Page History

...

RVC thought that their staff was suppose to do the cataloguing as part of their workflow already.  Jolene and Ann should not have cost recovery since the photographs out of the Kepes-Lynch are from RVC and therefore  there should not be any cost recovery for capturing metadata. 

Upcoming.... 

May 30^thAgenda:

1. Recap of last week's discussion

...

4. Agreement on system to use for cataloging Kepes-Lynch content
Kepes- Lynch Meeting

Minutes April 3, 2008

AGENDA

Present: Friedman, de Verges, Simon, Andrews, Whiteside, Rosko

1. Notes from last meeting
   1. Tom and MIT Press - update
      1. No. new deadline: April 7th

1. 1. going through the boxes of documents - update
      1.  done

1. 1. maps - update from discussion with Nancy S.
      1. Nancy has been too busy. Should go ahead and get price estimates. But Nancy still needs to review before actually sending out
      2. the maps are really drawings and of various sizes. Larger ones are on fragile paper.

Mikki and Liz to provide size information and fragility info. deadline: April 11th

1. 1. information about digitizing text 

1. Template
   1. text digitization and resolution - 600 dpi?
      1. text at 600 dpi; transcription
      2. delivery: OR original w/a link to transcription
         1. if you have a multiple page document, it should be one file with multiple pages. One pdf of multiple pages and one transcription file.
         2.  hand written notes on text pages. How to handle?

Jennifer and Mikki will go through the written docs. and make recommendations for how to transcribe annotations. They will also look to see how many names appear in the actual field notes. Deadline: April 18^th.

1. 1. images
      1. images at 600 dpi. with thumbnails and derviatives

1. 1. maps digitization - BPI recommends 300 dpi - any other thoughts?
      1. line drawings, with color, and some nodes; some are brittle
      2. could be done at 600 dpi?
      3. we are trying to preserve the original for this particular content.
      4. Ask vendors their suggestions for dpi
   2. Will this "collection" grow" in DOME?
      1. We would like to add discrete pieces over time.

1. 1. content at risk? need to define for project plan
      1. maps are fragile and the intellectual content is not preserved in the book "Image of the City".
      2. text pages are somewhat fragile, but the content is summarized elsewhere ("Image of  the City")
      3. Photographs are in good condition

1. 1. rights - text and images
      1. what we know now:

1.      photographs: files in RVC has a boiler plate form for the making of the slides.

2.      the project hired an assistant, as a work for hire. He is credited, but does not own copyright.  No gift form found for the photograph collection. Look at grant application.

Liz will contact the Rockefeller Foundation Archives to see what information we can find re: rights around the project. Deadline: April 18^th
Need to discuss language for usage rights. Jolene and Liz.  Deadline: April 18th

1. End user delivery for whole

A collection within DOME that has its own identity;  searchable as its own collection, and across collections. Could create a link from the Archives website.  We want the collection to be open. Talk with Sean about this at meeting on April 9^th.

 4, Digitizing and RFPs

1. 1. Boston Photo
   2. NEDCC
   3. Backstage
   4. Two Cat Digital

 Update on discussion with Doc. Svcs. - Jolene and Jennifer talked with Jenn Morris. Doc. Services does not have the equipment to do the work needed on the photographs. Not an option for the photographs. Discussed handling of objects, security. They have more space and a place to secure content that they are working on. Jolene and Jennifer are going to do another walk through of the handling processes with Jenn to analyze how well they will handle rare content. Weakness is their equipment. They are building expertise.

 They have been digitizing Archives content, but the handling of the materials has been unacceptable. Archives has talked with them repeatedly about the handling.

 We are treating them as a vendor.

 Do we want to have the whole digitized as one project of a variety of content? Or as separate?  We do not think that any one vendor will do transcription.  If we do this as one project are we missing out on expertise from particular vendors?

 We'll ask each vendor what they can or will do. Send them information about the content for the project, and begin the RFP process.

 Talking with vendors will get us the cost information we need for SC.

 AW talk to vendors by April 18^th.

 Process from here

      6.Cataloging - discuss on April 18^th.

Minutes from February 7, 2008

...

Pull sample documents for vendors to look at as part of RFP process.
Maps - do only Boston related maps.
Talk with Conservation about the maps.  Tom will talk with Nancy about the maps. DEADLINE: February 14^th. Will figure out the time frame. She'll look within the month (February). 

Vendors: quotes for scanning

...