how to search’ but what to do after
that. Took feedback from discussion on archives-nra. The guide has been highlyviewed with favourable feedback.
JS was asked to clarify incomplete labels on the first-time user graph on p6 of the
SC report. The first incomplete label should read ‘I carried out a search via a
search engine, looking for subject-based information; the second ‘I carried out a
search via a search engine, looking for archives.’
KA reminded the Hub team to make sure to include feedback and impact of
‘using archives’ in any feedback to Jisc, and see if Jisc can put a monetary value
on time saved.
JHa gave a demonstration of the new model for the centralized Archives Hub.
The SC recommended that the Archives Hub team explore the possibility of
visualizations in the future – (related some discussion around search and
explore as two different ways into the Hub).
KA asked why the Hub code is on github: just for preservation, or do we actively
want user engagement? And suggested that if we do want developer
engagement, we will need to work to engage and encourage the community,
perhaps with hackathons.
**Action: JS & JHa to think about how to encourage developer interaction with
code, once next version is complete
PJ asked if we will push data enhancements back to users? JHa said that the
software will enable, but not enforce this.
**Action: JS to investigate how to approach this
3. The Archives Hub and Jisc bibliographic services
JP directed attention to section 1 in SC report, & distributed questions for SC
consideration. She gave overview and background to Resource Discovery
Optimisation Review (RDOR).
There was concern over the narrow definition of ‘resource discovery’ in the
RDOR, and over the methodologies used. There was concern that the use cases
were too library-focused.
JP: fairly happy with recommendations, but appreciate methodology & focus
problematic
JP asked is this the right grouping (Archives Hub, Copac, Zetoc, SUNCAT) for a
joined-up strategy? The Committee did not feel that it was. KA suggested that
the Hub might sit better with more content-focused services such as Jorum,
BUFVC, MediaHub.
The SC finds phrase ‘the national collection’ problematic.
The SC asked if they can feed back their reactions to Jisc.
**Action: JP to look into the best way to communicate this to Jisc. Will liaise with
Andy McGregor then talk to LR. Will circulate and sign.
JP asked the SC what they thought the impact would be of a high-level, central
Steering Committee for bibliographic services, and what that would mean for
individual service steering committees.
The SC agreed that this could potentially mean loss of expertise, and might result
in the Hub being ‘shoehorned’ into a bibliographic services role that might not be
the best fit.
KA suggested that there would still be scope for services to consult with
stakeholders and the community through ‘friends of…’ type initiatives, and that
the Hub might be a more ‘natural’ fit to be grouped with services such as Jorum,
BUFVC, Mediahub etc.
**Action: JP and JS to consider best fit.
The question of commercial partnerships was raised, and KA suggested that the
Hub already has commercial partners, through those commercial organisations
who contribute their descriptions to the Hub.
The role of TNA in promoting unified archive discovery was raised, and CW
updated the SC on the status of the new TNA catalogue, and how TNA can best
work with sector partners.
**Action: Agreed a joined-up approach to archives discovery across the UK is a
good thing and this should be carried forwards.
4. Archives Hub Development Priorities: discussion on priorities and areas for
development going forwards (see ‘Archives Hub Development Priorities’
document)
JS asked for feedback on whether the SC thought these were a correct set of
priorities, and what the SC thought the benefits of developing each area might be.
The SC agreed these priorities and areas for development in general. Specific
comments on areas for development:

Growing data coverage: agreed as priority, based on user feedback

More descriptions of digital archives. Suggestion that the Hub run a
feature on a digital archive, to promote these.

Hub to encourage inclusion of more digital material in descriptions.

More options for exploring the Hub, including visualisations.

Encourage use of Hub API

Allow download of descriptions in different formats, and use of reference
management software.
**Action: BR to investigate mapping citations to reference management software

APE: SC congratulated JS on getting involved, and asked JS to keep them
informed about status and progress of contributing Hub data to APE

Investigate use of local thesauri, user tagging, and text mining


Continue to monitor opportunities for Linked Data work
Add ability to view Hub descriptions in RDA
**Action: JS, PJ, JHa to discuss
5) Date of next meeting:
Agreed 6 months: September/October 2013
Hub team to email with suggested dates.
Meeting closed 16.06