Progress – the elements

1. Progress – the elements • RLG Partners • Oversight and direction • Programs with Research • The high-level agenda • Near-term work • Questions/Discussion/Advice

2. RLG Programs OCLC Research RLG and OCLC: where we fit • The programmatic efforts and players • RLG Programs • RLG Partners • Area specialists: digital libraries, information architecture, preservation, resource sharing, special collections • The research effort and activities • OCLC Research • Research scientists: information science, knowledge organization, classification/terminologies, data-mining • The new division • OCLC Programs and Research

3. RLG Partners • RLG Partner Institutions (ca. 149 to date) • Libraries, Museums, Archives, cultural institutions • Deep, rich collections • Mandate to make accessible • Commitment to exploit technology • Contribute to ‘commons’ • Commitment to collaboration • Capability to contribute (collections, expertise, infrastructure, etc.) • New partners and future recruitment

4. RLG Programs – Resources and Funding • Three sources of funding • Partner dues • OCLC corporate stipend • Grants • Office of Research • Dedicated effort The combination has resulted in significantly increased capacity to support research, focused experimentation and innovation with our partners

5. Oversight and direction • RLG Committee of the Board of Trustees • Account, regulate, assess • Program Council • Advise, represent and amplify

6. Board of Trustee Committee members • James Neal (Chair) (Columbia University) • Nancy Eaton (Pennsylvania State University) • Carol Mandel (New York University) • Lizabeth Wilson (University of Washington) • Jane Ryland (EDUCAUSE) • Elisabeth Niggemann (Deutsche Nationalbibliothek)

7. Program Council members • Shirley Baker(Washington University in St. Louis) • Nancy Eaton(Pennsylvania State University) • Kenneth Hamma(J. Paul Getty Trust) • Tony Hey(Microsoft) • Wendy Pradt Lougee(University of Minnesota) • Clifford A. Lynch(Coalition for Networked Information) Carol Mandel (New York University) James Neal (Columbia University) Chris Rusbridge (Digital Curation Centre, University of Edinburgh) Gary Strong (Chair) (University of California, Los Angeles) Lizabeth Wilson (University of Washington) David Zeidberg (Huntington Library)

8. DEVELOP ARCHITECTURE & STANDARDS PERFORM RESEARCH BUILD PROTOTYPES FILTER BEST PRACTICE DO RAPID DEVELOPMENT MAKE CONSENSUS BUILD COMMUNITY TRANSFER TECHNOLOGY PRODUCE OUTCOMES CONVENE EXPERTS Programs and Research: Arc of Capabilities community solutions issues & uncertainties

9. Mutual Interest? Leverage? Integration?

10. UNCERTAINTY TECHNOLOGY JOINT ACTION COOPERATIVE EFFORT RLG Programs CNI Fall Task Force 4 Dec 2006 RLG Programs – Areas of Work

11. RLG Programs – areas of work Managing the collective collection • Objective: To understand, prepare for, and help advance libraries, archives and museums in more profoundly cooperative models of acquiring, managing and disclosing collections • Renovating descriptive and organizing practices • Objective: Change the economics of metadata at research institutions—set new expectations for investment, model the attendant work flows, and prototype needed support. • Modeling new services • Objective: Help libraries, archives, and museums achieve a common understanding of the processes for which they should be responsible, demonstrate these new frameworks through prototypes, and enable them through open source code and architectures.

12. Managing the collective collection • Chart mass digitization course • Collaboration, policy, practice, impacts • Principles for Mass Digitization Partnerships • Surveys • Shared Print Storage • North American Storage Trust

13. Mass Digitization & the Collective Collection • 12 “hard questions” about library partnerships • Challenge: identify 3 most pressing concerns • Opportunity: identify (and fill) gaps • Distributed to all DLF registrants • 61 responses as of 6 November 2006 • Represents US (88%); Canada, UK, EU (12%) • In general: • There was interest in all of the questions we posed • The really important questions really stand out • 17% of respondents supplied an additional question

14. DLF Survey: Most Urgent Questions • Is a regional, national, or multi-national framework for digitization desirable or feasible? What would you expect such a framework to contribute? • Who is responsible for ensuring the persistence of the aggregate collections to which you have contributed? • What does your institution know (or need to know) about how users are interacting with the outputs of mass digitization?

15. Renovating descriptive and organizing practices • Forum – “More, Better, Faster, Cheaper” • Museum Collection Sharing • Discovery to Delivery - Symposium

16. Discovery to Delivery Survey • 11 questions circulated to US and UK attendees of invitational meetings on “Discovery to Delivery Services” • 40 institutional responses (23 US; 17 UK) • Broad agreement on key issues • A majority of institutions consider themselves only “partly successful” in exposing print and electronic collections • Improving exposure of collections is “very important” to all – but the solutions may lie beyond institutional grasp • Most institutions consider themselves “successful” in delivering collections to users – but UK respondents are more confident of their success than US respondents • A majority feel only “somewhat confident” that they understand user needs and expectations • Discovery to Delivery symposium, March 2007, will explore possible community solutions to these challenges

17. Modeling new services • Service Frameworks • building on DLF work • extend shared view to archives and museums • model key processes across sectors to identify opportunities for shared service development

18. Modeling shared business processes Programs & Research: identifying community needs and developing prototype solutions

19. RLG Programs - keeping in touch … Subscribe to the blogs Lorcan’s - http://orweblog.oclc.org/ Programs – http://www.hangingtogether.org Research - http://www.oclc.org/research/