What’s Different about the Digital: Community Action via UK LOCKSS Alliance


Published on

Presentation given by Adam Rusbridge at RLUK conference on 10th November 2010

Published in: Education
  • 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
  • Multiple threats to digital material.
    Relate to the loss of control that comes from no longer ‘owning’ content.
    Can we still access material after cancellation?
    What happens if a title is cancelled and taken offline?
  • LOCKSS – for Lots of Copies Keep Stuff Safe – is one initiative to address this.
    Initially a pilot programme,
    August 2008: moved from pilot to service, and from management of the DCC, to EDINA at the University of Edinburgh.
    EDINA offered underlying technical support and coordination
    - libraries responsible for the development of journal preservation infrastructure and collections,
    - libraries contribute to development of wider national policy.
    More than just an implementation of a software system;
    Coordinate a shared institutional response to the challenges associated with continuing access.
  • Key challenge: limited resources available for digital preservation – for any preservation initiative.
    Can’t do everything, and nor should we.
    There are other initiatives, unnecessary duplication should be avoided.
    Thousands of journals, important to different academics for different reasons.
    How do we identify priority resources – or AT-RISK resources?
    How do we preserve these priority titles securely?
    Plan to formalize the nomination process – currently ad-hoc. Welcome the arrival of PEPRS.
    How do we trust the stability of the archives? TRAC and DRAMBORA.
    More criteria needed for archives that benefit UK HE
  • How does LOCKSS work?
    A library brings online a LOCKSS box within their institution.
    - in-house archiving system
    - a digital bookshelf and can preserve all kinds of web published material
    documents, video, flash, etc.
    LOCKSS can help libraries gather in and preserve any digital object that can be displayed in your browser.
  • Preserve e-journal content in their LOCKSS box if two requirements are met.
    publisher needs to upload a per-volume permission statement, so we know that preservation has been authorized
    either the library preserving the material must have an active subscription to that volume
    or the volume must be available under a license that permits replication, such as Creative Commons.
    This means you can only preserve content to which you have permission.
  • NESLi2 model license required publisher participation in at least one e-journal archiving initiative.
     Don’t rely on a single solution too early -
    – sensible for institutions to participate in multiple approaches.
    Preservation initiatives have different strengths and benefits, and different costs.
    Guidance on the relative benefits has been much improved,
    Institutional uncertainty on how services benefit different organizations.
    UKLA hopes to address this in our work
    Libraries should consider – what should we be building from the ground up?
    Related to the audit criteria.
    How can the UKLA collaborate with other initiatives?
  • Approaches are relatively new, and haven’t had to weather significant challenges.
    What is needed to support their activity?
    What are the library roles?
    What are the roles of JISC? Of RLUK?
    Libraries trying to manage risk best - mitigate risk through participation in preservation initiatives.
    Different institutions have different priorities – LOCKSS help build collections, Portico provides a assured service.
    However, amongst the most common trends for motivation are that these services:
    - provide post-cancellation access (which has the added incentive of saving money).
    - insure against loss (and discard print, which saves money(?)).
    Take-up is relatively small, when compared with the total number of UK HE institutions
    Further incentives, or motivations – or education! - does the UK community need?
    More advocacy? Or is it just a matter of time?
  • Example of UKLA benefits: Pain Reviews
    Published by Hodder Arnold, available via IngentaConnect.
    Discontinued, negotiated release of content under a CC OA license.
    Any interested institution can preserve the content.
    Content can be moved between archiving initiatives - within the terms of license - if one initiative were to become more attractive than another.
    CC license means a preserving libvrary can take on role of publisher, for wider benefit.
    Current subscription material is bound to the conditions of the publisher’s license,
    if this stuff is going away, why not encourage this kind of access?
  • Preserves presentation and behavior of articles so they look as they did when originally published.
    Content increasingly dynamic, especially for small, unique titles:
    here we see an article built around streamed audio and video.
    The display and behavior of content on the web is important,
    For future scholars could be even more important than the words on the page.
    Archives need to be flexible enough to handle this dynamic content.
    We need to understand the important attributes of the content in question.
  • This slide shows the current UK LOCKSS Alliance members.
    We’re working with a mix of institutions;
    Variations in size, budget, and objectives.
  • Mission statement: positioned the UK LOCKSS Alliance as a co-operative membership organisation.
    To give the UK community control of UKLA activities,
    Steering committee has been established:
    to coordinate a community-driven strategy for the development and promotion of the UK LOCKSS Alliance
    to introduce a model of governance that ensures the LOCKSS approach meets the collection and technological needs of its subscribing organizations.
  • We’ve assigned a committee member to lead each of our funded work packages.
    Collection development processes to nominate at-risk and high priority titles such as Pain Reviews.
    Regional training events designed to share local practices, to build local ‘centres of expertise’.
    UKLA model needs to meet the needs of participants, both in cost and development.
    How can we integrate the efforts of the UK LOCKSS Alliance with others.
    For example, might an RLUK think tank be an option?
  • JISC funding to support our efforts on community development.
    Two funding streams – first from institutional contributions to support technology, and to cover technical support.
    Our funding supports broader development – of the approach, of the community.
    This work has implications for ‘shared services’
    – shared information
    Even though LOCKSS has a model of replication, it doesn’t mean duplication.
  • We would welcome the participation of other interested libraries.
    Membership information is available on the JISC Collections website referenced here.
  • The UK LOCKSS Alliance empowers libraries to continue their role as stewards of content in the digital environment.
    In summary:
    Build an archiving model that will last.
    Involve libraries in the design and oversight of these organizations.
  • Thanks for listening.
  • What’s Different about the Digital: Community Action via UK LOCKSS Alliance

    1. 1. What’s Different about the Digital: Community Action via UK LOCKSS Alliance Adam Rusbridge UK LOCKSS Alliance Coordinator EDINA, University of Edinburgh
    2. 2. Threats to Digital Material • Can we still access the subscribed journals if we stop paying subscription (post- cancellation access)? • What happens if a publisher discontinues a journal? • What happens if a publisher goes bust? • Will we still be able to view current formats in the long term?
    3. 3. UK LOCKSS Alliance • The UK LOCKSS Alliance is a co-operative organization whose goal is to ensure continuing access to scholarly work in ways that are sustainable over the long term. • LOCKSS allows libraries to be involved in the development of journal preservation infrastructure and collections. – EDINA offers underlying technical support and coordination
    4. 4. Challenges and Goals • Limited resources are available for digital preservation • Our task in the UK LOCKSS Alliance is to: 1. Identify priority “at-risk” resources 2. Ensure that these are preserved in a stable environment • How do we achieve this?
    5. 5. A LOCKSS Box is a Digital Bookshelf http://
    6. 6. LOCKSS Permission Statement • Content can be archived if: 1. It has a LOCKSS permission statement 2. The library has an active subscription to the content, or 3. The content is released under Creative Commons license
    7. 7. Multiple approaches to consider • Some libraries are participating in more than one approach – Pick the set of solutions that meets their needs • Third party archives – CLOCKSS – Portico • Legislative Mandate – British Library - UK legal deposit – KB e-Depot – Access may be limited to on site, UK published
    8. 8. Motivations to participate • A library task is to manage risk in order to ensure long term preservation and access. • Why participate in preservation initiatives? – Cost savings: post-cancellation access – Form of insurance for high value e-only subscriptions • Participation is still relatively low - not only in UK LOCKSS Alliance, but across the board. – Need different initiatives? – Other benefits – or different articulation? – Is it the cost? – Are people waiting for others to lead; a tipping point?
    9. 9. Benefits of Community Action
    10. 10. Dynamic and Multimedia Content
    11. 11. UK LOCKSS Alliance Members • University of Birmingham • University of Bristol • De Montfort University • Durham University • Edinburgh University • Glasgow University • University of Hertfordshire • University of Huddersfield • University of Hull • King's College London • London School of Economics • University of Newcastle • Oxford University • Royal Holloway, University of London • Salford University • University of Sussex • University of St Andrews • University of Warwick • University of York
    12. 12. Governance of the UK LOCKSS Alliance • Steering Committee – Tony Kidd (University of Glasgow) – Geoff Gilbert (University of Birmingham) – Phil Adams (De Montfort University) – Lisa Cardy (London School of Economics) – Liz Stevenson (University of Edinburgh) – Lorraine Estelle (JISC Collections) – Peter Burnhill (EDINA, University of Edinburgh) – Adam Rusbridge (UK LOCKSS Alliance Coordinator)
    13. 13. Steering Committee Activities • Collection Management Policies – Methods to determine what content is of priority and at-risk • Community Outreach – Supporting other libraries – How to contribute to national policy • Technical Operation and Development – Usage of LOCKSS within institutions • Finance, Activity and Resources – Achieving a sustainable organisation
    14. 14. Priorities for 2010-2013 • JISC have awarded funding for Community Development Activities (2010 – 2013) • Continued identification of at-risk scholarly titles • Develop well-defined policies and practices – And encourage their adoption • Improve communication between the UKLA members – Engagement with the wider community, e.g. via RLUK • Develop active ‘self-help’ communities to share information • Engage with other initiatives to encourage joined-up services – Benefit from ‘Shared Services’
    15. 15. Get involved in the UK LOCKSS Alliance Participation Information http://www.jisc-collections.ac.uk/catalogue/lockss £1,800E-F £2,250D £2,750C £3,750B £5,000A Annual FeeJISC Band
    16. 16. Principles of LOCKSS: Building Solid Archives • Assured and licensed access to content • Appropriate control and custody of content – Within UK policy and funding control • Responsibility spread across the community – Built upon a strong organisational foundation • Shepherded by strong universities with strong libraries
    17. 17. Where do we go from here? Thank you for listening Adam Rusbridge a.rusbridge@ed.ac.uk