Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Katherine SkinnerEducopia Institute and MetaArchive Cooperative
Matt SchultzEducopia Institute and MetaArchive CooperativeNDIIPP Partners MeetingArlington, VirginiaJuly 20-22, 2010
2
Founded on the premise that cultural memory organizations should maintain their historical role as cultural stewards
Chose technical and organizational infrastructure that capitalizes on cultural memory organization’s proven methodologies Distributed preservation Partnership to keep costing affordable
3
4
14 US Members+ Lib. of Congress
MetaArchive
17 members11
states/districts
3 countries
MetaArchive
17 members11
states/districts
3 countries
Auburn University Boston College Clemson University Emory University Florida State Univ. Folger Shakespeare
Lib. Georgia Tech Indiana State Univ. Library of Congress Penn State University
Pontifícia Universidade Católica (Rio)
Rice University Univ. of Hull Univ. of Louisville Univ. of North Texas Univ. of South Carolina Virginia Tech
NDLTD SDSC
5
To address sustainability and attractiveness of preservation need to consider our:
CollectionsTechnical InfrastructureOrganizational Infrastructure
6
Format-agnostic solutionWorks with any repository systemCollections must be available via
http
7
MetaArchive provides a cost-effective cooperative structure: based on re-use of LOCKSS for archives
Network participation as a MetaArchive-LOCKSS cache is simple and inexpensive
8
Preservation solution needed a long-term, sustainable infrastructure Question arose: Who’s in charge of a Cooperative
of peer institutions? Separated the administrative apparatus and
member institutions
provides a clear line of leadership and responsibility
helps to keep any one member’s goals from unduly influencing the cooperative’s direction
gives leverage for external partnerships
9
9
1. Accommodate programmatic growth and avoid organizational memory loss.
2. Grow programs/projects without losing core strengths.
3. Expand credibility among opinion leaders and decision-makers (aka branding).
10
1. Diversify and expand funding2. Develop staff capacity/administrative
infrastructure3. Build recognition of Educopia Institute4. Promote DDP among cultural memory
organizations5. Identify new program areas6. Ensure continued vitality of
MetaArchive Cooperative
11
1. Increase membership by 12 additional institutions by 2012
2. Emphasis on attracting smaller institutions, perhaps as part of consortia
3. To that end, devise a new membership category: Collaborative Members
12
Current tiered membership: $5K or $1K/yr Server cost: $4,600/3 years (currently) Space is at cost: $0.67/GB/year for six
replications Inspired by interest from coordinated
groups of institutions—i.e. collaboratives—with central repositories
One possibility: $1,000/year for the collaborative, plus $100/year per institution, for three years
13
Collaborative must have a lead organization, empowered to enter into legal agreements on the collaborative’s behalf
The collaborative must have a central repository
The collaborative must apply for membership in the MetaArchive Cooperative
Membership decisions will be made by the MetaArchive Steering Committee
14
Collaborative Members would enjoy the full array of rights under the Cooperative Charter, including: Retrieval of the Member’s content in case
of a catastrophic loss at that Member’s organization;
Assistance with LOCKSS software and any other improvements and ancillary software developed by the Cooperative;
Technical support.15
Guarantee sufficient rights and permissions to enable full participation in a DDP network;
Run a centralized repository through which all content will be prepared, staged, and ingested into the MetaArchive network;
Host and maintain a MetaArchive server in the same location as the centralized repository;
Write plugins for collections that will be harvested into the MetaArchive network
16
reducing our short- and long-term costs Investing in a commonly-owned solution, not purchasing a
service Sharing technological development and organizational tasks
decentralizing our activities Safety in this “brave new world” of digital preservation may
well reside in shared knowledge and shared commitment
decreasing dependence on third-party solutions There is room for various types of solutions Increased capacity for acting as a community of cultural
stewards
17
