CiteBank Discussion Nov 4 2010

• How do we proceed with the Linnean Society of NSW PDFs? Should the Data Assessment form be given to publishers like them?
• What are the deliverables for Dec. 1?
• What questions do we still have?
• What's the progress on establishing minimum required/optional fields for the various content types?

Data Assessment Form

• Data Assessment for internal purposes, mainly for Trish; do not send to publishers as this would be confusing
• Important points from the form to be communicated to publishers:
  1. Simple vs. complex objects: Do you have articles in PDF form or you have individual images for every page?
  2. Metadata: Do you have metadata or bibliographic information that describes the content of your files like title, author, publisher, etc.?
  3. Metadata to Content Link: Do you have your metadata linked to your content files somehow?
  4. Samples: Can you send us a 10% sample of the kinds of files and metadata you have?
• Action Item: Bianca to work on the language so that they are easy for publishers to understand; good to take things slow, if publishers cannot answer "yes" to #2 then there's no sense asking nos. 3-4; What do we do if #2 = "no"?
  • opt. 1: ask the publisher to create the metadata for us in the format that we need it -- Trish is making progress on identifying what format we need; minimum required / optional fields need to be identified for each content type*
  • opt. 2: re-scan their content if we have the $$$ to do so
  • opt. 3: ???
• *Trish is working on 2 Digitization Specifications documents, one for the Portal and one for CiteBank as each has very different requirements for incorporating content

Content Types

• Two new content types added to CiteBank: original description and treatment
• Trish and Bianca need to explore more about what these content types require in terms of minimum required / optional fields
• Work of Terry Catapano on TaxPub and Plazi may help clarify this; would also be good to check with our scientist friends
• Dr. Lance Grande, for example, has offered species descriptions to BHL. This type of content is better suited to CiteBank, not the Portal. Action Item: Bianca to check with Lance about whether or not he has PDFs and metadata to give us. If digitization is required then we will need to think about this further...Question of reprints?

MODS update

• Trish is continuing to work with Mike L. to refine the MODS records for portal content
• Once the MODS records are finalized we should be able to deliver them via OAI (not APIs) to anyone who wants them
  • OAI is a metadata standard that plays well with others; in our case it is our delivery mechanism for our metadata records
    • (Bianca: so what is the BHL OAI delivering now if it's not MODS?)
  • APIs allow people to repurpose precise segments of BHL data for their own purposes

For Dec. 1

• Admin (i.e. Trish) functionality to import content, requires:

1. batch process upload of content and metadata
2. a way to map metadata to biblio fields
3. a way to link content to the metadata

• JEANH as test, might be in by Dec. 1; articles to be included; will need to hold off on 1:many issue for now re: book reviews and obituaries

• articulating the various content provider scenarios
• data assessment form
• questionnaire for publishers
• minimum fields, required / optional for various content types
• instructions for uploading content, single uploads only not bulk

Other Questions

• What about including copyright statements for CiteBank records?
  • Should we treat this as we do in the Portal, provide a (c) statement for every object? OR Should the (c) statement only be required as needed?
  • Do we need particular (c) statements for certain content types? What if we link to content vs. we hold the content in CiteBank?
• Who is the "select group" that will be notified of the Dec. 1 release?
  • Will this whole group or selected members be able to upload content?
  • What are the various user permissions/types for CiteBank and how do they relate to this group?