Web and Twitter Archiving at the Library of Congress
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Like this? Share it with your network

Share

Web and Twitter Archiving at the Library of Congress

on

  • 3,377 views

Presentation given at the Joint Conference on Digital Libraries (JCDL) Web Archive Globalization Workshop on web and social media archiving efforts at the Library of Congress.

Presentation given at the Joint Conference on Digital Libraries (JCDL) Web Archive Globalization Workshop on web and social media archiving efforts at the Library of Congress.

Statistics

Views

Total Views
3,377
Views on SlideShare
3,372
Embed Views
5

Actions

Likes
1
Downloads
28
Comments
0

3 Embeds 5

http://twitter.com 2
https://twitter.com 2
https://si0.twimg.com 1

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

CC Attribution-ShareAlike LicenseCC Attribution-ShareAlike License

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
  • Preserve cultural heritage. Online content is ephemeral. Improve digital preservation tools and methods. Average lifespan of website is 44-75 days See http://jiscpowr.jiscinvolve.org/wp/2009/08/12/whats-the-average-lifespan-of-a-web-page/.
  • Web archiving is conducted at different scales. Why is anything more than IA needed? IA’s collecting is broad but shallow.
  • MINERVA pilot started w/ limited staffing and 1 curator. Goal of developing web archiving expertise. WAT formed in 2004; now 6 FTE, 2 contractors, and 80+ curators.
  • Web archiving staff are technical experts. Curators nominate collections and select URLs. They’re familiarized w/ crawl technology and terminology. NetDev and ABA perform cataloging to facilitate access. ITS supports server environments, repository and tools development.
  • Web is too big for us not to be selective.
  • Collections publicly available at http://www.loc.gov/lcwa. Metadata available for all records, but some Web sites restricted to onsite access only (based on permissions obtained).
  • LC uses custom web archiving workflow management apps b/c of permissions.
  • This site is restricted to on-site access only.
  • Links to dated snapshots of site in the archive.
  • Branded Wayback banner lets visitor know they’re in the archive.
  • Wayback 1.6 deployment on hold pending resolution of some configuration issues. Under NutchWAX, indexing was too resource-intensive. Internet Archive and British Library are exploring Lucene/Solr.
  • Web archiving is in state of flux. Lot of content to preserve and it changes all the time. Site you set out to archive is different from one you get. Long time frame and diffuse stakeholder make economics difficult. Producers of web content best positioned but least incented to preserve.
  • When educating nominators, we analogize to traditional materials acquisition.
  • Legal deposit is mechanism by which LC has built collections. Ambiguity about meaning of “published” in web context. Lack of clear legal mandate prompted exploration of alternatives. Section 108 Study Group recommendation to allow libraries to collect “publicly disseminated online content,” but recommendations not (yet) adopted legislatively.
  • Robots.txt is voluntary standard variously used to communicate copyright permissions and/or site load management. Case law suggest that robots.txt not legally binding but may have some legal relevance. Directory exclusions tailored to search bot may yield poor web archive captures.
  • Nominators identify and solicit permissions from site owners.
  • Average Tweet size: 2 Kb.
  • “ Fit” – both in terms of “integrate” and determining what extant curatorial approaches are/aren’t relevant. Agreement guidelines are general; development work intersects with evolving policy discussions. Access determined both by policy and technical capabilities.
  • Need to countermand notions that Twitter is trivial (e.g., the clichéd critique that it’s just people talking about what they ate for lunch) and, by extension, our acquisition isn’t worthwhile. Need to allow researchers to inform decision-making.

Web and Twitter Archiving at the Library of Congress Presentation Transcript

  • 1. Web and Twitter Archiving atthe Library of CongressWeb Archive Globalization WorkshopJune 16, 2011Nicholas Taylor (@nullhandle)Web Archiving TeamLibrary of Congress
  • 2. why archive the web?• preserve our nation’s history and culture• identify and preserve at- risk digital content• develop tools, models, and methods for digital preservation “World Wide Web 1997: 2 Terabytes in 63 Inches” 2 LIBRARY OF CONGRESS
  • 3. various collection strategies• entire web domain—Internet Archive• national domain—Sweden, Denmark, others• selective (individual URLs) and thematic— Australia• thematic or event-based—Library of Congresshttp://netpreserve.org/about/archiveList.php 3 LIBRARY OF CONGRESS
  • 4. web archiving at LC• began in 2000 with MINERVA pilot• identify policy issues, establish best practices, build tools (internally and w/ partners)• broaden expertise and understanding of Web Archiving within LC• collect, manage and sustain at-risk digital content LC Prints & Photographs: design for Minerva Congressional Library 4 LIBRARY OF CONGRESS
  • 5. Curators/Recommending OfficersIn Library Services, Congressional Research Service, and the Law Library pick the Web Archiving Team and Web collections and what URLs to archive, Preservation Engineering Team and research who to contact for permission. In the Office of Strategic Initiatives (OSI). We are project managers and technical staff focused on capture, tools, and permissions. Bibliographic Access MODS records are created in Library Services: the Network Development and Information Technology Office and MARC Standards Office (NetDev) and Technical Architecture Team Acquisitions and Bibliographic Access Also in OSI. Supports Wayback Machine, Heritrix, (ABA) staff do the cataloging. repository and tools development, and data transfers. Contractors are also used in this area. LIBRARY OF CONGRESS
  • 6. LC collections: over 245 TB + 5 TB/month – ongoing collections, including: • Congress/Legislative websites • Legal Blawgs • Public Policy Topics – event-based collections, including: • U.S. National Elections—2000, 2002, 2004, 2006, 2008, 2010 • Iraq War 2003-2009 • September 11 2001 and September 11 Remembrance 2002 • Civil War Sesquicentennial • Olympics 2002 • Supreme Court Nominations • Papal Transition • Case Studies: health care, terrorism, visual image content, organizational Web sites, Crisis in Darfur, “single site” – Overseas Operations collections, including: Egypt 2008; Brazilian, Indian, Indonesian, Philippine, and Thai Elections; Afghanistan Government; Pakistan Nationalismshttp://www.loc.gov/webarchiving/collections.html 6 LIBRARY OF CONGRESS
  • 7. web archives access: loc.gov/lcwa 7 LIBRARY OF CONGRESS
  • 8. essential tools• capture: Heritrix (contract crawling w/ IA and in-house)• replay: Wayback• permissions/seed management; capture quality review; reporting; transfer tracking: custom apps built on LAMP stack• transfer: BagIt Library (based on BagIt spec); *nix ingest/staging/storage/access servers; Internet2 connection 8 LIBRARY OF CONGRESS
  • 9. other useful tools• web archiving workflow management: NetArchiveSuite, Web Curator Tool• small-scale web archiving: HTTrack• Firefox add-ons: Firebug, Web Developer 9 LIBRARY OF CONGRESS
  • 10. cataloging for access• collection-level metadata• site-level bibliographic metadata – nominators provide subject heading – HTML metadata extraction via cURL – cataloger assigns keywords• cataloging metadata stored in MODS• assisted keyword assignment: HIVE 10 LIBRARY OF CONGRESS
  • 11. collection-level record example LIBRARY OF CONGRESS
  • 12. MODS bibliographic record example 12 LIBRARY OF CONGRESS
  • 13. Wayback Machine Resource Page 13 LIBRARY OF CONGRESS
  • 14. example of an archived site 14 LIBRARY OF CONGRESS
  • 15. search and discovery• bibliographic metadata search• (not yet) Memento-enabled• full-text search based on NutchWAX unfeasible• Lucene/Solr looks promising 15 LIBRARY OF CONGRESS
  • 16. Challenges forWEB ARCHIVES 16 LIBRARY OF CONGRESS
  • 17. challenges for web archives • technical – large, deep, dynamic, interlinked – continuous transformation, simultaneously growing and disappearing • intellectual property laws and regulations – legal deposit laws, mandates for preservation, laws that do not address web content • economic environment – few good business models for sustaining web collections • social environment – who is responsible and how is responsibility shared? 17 LIBRARY OF CONGRESS
  • 18. capture, replay, and preservation• capturing websites – Heritrix – “form-fronted” databases (i.e., “deep web”) – URLs the crawler can’t see that we want – …and URLs the crawler can see that we don’t – web 2.0 and other “new” web technologies• replaying archived versions – Wayback – non-rigorous website coding – live site “leakage” – significant interactivity may be lost• preserving access to our archives – billions of files – thousands of file types – how do we ensure content is accessible in 10, 25, 50 or more years? LIBRARY OF CONGRESS
  • 19. scaling capacity• budgetary pressures• limited access server disk space – competing w/ other big data projects• new infrastructure for new capabilities photo by Henrik Bennetsen under CC BY-SA 2.0 19 LIBRARY OF CONGRESS
  • 20. when the only tool you have is a library… LC Prints & Photographs: exterior view of the LC Jefferson Building 20 LIBRARY OF CONGRESS
  • 21. …many things look like collections• archive behaves more like discrete records than web – archived sites not contiguously navigable – data doesn’t readily allow for downloading• Twitter archive may prompt re-thinking web archive data access 21 LIBRARY OF CONGRESS
  • 22. web archiving and U.S. copyright law• legal deposit requirement only applies to “published works” (§ 407)• § 108 of the Copyright Act provides library exceptions – doesn’t address digital preservation and web archiving photo by Gabriel de Urioste under CC BY 2.0 LIBRARY OF CONGRESS
  • 23. why not rely on robots.txt?• unreliable proxy for copyright permissions• archival crawler ≠ search crawler• LC disregards robots.txt but leaves contact info last.fm: robots.txt LIBRARY OF CONGRESS
  • 24. capture and access permissions• permissions-based approach access began in 2002 capture offsite• permission plans for each collection developed w/ government no notice no notice counsel• permission requirements depend on site type advocacy/ notice permission policy• more liberal about capture than about offsite access news permission permission LIBRARY OF CONGRESS
  • 25. implications of opt-in permissions• no response treated as denial – very few denials – many non-responsive• case study: September 11, 2001 – 2300 cataloged, 30000 uncataloged URLs – many news sites (“high risk” permissions category) – no permissions sought – very few takedown requests 25 LIBRARY OF CONGRESS
  • 26. the future of permissions• risk of more liberal approach appears low• hope to move to more notice-based, opt-out policy• may affect previously-captured sites as well photo by RJ Sangosti, Denver Post under © (fair use) 26 LIBRARY OF CONGRESS
  • 27. Challenges for theTWITTER ARCHIVE 27 LIBRARY OF CONGRESS
  • 28. why archive Twitter?• historical record of communication, news reporting, and social trends• complements collections and mission http://twitter.com/#!/klerner/status/64895357355704320 LIBRARY OF CONGRESS
  • 29. Twitter Archive FAQs• currently receiving Tweets through Gnip• includes only the public archive – deletions will propagate to archive• access limitations – 6 month embargo on new Tweets – no bulk distribution• downstream users – no commercial use – no substantial re-distribution LIBRARY OF CONGRESS
  • 30. a (literally) growing challenge• ~3 years: time it took from 1st Tweet to billionth• 1 week: time it now takes users to send a billion Tweets• average Tweets/day in 3/10: 50 million• average Tweets/day in 3/11: 149 millionhttp://blog.twitter.com/2011/03/numbers.html 30 LIBRARY OF CONGRESS
  • 31. questions to consider• how does archive fit in w/ existing collections?• how are agreement guidelines interpreted and implemented technically?• what kind(s) of access can we provide?• what context do we provide for content? LIBRARY OF CONGRESS
  • 32. additional goals• justify value to Congress and public• understand and respond to researcher needs• push the institution beyond existing curatorial models LIBRARY OF CONGRESS
  • 33. for more information• Library of Congress Web Archiving Program: http://www.loc.gov/webarchiving/• Library of Congress Web Archives: http://loc.gov/lcwa/• National Digital Information Infrastructure and Preservation Program: http://www.digitalpreservation.gov/• Library of Congress – Twitter FAQ: http://blogs.loc.gov/loc/2010/04/the-library-and-twitter• Section 108 Study Group: http://www.section108.gov/ 33 LIBRARY OF CONGRESS
  • 34. for more information• “Legal Issues in Building Social Media Collections:” http://www.arl.org/bm~doc/mm11sp-okeeffe.pdf• “How the Library of Congress is building the Twitter archive:” http://radar.oreilly.com/2011/06/library-of-congress-tw• “Web Archives: The Future(s):” http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=183 34 LIBRARY OF CONGRESS
  • 35. questions?Nicholas Taylor@nullhandlentay@loc.gov