Future Needs MR

Collections Analysis < Functional Requirements < Functional Req. 2 < Putting it Together <> Final Thoughts

Future Needs of the Metadata Repository

[3:30 -4] actually 4:30-4:45
Neil Thomson, NHL - Register of intent, GUIDs, Rights management metadata, Relationship with other taxonomic data sources (ZooRecord, ITIS, Index Kewensis, Tropicos, etc.)
Tom Garnett, SIL - Encyclopedia of Life connections

Presentations:

Neil's ppt Neil.ppt

Notes:

Neil Thomson (NHL) gave a very comprehensive synopsis of what we had been discussing for the day and where we need to keep our eye on for the future. See the powerpoint attached. Notes on his talk follow below:

Others will be scanning and we need be able to work with them.

In Phase #n the BHL will be a resource by itself , plus have the "plugs" wor work with wider information architecture - and work with external communities.

This necessitates Identifiers, Register of Intent and Rights managment

If the research communities are the primary audience, we need to make sure we know what they really want and need.

MOSCOW = Must Should Could Won't

We need to keep in mind "What" we are doing and for "Whom".

GBIF interporperability will necessitate the BHL participating in the GUIDs. BHL might become the "Publication Bank".

We should not discount what the commercial publishers are doing but see how we can work together to compliment each of our own work. We are focusing on the pre-1923 and they are the current literature. There is a small "gap" that will need to be addressed.

CrossRef is worth exploring ~ using IDs to link to and from resources.

Abstracting services (Zoo record ; Kew Record) the need to reach article level metadata this is missing from our own OPACs is the nitch that BHL must fill. This could be harvesting from our BHL material or linking ot publishers material.

Names are critical to our audience. They need to find and retrieve data on organism name level and on person, place and organizations. Matching OCR to servers with exacrt and fuzzy matching and passing back of information to make for cleaner indexing.

Idenifiers - have number of uses - connecting objects and concepts. Help with disamiguation; linking across domains and for delivery fo data - But require some sort of resolver service to insure stable and presistent ids.

LSID is a free service - TDWG endorsed.
DOI is being used in the publishing world. It costs but is used everywhere.
Should BHL do both? Different id's for different levels of infomraiton - DOI article level; LSID page level?

Registery of intent to scan
Not much more to be covered here than it is going to be done or not going to be done. This should be run as a spin off of what we are doing, kept up to date and used by others to know what we have planned. This could help identify future partners.

Rights metadata
This is going to be very important
We need to set up a group to focus on the topic
Rights regarding metadata, deliverables, levels of data and knowledge, etc.
Should we have space dedicated for acknowledgements, attributations, "thank you"s , etc.

Discussion included the need to explore what is going on with copy right of "orphaned" works.
Can OCLC help us with the Intent to Scan registery

Learned Socieites should be approached for post 1923 material. Some will want to partner with us. Work with some on their back issues.

Scott Miller (Smithsonian) has identified some societies to possibly approach.

Tom Moritz (Getty) suggest we look into the non-inclusive issues with BioOne and Jstore.
Action Items:

Decisions need to be made by the BHL group:

Continue discussion with PubBank and TDWG groups
Use LSIDs
CrossRef (and relationship with Woods Hole?)
IDs - amking contacts with abstracting and name services - Explore possibilities
Agree on a specification for exactly how ids will be used by BHL, in BHL, in Metadata Repository, etc.
Register of Intent - Spinn off or part of the Metadata Respository?
Agree on form of words for rights.