Collaboration on appraisal and collection development for the long-term preservation of digital content Michael Day DCC Re...
Presentation outline <ul><li>Different approaches to selection and appraisal </li></ul><ul><li>Collection development </li...
Approaches to selection (1) <ul><li>Fully comprehensive </li></ul><ul><ul><li>“Storage is cheap. Why select?” (topic of AS...
Approaches to selection (2) <ul><li>Different professional approaches to selection </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Archivists focus ...
Example: Web archives (1) <ul><li>Highlights differences between the archival and collection development approaches </li><...
Example: Web archives (2) <ul><ul><li>International Internet Preservation Consortium </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Intern...
Collection development (1) <ul><li>Typically focuses both on institutional objectives (e.g. “supporting the research and t...
Collection development (2) <ul><ul><li>Specific selection factors might include: </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>The overal...
Collection development (3) <ul><ul><li>Collection development policies </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>These help guide ong...
Collection development (4) <ul><li>Digital resources raise new kinds of selection issues: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Defining c...
Collection development (5) <ul><ul><li>The principle that it is important to select resources early in their lifecycle </l...
Collaboration on preservation (1) <ul><li>Collaborative infrastructures have long been identified as necessary for digital...
Collaboration on preservation (2) <ul><li>Examples: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Shared services (e.g. registries of representati...
Institutional repositories (1) <ul><li>Institutional repositories require collaborative infrastructures: </li></ul><ul><ul...
Institutional repositories (2) <ul><li>Potential shared services identified by Swan & Awre (2006): </li></ul><ul><ul><li>R...
IRs and preservation (1) <ul><li>Shared services for preservation: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Assumption that not all instituti...
IRs and preservation (2) <ul><li>Examples: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>DARE (Digital Academic Repositories) initiative (Netherla...
IRs and preservation (3) <ul><li>Examples (continued): </li></ul><ul><ul><li>SHERPA DP project (UK) - JISC funded </li></u...
IRs and preservation (4) <ul><li>Examples (continued): </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Preserv project (UK) - JISC funded </li></ul>...
IRs and preservation (5) Preserv service provider model (Hichcock,  et al ., 2007)
IRs and collection development (1) <ul><li>Collection development issues for : </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Content types </li></...
IRs and collection development (2) <ul><ul><li>Ongoing review (and weeding) of collections </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>...
IRs and collection development (3) <ul><li>Potential areas for collaboration: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Ingest workflows </li>...
Shared collection development (1) <ul><li>Collection development has been a traditional focus of library co-operation, e.g...
Shared collection development (2) <ul><li>Collaborative collection development and digital preservation </li></ul><ul><ul>...
Shared collection development (3) <ul><ul><li>Identifying collections at risk and supporting their rescue </li></ul></ul><...
InterPARES appraisal framework (1) <ul><li>1. Compiling information </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Identifying the form and context...
InterPARES appraisal framework (2) <ul><li>2. Assessing value </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Judgement based on creator’s needs  an...
InterPARES appraisal framework (3) <ul><li>3. Determining the feasibility of preservation </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Determinin...
InterPARES appraisal framework (4) <ul><li>A generic framework: as developed has a focus on records, but the general princ...
Conclusions <ul><li>The use of a consistent set of principles might help to encourage: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>More consiste...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Collaboration on appraisal and collection development for the long-term preservation of digital content

2,736
-1

Published on

Slides from a presentation given at: Appraisal in the Digital World, Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, Rome, Italy, 15-16 November 2007

Published in: Education, Technology
0 Comments
2 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
2,736
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
49
Comments
0
Likes
2
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Collaboration on appraisal and collection development for the long-term preservation of digital content

  1. 1. Collaboration on appraisal and collection development for the long-term preservation of digital content Michael Day DCC Research Team UKOLN, University of Bath Bath BA2 7AY, United Kingdom [email_address]
  2. 2. Presentation outline <ul><li>Different approaches to selection and appraisal </li></ul><ul><li>Collection development </li></ul><ul><li>The importance of collaboration for: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Digital preservation </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Institutional repositories </li></ul></ul><ul><li>General principles for selection and appraisal </li></ul>
  3. 3. Approaches to selection (1) <ul><li>Fully comprehensive </li></ul><ul><ul><li>“Storage is cheap. Why select?” (topic of ASIST student chapter panel discussion, UNC, 2007) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>May seem to provide a way of avoiding the cultural bias evident in most selection regimes </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>But, ad hoc decisions on retention may still be made, but maybe on pragmatic grounds (e.g., available technology, security, privacy) with little in the way of accountability </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>It also does not resolve the practical question of who should be responsible for preservation </li></ul></ul>
  4. 4. Approaches to selection (2) <ul><li>Different professional approaches to selection </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Archivists focus on “appraisal” </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Based on well-established theoretical principles </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>An important part of archival practice </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Other cultural heritage organisations focus on the development and management of collections </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Based on a different set of assumptions </li></ul></ul></ul>
  5. 5. Example: Web archives (1) <ul><li>Highlights differences between the archival and collection development approaches </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Archivists and records managers approach Web operations as a potential source or generator of records </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Identify best practice for managing Web records, e.g. TNA </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Mitigating organisational risk </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Enhancing accountability </li></ul></ul></ul>
  6. 6. Example: Web archives (2) <ul><ul><li>International Internet Preservation Consortium </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Internet Archive and national libraries </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>View Web as a source of “published” content that can be harvested to enhance existing collections </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Whether highly selective (e.g. UK Web Archiving Consortium, National Library of Australia’s PANDORA archive) or broader in scope (domain capture), national library led-initiatives tend to focus on traditional collection development criteria </li></ul></ul></ul>
  7. 7. Collection development (1) <ul><li>Typically focuses both on institutional objectives (e.g. “supporting the research and teaching needs of the university”) and subject needs </li></ul><ul><li>Traditionally includes a range of activities: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Selection, acquisition, deselection (weeding), disposal, preservation </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Part of collection management (also includes policies, budget allocation, collection evaluation </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Most collections will change over time, e.g. responding to changes to institutional objectives and the resources available (money and space) </li></ul>
  8. 8. Collection development (2) <ul><ul><li>Specific selection factors might include: </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>The overall purpose of the collection (e.g. supporting education and research) </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Existing subject strengths </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>The information needs of users </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Quality, accuracy, authoritativeness, currency, … </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Value for money </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Statutory requirements (e.g. for national libraries) </li></ul></ul></ul>
  9. 9. Collection development (3) <ul><ul><li>Collection development policies </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>These help guide ongoing collecting activities and form the basis for evaluation </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>In the library sector, these can be “highly charged political documents and … the province of the most senior library management” (Derek Law) </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Helps to define organisational goals </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>“ Deaccessioning” can lead to controversy (e.g. Nicholson Baker’s Double Fold ) </li></ul></ul></ul>
  10. 10. Collection development (4) <ul><li>Digital resources raise new kinds of selection issues: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Defining content, e.g. understanding the “significant properties” of resources (vitally important for making preservation decisions) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>The need for various types of metadata </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Access </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>The longer-term implications of licenses </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>User support and training needs </li></ul></ul></ul>
  11. 11. Collection development (5) <ul><ul><li>The principle that it is important to select resources early in their lifecycle </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Obsolescence leads to loss </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Implicit knowledge gets lost </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Metadata and documentation is hard to (re)create retrospectively </li></ul></ul></ul>
  12. 12. Collaboration on preservation (1) <ul><li>Collaborative infrastructures have long been identified as necessary for digital preservation and curation, e.g.: </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Preservation is &quot;an ongoing, long-term commitment, often shared, and cooperatively met, by many stakeholders&quot; (Lavoie & Dempsey, 2004) </li></ul></ul></ul>
  13. 13. Collaboration on preservation (2) <ul><li>Examples: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Shared services (e.g. registries of representation information, third-party services for bit-level preservation) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Networks of &quot;trust&quot; (audit and certification) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Collaboration on policy level, e.g. on collection development and access </li></ul></ul>
  14. 14. Institutional repositories (1) <ul><li>Institutional repositories require collaborative infrastructures: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Distributed services linked (for access) by metadata harvesting </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Open Archives Initiative Protocol for Metadata Harvesting (OAI-PMH) </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Data Providers (repositories) and Service Providers (aggregators) </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Potential for the development of shared services to support repositories (Swan & Awre, Linking UK Repositories (JISC, 2006) </li></ul></ul>
  15. 15. Institutional repositories (2) <ul><li>Potential shared services identified by Swan & Awre (2006): </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Resource discovery </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Building or hosting repositories </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Advisory services (e.g. on IPR, preservation) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Content creation, digitisation </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Metadata capture and enhancement </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Name authorities </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Citation analysis and research assessment </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Preservation services </li></ul></ul>
  16. 16. IRs and preservation (1) <ul><li>Shared services for preservation: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Assumption that not all institutions with repositories will be able to manage long-term preservation challenges, e.g.: </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Lack of local expertise and resources </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Existing availability of third party services, e.g. provided by subject-based data centres, national libraries </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Preservation is a logical area for collaboration </li></ul></ul></ul>
  17. 17. IRs and preservation (2) <ul><li>Examples: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>DARE (Digital Academic Repositories) initiative (Netherlands) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>National Library of the Netherlands (KB) has responsibility for content deposited in participating repositories </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Repository Bridge project (UK) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Demonstration of harvesting e-theses (using OAI-PMH and METS) by the National Library of Wales </li></ul></ul></ul>
  18. 18. IRs and preservation (3) <ul><li>Examples (continued): </li></ul><ul><ul><li>SHERPA DP project (UK) - JISC funded </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Developed disaggregated framework for outsourcing preservation, based on the OAIS model </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Explored the packaging and transfer of content (using METS) </li></ul></ul></ul>
  19. 19. IRs and preservation (4) <ul><li>Examples (continued): </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Preserv project (UK) - JISC funded </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Simple model of modular services, e.g. for: </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Bit-level preservation </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Object characterisation and validation (e.g. using registries like PRONOM-DROID) </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Preservation Planning (risk assessments, technology watch, etc.) </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Preservation strategies (e.g. migration) </li></ul></ul></ul></ul>
  20. 20. IRs and preservation (5) Preserv service provider model (Hichcock, et al ., 2007)
  21. 21. IRs and collection development (1) <ul><li>Collection development issues for : </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Content types </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Peer-reviewed research outputs, scientific datasets, administrative records, ... </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Will have different preservation priorities </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Object types (file formats) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Policies will have direct influence on risks (and costs) of long-term preservation, e.g.: </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Accepting anything vs. defining the specific standards to be used </li></ul></ul></ul></ul>
  22. 22. IRs and collection development (2) <ul><ul><li>Ongoing review (and weeding) of collections </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Withdrawal of content (contentious issue) </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Superseded or duplicate material </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Defining preservation service levels </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Different policies needed for different types of material </li></ul></ul></ul>
  23. 23. IRs and collection development (3) <ul><li>Potential areas for collaboration: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Ingest workflows </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Checking conformance with submission rules </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Automated tools for format characterisation and validation, maybe conversion (normalisation) </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Metadata enhancement, e.g. consistent forms of name </li></ul></ul></ul>
  24. 24. Shared collection development (1) <ul><li>Collection development has been a traditional focus of library co-operation, e.g.: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Farmington Plan (1940s) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>University of London Depository Library </li></ul></ul><ul><li>The concept of &quot;virtual collections&quot; </li></ul><ul><ul><li>IFLA Universal Availability of Publications (UAP) core programme </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Also applies to digital collections </li></ul><ul><ul><li>OhioLINK </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>California Digital Library </li></ul></ul>
  25. 25. Shared collection development (2) <ul><li>Collaborative collection development and digital preservation </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Potentially reducing unnecessary duplication of effort </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Enabling co-ordinated decisions to be made about the redundancy and geographical distribution of content </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Also supporting the application of different preservation strategies to the same class of content </li></ul></ul>
  26. 26. Shared collection development (3) <ul><ul><li>Identifying collections at risk and supporting their rescue </li></ul></ul><ul><li>In order to do these things, it may be useful to have some common understanding of what collection development and appraisal should mean in the digital era </li></ul><ul><ul><li>The main appraisal activities identified by the InterPARES Appraisal Task Force may be useful here </li></ul></ul>
  27. 27. InterPARES appraisal framework (1) <ul><li>1. Compiling information </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Identifying the form and contexts of records </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Identifying the particular components that need preservation </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Based on solid research (not just collecting it together in a haphazard fashion) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>This information could become part of the record’s metadata </li></ul></ul>
  28. 28. InterPARES appraisal framework (2) <ul><li>2. Assessing value </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Judgement based on creator’s needs and societal needs </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>May be context dependent (institution specific) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Assessing continuing value </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Authenticity </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Determining value </li></ul></ul></ul>
  29. 29. InterPARES appraisal framework (3) <ul><li>3. Determining the feasibility of preservation </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Determining value is not enough in itself </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Need also to consider whether the records are able to be preserved as authentic records </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Takes into account the organisational ability to undertake preservation </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Gathers technical information </li></ul></ul><ul><li>4. Making the appraisal decision </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Based on value and feasibility </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>All decisions made must be documented </li></ul></ul>
  30. 30. InterPARES appraisal framework (4) <ul><li>A generic framework: as developed has a focus on records, but the general principles, broadly interpreted, could be applied to other forms of content, e.g. scientific datasets, Web content </li></ul><ul><li>Does not presuppose a particular preservation approach </li></ul><ul><li>Encourages a focus on organisational objectives, object contexts, object value, the technical feasibility of preservation, and the determination of “significant properties” </li></ul><ul><li>Helps to document the selection process </li></ul>
  31. 31. Conclusions <ul><li>The use of a consistent set of principles might help to encourage: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>More consistency in documenting selection and appraisal decisions across domains, with benefits for collaboration </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>May provide insight into assessing value and preservation feasibility in specific contexts (like Web archives) </li></ul></ul>
  1. A particular slide catching your eye?

    Clipping is a handy way to collect important slides you want to go back to later.

×