2.  Overview and update of the PeDALS project  Persistent Digital Library and Archives System  www.pedalspreservation.org  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)

3.  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

4.  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

5.  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

6.  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!

7.  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

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

9.  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

10.  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

11.  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

13.  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

14.  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

15.  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

16.  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.

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

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

19.  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

20. Richard Pearce-Moses PeDALS Principal Investigator Deputy Director for Technology & Information Resources Arizona State Library, Archives and Public Records rpm@lib.az.us (602) 926-4035 Matthew R. Guzzi Electronic Records Archivist South Carolina Department of Archives and History mguzzi@scdah.state.sc.us (803) 896-6103 Alan S. Nelson System Project Administrator State Library and Archives of Florida anelson@dos.state.fl.us Abbie J. Norderhaug Public Records Accessioner Wisconsin Historical Society abbie.norderhaug@wisconsinhistory.org (608) 261-1037 Bonita L. Weddle Coordinator, Electronic Records New York State Archives bweddle@mail.nysed.gov (518) 473-4258