• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
Keepit Course 5: Revision
 

Keepit Course 5: Revision

on

  • 1,249 views

This course revision presents a rapid recap of all the tools covered in the KeepIt course. It reproduces selected slides from each of the presentations given during the course to illustrate three ...

This course revision presents a rapid recap of all the tools covered in the KeepIt course. It reproduces selected slides from each of the presentations given during the course to illustrate three aspects of each of the tools encountered: what they do, what they look like, what we did with them. The presentation was given as part of the final module of a 5-module course on digital preservation tools for repository managers, presented by the JISC KeepIt project. For more on this and other presentations in this course look for the tag ’KeepIt course’ in the project blog http://blogs.ecs.soton.ac.uk/keepit/

Statistics

Views

Total Views
1,249
Views on SlideShare
1,249
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
2
Downloads
10
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    Keepit Course 5: Revision Keepit Course 5: Revision Presentation Transcript

    • Digital Preservation Tools for Repository Managers A practical course in five parts presented by the KeepIt project By Chris Blakeley Revision with Steve Hitchcock A rapid recap of tools from the course: what they do, what they look like, what we did with them
    • Tools Module 1 • The Data Asset Framework (DAF), Sarah Jones, University of Glasgow, and Harry Gibbs, University of Southampton • The AIDA toolkit: Assessing Institutional Digital Assets, Ed Pinsent, University of London Computer Centre
    • … because good research needs good data Themes addressed in DAF surveys • Data: type / format, volume, description, creator, funder • Creation: policy, naming, versioning, metadata & documentation • Management: storage, backup, roles and responsibilities, planning • Access: restrictions, rights, security, frequency, ease of retrieval, publish • Sharing:collaborators, requirements to share, methods, concerns • Preservation: selection / retention, repository services, obsolescence • Gaps / needs: services, advice, support, infrastructure www.data-audit.eu/ DAF at KeepIt Digital preservation tools for repositories, 19/01/10, Southampton
    • … because good research needs good data The methodology http://www.data-audit.eu/DAF_Methodology.pdf www.data-audit.eu/ DAF at KeepIt Digital preservation tools for repositories, 19/01/10, Southampton
    • … because good research needs good data How would you scope: 1) the range of data being created at your institution? 2) user expectations / requirements on the repository to help manage and preserve those data? • What would you want to find out? - what would your key questions be? • How would you go about collecting information? • How would you ensure participation? www.data-audit.eu/ DAF at KeepIt Digital preservation tools for repositories, 19/01/10, Southampton
    • Relevance to this Course • AIDA can… – Measure your ability to manage digital content effectively – Show how good you are sustaining continued access – Be directly relevant to managing a repository (access, sharing, and usage) – Helps you find out where you are – Help you decide what to do next
    • Exercise • Divide into four teams • One element from each leg, relating to one activity • Agree on the scope of what you will assess - work on a single Institution (real or imaginary) • Assess the capacity for this activity • Expected results: – A score for the element in each leg and at each level (6 scores in all) – Explain why you arrived at that decision – Roles / job titles of people consulted – Outline evidentiary sources that might help
    • Tools Module 2 • Keeping Research Data Safe (KRDS), Costs, Policy, and Benefits in Long-term Digital Preservation, Neil Beagrie, Charles Beagrie Ltd consultancy • LIFE3: Predicting Long Term Preservation Costs, Brian Hole, The British Library
    • What was Produced? • A cost framework consisting of: – activity model in 3 parts: pre-archive, archive, support services – Key cost variables divided into economic adjustments and service adjustments – Resources template for Transparent Costing (TRAC) • 4 detailed case studies (ADS, Cambridge, KCL, Southampton) • Data from other services.
    • Benefits Framework KRDS2 Benefits Taxonomy Dimension 1(Type of Outcome) Direct Indirect (costs avoided) Dimension 2 (When) Near-Term Benefits Long-term Benefits Dimension 3 (Who) Private Public
    • Group Exercise • Agree a spokesperson and “recorder” • Using KRDS2 Benefits Taxonomy: – Q1 Identify which benefits can be costed? – Q2 Select 3 Key benefits (include costed and uncosted) – Q3 Identify the information you might need for measuring them • Report back at 12.10 !
    • LIFE3 LIFE3: Estimating preservation costs  The LIFE3 Project:  Aim: To develop the ability to estimate preservation costs across the digital lifecycle  The Project is developing:  A series of costing models for each stage and element of the digital lifecycle  An easy to use costing tool  Support to enable easy input of data  Integration to facilitate use of the results Content Profile Cost Predicted Organisational Estimation Lifecycle Profile Tool Cost Context 13
    • LIFE3 LIFE3 costing tool outputs – estimated costs Stage Lifecycle Creation Bit-stream Content or Acquisition Ingest Access Preservation Preservation Purchase Lifecycle Elements Quality Repository Preservation Access .... Selection Assurance Admin Watch Provision Submission Storage Preservation Access .... Metadata Agreement Provision Planning Control IPR & Preservation User .... Deposit Refreshment Licensing Action Support Ordering & Holdings .... Backup Re-ingest Invoicing Update Reference Obtaining Inspection Disposal Linking •Check-in 14
    • LIFE3 Exercise  Excel model  The Content Profile  Refining the calculations  Feedback  Do you feel that this approach is sound?  Have we included all relevant factors?  Is the model suitable for the kind of content your repository deals with?  Are we making correct assumptions, and is it clear what these are?  How could we improve it? 15
    • Tools Module 3 • Significant characteristics, Stephen Grace and Gareth Knight, King’s College London • PREMIS, Open Provenance Model
    • Preservation workflow Check Analyse Action •Format Preservation planning • Migration identification, Characterisation: • Emulation versioning Significant properties and • Storage selection • File validation technical characteristics, • Virus check provenance, format, risk • Bit checking and factors checksum calculation Risk analysis Tools Tools e.g. DROID Plato (Planets) JHOVE PRONOM (TNA) FITS P2 risk registry (KeepIt) INFORM (U Illinois)
    • A group task on format risks 1. Choose two formats to compare (e.g. Word vs PDF, Word vs ODF, PDF vs XML, TIFF vs JPEG) 2. By working through the (surviving) list of format risks select a winner (or a draw) between your chosen formats for each risk category (1 point for win) 3. Total the scores to find an overall winning format 4. Suggest one reason why the winning format using this method may not be the one you would choose for your repository
    •  Select object type Identify purpose of Determine expected Classify behaviours Associate structure Analyse structure Review & finalise for analysis technical properties behaviours into functions with each function Behaviour Structure subject Determine expected behaviours Message text • What activities would a user – any type of Line break stakeholder – perform when using an email? Paragraph • Draw upon list of property descriptions underline performed in the previous step, formal strikethrough standards and specifications, or other Body background information sources. Body text colour In-reply-to Task 2: references Message-id Identify the type of actions that a user Trace-route would be able to perform using the Sender display-name email (Groups. 15 mins). Sender local-part Sender domain-part • E.g. Establish name of person who sent Recipient display- email name • E.g. May want to confirm that email Recipient local-part Recipient domain- originated from stated source. part 19
    • Exercise overview • Analyse the content of an email • Analyse structure of email message • Determine purpose that each technical property performs • Consider how email will be used by stakeholders • Identify set of expected behaviours • Classify set of behaviours into functions for recording 20
    • 21
    • JHOVE Demo 22
    • Define Sample Objects
    • Some revision from KeepIt Module 3 • Preservation workflow – Recognised we have digital objects with formats and other characteristics we need to identify and record. These can change over time, or may need to be changed pre-emptively depending on a risk assessment, using a preservation action. Risk is subjective. • Significant properties – We considered which characteristics might be significant using the function- behaviour-structure (FBS) framework, and classifying the functions of formatted emails – We recognised that assessment of behaviour, and so of significance, can vary according to the viewpoint of the stakeholder – e.g. creator, user, archivist • Documentation – We looked at two means to document these characteristics, and the changes over time 1. Broad and established (PREMIS) 2. Focussed, and work-in-progress (Open Provenance Model) • Provenance in action: transmission and recording – Through a simple game we learned that if we don’t recognise the necessary properties at the outset, and maintain a record through all stages of transmission, the information at the end of the chain will likely not be the same as you started with
    • Tools Module 4 • Eprints preservation apps, including the storage controller, Dave Tarrant and Adam Field, University of Southampton • Plato, preservation planning tool from the Planets project, Andreas Rauber and Hannes Kulovits, TU Wien
    • Hybrid Storage Policies
    • EPrints Storage Manager
    • Risk Analysis Risk Analysis In EPrints Preservation - Analyse EPrints File Classification + Risk Analysis
    • Risk Analysis In EPrints Transformation? Migration? Preservation - Action Mock up Transformation Interface Migration Tools Tool Preservation Level PPT -> PPTX PPT -> PDF
    • Viewing high-risk objects
    • Exercise: EPrints Adding ‘at risk’ image collection
    • Preservation Planning
    • Preservation Planning with Plato Plato  Assists in analyzing the collection - Profiling, analysis of sample objects via Pronom and other services  Allows creation of objective tree - Within application or via import of mindmaps  Allows the selection of Preservation action tools
    • Preservation Planning with Plato Plato  Runs experiments and documents results  Allows definition of transformation rules, weightings  Performs evaluation, sensitivity analysis,  Provides recommendation (ranks solutions)
    • Exercise Time! The Scenario  National library  Scanned yearbooks archive  GIF images  The purpose of this plan is to find a strategy on how to preserve this collection for the future, i.e. choose a tool to handle our collection with.  The tool must be compatible with our existing hardware and software infrastructure, to install it within our server and network environment.  The files haven't been touched for several years now and no detailed description exists. However, we have to ensure their accessibility for the next years.  Re-scanning is not an option because of costs and some pages from the original newspapers do not exist anymore.
    • Exercise: EPrints Adding ‘at risk’ image collection
    • Exercise: Plato-EPrints Plan-migrate-review
    • Tools Module 5 • TRAC, Trusted Repository Audit and Certification: criteria and checklist • DRAMBORA, Digital Repository Audit Method Based On Risk Assessment, Martin Donnelly, Digital Curation Centre, University of Edinburgh
    • … because good research needs good data Trustworthy Repositories Audit & Certification (TRAC) Criteria and Checklist • RLG/NARA assembled an International Task Force to address the issue of repository certification • TRAC is a set of criteria applicable to a range of digital repositories and archives, from academic institutional preservation repositories to large data archives and from national libraries to third-party digital archiving services • Provides tools for the audit, assessment, and potential certification of digital repositories • Establishes audit documentation requirements required • Delineates a process for certification • Establishes appropriate methodologies for determining the soundness and sustainability of digital repositories www.data-audit.eu www.repositoryaudit.eu DRAMBORA and DAF, EDINA, 27th October 2009
    • TRAC Criteria Checklist • Within TRAC, there are 84 individual criteria Only 82 criteria to go!
    • To certify or not to certify? That is the question 1. Take a spreadsheet with all 84 TRAC criteria. 2. Select one. 3. Decide whether you could certify your repository for this, based on where your repository is now or where you think it might be after participating in this course. by Cayusa by fabiux
    • … because good research needs good data DRAMBORA Method • Discrete phases of (self-)assessment, reflecting the realities of audit • Preservation is fundamentally a risk management process: • Define Scope • Document Context and Classifiers • Formalise Organisation • Identify and Assess Risks • Builds audit into internal repository management procedures www.repositoryaudit.eu KeepIt #5: University of Northampton, 30 March 2010
    • … because good research needs good data Repository Administration www.repositoryaudit.eu KeepIt #5: University of Northampton, 30 March 2010
    • … because good research needs good data Part I – Identify a risk (30 minutes) Each group should identify one risk (based on your own experiences wherever possible), and complete the DRAMBORA worksheet. Groups should complete: • name and description of the risk; • example manifestations of the risk; • nature of the risk; • risk owner(s); • stakeholders who would be affected; • if possible, relationships with other risks. www.repositoryaudit.eu KeepIt #5: University of Northampton, 30 March 2010
    • … because good research needs good data Part II – Mitigate the risk (30 minutes) Now identify what steps your archive might take to manage and mitigate the identified risk over time… Each group should complete: • Risk management strategy/-ies; • Risk management activities; • Risk management activity owner(s). www.repositoryaudit.eu KeepIt #5: University of Northampton, 30 March 2010