EMANI Meeting
July 25-26, 2002
Cornell University Library
Ithaca, New York
EMANI – Electronic Mathematical Archiving Network Initiative: An international
collaboration to support and coordinate the long-term preservation and open
accessibility of mathematical publications in digital form.
Project Coordinator: Bernd Wegner
1. Project Tasks and Priorities
Immediate
Send proposed advisory board names to Wegner
Distribute PDFs of EMANI logo to team
Press release
Survey of the EMANI partners on metadata requirements
Collect and distribute “problematic examples” to test
metadata
September
Send work package reminders 5 weeks prior to November
meeting
DOI report
October
Definition of work packages due – send to Becker
November
November meeting
Website operational
Minimum list of metadata requirements available by
November meeting
Functional requirements for users – proposal available by
November meeting (prototypes by March 2003)
Report on the NSDL
No date / ongoing
Prepare budget for EMANI
Prepare 2-year plans for digitization (toward a registry).
Submit descriptions to Becker
Assemble a list of organizations for outreach
Conference papers and publications (partner should review
before submission)
Funding efforts
Interoperability of distributed system
All
Springer
Wegner and Hasan
Göttingen
All
Wegner
De Kemp
All WPs
Göttingen
Springer and Neuroth
Metadata WP
Access, Nav, Design WP
Becker
Springer
All partner organizations
All
All
All
EMANI Meeting
July 25-26, 2002
2. Presentations








Hans Becker (SUB Göttingen), “Retrodigitization”
Pierre Bérard (Grenoble), “NUMDAM”
Arnoud de Kemp and Syed Hasan (Springer), “Formalizing Project EMANI”
Gertraud Griepke (Springer), “Contents and Formats: Existing Digital Sources”
Jiang Airong, “The Development of the Chinese Math Digital Library at Tsinghua
University”
Bernd Wegner (TU Berlin), “Information dissemination”
Bernd Wegner, “Ongoing Projects”
Project Euclid economic model
3. Meeting Minutes
Below are the minutes from the July 25-26 meeting of the EMANI project, held in Olin Library at
Cornell University, Ithaca, New York. The notes are my paraphrase of the transactions and
should not be taken as a direct transcript of the discussions. Links to participants’ PowerPoint
presentations are provided above, as well as in the text of the minutes. Brief notes on the
presentations in the minutes are meant to supplement the slides. – Kizer Walker
N.b. Tasks requiring specific follow-up from participants are marked with “” and bold face.
Thursday, July 25
Sarah Thomas (CUL) opened the meeting by welcoming the EMANI partners to Cornell
University Library and wishing the group success in its collaboration.

Bernd Wegner (TU Berlin/Zentralblatt) provided an overview of projects relevant to digital
archiving in general and the archiving of math materials in particular. [View presentation]. He
noted that several participants in the EMANI meeting would go on to attend the July 29-30
planning meeting of the Digital Mathematics Library project at the US National Science
Foundation in Washington, DC. Among other developments, Wegner pointed to a backfiles
system being developed by Elsevier for 39 of its journals as a possible competitor for EMANI.
He emphasized the importance of establishing visibility for EMANI, noting that content results
should be made available as soon as possible – even before the infrastructure is perfected, since
the infrastructure is not visible.
Discussion:
Gertraud Griepke (Springer Heidelberg) stressed that the priority assigned to archiving digital
materials must influence current production. Today’s digital production must facilitate a future
transition to the archives. What is new and significant about EMANI is this way in which the
project unites future and past. Bernd Wegner agreed, adding that this influence on the production
of digital materials must be a measure of EMANI’s success, not only what the project is able to
make available on the web.
2
EMANI Meeting
July 25-26, 2002
Hans Becker (SUB Göttingen) cited the development (e.g. in Germany and the UK) of
preservation and archiving projects that are regionally based, rather than subject-based. SUB
Göttingen is attempting to play the role of coordinating these two approaches.
Tom Hickerson (CUL) explained that in the US context, subject-based, national (LoC), and
institutional archives (i.e., archives that collect scholarship in the institution where it is produced)
are typically understood as competing models. He insisted that these models must interoperate.
Today (especially in the US context), there can be no single solution, and at the moment, no
single model is dominant. EMANI can serve as an exemplar of the subject-based approach and at
the same time advocate for interoperability among the different models.
Several of the Work Package subjects assigned at the February Heidelberg meeting were
discussed in the context of a grant proposal that EMANI partners from Cornell and Göttingen are
preparing for submission to NSF/DFG. The proposal – “Access to Mathematics Over Time:
Cooperative Management of Distributed Digital Archives” -- responds to a call for proposals
from DFG and NSF’s joint funding program for International Digital Libraries Research (see
<http://www.dfg.de/foerder/biblio/neues/dfg_nsf.pdf>). The NSF/DFG proposal took priority at
the EMANI metadata meeting in Göttingen in May. Some of the participants at the Ithaca
meeting also met separately to finish the proposal, which had an August 1 submission deadline.
David Ruddy (CUL) described the proposed collaboration between SUB Göttingen and CUL as a
project that could build, with external funding, core working components of EMANI. If funded,
the project will focus on the archiving of electronic journal materials in a distributed system that
is open and non-proprietary, taking into account the heterogeneous systems at the different
institutions. The partners would develop metadata to support long-term archiving in the
framework of the Open Archives Initiative.
Hickerson stressed that the grant activity should not be seen as an attempt to break away from the
larger EMANI project. The proposal responds to a specific funding opportunity that has arisen. It
is a grant proposal to the two funding agencies, but should be understood at the same time as a
proposal to the EMANI group, a suggestion of the direction the larger project can take.
Becker urged that the grant be pursued as a means of fulfilling the tasks laid out in the EMANI
Work Packages, but that the Work Package structure be retained, along with the assignments
made to the particular organizations in EMANI.
Hickerson emphasized that while the NSF/DFG grant is an International Digital Libraries
Research grant specifically requiring US-German collaboration, in the EMANI context, the grant
activity would be the business of all the national partners.
Here discussion diverged from the NSF/DFG proposal. Wegner asked whether the style files
promised by Springer-Verlag in at the Heidelberg meeting in February were forthcoming. The
Springer partners assured the group that the publisher is at work on style files for worldwide
production.
Wegner suggested the group resume the discussion begun at the Göttingen meeting (May ’02):
What does EMANI want to preserve? What are the minimum requirements?
3
EMANI Meeting
July 25-26, 2002
Thomas posed the question of the extent to which “context” should be preserved along with
“content.” For instance, is it desirable to archive information about a journal’s editorial board?
This is not only a metadata question, but also a policy question. Not only a question for
mathematicians, but also a question for historians and other user groups.
Arnoud de Kemp (Springer Heidelberg) characterized the “context” question as a structural
question: how do the originators of information structure that information?
Pierre Bérard (Grenoble) responded that this is a technical point of view, and not an end-user
perspective.
On the particular question of editorial boards, Ruddy noted that Project Euclid had made a
decision to capture them in the metadata. But it would difficult to include them retroactively.
Wegner proposed that the group develop a set of potential preservation problems and a set of
minimum requirements, with examples.
Hickerson agreed that these kinds of questions need to be addressed immediately as a starting
point for future developments.
Hickerson suggested a new Work Package might focus on the question of minimum requirements
for content/context archiving.
Jean Poland (CUL) suggested that math librarians consult historians of science on the question of
“context” preservation needs.
Griepke: EMANI needs to arrive at a clear definition of what a “journal” is (including, e.g., table
of contents, index).
De Kemp: This is a question of structure – the structure of the journal.
Becker noted that SUB Göttingen has already developed a document to address this.
Heike Neuroth (SUB Göttingen) is working on a survey of the EMANI partners on metadata
requirements.
Becker reminded the group that we must consider the economics of preservation in formulating
metadata requirements. Hickerson cautioned against expending too much of the group’s efforts in
the search for a perfect solution – we must make our best guess at what must be preserved and
move on. Must be flexible and pragmatic and not get bogged down by the immenseness of the
question of what to keep.
 Hickerson proposed the November EMANI meeting as a deadline for developing a
minimal list of metadata requirements.
Marcy Rosenkrantz (CUL) asked whether the group is prepared to preserve TeX on the
assumption that TeX will continue to be usable in the future.
Ruddy: If we want to preserve presentation formats, preserving TeX will not suffice.
4
EMANI Meeting
July 25-26, 2002
Steve Rockey (CUL) added that publishers must decide whether print or electronic will be the
copy of record.
In summary, Thomas noted that two pieces are needed to move forward with the formulation of
metadata requirements: the results of the Göttingen metadata survey and examples of problematic
materials.
 Neuroth will distribute survey and results.
 Wegner agreed to collect and distribute examples of problematic materials.
 Griepke agreed to distribute examples from Springer.
The problematic examples will be tested against the proposed metadata – can the metadata
describe the examples?
 The five participating groups will make recommendations based on the tests.
Access, Navigation, Design
Hickerson: the next step after coming to some conclusions about metadata requirements will be to
create models/prototypes of a user system. When should such models be ready for review by the
group? In one year?
Neuroth: Six months would be better. If prototypes are available sooner, this experience can still
influence the development of the metadata.
 Ruddy: The access, navigation, design group (headed by CUL) will propose functional
requirements for users in time for the November meeting.
Ruddy asked for clarification of whether the group understands the EMANI project to be creating
a “dark” or a “light” archive. Are access controls, etc., a requirement? He noted that he has been
working under the assumption that the project will produce a light archive.
Hickerson recalled that Rüdiger Gebauer had spoken at the February meeting in Heidelberg of
opening the archive after a “short period.” He asked for the Springer-Verlag partners to make
clear if this was not correctly understood.
De Kemp responded that it will not be difficult to discuss opening access to the archive with
Springer. He pointed to the open discussion between Springer and Göttingen on Göttingen’s
digitization of Springer math books. Springer is willing to discuss an open archive – but probably
with restrictions. This might mean a model with 2 or 3 time layers. In any case, Gebauer must be
involved in this discussion. There is currently no written policy on this question at Springer.
Hickerson answered that time constraints on access, a rolling model, do not pose a problem for
CUL. What would be problematic is a subscriber-specific system to support subscription
processes – this would be too expensive for the library.
De Kemp noted that part of the question of access has to do with the definition of “archive”: is it
old materials? Current library collections?
5
EMANI Meeting
July 25-26, 2002
Access, Navigation, Design tasks:
 basic functional specifications: by November meeting
 prototypes for presentation to the group: March 1 (to share with the group for discussion
in April)
Participants from the CUL group noted that the prototypes should not represent a universal
model, but rather prototypes to be adapted to needs of different user communities.
Architecture
Frank Klaproth (SUB Göttingen) opened the discussion on EMANI architecture. He emphasized
that the system should be OAI compliant. It will be a distributed system. Rights management
must be addressed, as well as the question of which institution holds the digital materials.
Wegner outlined a model of a distributed system in which copies of content would be stored at
multiple mirror sites, but individual institutions would retain proprietary rights over specific
content. This is the model employed by Zentralblatt MATH and EMIS.
De Kemp said he expected such a model would be of interest to CUL and Göttingen, but
wondered whether France or Tsinghua would also be interested.
Bérard responded that the French partners would be interested in principle, but that it is too early
for a decision.
Thomas referred to the ongoing discussion in the archives community of the status of mirror sites.
Most hold that while mirror sites represent an important safety net for access, they do not
constitute an archive.
Nancy McGovern (CUL) drew a distinction between redundancy and replication in the context of
digital archiving. Because a mirror site holds copies of documents within an environment that
replicates the main site, it is vulnerable to the same problems as the main site. Redundancy in the
sense advocated by the LOCKSS project (http://lockss.stanford.edu/) provides more security by
storing copies in a different environment.
Wegner added that the EMANI architecture should accommodate updates.
De Kemp envisioned a docking station for the delivery of information directly (i.e., SpringerVerlag to EMANI) in the desired format. Springer wants to see a platform for the delivery of
digital information that offers an alternative to Elsevier. This would not be a proprietary Springer
system, but an open system with participation from multiple publishers.
Thomas summarized the criteria for evaluating the EMANI architecture: capacity for
interoperability with other systems, accommodation of updates.
Retrodigitization
Becker presented on SUB Göttingen’s Retrodigitization plan for the next two years. [View
presentation]. Göttingen will continue work on Springer journals. They wish to create a definitive
list of Springer math journals. Teubner journals are also a priority, but like Birkhäuser, Teubner is
6
EMANI Meeting
July 25-26, 2002
a sister company of Springer and issues of control must still be worked out. The plan also
includes digitization of all the back sets of all the EMIS journals. See presentation for other
priorities for journals, monographs.
Wegner and Griepke pointed out Springer has already prepared a list of Springer’s math journals.
De Kemp: Springer is interested in testing monograph digitization. Up to now, this has not been a
success. Serviceable on-demand printing is still ten years away – print and binding quality is not
up to expectations.
Registry discussion:
Need a registry of math materials that will be digitized?
Keith Dennis (Cornell) asked for clarification on the purpose of such a registry. Is its purpose to
indicate to libraries what is to be digitized? Or is the point to show users what is available in
digital form? If the registry is for math users, Zentralblatt and Math Reviews already function as a
repository.
Participants from CUL all understood the registry as a prospective list with the purpose of
managing digitization. Thomas: a registry of intent to digitize.
Bérard noted that France is making a list to guide future digitization. A list of priorities.
De Kemp maintained that DOI amounts to an agreed-upon repository. Springer is making DOIs
for all digital documents and could register DOIs for EMANI. Whoever has the rights to
distribute digital material can register a DOI for that material.
 De Kemp will attend an upcoming DOI meeting in Boston and will report back to the
EMANI group.
 It was agreed that each EMANI partner would prepare a description of what they
propose to digitize in the next two years. These will be submitted to Hans Becker who will
consolidate and organize the list.
This list is meant to evolve into a mature registry at a later date. For more on the Digital Library
Federation’s registry model, see: “The Case for a Digital Registry”
<http://www.diglib.org/collections/reg/regcase.htm>.
Report on Digitization Projects
Jiang Airong (Tsinghua UL) presented on The Development of the Chinese Math Digital Library
at Tsinghua University. [View presentation]. The pre-1911 Chinese mathematics literature
amounts to approximately 160,000 pages (Jiang did not have a figure for materials since 1911,
but estimated more than 1 million pages). Current Chinese digitization efforts intend to cover 60
math journals with over 70,000 articles.
Bérard reported on the NUMDAM project. Topics included technical specifications, metadata
structures, quality control procedures, etc., as well as the relationship between the NUMDAM
and EMANI and NUMDAM and the Digital Math Library. [View presentation].
7
EMANI Meeting
July 25-26, 2002
Note: On “programme overview” slide (#12), pink represents outsourced processes.
NUMDAM recycles the metadata from CUL and Göttingen for its monograph database.
Bérard noted that NUMDAM’s bibliographies are keyboarded. The next step is to add Zbl/MR
numbers to the bibliographies.
The beta version of NUMDAM’s citation tool is expected in October.
Bérard discussed the issue of author identification and permissions. In French law, permission
must be obtained from the journal and the author. NUMDAM has been advised by lawyer to
show a good-faith effort to get permission from the author. When the project is unable to reach an
author, the material is posted, but removed if the author requests.
NUMDAM is publicly funded.
Sustainability
Thomas recalled reporting at the February 2002 EMANI meeting on Project Harvest – an
exploratory project in subject-based digital archiving in agriculture that was funded by the Mellon
Foundation. It had been CUL’s hope that Mellon might fund a mathematics project along these
lines, but the foundation has since shifted its priorities. CUL will need to look for other options to
support EMANI participation.
McGovern described the competing publisher- and subject-based models of digital archiving that
have been under discussion at CUL and elsewhere. The subject-based digital archive (SBDA)
model was a key lesson from Project Harvest, but discussion has now moved to a notion of an
integrated matrix of repositories, some publisher-based, some subject-based. This integrated
model belongs to the broader project at CUL of building a Common Depository of digital
materials. This is conceived as an interoperable, distributed system. This reflects a shift in
orientation at CUL from individual digital projects to a digital program for the institution. CUL is
working with the Open Archival Information System (OAIS) model. While CUL does not have a
fully-implemented OAIS archive, it does have pieces.
Griepke raised the question of how to “brand” digital content. With multiple projects making
math materials available, how does the user choose, especially when the “real” content – the OCR
layer – is invisible? We need a quality stamp.
Wegner: Quality includes comprehensiveness. How do we find a balance between quantity and
quality? JSTOR provides an excellent core math collection, but it is a small sample.
De Kemp: One aspect of EMANI is quality control.
Thomas concluded the sustainability discussion with the question of how to move forward,
especially considering the loss of Mellon as a potential funding framework. CUL continues to do
preservation research. We may be able to look to the National Science Foundation for support in
the context of the Digital Math Library.
8
EMANI Meeting
July 25-26, 2002
EMANI Prototypes
Becker: An important component of EMANI will be to make retrodigitized and born-digital
materials available through the same interface. Becker discussed the prospect of gathering and
merging data from Zentralblatt and the Jahrbuch. He pointed to the EULER project as an example
of integrated access to dispersed math materials through a common user interface
(http://www.emis.de/projects/EULER/).
Cornell Math Projects
Poland reported on various CUL digital projects related to mathematics. See the minutes to the
May 2002 CUL meeting on digital math projects: <http://www.math.cornell.edu/~library/digitalmath-projects.html>
Poland highlighted CUL’s Technical Reports Library (http://techreports.library.cornell.edu), a
collection of computer science research reports and papers that descends from the NCSTRL
(Networked Computer Science Technical Reference Library) project. CUL views the Tech
Reports Library as a prototype collection for an institutional repository model of digital archiving
and access provision. CUL hopes to add capacity to handle the ingest of more complex
documents than are stored in the Tech Reports Library.
Poland and Hickerson described the economic model developed for Project Euclid. [Euclid
economic model].
De Kemp suggested that if CUL finds it cannot sustain financial support for Project Euclid,
Springer might be interested.
Hickerson suggested CUL might be interested in discussing a marketing agreement for Euclid
with Springer.

De Kemp asked whether CUL supports the Open Archive Initiative (OAI).
Hickerson responded that Cornell has been involved in its development. But he noted his
impression that OAI is more popular in Europe than in the US. In the US, interest is primarily in
its archiving uses; in Europe there seems to be more interest in OAI’s implications for selfpublishing. It would be interesting to fold the OAI discussion into the EMANI project.
Relationship of EMANI to DML
Several participants in the EMANI meeting went on to attend the first planning meeting of the
Digital Mathematics Library project, July 29-30 at the NSF in Washington, DC.
Dennis: EMANI is based on the premise that Springer-Verlag will provide access to archived
materials, but will not be charged with paying for the work of archiving. The DML represents a
search for funding for third parties to do this work.
9
EMANI Meeting
July 25-26, 2002
De Kemp wished to express Springer’s interest in EMANI in a different way: Springer-Verlag is
interested in long-term preservation and access to mathematics.
Thomas: Phillipe Tondeur sees the DML as his legacy at NSF. And NSF seems to have money to
fund the project. We hope this wave of interest in math digitization will benefit the EMANI
project.
Wegner: A high-profile project, such as the DML promises to be, will have a positive effect on
local efforts.
De Kemp asked about the extent to which EMANI needed to be formalized in advance of the
DML meeting.
Rosenkrantz: Formalizing EMANI agreements will help to “sell” the DML to funding agencies.
Bérard noted that in the French case, in order for public funds (CNRS) to be put into the project, a
clear statement from Springer is needed that the worldwide mathematics community will benefit
from the work.
De Kemp asked whether a paper was needed that would define EMANI for the DML project.
The group agreed that this was not needed at this stage, and might even be seen as offering
competition to the DML.

Friday, July 26
Griepke presented on Springer’s electronic publishing program, outlining what she called a “pure
Springer” approach (rather than wider Bertelsmann policies and processes). [View presentation].
She discussed enhancements to content, functionality, and access for readers and advantages of
branding and access for authors. She emphasized Springer’s attention to streamlining the digital
production process and workflows, and the impact of Springer’s commitment to archiving on
production processes.
Griepke presented a list of 22 journal titles in mathematics – Springer titles excluding Birkhäuser,
identified as “mathematics” from the point of view of SUB Göttingen (not identical with
Springer’s definition, which would include statistics, etc.). The task is to digitize the full back set
of these 22 titles. Griepke estimates that this comes to approximately 925,000 pages (the estimate
comes from a page count of each of these journals from the past two years, extrapolated back to
issue one, and subtracting the pages that are already in digital form). Around 60% of the pages to
be digitized are in four journals.
Griepke and De Kemp cautioned that EMANI must avoid the tendency to produce an overly
complex workflow, especially if a distributed system is adopted. More discussion of the evolution
of digital workflow within Springer in the past five years.
Participants acknowledged the need to provide controls so that access is not interrupted if a
journal changes publishers.
10
EMANI Meeting
July 25-26, 2002
The question of preserving “context” was taken up again. Is a link needed between each article
and an editorial board for the issue? Griepke: Preserving advertisements is probably not
important. Thomas: In many fields, researchers want to see advertisements.
The group discussed linking to and from errata, which Springer currently provides.
De Kemp: Previously, Springer had not dealt with metadata for letters to the editor, conference
announcements, and similar journal contents. ISI demanded that Springer go back and include
these.
The Springer team asked how libraries want to handle the metadata for book reviews and similar.
Is there a need to index these? Springer needs to know now, to determine how to ship, etc.
Wegner: How is the reader guided to book reviews and similar contents in the electronic
environment? Normally with digital material, the reader goes straight to the article.
De Kemp: A well-structured search engine will identify a book review.
Wegner: But in a print environment, the reader typically does not search for this kind of item.
Thomas: The library’s interest in preserving access to supplementary material such as book
reviews has to do with the contextual relationship of this material to the main journal content. If
in the electronic environment reviews, etc., are moved to a separate database, then there is not so
much of a concern. But as long as this material is part of the context of the content, as it has been
in the print environment, it needs to be accessible.
Wegner: We need a solution that does not artificially integrate these types of content in imitation
of print.
Griepke: A journal is not only its content, but also a community organizer. Are we archiving only
journal content, or also this community organizing function?
The group discussed the implications of the ability, in the digital environment, to change an
already published work though the addition of links, errata, etc. Springer’s firm rule in this regard
is that no article is changed after publication. (In this connection, Wegner referred to the IMU’s
Committee on Electronic Information Communication “Best Current Practices” document:
<http://www.ceic.math.ca/ceic_docs/best_practices/Best-Practices.pdf>.) Springer provides linkenabled references that point to a separate page of links that can be updated. An article’s original
reference page remains unchanged in the PDF while the separate HTML page of references
evolves. Wegner pointed to the potential problem of changing the reception of an article through
additional references and other materials; the Springer team responded that the segregation of the
additional material from the article addresses this.
Dennis proposed this model: The archive contains article content only with a link to additional
services. The archived “static content” is free, but the publisher can charge for the added services.
This is what the publisher gets in return for giving away the content.
De Kemp: Well defined.
11
EMANI Meeting
July 25-26, 2002
De Kemp posed a question to libraries and mathematicians: Is there a need to identify
illustrations, formulae, etc., separate from the text of an article (searchable mathematics)?
Wegner: Project MOWGLI is working on searchable formulae.
Dennis: This is one purpose behind MathML – not all mathematicians are interested in this issue,
but some are.
De Kemp: If this is of interest, it is something that Springer wants to explore.
Thomas and Ruddy noted that Project Euclid focus groups did not show much interest in these
kinds of features. Perhaps it is too expensive.
Rosenkrantz: Structure searching in chemistry is very important – the need for such features is
community defined.
Poland: We do not know whether the math community is interested, since we have not offered
these features.
Wegner: When these features become possible, Springer will no doubt offer them. Then they will
need to be archived.
Ruddy asked if mathematicians formulate equations in a uniform way. The clear answer from the
group was: no. Ruddy: Perhaps MathML will introduce standards.
Springer is involved in the European Commission’s OpenMath project
(http://www.nag.co.uk/projects/OpenMath.html) that is working on searchable equations.
De Kemp summed up the discussion, noting that features such as searchable formulae are of
interest to the group as a possible future direction, but not a realistic prospect at present.
On monographs, Griepke noted that Springer’s information model for books is similar to that for
journals with a uniform workflow. She noted that digitized monographs require guides for readers
to render context and promote browsability, since full-text search engines throw readers into the
middle of a complex environment.
Formalizing EMANI
Syed Hasan (Springer NY) and the Springer team led a discussion of various aspects of EMANI’s
formalization: mission, organization, branding, outreach, etc. Hasan’s PowerPoint on
“Formalizing Project EMANI” was updated during the course of the discussion to reflect
decisions reached on these points.
The group agreed upon the following statement of EMANI’s mission: “An international
collaboration to support and coordinate the long-term preservation and open accessibility of
mathematical publications in digital form.” The term “publications” was chosen after some
discussion over alternatives such as mathematical “literature,” “resources,” “material,” etc. The
entire group firmly endorsed the goal of open accessibility.
12
EMANI Meeting
July 25-26, 2002
The name of the project was fixed as Electronic Mathematical Archiving Network Initiative. The
use of the definite article with the acronym (i.e., “The EMANI”) was rejected.
It was noted that “selecting relevant content,” which appears under the heading “Aims and
Scope” in the presentation, does not mean “quality control” (but rather determining the scope of
the collection.
With regard to group structure (again, see presentation), the Core Team consists of the
representatives of the participating institutions (Cornell University Library, SUB Göttingen,
Tsinghua University Library, Orsay Mathematical Library/CMD, Springer-Verlag and its
associated publishing houses [Birkhaeuser, Vieweg, Teubner], ELibM in EMIS, and the project
Coordinator. Project Coordinator is Bernd Wegner. The precise role of the Advisory Board is still
being defined, but it was agreed that it is not “over” the Core Team. It is similar to an editorial
board, a scientific board. It is not a management team.
The group was shown several proposals for an EMANI logo that had been prepared by the
Springer team. Meeting participants favored C, below, but there was discussion about whether the
yellow background might too closely associate the project with Springer. The Springer group will
bring that concern back to the graphic artists.
 Springer will have PDFs of the logo made up for use by the EMANI team.
A.
B.
C.
The group wanted to pair the logo with a slogan and tentatively settled on “Serving the
mathematics community.”
MathPortal
Rüdiger Gebauer (Springer NY) joined the meeting by speakerphone.
Springer considered a mathematics portal a few years ago. Various ideas were generated at that
time. Now, reconsidering portal idea in connection with EMANI.
The portal would aim to be the leading community organizer for mathematicians. Would include
an events calendar, conference information, pre-print links, links to various projects, etc.
Thomas said that CUL had also long harbored the goal of creating a math portal – this was under
consideration when Project Euclid was launched. At that time, it was decided that the
environment was too competitive – the AMS and others already covered many of the functions
envisioned for the portal. But perhaps the environment / alliances have shifted.
13
EMANI Meeting
July 25-26, 2002
The group thought that there had not been a significant shift.
Wegner: First, consider how the existing pieces could be assembled, then consider whether more
is needed. Consider forging coalitions. Starting from scratch would be too expensive.
As an alternative to the portal model put forward by Springer, Dennis proposed that what
mathematicians want is a Google-like search engine that is math specific.
Ruddy asked whether AMS would allow MathSciNet records to be harvested for this purpose.
Dennis: No. What would they have to sell if they gave the records away?
Ruddy: This would mean giving only the metadata away, not the reviews.
Dennis: But many people go to MR/Zbl just for citations.
Ruddy: We need to encourage the parties to make their records available via OAI.
Griepke discussed the World Health Organization’s Health InterNetwork Access to Research
Initiative (HINARI), which provides developing countries access to leading medical journals
through a medical and life sciences portal. HINARI offers a useful model for our math portal
discussion because its scope is well defined and it serves a limited community.
Wegner urged the group to consider carefully whether there is a real need for the information
services (such as conference information) that a portal would provide. Or are mathematicians
satisfied with existing sources? Thomas likewise cautioned against creating a redundant service –
we need to channel our efforts and not duplicate existing services.
Jerry Curtis (Springer NY) insisted that we would need base our discussion of a portal on a
survey of the math community. Impossible to reach a conclusion in this meeting. “One-stop
shopping” is talked about a lot, but up to now has not appeared.
Thomas raised the question of a business model for a math portal. De Kemp responded that
content issues would need to be discussed first.
Gebauer noted that the costs involved in building and maintaining a math portal would not be
nominal. It would need significant editorial work – one head editor, plus regional contacts.
Hickerson agreed: leadership, capital, constant management. What warrants the investment?
De Kemp: Would CUL subscribe? Rockey: Only if the faculty demanded it. Only if the portal
offered things that could not be found elsewhere. Thomas: Only if the portal were a real
productivity tool for mathematicians, significantly better than free sources. Poland: The library
perception is that a sharp librarian can find the information without a portal.
Hickerson: We need to know what we can do before making any announcements. We need a
stronger commitment of resources from the meeting participants before pursuing the portal idea.
Hasan: If the portal were a failure, this could damage EMANI.
14
EMANI Meeting
July 25-26, 2002
De Kemp: This preliminary discussion has planted a seed. Gebauer: Perhaps a small working
group should develop the idea for the next EMANI meeting in the fall.
Thomas: The National Science Digital Library (NSDL) (http://comm.nsdlib.org/) is an emerging
prototype. Instead of a working group, we could look at carefully at the NSDL.
 Hans Becker will report at the November meeting on the feasibility of using NSDL
harvesting techniques.
Curtis: The group should channel its energies to EMANI, not risk distraction. After EMANI is
moving, we can ask the math community what might be added.
Gebauer: Yes. Adding the portal idea to the agenda was not meant to distract from the core
EMANI project.
EMANI structure
Advisory board
Wegner proposed that there be two boards:
 An “editorial committee” (or similar) made up of respected mathematicians would
represent EMANI to the math community. It would function like an editorial board.
 A “scientific and technical advisory board” with IT expertise and strong ties to the library
community. This would not be a steering committee; rather, would give advise on
technical matters
Poland: asked for clarification on the difference between the two boards. Gebauer: One represents
end users, the other represents librarians.
Hickerson noted the boards’ outreach function.
Gebauer: The boards should be small and extremely professional. Members would not be
figureheads.
Hickerson: We need to have the advisory groups in place early on, but we also need to have
support available for them. We must be able to tell them where the money is coming from to
support meetings, etc.
Rosenkrantz: And we need to determine their terms of appointment, the time commitment
involved, etc.
De Kemp suggested one meeting of the boards per year.
Wegner: Need to determine procedures for adding and replacing members.
Gebauer: The boards will not be supervisory committees – they will be like a Beirat, an advisory
council.
15
EMANI Meeting
July 25-26, 2002
De Kemp: EMANI is an initiative, a collaboration, not a society or a company. We can invite
board members on that basis. The term may not be important. Thomas: The term is important,
because there must be a mechanism for cycling people out.
Joachim Heinze (Springer Heidelberg) suggested a 3-year renewable term. 2 years deemed too
short for a real commitment to the project.
De Kemp: Board members would receive no remuneration, but would be compensated for costs.
De Kemp: We need to formulate a list of names in the coming weeks and finalize the board
membership in November.
 The group will send suggestions for board members to Bernd Wegner. The listserv
should not be used for this purpose.
Springer Update
Gebauer reported on the current status of Springer-Verlag and assured the group that even with a
potential new majority owner, Springer is prepared to stand 100% behind EMANI.
Expanding to Other Disciplines
Gebauer discussed the prospects of expanding the EMANI model to other fields. He suggested
that a successful project cannot be limited to pure mathematics. The applied areas of math are
much larger and are thriving. He proposed that EMANI first be formalized, and that the group
then begin talking to content providers in other areas – physics and engineering initially.
Dennis asked what this plan implies with regard to the involvement of other publishers. Gebauer
answered that while EMANI is initiated by Springer, it is not a Springer project. Once the project
is formalized and stable, it will be open to other publishers. Gebauer proposed that EMANI
branch out sometime in 2003 – he suggested AMS and Cambridge UP as possible future partners.
Gebauer envisions EMANI in its final stage as a platform where all publishers in mathematics
and related fields find their material archived.
Information Dissemination
Wegner outlined EMANI’s specific needs with regard to publicity and gave an overview of his
own efforts (articles, conference papers, etc.) to publicize the project. [View presentation].
 Bernd Wegner and Syed Hasan will draft new EMANI press release.
Griepke: Link has a list of around 600 addresses of people who have requested information about
EMANI.
 Springer will set up an EMANI website will be set up on the Springer server in
Germany.
 Heike Neuroth will maintain the website.
Site will contain (among other things…):
16
EMANI Meeting
July 25-26, 2002


Links to partner institutions
Restricted partners’ page (containing work package material and timeline)
 Each partner is to name a contact person for website.
 first draft of website to be presented at November meeting.
Outreach
Thomas noted that the first EMANI outreach following the Ithaca meeting would take place in
Washington at the DML planning meeting. Asked for other suggestions.
Griepke suggested arranging for a student to work on EMANI as a thesis project. Bérard noted
that NUMDAM had library students studying that program.
Thomas: Library schools should be alerted about this emerging project. Also:
 Coalition for Networked Information (CNI)
 Research libraries
 ALA
 SPARC
 SLA
 Etc.
 Need to assemble a list of organizations for outreach. Give categories and partners fill in
appropriate national body.
Thomas questioned whether dissemination and outreach are really separate tasks and suggested
collapsing them into one work package. General agreement.
 Wegner and Thomas will co-chair combined Dissemination and Outreach work package.
 For all work packages: Leaders must formulate definition of work package with
responsibilities and timetable. Descriptions are due by October 1 – send to Hans Becker
who will organize them.
Descriptions will appear on restricted part of website. Will need periodic updates.
Wegner proposed that annual reports be produced. Also, any member of the team planning to
present on EMANI at a conference, etc., should ask the list for suggestions.
Hickerson asked whether “access” (which includes large-scale search strategies) should be
separated from the “design and navigation” (which have to do with environment) in the work
packages. Group decided to leave the single work package for now, but maybe split later when
more work has been finished.
Neuroth and Becker raised the issue of dependencies among the work packages – the timeline
shows linear relationships (and hence “time dependencies”), but what about other logical and
thematic dependencies?
Hickerson responded that when the work packages are explicated, some will come apart. How do
the work packages map to the OAIS model?
17
EMANI Meeting
July 25-26, 2002
 Arnoud de Kemp and Elmar Mittler added to Work Package 5 (Copyright).
Progress report: NSF/DFG proposal
Ruddy summarized: The proposal addresses archiving of journal material from Springer, Euclid,
and EMIS in a jointly managed, distributed, interoperable digital archive. Includes metadata and
protocol development. Funding could be available as soon as November 2002. This would be a 3year grant for approximately $1 million. The participants see the grant project as providing tools
and a model for EMANI. The proposal refers to EMANI, but this is not an EMANI project.
Whether the project is funded or not, the approach worked out for the proposal can provide an
underpinning for EMANI. The participants hope this provides a way to build key pieces of
EMANI with public support. The project would also build a working OAIS model.
Summary / Next Steps
The meeting closed with a summary of project tasks (given at top of this document) and
optimistic anticipation of further collaboration among the partners.
18