 Overview and update of the PeDALS project  Persistent Digital Library and Archives System   Panel discussion of lessons learned by participants from each state  Matt Guzzi (South Carolina)  Richard Pearce-Moses (Arizona)  Alan Nelson (Florida)  Bonnie Weddle (New York)  Abbie Norderhaug (Wisconsin)

 To develop and sustain multi-state collaborative  Began with four states  South Carolina joined on its own dime  Two additional states to be added in 2009  To use middleware to automate processing of large volumes of records and publications  Follows OAIS reference model  Can be audited using RLG/OCLC  Cost-benefit of programming v. staff processing requires sufficiently large body of consistent materials

 Test LOCKSS as storage system  Automated integrity checking and error correction  Articulate a curatorial rationale suitable for electronic records and digital publications  Create a community of shared practice  Work as inexpensively as possible  Build a functioning digital repository in each partner state

 Core Metadata v. 1 completed  F irst iterative review in progress  Admin catalog database designed and implemented  F irst iterative review in progress  Admin catalog web interface nearing completion  Simple AIP schema completed  Proof of concept  AZ Marriage certificates ingested  Marriage certificates code reused for SC Commission orders

 Vulcan mind meld  Significantly increased efficiency of communication among participants. Faster! Less confusion!  Cloning  Don’t waste time and take risks hiring new people. Just clone your good employees!  Time Travel  Easier to meet deadlines without losing sleep or sanity  Teleportation  All the benefits of a face-to-face meeting, with the time savings of teleconferences!

 Importance of effective collaboration  Within agencies  Across geographic and political boundaries  Structured, consistent activities and expectations instill sense of involvement and project ownership  Lack of face-to-face interaction makes it harder to get engaged  Working in smaller teams capitalizes on our individual strengths

 Partner teams need the right mix  Archives, library, and IT  Team members must be  Open to “learn as you go”  Creative and innovative

 The project as viewed by our peers  Other repositories very interested  By government agencies and other stakeholders  Often excited  Recognize project is ambitious  Impatient with a research project; they want a solution

 Keeping everyone informed of what each group is doing  Metadata Group  IT Group  Keeping project leaders informed of progress  Keeping the larger group informed  Curatorial Group

 Regular communication  Bi-weekly update conference calls  Committee meetings as needed  Quarterly reports  Go To Meeting  VoIP can keep long distance costs down  Simultaneous editing of documents  Basecamp  Central document repository

 Library and archives  AZ and FL: part of same agency, close relationship  NYS: part of larger agency, some collaboration  SC: different agencies  WI: no state library, working with the WHS library which is the state depository library  Archives and records management  AZ, FL, NYS, SC: archives and RM under one agency  WI: another agency responsible for RM

 Some partners maintain their own IT  AZ and SC have complete control over firewalls, network, and infrastructure  Some partners have agency-level, centralized IT  NYS must integrate PeDALS work into its parent agency’s overarching IT work schedule  Some partners have state-level, centralized IT  WI has opted to place PeDALS servers at U.W.-Madison, not state IT unit  One state opted against joining PeDALS because it could not work through its IT infrastructure

 No one is working on the project full-time  Scheduling complications  Partners spread across three time zones  State holidays, employee furloughs, office moves, vacation plans  Perception that we’re not working quickly enough; reality that we’re making good progress, slow and steady

 Working on a technical project with non-technical people  Archivists and librarians don’t always grasp limitations of project software  Programmatic staff need basic knowledge of IT concepts and practices  Database structures, etc.  Working on an archival/library project with technical people  IT staff need basic knowledge of core library and archival concepts  Permanence, trustworthiness, series, etc.

 Consultants  The adventures of finding the right consultant  The decision to make sure each partner state had someone who knows BizTalk

 Efforts to sustain the project after the grant  Project agreements  Models  Common practices  Informal collaboration  Consortium—formal agreements

 PeDALS creates a flexible community of shared practice  Mandatory metadata and system requirements kept to a minimum  Partners can continue to follow their own workflows  Partners can use PeDALS standards as leverage  NYS and WI now catalog archival e-records in conformance with PeDALS metadata

Richard Pearce-Moses PeDALS Principal Investigator Deputy Director for Technology & Information Resources Arizona State Library, Archives and Public Records (602) Matthew R. Guzzi Electronic Records Archivist South Carolina Department of Archives and History (803) Alan S. Nelson System Project Administrator State Library and Archives of Florida Abbie J. Norderhaug Public Records Accessioner Wisconsin Historical Society (608) Bonita L. Weddle Coordinator, Electronic Records New York State Archives (518)