Minutes of November meeting approved:
Bill Roberts (UCB) announced the establishment of the
Chronicle of University of California a new subscription based periodical.
Funded partially through the UCB Graduate Division of the Humanities. $
12.00/issue. Roberts is on the Editorial Board.
BS, CBB, TH and Bernie Hurley all met with REL at UCB regarding the OAC Project, and discussed other tangential EAD/UCB projects as well.
REL was impressed with the OAC project - he had not
visited the website before
REL was so impressed
that he asked BS to give a presentation to the ULs meeting at UC Davis on
4/30/98
The support REL has already resulted in
UCB systems to give more support to the OAC efforts of Alvin Pollack and Tim
Hoyer, for example: new Dynaweb software - a more robust version - is now
available
Bernie Hurley, Head of UCB Systems,
also came away for a new commitment to the project
REL spoke generally of wanting to better integrate the OAC with
the CDL, but did not elaborate on what this integration would mean in
specifics
Ensuing discussion resulted in a
clearer vision of this integration: 1) need for a governing board, or an
advisory committee to shape the product - this board would include CDL
representation and probably will include Beverly French, Head of Collection
Development
REL agreed on two structures for the
OAC: Advisory Group which will be responsible for long range planning and
short-range tactical work and a Standards Group
In this context, BS and CBB are working for the CDL, however it is
not clear how financially this arrangement will be formalized
REL is very interested in the OAC being a part of the public
release of the CDL website
CDL website is being
designed by a contractor - Porchlight
Alvin
Pollack will be working with CDL staff to integrate the OAC website with the CDL
website
Beta Version of the CDL website will be
released in Fall 1998
Public Version of the CDL
website will be released in January 1999
BS subsequent conversations with REL about integration of OAC with CDL
Streamlining the financial coordination between UCB and
UCLA: issue is that UCB is the grant recipient for LSTA funds, but UCLA is
managing the funding. One possible solution is having the CDL manage the
funding
Possible Models: have the next LSTA grant
submitted by the CDL
Statistical Update as of 4/28/98:
324 Finding Aids from non-CSU affiliates (CHS, CL,
Huntington, UOP); this is about 10,000 pages
4
Finding Aids from CSU affiliates numbering 430 pages
1500 Finding Aids/28,000 pages from UC Participants
Additional 500 Finding Aids comprising 24,000 pages are
in the production queue
Note there are an
additional 7,000 pages of machine readable Finding Aids in the queue, and an
additional 27,000 legacy pages of Finding Aids in the queue
Other Updates:
BS is negotiating a contract with APEX (sole-source
provider) to convert the legacy pages
APEX costs
per kilobyte ranges from 70 cents - $ 1.00
Estimate 3 kilobytes per page: $2.70/page
BS believes we have enough current funding to convert more than
20,000 pages of finding aids: $ 45,000
REL has
agreed to provide the $ 45,000 to pay for the legacy conversion from CDL
funds
UCLA is collaborating with the CDL to
submit a letter of intent to NSF for a DLI proposal: the project would integrate
OAC, TEI and MARC into metadata
REL has agreed to
provide funds for the preparation of the grant: a collaboration with Gregory
Leisen of UCLA (search engine) and Hal Varian of UCB (intellectual
property issues)
By Fall 1998, Alvin Pollack will
have then new Dynatext software engine in place
Discussion:
Where will the OAC finding aids live at UCB? At the CDL?
The technology exists for individual campuses to maintain data and using Z39.50 unite the finding aids virtually. The CDL can help us do this - this is the future. If we receive the 3rd grant of $ 347,000 from the LSTA we will have funding through September 1999 to get UC data and affiliate data online
Once extramural funding is exhausted, it is clear that CDL money will be spent to help UC content on the CDL website, but it is not clear at what level and for how long, so this places an emphasis on transferring the ability to create and mount EAD data locally at individual campuses.
CBB reports that Alvin Pollack is planning to create customized conversion macros, and simple templates for individual campuses to use when processing collections and creating finding aids.
JD observed that the template should be in EAD DTD 1.0 and not EAD DTD Beta
Gabriella Montoya is taking major responsibility for EAD production to free-up Alvin’s time to concentrate on tasks such as conversion technology for local use. However, Alvin needs clear direction from the UC members about what is needed in the template
BS suggests that we have a meeting in the Fall to determine specifications for the conversion - to determine exactly what kind of tool is needed at individual campuses, or what kind of model would work - 1) archivists during processing or 2) another department in library or 3 outsourcing; we should draft an agenda for this meeting, which should last 2 - 3 days
JD says this requires serious consideration: do we want a template that can be used locally to encode as we process, or do we want to consider outsourcing for the conversion process. However, it is early to send Finding Aids to commercial vendors for conversion; the EAD DTD 1.0 isn’t readily available yet, and we are not ready to give vendors customizing instructions.
RLG wants to make OAC a part of their database - to serve as publisher; this is a licensing issue that BS & REL will be negotiating; REL feels OAC content should be available free within California
BS will work with the CDL/REL to resolve the changing URLs issue - JD, Chair of the OAC Metadata Standards Working Group and BS will draft a letter to REL about this issue.
CBB discussed Public Service considerations for OAC; frames will allow us to perform subject analysis, but this will require us to assign broad topical fields to our finding aids
BS wants is all to assign 2-3 topics retrospectively to all our finding aids
RC briefly discussed the grant submitted by UCB Bancroft Library & UCSF Library to the NLM for creating multi-repository guides with in SGML and the Digital Archival Reference Network component.
What should be the relationship of HOSC to the CDL?
BS: The ULs are meeting on 4/30/98 and there will be a presentation to restructure the Library Council within the context of the CDL. The three tiered structures will be as follows:
ULs will take the place of the Library Council
Systemwide Planning group will be formed consisting of
AULs and CDL staff
Information Sharing will be
made up of groups similar to the already existing CDC, HOTS, HOPS, HOS,
etc.
A Steering Committee will also be formed to
advise the ULs.
It is not resolved yet as to whom the UCACs/HOSC will
advise.
CDC is favorable to recognizing the UCAC, however, the CDC is waiting for the results of the restructuring of the Library Council.
UCERW report (Westbrook)
UC Electronic Records Working Group had its last meeting in February 1998; no minutes are available yet. UCERW is an ad hoc group of the records management group.
In the morning there was a demonstration of the Electronic Records Management System. In the afternoon several projects were discussed.
Revision of Disposition Schedules. Now that Ross Smith has been transferred to UCOP Legal Counsel, Connie Williams has the administrative responsibility. UCERW wants to see electronic records accounted for in a revised schedule. At the December 1997 ERW meeting the idea was discussed to consider a functional schedule should be considered for the revision. At the meetings UCSF, UCSB and UCSD have been the best represented.
Development of Guidelines for Electronic Records Management. Leslie LaPiana (UCSF) is working on this effort.
Draft Letter recommending an Archivist for the CDL
JD recommends that we put together an ad-hoc group to
discuss strategies for putting forth the ideas in the letter: CBB only
volunteer
Discussion of interest in seeing
Digital Archives addressed at CDL
Electronic
Thesis/dissertations
Preserving electronic
records created by UC
Task Force on Preservation
of Digital Materials, chaired by Barclay Ogden: CBB talked with Ogden that
digital records are also University Records and this in an area of intersection
with the UC ERWG
CBB also discussed the Data
Archivists Model
Anne Gilliand Swetland remarked
that Information Systems staff are aware of issues of preserving digital
records
ACTION: RC as Chair of UCAC will draft letter for Barclay Ogden asking for representation on the Task Force on Preservation of Digital Materials - CBB would serve as liaison. Send a courtesy copy of letter to Judith Paquette as Chair of the CDC
ACTION: BW will redraft original letter to REL/CDL advising that UCOP needs to be aware of electronic records management - and inform of the efforts of UCAC, ERWG in this area. RC will send the letter
UC Core Records proposal (Chandler/Roberts)
See Handout: Campus Level Core Records List
ACTION: UCAC members agree that these are the key records necessary to document the University of California - and that we will collect these records
Discussion:
This is minimal - this is a list of the least common denominator.
BR: the intent of this list is to provide guide of records to preserve - to make the best efforts to get these materials transferred to the archives
Under heading Non-Administrative Records modify to Associated Students of UC : minutes, by-laws
Under the heading Other Formats, the subheading Photographs needs to be better articulated describing functions such as activities on campus, research, and there needs to be an explanation of typical sources, such as entities like Public Affairs.
This Core Records document should be cited/become part of the the collection policy document drafted by CBB & DD
Bio-bibs (summary description of academic career) are in the Records Schedule as permanent and housed at Academic Personnel. If the University Archivists want to preserve them, these records will need to be transferred from Academic Personnel.
The majority of campuses preserve the Bio-bibs, however, UCSD doesn’t keep them; feeling is they can get this information from campus directories and college catalogs.
DD describes Bio-bibs are 5 page form document plus annual supplements; note that the bio-bib file does contain lots of superfluous actions that could be weeded.
Consensus: add Bio-bib to Administrative Records
ACTION: BR will make revisions based on discussion and it will be added as an Appendix to the Collection Policy Document.
UC Archives Collection Development Policy (Brown/Day)
Handout: Collection Development Policy for the Campus Archives of the University of California
Charlotte Brown: This Collection Development Policy is based on UCSD’s -, which is based on UCSF’s collection development policy (which was handed out at UCI meeting 12/95)
Specific discussion of points in policy:
Statement of Purpose - insert non-current before administrative records; change archivists council to Archivists
III. Programs Supported & IV. Clientele: combine the two sections and write a preamble to introduce this section
Collecting Scope - include the Core Records Document as
an appendix/supplement
Cooperative Agreements -
include language describing mutual dependence and support
Access - include sections describing classified documents and copyright
Discussion:
DD: who is the audience? ULs? Is it for using as a framework for drafting our individual collection policies? Or that our collection policies should fit into this framework or not?
JS: it is written for University Archivists, but keep in mind that others will look at it as well.
Does an organized body need to approve this document to make it policy? There are no sitting bodies for Libraries to approve - given the restructuring of Library Council.
In the interest of time, if we have other comments,
please send them to Deborah Day and Charlotte Brown.
Discussion: UCAC is in agreement - University Archives collections should be in the OAC database. What campuses are planning on putting up University Archives collections?
UCI: yes; UCSD is planning a separate page for Administrative Records - currently 2 collections are available that are Chancellor’s records; Scripp’s Institute for Oceanography will make available 5 collections; UCLA is planning on making available 200 collections at the record series level; UCSF is planning to put up administrative collection descriptions and inventories where available for approximately 200 collections of University Archives records.
Subjects Access to University Archives (Tambo)
See Handout from Dave Tambo: UCSB University Archives -
Subject Guide to Holdings
DT: this is always a
draft document - always a work in progress
Discussion:
Other campuses provide access as best possible
Majority of campuses use hierarchical access approach to collections or provide subject access to record groups
Discussion of satisfaction with and maintenance of UCAC website (Westbrook)
Discussion: satisfaction/approval for BW’s great job of creating/maintaining website
ACTION: For the time being, BW will continue to host UCAC website at UCSD, regardless of who is chair of UCAC.
Storage of film / video materials, esp. at SRLF (Chandler)
RC: inquiry of group as to status of film/video services provided by SRLF
Discussion:
There are no film/video preservation services provided at SRLF; UCLA stores their film in the regular SRLF vault - similar to space provided at NRLF. Only the UCLA Film/Television Archives use the special cold temperature film vault.
Appraising financial value of collections with donors (Chandler)
Discussion:
DD: The IRS provides a document on the web, which provides guidance for donors concerning handling a gift-in-kind; according to this document, appraisal must occur within 90 days of gift
Revisited the need for guidelines on how to handle gifts-in-kind. This document should include information - such as: who can accept a gift on campus (delegating authority); uniform deed-of-gift; transferring copyright, etc.
ACTION: JD & RC will draft guidelines
Personnel Files transferred from UCB (Roberts)
BR: Update - recently UCB UA transferred appropriate personnel files to the other campus University Archives. Background on records: Files span dates 1900 - 1960s and contain bio-bibs, and annual supplements. Note that the more recent files can contain peer review documentation as well. These files were originally centrally stored at UCOP, until they were transferred to UCB in the 1960s.
Discussion:
DD has examined the files she received for SOI. The pre-1960s files are all faculty; the post-1960s files are the most distinguished faculty (at above scale salaries - but not tenure issues) or the most troubled faculty.
Access question was raised.
BR: at UCB, if the person is dead, BR makes the files available for research. If unsure, the files remain restricted. BR is especially careful about peer review documentation. Tenure is confidential.
DD: when DD discovers tenure related documents in files, she contacts the Academic Vice Chancellor’s office to inquire if they want them for their files, or can she dispose of them?
According to DD, the Records Disposition Schedule only requires that we maintain the Bio-bib files.
DD’s policy on personnel recommendation: two simple questions: is the person who wrote it living? Is the subject of the recommendation living?
BR asked UCOP if he could send these records to the University Archivists at the campuses, and this request was approved.
DD asked should these records have been sent to Academic Personnel? DD does not believe these files duplicated what is available in the SIO academic personnel office.
The UCB Academic Personnel Office has asked BR to preserve their old files.
Passing of baton from B. Westbrook to R.
Chandler