Download to read offline
Uploaded byEmily Frieda Shaw
What goes where? Bringing a new repository online at the Ohio State University Libraries
The document outlines the digital preservation strategies and policy framework at Ohio State University Libraries, including the importance of collaboration and understanding digital preservation as a local concern. It details the roles and responsibilities of various task forces dedicated to policy development, digital content management, and the classification of digital objects for preservation. Key guiding principles for implementing a modern digital library are also presented, emphasizing user focus, modular service development, and assessment.
More Related Content
Similar to What goes where? Bringing a new repository online at the Ohio State University Libraries
What goes where? Bringing a new repository online at the Ohio State University Libraries
- 1. What goes where? Bringinga new repository online at the Ohio State University Libraries Emily Frieda Shaw Preservation and Reformatting University Libraries
- 2. 2 University Libraries Preservation &Reformatting Department
- 3. 3 Consultative Committee forSpace Data Systems. (2012). Reference Model for an Open Archival Information System (OAIS). Washington, DC: CCSDS Secretariat Emily Frieda Shaw Preservation and Reformatting University Libraries
- 4.
- 5. 5 Nancy Y. McGovern.“A Digital Decade: Where Have We Been and Where Are We Going in Digital Preservation?” RLG DigiNews, April 15, 2007. http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/handle/2027.42/60441/McGovern- Digital_Decade.html?sequence=4. Emily Frieda Shaw Preservation and Reformatting University Libraries
- 6. 6 The Five OrganizationalStages of Digital Preservation Acknowledge: Understanding that digital preservation is a local concern; Act: Initiating digital preservation projects; Consolidate: Seguing from projects to programs; Institutionalize: Incorporating the larger environment; and Externalize: Embracing inter-institutional collaboration and dependency. Kenney, Anne R. and Nancy Y. McGovern. “The Five Organizational Stages of Digital Preservation” in Hodges, Patricia, ed. Digital Libraries: A Vision for the 21st Century: A Festschrift in Honor of Wendy Lougee on the Occasion of Her Departure from the University of Michigan. Michigan Publishing, University of Michigan Library, 2003. http://hdl.handle.net/2027/spo.bbv9812.0001.001. Emily Frieda Shaw Preservation and Reformatting University Libraries
- 7. 7 Emily Frieda Shaw Preservationand Reformatting University Libraries
- 8. 8 Emily Frieda Shaw Preservationand Reformatting University Libraries
- 9. 9 Emily Frieda Shaw Preservationand Reformatting University Libraries
- 10. 10 Emily Frieda Shaw Preservationand Reformatting University Libraries
- 11. 11 Emily Frieda Shaw Preservationand Reformatting University Libraries
- 12. 12 Emily Frieda Shaw Preservationand Reformatting University Libraries
- 13. 13 Emily Frieda Shaw Preservationand Reformatting University Libraries
- 14. 14 Digital Preservation PolicyFramework Purpose Objectives Mandate Scope Challenges Principles Standards Categories of Commitment Levels of Preservation Roles and Responsibilities Collaboration/Cooperation Access and Use Implementation Review Cycle Emily Frieda Shaw Preservation and Reformatting University Libraries
- 15. 15 Strategies for DigitalInitiatives Working Group • Charged with broad responsibility in crafting the Libraries’ policies and infrastructure to support the Libraries’ strategic vision around digital initiatives aligned with the Libraries’ collections, preservation priorities and information technology infrastructure. • The Group will consider and provide recommendations and guidance on: • Policy development • Interoperability and standards • IT architecture • Asset management • Workflow development • Information sharing/education within the Libraries Membership Head, Digital Initiatives (Chair) Head, Thompson Library Special Collections Head, Digital Content Services Head, Special Collections Description and Access Head, Application Development and Support Head, Research Services Head, Preservation and Reformatting Emily Frieda Shaw Preservation and Reformatting University Libraries
- 16. 16 White Paper: “Implementationof a Modern Digital Library at the Ohio State University Libraries” – Guiding Principles 1. We build services not products 2. We carefully weigh when to build vs. buy vs. borrow 3. We develop modular services, not monolithic systems 4. We develop for change 5. We don’t keep everything forever 6. We build in assessment 7. We focus on the user 8. We work with partners, not customers 9. We embrace research as a core, fundamental value 10.We strive to stay grounded in the real world 11.We are driven by standards Emily Frieda Shaw Preservation and Reformatting University Libraries
- 17. 17 Master Objects RepositoryTask Force (2014) “ first steps in realizing the recommendations laid out in the Ohio State University Libraries (OSUL) Digital Preservation PolicyFramework, moving beyond the theoretical discussion and laying out specific definitions and practices around the management of digital assets within the Libraries’ storage environment.” Emily Frieda Shaw Preservation and Reformatting University Libraries
- 18. 18 Object Type Lifecycle PreservationMaster: The original digital object and/or the rendering of a digital file that best supports the preservation provenance and authenticity of the information and essence of the digital object Permanent Provisional Master: The original digital object and/or the rendering of a digital file that has not been captured utilizing one of the content formats identified for long-term preservation. Ideally, these items will largely be from legacy collections with assets digitized primarily for access or to reduce handling of specific objects. The materials have been digitized with an intention to replace these objects with appropriate preservation ready copies. Until superseded by an appropriate preservation master Derived Master: A high quality derivative created from a preservation master that is utilized to create access copies; further, the effort to create the derivative is resource intensive enough to warrant preserving the file. Conditional: to be disposed when a more effective means of creating access copies is identified Working Copy: A copy or high quality derivative of a preservation master that is utilized to create access copies and will be disposed of once the access copies are complete and placed in an appropriate access system. Maintain while creating access copies; dispose once access copies/project has been vetted Access Copy: A derivative–typically of lower quality–created from a derived master or working copy that is intended for consumption by our patrons and/or the public. Life of project; archival review of project Reproduction Copy: A high quality derivative that is distributed to a consumer/patron for their personal re-use and may be stored on shared drive or other designated area, for ease of access. Conditional: to be disposed when a more effective means of providing re-use copies is identified Emily Frieda Shaw Preservation and Reformatting University Libraries
- 19. 19 Emily Frieda Shaw Preservationand Reformatting University Libraries
- 20. 20 Digital Content ManagementWorkflows Task Force (2015) • Charged with developing a disposition matrix and workflow recommendations detailing how digital objects will move into the Libraries’ for management and preservation Digital Preservation Task Force (2015) • Charged with developing a long-term management / preservation plan for the Libraries’ master digital objects, including: • A detailed environmental scan of the services currently used to provide digital preservation services for the Libraries • Identification of additional local and external services currently available to and/or supported by the Libraries • Recommendations for systematically managing the preservation of digital master objects • Recommendations detailing: • What content the Libraries will preserve internally and in what repository • What external services the Libraries will use and for what types of content • Plans for the migration of existing content into appropriate services • An outline of cost and staffing considerations for each recommended repository / service (i.e.cost per TB of content, internal infrastructure costs, staff time considerations, etc.) Emily Frieda Shaw Preservation and Reformatting University Libraries
- 21. 21 Thank you! Emily FriedaShaw Preservation and Reformatting University Libraries
Editor's Notes
- #3 For years I dreamed of participating in the development of a trusted digital repository. I completed coursework toward a Certificate of Advanced Study in digital libraries, to learn about the theory and practice of digital preservation, databases and information processing, metadata, data curation and management, analysis and design of information systems.
- #4 I pinned a copy of the OAIS reference model to my cubicle and would regularly refer to it when graduate students asked me “so, what do you do?” Well, I am trying to do THIS!
- #5 I joined the National Digital Stewardship Alliance (NDSA) and participated in monthly calls with several working groups, listening intently and engaging with colleagues who manage preservation repositories in other institutions, and taking what incremental steps I could to better manage and preserve my organization’s digital collections in the absence of such a repository.
- #6 I attended Nancy McGovern’s Digital Preservation Management workshop and looked forward to the day when I might be able to sit comfortably upon a sturdy, level 3-legged stool.
- #7 But it takes both time and considerable organizational volition to move beyond acknowledging the importance of digital preservation and taking some action steps on specific projects (Stages 1 and 2 in Kenny & McGovern’s Five Organizational Stage of Digital Preservation”), and toward consolidation, institutionalization, and externalization. So when I came to The Ohio State University Libraries in August of 2014, I was delighted to be joining an organization where the commitment had been made, many of the necessary resources had been committed, and the technology was under development. In other words, consolidation was well under way, and given my role as Preservation Administrator and my knowledge and experience with digital preservation, I would be intimately involved in the process of institutionalizing and externalizing my new organization’s efforts to more responsibly manage, preserve and make our digital collections broadly discoverable and accessible. I am always eager to hear about how colleagues in other organizations are managing their collections (physical and digital), and so I am here today to tell you a bit about how we’re doing this at Ohio State. The title of my talk today is “what goes where?”, which includes the equally important questions of “who decides?” and “how?”. While we don’t have the answers to all of these questions yet, I’ll be talking about how we go to where we are now, and where we’re going in the future. Like many of our peers, the OSU Libraries did not enter the digital collections sphere with a coherent strategy and an interoperable, standards-compliant, community-supported technology stack ready to support long-term management and access from the get-go. Neither did the Libraries have clear guidelines for preservation reformatting or requirements for metadata – manually or automatically created, or transformed from other formats – to support discovery. Rather, out of necessity, several different platforms were used.
- #8 For example… MediaManager for image collections from the Byrd Polar Research Center Archives…
- #9 …and the Billy Ireland Cartoon Library and Museum.
- #10 Boutique digital collections, custom build around digital images of special collections
- #13 And the OSU Knowledge Bank, our Institutional Repository, built on the Dspace platform and expertly managed since 2004. We have the “KB” to manage and make accessible digital content of all sorts: journals and articles, reports and data sets, digitized manuscripts and image slides. Despite our geographic proximity to OCLC, we never adopted CONTENTdm We also had somewhere between 30 and 50 TB of high-resolution tiffs (after a significant de-duplication effort), some with and some without associated metadata, stored on an FTP server we called the “dark archive” and scattered throughout dozens of directories on the Libraries’ shared drive, as well as on external media like hard drives, flashdrives, and CDs and DVDs. We are still getting our heads around the extent of this content, what it is and where. We had (and still have) digital collection material in more than a dozen different systems.
- #14 The critical first step in OSUL’s journey down the road to becoming, as an organization, a Trusted Digital Repository, with the capacity and capability to actively contribute to a more secure, vibrant, and interconnected global digital library began with a Digital Preservation Policy Framework (https://library.osu.edu/document-registry/docs/260). Purpose: “formalize The Ohio State University Libraries continuing commitment to the long-term stewardship, preservation of and sustainable access to its diverse and extensive range of digital assets…and make explicit the OSUL’s long-term commitment to The Ohio State University community as its trusted digital repository.”
- #15 This 12-page document addresses purpose, mandate, scope, challenges, principles, standards, levels of preservation, roles and responsibilities, and so on.
- #16 Strategies for Digital Initiatives Working Group charge: https://library.osu.edu/document-registry/docs/351 In 2012, as a new leadership team began to gel within the Libraries (and 2 years before I came to OSU) my colleague, Terry Reese, was hired as the Head of Digital Initiatives, and soon thereafter convened a Strategies for Digital Initiatives Working Group (SDIWG). “Charged with broad responsibilities for crafting the Libraries’ policies and infrastructure to support the Libraries strategic vision around digital initiatives aligned with the Libraries’ collections, preservation priorities and information technologies” This working group, comprised of mid-level leadership from across the organization, has had a busy couple of years whittling the organizational leg of the 3-legged stool, crafting policy, normalizing language, recommending technology, and developing workflows.
- #17 About a year after the Digital Preservation Policy Framework document, the newly-formed SDWIG wrote a White Paper entitled “Implementation of a Modern Digital Library at the Ohio State University Libraries” (https://library.osu.edu/document-registry/docs/591) Whereas the Policy Framework articulated the scope of our organizational commitment to digital preservation, the White Paper began to build the scaffolding that would guide the Digital Initiatives program, and make some recommendations to help with prioritizing development within our IT department. The White Paper said: “In many ways, understanding and adapting to the technical challenges raised as part of the digital libraries retooling effort will be the easy part of any transition. The more difficult part of this process will be facilitating a cultural change within the OSUL. “ It also includes a set of Guiding Principles that undergird the thoughtful development of OSUL’s digital libraries program
- #18 In the year after the White Paper was finished, a Task Force convened and was charged with defining the “environment and high-level management processes for a Master Objects Repository (MOR) in the Libraries’ digital storage system”, along with procedures for deposit and registration of appropriate objects. Master Objects Repository Task Force Report: https://library.osu.edu/document-registry/docs/401
- #19 The MOR Task Force also did some critical work around normalizing language around the digital objects under our stewardship. The MOR report includes definitions of different object types.
- #20 Credit to Terry Reese for this graphic, depicting a 4-year development cycle: Digital Preservation Policy Framework (https://library.osu.edu/document-registry/docs/260) Year 1 (2013) – learning the landscape, understanding the gaps White Paper – “Implementation of a Modern Digital Library at the Ohio State University Libraries” (https://library.osu.edu/document-registry/docs/591) Year 2 (2014) Master Objects Repository Task Force (https://library.osu.edu/document-registry/docs/591) Year 3 (2015) Digital Content Management Workflows Task Force, and Digital Preservation Task Force (both in progress)
- #21 In careful consideration of the Guiding Principles defined in the White Paper, one of the key recommendations of the final report created by the Master Objects Repository Task Force was to adopt the Fedora architecture as the basis for the Libraries’ “modern digital library”. This recommendation was approved, and Fedora was installed in 2014. But installing Fedora is not the same as brining a new repository online; many decisions must still be made. And so that brings us to our current work, and the title of my presentation: What goes where? How does it get there, and who decides? When I proposed this talk, I thought we might have been somewhat further along in our recommendations by the time I actually delivered this presentation; but the work of these Task Forces has proved to be very challenging, both intellectually and logistically, as it involves a large stakeholder group and decisions that span many different technologies, platforms, departments and workflows. The disposition matrices and workflow models developed by these task forces will be used to prioritize migration of content, the development of new infrastructure tools, and decisions about the long-term preservation of content in the new Fedora infrastructure, our Dsapce repository (the Knowledge Bank), and in other systems. The second half of year 3 and year 4 will see OSU’s “modern digital library” more fully realized and incorporated into digital reformatting, archiving and curation workflows. We will continue to present, publish and otherwise engage with colleagues who are at various stages in their efforts to become trusted digital repositories.