Australian Subject Gateways Forum

Summary of Outcomes of the 30 August 2000 Meeting

Held at the Melbourne University

The second meeting of Australian Subject Gateways Forum was convened on 30 August 2000 at the Melbourne University. It was attended by 19 participants, including two observers. They represented 11 subject gateways. The meeting provided an opportunity for the discipline based subject gateways' owners to exchange ideas and share experiences.

Context

The National Library of Australia's Coordination Support Branch has been involved with the Australian subject gateway projects since 1998. It provided advice on their development on a number of occasions. It also offered administrative support to the two meetings held so far. The participants of the second meeting agreed to use the name Australian Subject Gateways Forum (ASGF) for their group.

Gateways represented

Outcomes

The participants affirmed the value of sharing experiences and knowledge in a nationwide forum of the subject-based gateways. A number of outcomes resulted from the meeting. They are reported in detail in the following sections.

A summary of outcomes [Outcomes] from the meeting held on 22 February 2000 was presented and discussed. The following actions resulted:

  • Provide input into Definitions for Web-based Services via the discussion list.
    ACTION A: All participants, by end of October 2000
  • Revise the Definitions for Web-based Services document by including the input from ACTION A.
    ACTION B: Barbara Rozmus, by end of November 2000
  • Test the requirements listed in Requirements for Subject Gateway Software document [Requirements] to identify the core requirements; provide feedback to the discussion list.
    ACTION C: All participants, by end of October 2000
  • Revise the Requirements for Subject Gateway Software document by including the input from ACTION C; include the revised document on the NLA's subject gateways website.
    ACTION D: Barbara Rozmus, by end of November 2000
  • Test the three Best Practice lists [Best Practice] for relevance to the Australian subject gateways; provide feedback to the discussion list.
    ACTION E: All participants, by end of November 2000
  • Revise the Best Practice document on the NLA's subject gateways website, including the input from ACTION E.
    ACTION F: Barbara Rozmus, by end of December 2000
  • Investigate setting up a closed area on the NLA's subject gateways website for password-controlled access by the participants.
    ACTION G: Barbara Rozmus, by end of October 2000
  • Post information re new software and/or reviews of new software to the discussion list.
    ACTION H: All participants, ongoing
  • Provide links to the relevant IPR resources [IPR] from the NLA's subject gateways website.
    ACTION I: Barbara Rozmus, by end of September 2000
  • Include the Subject Gateways Information Sheets on the NLA's subject gateways website.
    ACTION J: Barbara Rozmus, by end of November 2000
  • Ensure that the Subject Gateways Information Sheets are kept up to date.
    ACTION K: All participants, ongoing

Progress reports

Each gateway owner presented a progress report and described key drivers affecting provision of the service. The following actions resulted:

  • Provide an executive summary of the survey of the agricultural subject gateways.
    ACTION L: Dorothea Rowse/Jan Whitaker
  • Ask Sue Scott, Lawzone, to post a progress report to the discussion list.
    ACTION M: Barbara Rozmus
  • Post to the discussion list information re RSS.
    ACTION N: Debbie Campbell

Application of persistent identifiers

Pam Gatenby discussed the current work at the NLA on identifying a local and national system for naming web resources for persistent access. A survey of international developments in the field of persistent naming has been carried out including a close look at DOIs, and it is intended to conduct a 6-week trial of the "handles" naming system. For an overview of the issues involved see Persistent Identifiers in PADI.

Digital Archiving Guidelines

Pam Gatenby provided an overview of the work at the NLA on preparation of the guidelines for creators and publishers of Australian web resources on how to manage their resources to ensure ongoing access to them. The guidelines are one way in which the Library is carrying out its facilitating role in archiving Australian web resources.

Subject Gateways and the National Library of Australia PANDORA Archive

Pam Gatenby summarised the paper [Gatenby, 2000] provided to the participants beforehand. It discussed the possible relationship between subject gateways and PANDORA in the area of resource discovery. The participants were encouraged to consider the ways in which they could assist PANDORA in identifying resources for archiving, and to contact Pam with any related issues.

Options for national metadata services

Andrew Wells presented his discussion paper [Wells, 2000]. Following a brief discussion the group decided to set up a Metadata Services Taskforce, comprising Jon Mason, Andrew Wells, Gavan McCarthy and Kevin Sumption, to investigate options for a national metadata repository that would include metadata from the Australian subject gateways.

  • Present a business case for a national metadata repository to the next subject gateways meeting.
    ACTION O: Taskforce, by February 2001

Simon Jennings' discussion paper on the UK perspective for national metadata services

Simon's paper [Jennings, 2000] was briefly discussed by the participants. The following action resulted:

  • Flag issues resulting from Simon Jennings' paper for the next meeting.
    ACTION P: All participants

Best practice in cataloguing websites

The issues discussed included website surface & source metadata, classification of information, use of authoritative taxonomies. The following action resulted:

  • Provide feedback to a set of guidelines prepared by EdNA Online when distributed by Jon Mason to the discussion list.
    ACTION Q: All participants

Relationship between gateways and OPACs

  • Include the issue of the relationship between gateways and OPACs in the modelling work of the Metadata Services Taskforce.
    ACTION R: Taskforce, by February 2001

Other business

Invitation to participate in revision of EdNA Online higher education category tree.

  • Consider joining the EdNA Online working party drafting a revision of the higher education category tree.
    ACTION S: All participants

Authority / Context entity developments

  • Gavan McCarthy informed the meeting that the ISO standard for archival records is now under review, instigated at the recent conference of the Society of American Archivists. The Scottish Archival Network (SCAN) is also involved.

Guidelines for Web-based Information Infrastructure / Electronic Citation

  • Report re guidelines to be distributed to the discussion list.
    ACTION T: Gavan McCarthy

LASIE Contributions

  • Debbie Campbell encouraged the participants to provide contributions to LASIE (Library Automated Systems Information Exchange), a quarterly journal based at the State Library of NSW (editor: Alan Ventress). AVEL was featured there in the March 2000 issue.

Next meeting

Next meeting to be held in February 2001. The following actions to be undertaken:

  • When proposing a date/venue for the next meeting, canvass the option of starting the meeting in the afternoon, following with a dinner, and continuing the meeting next morning.
    ACTION U: Barbara Rozmus
  • Include the following items on the agenda (in addition to ACTION P):
    -report from the Metadata Services Taskforce
    - discussion of a possible RIEF grant application on behalf of the group (to present a solution for sustainability)
    ACTION V: Barbara Rozmus

References

[Best Practice]
1. Best Practice Checklist for Australian Subject Gateways, http://www.nla.gov.au/initiatives/sg/bestpractice.html
2. DESIRE Information Gateways Handbook, http://www.desire.org/handbook/
3. Renardus, http://www.renardus.org/gateway/gateway.html#quality
[Back]

[Gatenby, 2000] Pam Gatenby. Subject Gateways and the National Library of Australia PANDORA Archive. August 2000. Available: http://www.nla.gov.au/initiatives/sg/papers/gatenby2000-08.html
[Back]

[IPR] Intellectual Property Rights Issues, http://www.nla.gov.au/initiatives/sg/issues.html#IPR
[Back]

[Jennings, 2000] Simon Jennings. The State of the Integration: Piecing the RDN jigsaw together. August 2000. Unpublished paper.
[Back]

[Outcomes] Australian Subject Gateways Outcomes and Action Items from the 22 February 2000 Meeting. August 2000. Unpublished.
[Back]

[Requirements] Requirements for Subject Gateway Software, http://www.nla.gov.au/initiatives/sg/requirements.html.
[Back]

[Wells, 2000] Andrew Wells. Options for National Metadata Services: Discussion Paper. August 2000. Unpublished paper.
[Back]

Date last verified: 19 January 2005

Back to the top