From humphrey@datalib.library.ualberta.ca Wed Jun 13 15:55:43 2001 Date: Mon, 7 May 2001 16:22:06 -0600 (MDT) From: Chuck Humphrey Reply-To: capdu@majordomo.srv.ualberta.ca To: capdu@majordomo.srv.ualberta.ca Subject: capdu Draft of Minutes from 2001 CAPDU Business Meeting Distributed by: the Discussion List for CAPDU Posted by: Chuck Humphrey >From Jeff Moon: Greetings I have put together the minutes of last Saturday's CAPDU AGM. Please send comments, suggestions, and corrections directly to me (moonj@post.queensu.ca). Once the minutes have passed "initial muster", I'll send them on to Vince for posting to the CAPDU web site. Cheers, Jeff ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Canadian Association of Public Data Users (CAPDU) Annual General Meeting University of Montreal April 28, 2001 9:30 am Present: Laine Ruus (Chair), University of Toronto, dlsg@chass.utoronto.ca Shabiran Rahman, U of Waterloo, srahman@uwaterloo.ca Walter Giesbrecht, York U, walterg@yorku.ca Moira Russell, Brock U, mrussell@spartan.ac.brocku.ca Vivek Jadon, McMaster U, vivek@mcmaster.ca Philippe Feredj, U Sherbrooke, philippe.feredj@courier.usherb.ca Ann Golubowski, Concordia U, goluban@alcor.concordia.ca Garth Homer, Okanagan University College, ghomer@okanagan.bc.ca Walter Piovesan, Simon Fraser U, walter@sfu.ca Carroll McLaughlin, U du Quebec a Chicoutimi, cmclaugh@uqac.uquebec.ca Anastassia Khouri, McGill U, anastassia.khouri@mcgill.ca Vince Gray, U Western Ontario, vince@uwo.ca Mike Sivyer, Statistics Canada, sivyer@statcan.ca Ernie Boyko, Statistics Canada, eboyko@statcan.ca Chuck Humphrey, University of Alberta, humprey@datalib.library.ualberta.ca Mary Luebbe, University of British Columbia, mluebbe@interchange.ubc.ca Jeff Moon, Queen's University, moonj@post.queensu.ca Susan Mowers, University of Ottawa, smowers@uottawa.c Wendy Watkins, Carleton University, wwatkins@ccs.carleton.ca Alberta Auringer Wood, Memorial University, awood@mun.ca Daniel Beaulieu, Coll=E8ge Universitaire de Saint-Boniface, dbeaulie@ustboniface.mb.ca Jeff Moon (Secretary), Queen=92s U, moonj@post.queensu.ca 1. Approval of the Agenda Jerry Bull sends his regrets -- unable to attend AGM due to illness. Motion to approve the agenda by Ernie, seconded by Wendy. Agenda approved unanimously. 2. Approval of the Minutes (of 2000 CAPDU AGM held in Edmonton) item 4: New CAPDU Board of Directors 2001 (not 2002) item 6.4: CANSIM delivery CHASS and CD-ROM (not disks) add Garth Homer to attendees (Note: an updated version of the 2000 CAPDU minutes will be posted to the Web). Motion to approve minutes as amended by Wendy. Seconded by Walter. Minutes approved unanimously. 3. Business Arising from the Minutes 3.1 Nominations/Elections Committee Alberta and Susan Mowers volunteered to work with Marilyn Rennick (absent) on this. An election must be held in December 2001. Please consider putting your name forward. Electronic ballots approved by membership -- email will be used to hold the vote. 4. Reports 4.1 Secretary No report. Unanimously approved. 4.2 Treasurer Shabiran distributed copies of the Treasurer's report: $1214.11 in account, which is still in Ottawa. We want to move this account to Waterloo. Issue of "institutional membership" was raised -- could we consider raising this fee to $100 from $50.00? Moved by Chuck, seconded by Wendy. Discussion ensued here were some comments about lack of expenses this year. There were some transition difficulties in the treasurer portfolio, but hopefully these will be worked out shortly. It was suggested that CAPDU could start paying for : - refreshments at coffee breaks (Thanks to Stats Can/DLI for their generosity this year) - establishing and maintaining a CAPDU domain name (www.capdu.ca was suggested and appears to be still available). Would raising the fee encourage institutional members? What are the advantages of this? With only one institutional member (McMaster) to date, why would others ante up? If passed, this new fee would take effect next year. Question called. Vote - 18 for, none against, 1 abstention. Motion carried. 4.3 GCLI - GIS in Canadian Libraries (Alberta) Alberta reported that Grace Welch and Susan Jackson have been working on this. There has been some discussion of including paper topographic/geologic and related maps in the DSP, with the possibility of including digital maps as well. Funding for this initiative has been nebulous. Firmer information expected next month. The license agreement (50% disc.) will be renewed next month. ACMLA meeting will deal with this issue. Some progress has been made toward DSP access. Laine asked if CAPDU could help move this process along. Anastassia raised concerns about access in Quebec (to Quebec mapping) -- neither paper or digital available. Discussions are underway. CREPUQ is looking into obtaining Quebec government documents; an 'information day' is being planned. Mary L. said "Geoconnections' was doing a study of this issue - which will be reported at the ACMLA. Alberta confirmed this. Ernie suggested we investigate costs associated with provision of these resources, using 'Access to Information' if necessary. Laine will call Jeff LaBonte (of ACMLA ?) to follow-up. 5. CAPDU 2002 & 2003 5.1 CAPDU 2002 -- Two choices: 1. Learneds in Toronto (at Ryerson). 2. U. of Waterloo (Sue Moskal) has offered to host CAPDU. For 2002, Wendy suggested we should go with the Congress (Learneds) to maintain our contact with this group. Walter suggested this would possibly permit meeting with ACMLA (at the Congress). Alberta wasn't sure where ACMLA will be meeting in 2002. It sounds as if Toronto is unlikely for 2002. Walter strongly encouraged ACMLA to attend in Toronto to combine our efforts on digital mapping issues. Vince supported the idea of a Congress-linked meeting because it lets attendees know in advance when the meetings will take place. Chuck suggested a "Labour" session at next year's CAPDU meeting, following the model of this year's "Health" theme day. Having researchers (Congress attendees) on hand would be a good thing for CAPDU. The group agreed that we should formally express thanks to Sue Moskal and the University of Waterloo for their offer. Walter called the question - Move to hold CAPDU 2002 in Toronto with Learned Congress. Seconded by Wendy - unanimous approval. Suzette G. (absent) and Laine will be local arrangement coordinators. The Program Committee will consist of Anne G., Vince G., and Wendy (Program Chair). 5.2 CAPDU 2003 IASSIST is tentatively slated to be in Canada (location undetermined) in 2003. For 2003, Canada can offer to host IASSIST in Ottawa. This is subject to approval at the upcoming IASSIST meeting. Laine expressed concern that we'd be missing the East and West of Canada, but went on to say that the Learned Congress is scheduled to take place in Manitoba in 2004. So, pending approval of the Canadian proposal at the upcoming IASSIST meeting in Amsterdam, CAPDU will plan on meeting in Ottawa in conjunction with the 2003 IASSIST Conference. Vince moved that we establish a registration fee for CAPDU meetings. Seconded by Wendy. Statistics Canada/DLI representatives were thanked for their assistance in covering 'refreshments' at this year's conference. Non-members would be 'obliged' to join as part of their registration fee. Vote: unanimous approval. 6. CAPDU Committees needed for 3-year plan The CAPDU 3-Year Strategic Plan (October 2000) suggested CAPDU action on a number of initiatives. Laine suggested that some of this work is already done and/or underway -- specifically, the National Data Archive initiative and the question of increased CAPDU involvement in National projects (e.g. CFI, SSHRC, etc.). These are described below, followed by Laine's proposal to establish additional committees for some outstanding issues. 6.1 Current Involvement 6.1.1 National Data Archive (NDA): We have a de facto committee in that Chuck is on the working group for the National Data Archive Consultation and Wendy and Ernie are on a support committee. Chuck reported that CAPDU's submission was well-received (and the best received). We had good representation at the stakeholders meeting in October. Step one (report on expression of need) is in first draft stage -- intent approved. This report will go to SSHRC council for approval to move on to Step two a recommended model for a NDA. This will be more challenging than Step one. CAPDU will need to make another submission for Step two -- as much lead time as possible will be appreciated. Chuck reported that an NDA Consultation web site had been established (early April). There were some concerns that this site is not meeting the perceived need. CAPDU should put up a web site addressing this issue -- Vince has volunteered to do this. 6.1.2 CAPDU Involvement in National projects (e.g. CFI, SSHRC, etc.) To start, Laine described CAPDU involvement in Project Proposals (CFI, etc). She has talked with Tim Mark (CARL) about this and is on the Canadian Century Research Infrastructure (CCRI) proposal committee. Laine suggested that this issue be carried on by current involvement. This initiative is looking at creating PUMFs for the 1901 to 1951 Censuses of Canada. There was some concern that these PUMFs, if produced, would only be available via an RDC (Research Data Centre) sort of arrangement. There was unanimous agreement that PUBLIC files would be preferable. 6.2 Outstanding Issues in need of committee work: Laine suggested establishing 3 committees, with 2 more delayed until next year. 1. Metadata Standards Committee - which should precede the "Data Extactors" committee. ACMLA should be consulted. 2. Academic Licensing Committee - to make a submission to "Consortia Canada" regarding Academic Licensing. 3. Data Service Education and Standards - Some PR work will fall under this area. It was proposed that Data Extractors and Public Relations (PR) committees be delayed until next year. Anne G. raised a question about PR being put low on the list. Laine suggested that the Executive will be doing some of this. Chuck suggested that what we did with the "Health day" (at the current CAPDU meeting) was PR. He suggested that with the push for DLI Education/ Data Training Schools, we should be moving on the PR issue to educate various constituencies. e.g. Reaching a few key economists. Chuck agreed that PR can and will fall under a variety of areas -- including the Education issue. Wendy suggested that a National Training initiative (roving, not fixed in one location) could help. She felt that having a whole bunch of "education" initiatives is less effective. In fact, she felt that we had a de facto committee because of existing member's involvement in a variety of education initiatives. Laine suggested that the DLI education committee, Chuck, Wendy, Alberta, Elizabeth Hamilton, Jerry, Gaetan, Laine, and Sharon Neary (irreplaceable), form the core of a de facto CAPDU Education Committee. Walter suggested bringing in more speakers to CAPDU meetings etc. would be helpful on both the PR and education front. The Education Committee will report to CAPDU on activities and proposed initiatives by September 2001. So, we need PR, METADATA Standards and Academic Licenses Committees, and additional members for the Education Committee. Laine called for volunteers. Volunteers came forward as follows: A. Public Relations Committee: Jeff M., Ann G., Moira R., Chuck H., and Sharbiran R. B. Metadata Committee: Vince G., Susan M., Mike S. C. Academic Licenses Committee: Anastassia K., Susan M., D. Education Committee: (cross-membership with DLI Education Committee see above) Chuck H., Wendy W., Alberta A-W., Elizabeth Hamilton, Jerry B., Gaetan D., Laine R. In addition, the following volunteers came forward: Ann G., Vince G., Moira R., and Shabiran R. 7. CFI proposals 7.1 Canadian Century Research Infrastructure (CCRI) -- (further to item 6.2) Laine described the Canadian Century Research Infrastructure (CCRI) Project under CFI in more detail. The goal is the creation of historic PUMFS for the 1901 - 1951 Censuses to complement the 1881/1891 PUMFS being created at the University of Victoria and the Statistics Canada 1961 PUMF project. The CCRI wants to produce hierarchical PUMFS based on samples from manuscript microform census records. Laine found out (as member of committee) that the CCRI is considering an RDC-like model. This propagation of the RDC model is disturbing and CAPDU has to put its collective foot down. Laine is casting about for ways to convince the committee that this isn't a good idea. Note: CSD (Census Subdivision) level data has been proposed, but this needs to pass muster with the privacy folks at Statistics Canada. Another suggestion to link death records met an untimely, but not unsurprising demise. CAPDU should draft a letter expressing concern about this. Anne asked about the purpose of the RDC's beyond security -- cross-pollination among researchers. The group's response was that this was not likely to take place. Anne suggested, then, that we address this 'false' assumption. 7.2 LAVAL CFI proposal for National Data Extractor This item relates to a CFI proposal submitted by the University of Laval to develop a National Data Extractor. Claude Bonnelly, Director of Libraries at the University of Laval, is involved in this bid, which included two main issues, described below: 1. Improved Data Licensing: Buy ICPSR, IMF, CRSP, Compustat, (no Canadian), OECD, licensing initiative. 2. Building a better data extractor with minimal money: Proposed a 'trip' across the country to look at Data Extractors, then enhance Sherlock based on findings. Anastassia suggested that the proposal was a good idea at the time, but isn't necessarily needed now (on the licensing side). Second, she asked if Sherlock was the best system to improve. Third, do we need a nation-wide system at all? Reality has changed since this proposal was submitted. A revised proposal may be appropriate. National Licensing proposals make sense but the early Quebec proposal was sent back and told to go National. Then the National proposal was not accepted. Alberta suggested that the Sherlock-centered approach was too narrowly focused. Laine asked if we should support in principle the idea of a National Data Extractor - in line with other National Data Extractors (Harvard MIT, NESSTAR). Jeff suggested we submit this to the list. Anastassia suggested we not separate data and mapping resources from the licensing side of the proposal. Moira suggested focusing on the Licensing rather than the Data Extractor issue. Vince expressed some concern about the hardware purchases associated with this proposal. Vince and others expressed concern that we couldn't support this because of the financial commitment we're not able to provide. The small amount ( ~ $5000) allocated for translation was raised as a concern as well. 8. Statistics Gathering in the Data Library Context. The CARL Standing Committee on Effectiveness Measures and Statistics (SCEMS), chaired by Richard Ellis, University Librarian, Memorial University of Newfoundland, has asked CAPDU for feedback on statistics-gathering practices in Data Libraries. How do we count "data" related resources? The SCEMS committee wants an idea of what to count, how to count it, and some definitions to provide a framework. Some general discussion ensued: Count: Files or Titles or both? We agreed generally that we count files that we "use/download" rather than what we have access to. Shabiran suggested we count files rather than titles. We need something that will fit what we do. We have titles/files downloaded, kept, passed to users, eventually deleted (weeded), etc. How do we bring all of this together? Alberta suggested we be sure to mention having "membership" in ICPSR, DLI, IDLS, Sherlock, QWIFS, Guelph, etc, in addition to local holdings titles and/or files (including CD-ROM, Diskette, Server). It was suggested that we need a consistent and efficient means of counting holdings that accommodates local variations/practices. The group came up with the following suggested list of statistics: a. Memberships/access (Roper, Datastream, etc., ICPSR, DLI, QWIFS, Sherlock, CHASS - please specify etc). b. Titles c. Physical files d. Removable media (specify) e. Usage This is a much harder issue because of variation in what is counted and how. user-file pairs? Repeated use of same file by same user? Data extraction Data analysis f. User consultation (i.e. Reference questions) How is this counted at each institution? GovDocs/Data vs Data alone? This is a major issue at institutions. g. Digital Mapping statistics: Included in stats: yes / no? h. Staffing FTE's devoted to Research Data function. The SPEC survey has a means of indicating the type of data service being offered. Perhaps a simplified version of this could serve as a starting point. 9. ICPSR Bo W. was not present at the meeting. Deferred to ICPSR listserver. Vince will draft an 'issue' email for the list. Main issue - individual access to ICPSR FTP site. 10. Other Business 10.1 CANSIM dropped series issue Ernie suggested that CAPDU should send a letter to the Director of CANSIM regarding the policy of dropping series. 10.2 PUMFS 2001 Chuck suggested sending a letter to the manager of the 2001 Census dissemination project (John Jackson ) asking for clarification of issues surrounding the production of the 2001 PUMFS. Chuck draft this letter for Laine. 10.3 LISTSERV Membership Vince raised question about membership in CAPDU and membership on the CAPDU listserver. Who should be on the Listserver? Members only? All interested parties? This issue is to be submitted to the list and the PR committee. Meeting adjourned. Action Items Arising from the Minutes 1. Update 2000 CAPDU minutes and post on Web (Jeff / Vince) 2. Nominations Committee startup (Alberta, Susan, Marilyn) 3. Establish a CAPDU domain name: www.capdu.ca (Walter P. / Vince G. ?) 4. Call Jeff LaBonte of ACMLA (?) to follow-up on GCLI - GIS in Canadian Libraries [DSP access to Canadian digital mapping] (Laine) 5. Formally express thanks to Waterloo for their offer to host CAPDU 2002, but decline in favour of the Toronto option (with the Congress). 6. Put up a CAPDU web page dealing with the National Data Archive issue (Vince). 7. The Education Committee will provide a report of activities and proposed initiatives to CAPDU by September 2001. 8. Write a letter on behalf of CAPDU expressing concern about the proposed use of an RDC-like model to provide access to the PUMFs being produced under CFI as part of the Canadian Century Research Infrastructure= Project (Laine) 9. Submit the issue of a =93National Data Extractor=94 - in line with= other National Data Extractors (Harvard MIT, NEsstar) to the CAPDU list (Laine). 10. Post ICPSR report (Bo W. absent). 11. Post ICPSR =93issues=94 email to ICPSR Listserv regarding issue of= =93individual access=94 ICPSR FTP site, among others (Vince) 12. Send a letter to the Director of CANSIM regarding the policy of dropping series (Laine). 13. Send a letter to the manager of the 2001 Census dissemination project (John Jackson ) asking for clarification of issues surrounding the= production of the 2001 PUMFS (Chuck H.) 14. Submit the issue of who should be on the CAPDU Listserv (members only?) to the CAPDU Listserv a bit incestuous, but what can you do? The PR Committee will attempt to come to some conclusions on this issue.