The following are notes from the initial community meeting to discuss the proposal to update the QDC registry and add DCTERMS registry from March 20,2013.

Attendees

Sarah Potvin, Texas A&M

Maureen Walsh, Ohio State University

Sarah Miles and Geneva McDonnald, Georgetown University

Bram Luyten, @mire

Ann Devonish, Woods Hole

Danielle Buselle University of British Columbia

Bob Sandusky, Univ of Illinois Chicago

Melissa, University of Missouri

Mark Wood, IUPUI

Jim Holiday, Indiana University

Jennifer, Indiana University

Richard Rodgers, MIT

Tim Donohue, DuraSpace

Valorie Hollister, DuraSpace

Ivan Masár, DSpace commiters

Peter Dietz, The Ohio State University Libraries

Felicity Dykas, University of Missouri

Notes

Overview of DSpace Futures

Valorie Hollister

DSpace Future discussions were inspired by some momentum in the Fedora community.

Summery of Sponsor Summit 

Overview of Metadata Improvement Proposal

Detailed proposal: Updating the Qualified Dublin Core registry in DSpace to the latest standards of the DCMI

Maureen Walsh and Sarah Potvin (other proposal team members include: Amy Lana and Bram Luyten) 

Questions/Feedback 

 

Next Steps:

 

 

 

 

 

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Begin forwarded message:

From: Tim Donohue <tdonohue@duraspace.org>

Subject: Report from the DuraSpace Sponsor Summit

Date: March 18, 2013 5:53:00 PM EDT

To: "dspacecommunityadvisoryteam@googlegroups.com" <dspacecommunityadvisoryteam@googlegroups.com>

Reply-To: DSpaceCommunityAdvisoryTeam@googlegroups.com

 

 

Hi DCAT members,

 

As you may know, DuraSpace hosted a Sponsor Summit last week in

Baltimore. Val & I attended (along with some of you) and wanted to report back to all of you on some of the discussions that took place there. (I've sent this same below summary to Committers as well.)

 

The discussions at the Summit will be summarized/advertised publicly

(likely in the next week). But we wanted to get some early notes to all

of you ASAP, just to bring you into the loop.

 

The attendees to this summit were mostly Repository Managers and

University Librarians / Heads of Departments (with a few tech folks

sprinkled in). The discussions took part over the span of two "1/2 day"

sessions.

 

What follows are some rough notes (from me), which summarize the main

concepts & discussions from the meeting. I'd encourage others who attended to share their own notes (especially if I missed something or misrepresented something).

 

We're all glad to answer any questions that my come up!  Just ask.

 

- Tim

 

----

 

========================

Day 1 - Overview for All

========================

 

The first day's discussion was essentially an overview of the issues at

hand and some very initial brainstorming.

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------

James Hilton, CIO at U of Virginia (and President of DuraSpace Board of

Directors) : Where DSpace / Fedora fit into larger ecosystem

----------------------------------------------------------------------

(Slides attached: "James Hilton - duraspace summit.pdf" )

 

* Detailed what he sees as the "Emerging Digital Stack" to support

Access & Preservation. DSpace and Fedora are KEY components in that

stack.  We need to invest in them as such

* Not a crisis meeting. Rather this is an opportunity to "move the

needle" towards a future (for DSpace & Fedora) that better meets all our

needs.

  - DSpace and Fedora were well funded initially (ten years ago) -

Millions of dollars were spent. But, that spigot is shut off, and we are

working towards making these open source projects sustainable.

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Michele Kimpton & Jonathan Markow of DuraSpace : Detail the purposes of

the Summit & Debunk some DuraSpace Myths

------------------------------------------------------------------------

(Slides attached: "Summitmeeting2013.pdf")

 

* Debunked some "myths" about DuraSpace.  NONE of these are true:

   - DuraSpace has teams of developers working on DSpace and Fedora

(False - we just have a tech lead for each project)

   - DuraSpace is funded by the Moore Foundations and others (False -

DuraSpace does not receive grants to support DSpace or Fedora or itself)

   - DuraSpace is DSpace on Fedora (False - DuraSpace is not software,

it's an organization to support software)

   - Sponsorship dollars are funding DuraCloud (False - DuraCloud

development was funded by Library of Congress)

   - Bringing on more projects reduces effort on existing projects

(False - there's some shared infrastructure with various OSS projects,

but they all require support staff and funding)

 

* DuraSpace is a small team.  We separate our work into "OSS Projects"

and "Services"

 * OSS Projects (DSpace, Fedora) are funded directly by Sponsorship and

Registered Service Providers.

  * Services (DuraCloud, DSpaceDirect, Educational Webinars) are funded

by service revenues and occasional grants.

 

* Unfortunately, the reality is that the funding for DuraSpace OSS

Projects is lacking. DuraSpace has had to pay "out-of-pocket" to help

fund/sustain these projects. The amount of DuraSpace support provided to

these projects is currently no covered by the sponsorship $$. (see

slides for charts/graphs)

 

* This isn't a crisis. DSpace & Fedora & DuraSpace are all fine. But, we

all need to realize that this is NOT SUSTAINABLE over the long term.

DuraSpace cannot be constantly losing money on these OSS Projects --

otherwise DuraSpace may have to eventually cut back staffing of these

OSS projects (or find other ways to fund them).

 

* DSpace & Fedora are really COMMUNITY OWNED projects. DuraSpace helps

steward them, but they are owned by everyone.

 

* The purpose of the meeting is to brainstorm ways for us to increase

levels of community contribution and engagement to ensure long term

success of DSpace and Fedora.

 

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Tyler Walters, Dean of Libraries at Virginia Tech : A University

Librarian Perspective

-----------------------------------------------------------------

(His slides are included in "Summitmeeting2013.pdf")

 

* He gives to DuraSpace (and many other programs/projects in the same

ecosystem) because he feels the Return on Investment (ROI) is excellent.

* At Virginia Tech, they could fund 1.4 Full time staff for the money

they invest in various programs/projects (DuraSpace/Fedora/DSpace just

being one of them). But they would never get as much from that one staff

member as they get from this investment.

 

---------------------

General Brainstorming

---------------------

A general brainstorming session took place. I unfortunately didn't

capture all the general discussion. But, the main concepts were that

people really do feel that DSpace & Fedora are essential, highly

important platforms. Everyone wants to find ways to move both platforms

forward and help them modernize (and possibly even merge -- some

mentions of "DSpace on Fedora" / "DSpace on Hydra"). Also want to find

ways to improve the available $$/resources for the projects. It may be

that new governance models will be needed for these projects (e.g. a

possible "Steering Committee" for each project -- more on this below).

 

===============================================================

Day 2 - Project Specific Breakout sessions (DSpace specific notes below)

===============================================================

 

The second day, we brainstormed ways to move both projects (DSpace and

Fedora) forward more rapidly and modernize the software. The reality is

that both projects are currently underfunded (and arguably understaffed,

except by a very avid volunteer base). Is there a way to find

funds/resources to help modernize both platforms?

 

DSpace "Challenges"

--------------------

* Committers are doing a great job maintaining and helping add new

features. But it's difficult to always find the bandwidth to do a

long-term roadmap. So, Committers concentrate more year-by-year with

some overarching concepts/brainstorms in mind.

* Even if the long-term roadmap was there, we also may have a

resource/funding problem. We'd need to find the $$ or developers to make

larger initiatives happen.

* Some vague ideas still floating around as to whether DSpace should

change to use Fedora or Hydra. There's several directions DSpace could

go, or it could remain it's own separate system.

* Currently there's a bifurcated user community.  We have a small group

of very active, advanced users of the software (e.g. most of the

Committers and their institutions). There's also the "long tail" -- many

many small institutions who use DSpace for its ease of getting started

quickly. The latter is actually the majority of our user base.

* Any longer term roadmap would need to take into account both parts of

our user community -- the advanced users and the "long tail"

* We have a bit of a "chicken & egg" problem.  We need a roadmap/vision

to go get extra funding/resources.  But, we also may need resources to

develop a compelling / sufficiently detailed technical roadmap.

 

DSpace "Next Steps"

-------------------

Out of the discussions summarized briefly above, we decided upon the

following next steps:

 

1) Develop a compelling high-level "vision" for DSpace for the next 3-5

years.

    - This will be a non-technical, but sufficiently detailed vision

statement which we could take to Library Directors (or similar) to try

an obtain some extra funding/resources to make it happen

    - This vision will also attempt to place DSpace within the larger

"ecosystem" of Scholarly Communication / Preservation. Describe its niche.

    - A small group (10 or less - TBD) of folks will meet in Chicago in

coming months to draft up a "vision statement". It will then be

distributed for broader feedback from Committers, DCAT, community, etc.

 

2) Once we have a vision statement, we will likely need to create a

"Governing Board" / "Steering Committee" of institutions. The goal of

this group would be to help make the DSpace vision a reality (and to

help find the funding/resources to make it happen)

    - This "Steering Committee" would likely consist of a mixture of

University Librarian types, Repository Manager types, and Tech types.

    - Members of this Steering Committee would likely be those that are

willing to provide extra $$ or resources to put towards the vision.

Members may also include some individuals who are "voted in" by the

Community.

    - What this governance structure would look like still needs to be

decided. But it'd obviously have to work in conjunction with our DSpace

Committers and DCAT.

    - David Lewis (Dean of Libraries at IUPUI), Ann Wolpert (Director

of Libraries at MIT) and Tyler Walters (Dean of Libraries at Virginia

Tech) will develop an initial draft / concept and distribute it for

feedback.

 

-- 

Tim Donohue

Technical Lead for DSpace

DuraSpace.org

 

 

-- 

Tim Donohue

Technical Lead for DSpace

DuraSpace.org

 

 

-- 

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "DSpace Community Advisory Team" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to DSpaceCommunityAdvisoryTeam+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to DSpaceCommunityAdvisoryTeam@googlegroups.com.

Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/DSpaceCommunityAdvisoryTeam?hl=en.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.