Investigation into Private LOCKSS Networks


Published on

Presented by Adam Rusbridge at UK LOCKSS Alliance Members’ Meeting: 10th May 2011, National Railway Museum, York

Published in: Education, Technology
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Investigation into Private LOCKSS Networks

  1. 1. UK LOCKSS Alliance: Investigation into Private LOCKSS Networks Adam Rusbridge ( [email_address] ) EDINA, University of Edinburgh 10 th May 2011
  2. 2. National Activities: Session Agenda <ul><li>What is a Private LOCKSS Network (PLN)? </li></ul><ul><li>UK Interest in PLNs </li></ul><ul><li>Open Questions about a UK Based PLN </li></ul><ul><li>Next Steps </li></ul>
  3. 3. What is a Private LOCKSS Network? Same software; distinct content & organisation
  4. 4. What is a Private LOCKSS Network? <ul><li>A distributed digital preservation solution depends on a collaborating set of institutions agreeing to preserve each other’s content. </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Tyler Walters, A Guide to Distributed Digital Preservation </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Participate in shared initiative (consortia agreement) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Content preserved across institutions (license) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Maintain necessary LOCKSS boxes (hardware) </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Requires a degree of coordination, shared enthusiasm, resources and benefit </li></ul>
  5. 5. MetaArchive <ul><li>Provide a ‘Preservation Service’ </li></ul><ul><li>Distributed, multi-tier initiative to support practical preservation </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Sustaining Members </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Development, maintenance of hardware and software </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Preservation Members </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Ongoing activity of preserving digital content </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Contributing Members </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Own and possess digital content and wish to preserve it </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>Strong governance model </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Activities separated into subcommittees </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Steering, Content, Preservation, Technical </li></ul></ul></ul>
  6. 6. COPPUL <ul><li>The Council of Prairie and Pacific University Libraries (COPPUL) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>21 universities in Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia. </li></ul></ul><ul><li>COPPUL PLN aims: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>to preserve collections of local interest </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>that are not already being preserved through any other means </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Content of interest includes: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>university press publications </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>open access journals </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>born digital government publications </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>other electronic journal collections that are at risk of being lost </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Collection Guidelines: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Of local interest and significance </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>At notable risk of being lost </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>All members must have access </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Content in large commercial packages should be excluded </li></ul></ul>
  7. 7. Background to UK Private LOCKSS Network <ul><li>Interest in PLN expressed at previous meetings </li></ul><ul><li>Neil Grindley (JISC) interested in exploring use of LOCKSS for community preservation </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Funding awarded in part to explore PLNs </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Discussion at Steering Committee meeting </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Step 1: Identify communities and content of interest </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Survey UKLA members to understand content of interest </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Step 2: Understand associated digitisation and licensing issues </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Step 3: Understand possible models for implementation </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Short working group to assess demand and operation </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Outcome: Scoping report with recommendations </li></ul></ul>
  8. 8. Content Considerations <ul><li>PLN needs a common scope and sense of purpose among the content contributors that are jointly investing in preserving each other’s collections. </li></ul><ul><li>Why use a community-based PLN? </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Is content of community benefit? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Need to define the community: Library patrons? </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Or for local reasons </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Do the institutions simply want a low-cost solution to preservation? </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>How is access defined, and under what condition? </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Dark, dim, light? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>What security measures are in place? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Who will use the content? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Who will select the content (appraisal)? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Who will preserve the content (all participants, or subset)? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Who will make available / republish the content? </li></ul></ul>
  9. 9. Scope of Collections <ul><li>Suggestions welcome </li></ul><ul><li>Licensed content of national interest </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Electronic Books or Electronic journal materials (CLOCKSS/Pecan) </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Subject matter </li></ul><ul><ul><li>UK Cultural materials and literature </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Biological </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Chronology </li></ul><ul><li>Digitised special collections </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Manuscript collections </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Category of items </li></ul><ul><ul><li>E-prints, Electronic Thesis Dissertations or other documents produced in-house </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Geographic Collections </li></ul><ul><ul><li>UK-specific cultural materials, for example, web archives that would otherwise be lost </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Learning and teaching objects </li></ul>
  10. 10. Copyright: Contributing, Accessing and Preserving Content <ul><li>Is there a mandate for preservation? </li></ul><ul><ul><li>ie. Explicitly referenced in a preservation policy? </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Has the organisation secured permission or license to preserve? (e.g. under fair use) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>What rights does the organisation hold to allow participants to make copies? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>How can access to content be restricted across multiple participants? </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Was the work published with any statement of copyright? </li></ul><ul><li>When was the work created? </li></ul><ul><li>Under what circumstances? </li></ul><ul><li>Who created the work? </li></ul><ul><li>Was it created in the UK? </li></ul>
  11. 11. Candidate Architectures for a UK PLN <ul><li>Distributed Approach </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Repository maintained by individual libraries </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Level of support offered by EDINA </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Governance board comprised of participants </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Centralised Approach </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Repository maintained at EDINA and partner sites </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Technology under EDINA control </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Responsibility for activity lies with EDINA </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Better when single collection benefits entire community </li></ul></ul><ul><li>  </li></ul>
  12. 12. Technical Considerations <ul><li>How many participants required to run the network? </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Either as Content Contributor or Technical Host </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Minimum hardware requirement for each participant? </li></ul><ul><ul><li>And what is the cost? </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Who will administer the hardware at each institution? </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Noting that it hasn’t always been straightforward to manage hardware within LOCKSS </li></ul></ul><ul><li>How will PLN and ongoing development be resourced? </li></ul>
  13. 13. Next Steps <ul><li>Scoping study to highlight features of current models </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Addressing issues highlighted in UK context </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Assess content of UK interest </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Community interest in participating </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Establish short working group to review options </li></ul>