Katherine Skinner, Emory UniversityGail McMillan, Virginia Tech

NDIIPP Annual Partners MeetingJune 24, 2009

Central aim: to better understand the terrain of the emergent field of digital curation. how emergent is it? what trends are beginning to emerge

within it?

MetaArchive 2009 2

ETD: December 2007-April 2008 Universities and Colleges 96 Respondents Five Listservs: ▪ Association of Research Libraries,

Association of Southeastern Research Libraries, Council of Graduate Schools, Digital Library Federation, and Electronic Theses and Dissertations

MetaArchive 2009 3

Two surveys, 158 participantsCultural Memory:

March 2009 Archives, Museums, Libraries, Historical

Societies, Government Agencies 62 Respondents Three Listservs: ▪ H-Museum, A&A-L (Society of American

Archivists), and ERECS-L (Electronic Records Managers)

MetaArchive 2009 4

Who is collecting digital materials, what are they collecting, and how are they storing these materials?

Who seeks to preserve their digital collections and how do they want to preserve them?

What are the biggest barriers to preservation?

What are the most desired offerings in preservation?

MetaArchive 2009 5

Cultural Memory: 98.4% are collecting Range: 1 GB-20 TB, average 2 TB Average Growth: 540 GB/year Formats/Genres include: text (83%), video

(76%), audio (75%), email (47%), databases (48%), websites (41%), and GIS material (36%) + scads more

Repository structures include: home-grown (65%), CONTENTdm (17%), Fedora (9%), DSpace (7%), Access/Excel (6%), plus SRB, Filemaker, and 10 others

MetaArchive 2009 6

ETDs: 80% accept ETDs; 40% only accept ETDs Range: 22-60 GB, average 41 GB Average Growth: 4.5 GB/year Formats/Genres include: images (92%),

applications (89%), audio (79%), text (64%), video (52%), and other (15%)

Repository structures include: DSpace (31%), ETD-db (15%), Fedora (5%), Eprints (2%), as well as locally developed solutions (34%) and vendor-based solutions: bepress (6%), DigiTool (6%), ProQuest (6%), and CONTENTdm (6).

MetaArchive 2009 7

Formats (ETD & Cultural Memory)ETD

.ppt

.qt

.tif

.xml

.wav

.png

.pdf

.mpg

.mp3

.aif

.avi

.doc

.gif

MetaArchive 2009 8

.html

.jpg

.mov

.dwt

.xls

.csv

.zip

.mix

.snd

.tex

.txt

.midi

.exe

.jar

Cultural Memory

Textual documentsDatabasesStill imagesVideoAudioGISWebsitesEmailComputer gamesScience dataPublicationsPresentation materials

JP2.ps

Platforms (ETD & Cultural Mem.)ETDdbEprintsFedoraDSpaceArchimedebepress/Digital CommonsCONTENTdmCybertesisDiasDigiToolDLXSProQuest

MetaArchive 2009 9

MS AccessExcelSRBResCartaAugias-dataCumulusCollectiveAccessWindows ExplorerIRODSFilesystemArchivalWareFilemaker ProiTunes

DocumentumFezMillennium Online CatalogOhioLINKOracleSesameVTLS VitalPast PerfectANCSMINISISCDs/DVDsIn House

Structure (ETD & Cultural Mem)Cultural Memorysubject (33%)collection (35%) format (21%)date (10%)department (10%) creator (8%)funder (4%)

*some Cultural Memory respondents selected multiple ways

MetaArchive 2009 10

ETDAll in one directory (28%)Date (26%)Departments, Authors, or Disciplines (26%)Access-level labels (7%)Don’t know (13%)

Variation is the theme Infrastructures Data Structures

Presents preservation challenges, to be sure!

MetaArchive 2009 11

Who seeks preservation and how do they want to preserve? Readiness is low

Most institutions are not even backing up Dearth of preservation plans and policies

Desire is high Want training Want independent assessments Want to manage their own digital

preservation solutions

MetaArchive 2009 12

Cultural Memory: Only 50% back up 100% of their digital

holdings Only 19% report having in-house “expert”

knowledge in digital preservation 79% have NO preservation plan 55% have NO written policies

ETDs: 95% are engaging SOME backup strategies 72% have NO preservation plan

MetaArchive 2009 13

Cultural Memory 83% will develop policies in the next 3 years 90% cited interest in participating in a

community-based digital preservation solution Only 30% cited interest in third-party vendor

offerings, even at a reasonable cost ETDs

70% have experience with/knowledge of LOCKSS 92% cited interest in participating in an NDLTD-

supported LOCKSS-based EDT archive

MetaArchive 2009 14

CMO’s engaging actively with the idea of digital preservation

High level of knowledge about community-based approaches to digital preservation

Outsourcing is not the top choice of institutions as they pursue digital preservation; they would rather participate in it themselves

MetaArchive 2009 15

What are the biggest barriers to preservation?

Growth of digital collectionBackups. NOTFile formatsPlatformsStructures. NOTLack of documented policies,

procedures

MetaArchive 2009 16

What are the threats identified by our survey respondents?

MetaArchive 2009 17

What are the most desired preservation offerings?

1. Training provided by professional organizations

2. Independent study/assessment3. Local courses in computer or digital

technology4. Hire staff with digital knowledge

experience5. Hire consultants6. Training provided by vendors

MetaArchive 2009 18

The MetaArchive Cooperative

The most effective preservation strategies incorporate replication of content geographically distributed secure locations private network of trusted partners

MetaArchive 2009 19

Desirable Preservation Service

1. Cooperative preservation network2. Standards3. Training: Best practices, inc.

technical4. Model policies5. Conversion or migration services6. Preservation services provided by

third party vendors7. Access services

MetaArchive 2009 20

Conclusion

Calf-Path Syndrome Idiosyncratic, ad-hoc data storage structures Increasingly difficult remediation MASH: triage

Survey documented narratives Outreach

Offer help to those adrift in cyberspace Through collaboration there are cost-effective

and strong strategies that can protect cultural memories

MetaArchive 2009 21

Katherine Skinnerkatherine.skinner@emory.edu

Gail McMillangailmac@vt.edu

MetaArchive 2009 22