Date
Attendees
- Sébastien Peyrard
- Regrets: Tracy, Maria, John Howard
Goals
- review survey and FAQ
Discussion items
| Time | Item | Who | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| announcements | John gave another AITO presentation this week at the UCDLFx meeting in San Diego; made good connections with ARK implementors from UC libraries and museums. Sebastien suggests maybe we can link to NCDD (Dutch) videos if only for PID intro material. | ||
| survey | JK: concerned that sending the initial survey only to people who filled out the EOI (Expression of Interest) form may not reach people who really depend on ARKs. SP: The survey looks ready to go. PC: Noting that the survey jumps from easy questions to questions that require specialized knowledge. This is probably ok since the target audience filled out the EOI form. SP: Perhaps some of hard questions should be optional or have a choice such as "I don't know enough to answer..." PC: not asking the name of the organization, optionally? SP: asking for the organization name also helps so we know if two people from same org are filling it out. PC: name and email help understand data at a more granular level PC: typo: change contract -> contact SP: maybe add line to say contact info won't be public | ||
| FAQ | JK: Any comments about the structure and flow of FAQ? PC: It seems to have some natural sections: basics, comparative, persistence and deletion, collaboration, .... It's unclear how to organize the sections without disturbing flow. Maybe these section headings: Basics, ARKs and Other Identifiers, Resolvers, Metadata SP: What about an Identifier Life Cycle section, eg, questions on early object development and deletion? Metadata questions could go in a Curating ARKs section. PC: Metadata questions currently provide no examples of what you might see. JK: Maybe that kind of more detailed material doesn't belong in an FAQ, but lives somewhere appropriate in the envisioned arks.org website. PC: The FAQ could morph into an outline of the arks.org structure. It would be complemented by place the FAQ doesn't go, such as the "how" details. SP: The FAQ is extremely useful since 90% of it is not in the ARK spec and is otherwise hard to find out about. JK: Is the FAQ ready for release? SP: Almost ready to release, and it can grow organically after that. JK: Where should it go on the wiki? PC: Top level of the wiki is appropriate, alongside the project vision and roadmap. SP: Agreed. Also, a strength of the FAQ is that it's simple and casual. SP: It would be good to link to the 10 persistent myths about persistent ids twitter thread. ACTION: JK will make the changes proposed |
Action items
- John to post updated slides
- revise FAQ per meeting feedback and post to main part of wiki, eg, add link to 10 persistent myths tweet