1. Digital Preservation Tools for Repository Managers A practical course in five parts Revision with Steve Hitchcock By Chris Blakeley A rapid recap of tools from the KeepIt course: what they do, what they look like, what we did with them

2. Tools Module 1 The Data Asset Framework (DAF), Sarah Jones, University of Glasgow, and Harry Gibbs, University of Southampton The AIDA toolkit: Assessing Institutional Digital Assets, Ed Pinsent, University of London Computer Centre

3. … because good research needs good data DAF at KeepIt Digital preservation tools for repositories, 19/01/10, Southampton www.data-audit.eu/ Themes addressed in DAF surveys Data: type / format, volume, description, creator, funder Creation : policy, naming, versioning, metadata & documentation Management : storage, backup, roles and responsibilities, planning Access: restrictions, rights, security, frequency, ease of retrieval, publish Sharing: collaborators, requirements to share, methods, concerns Preservation : selection / retention, repository services, obsolescence Gaps / needs : services, advice, support, infrastructure

4. … because good research needs good data DAF at KeepIt Digital preservation tools for repositories, 19/01/10, Southampton www.data-audit.eu/ The methodology http://www.data-audit.eu/DAF_Methodology.pdf

5. … because good research needs good data DAF at KeepIt Digital preservation tools for repositories, 19/01/10, Southampton www.data-audit.eu/ How would you scope: 1) the range of data being created at your institution? 2) user expectations / requirements on the repository to help manage and preserve those data? What would you want to find out? -what would your key questions be? How would you go about collecting information? How would you ensure participation?

6. Relevance to this Course AIDA can… –Measure your ability to manage digital content effectively –Show how good you are sustaining continued access –Be directly relevant to managing a repository (access, sharing, and usage) –Helps you find out where you are –Help you decide what to do next

8. Exercise Divide into four teams One element from each leg, relating to one activity Agree on the scope of what you will assess - work on a single Institution (real or imaginary) Assess the capacity for this activity Expected results: –A score for the element in each leg and at each level (6 scores in all) –Explain why you arrived at that decision –Roles / job titles of people consulted –Outline evidentiary sources that might help

9. Tools Module 2 Keeping Research Data Safe (KRDS), Costs, Policy, and Benefits in Long-term Digital Preservation, Neil Beagrie, Charles Beagrie Ltd consultancy LIFE 3 : Predicting Long Term Preservation Costs, Brian Hole, The British Library

10. What was Produced? A cost framework consisting of: – activity model in 3 parts: pre-archive, archive, support services –Key cost variables divided into economic adjustments and service adjustments –Resources template for Transparent Costing (TRAC) 4 detailed case studies (ADS, Cambridge, KCL, Southampton) Data from other services.

11. Benefits Framework KRDS2 Benefits Taxonomy Dimension 1(Type of Outcome) DirectIndirect (costs avoided) Dimension 2 (When) Near-Term BenefitsLong-term Benefits Dimension 3 (Who) PrivatePublic

12. Group Exercise Agree a spokesperson and “recorder” Using KRDS2 Benefits Taxonomy: –Q1 Identify which benefits can be costed? –Q2 Select 3 Key benefits (include costed and uncosted) –Q3 Identify the information you might need for measuring them Report back at 12.10 !

13. LIFE 3 13 LIFE 3 : Estimating preservation costs The LIFE 3 Project: Aim: To develop the ability to estimate preservation costs across the digital lifecycle The Project is developing: A series of costing models for each stage and element of the digital lifecycle An easy to use costing tool Support to enable easy input of data Integration to facilitate use of the results Organisational Profile Predicted Lifecycle Cost Cost Estimation Tool Context Content Profile

14. LIFE 3 14 LIFE 3 costing tool outputs – estimated costs Reference Linking Disposal Check-in InspectionObtaining Backup Holdings Update Ordering & Invoicing.... User Support RefreshmentDeposit IPR & Licensing.... Access Control Storage Provision Metadata Submission Agreement.... Access Provision Repository Admin Quality Assurance Selection.... Lifecycle Elements Access Re-ingest Preservation Action Preservation Planning Preservation Watch Content Preservation Bit-stream Preservation IngestAcquisition Creation or Purchase LifecycleStage

15. LIFE 3 15 Exercise Excel model The Content Profile Refining the calculations Feedback Do you feel that this approach is sound? Have we included all relevant factors? Is the model suitable for the kind of content your repository deals with? Are we making correct assumptions, and is it clear what these are? How could we improve it?

16. Tools Module 3 Significant characteristics, Stephen Grace and Gareth Knight, King’s College London PREMIS, Open Provenance Model

17. Analyse Check Action Migration Emulation Storage selection Format identification, versioning File validation Virus check Bit checking and checksum calculation Tools e.g. DROID JHOVE FITS Preservation planning Characterisation: Significant properties and technical characteristics, provenance, format, risk factors Risk analysis Tools Plato (Planets) PRONOM (TNA) P2 risk registry (KeepIt) INFORM (U Illinois) KB Preservation workflow

18. A group task on format risks 1.Choose two formats to compare (e.g. Word vs PDF, Word vs ODF, PDF vs XML, TIFF vs JPEG) 2.By working through the (surviving) list of format risks select a winner (or a draw) between your chosen formats for each risk category (1 point for win) 3.Total the scores to find an overall winning format 4.Suggest one reason why the winning format using this method may not be the one you would choose for your repository

19. 19 Determine expected behaviours What activities would a user – any type of stakeholder – perform when using an email? Draw upon list of property descriptions performed in the previous step, formal standards and specifications, or other information sources. Task 2: Identify the type of actions that a user would be able to perform using the email (Groups. 15 mins). E.g. Establish name of person who sent email E.g. May want to confirm that email originated from stated source. 

20. 20 Exercise overview Analyse the content of an email Analyse structure of email message Determine purpose that each technical property performs Consider how email will be used by stakeholders Identify set of expected behaviours Classify set of behaviours into functions for recording

21. 21

22. 22 JHOVE Demo

23. Define Sample Objects

24. Some revision from KeepIt Module 3 Preservation workflow – Recognised we have digital objects with formats and other characteristics we need to identify and record. These can change over time, or may need to be changed pre-emptively depending on a risk assessment, using a preservation action. Risk is subjective. Significant properties – We considered which characteristics might be significant using the function- behaviour-structure (FBS) framework, and classifying the functions of formatted emails – We recognised that assessment of behaviour, and so of significance, can vary according to the viewpoint of the stakeholder – e.g. creator, user, archivist Documentation – We looked at two means to document these characteristics, and the changes over time 1.Broad and established (PREMIS) 2.Focussed, and work-in-progress (Open Provenance Model) Provenance in action: transmission and recording – Through a simple game we learned that if we don’t recognise the necessary properties at the outset, and maintain a record through all stages of transmission, the information at the end of the chain will likely not be the same as you started with

25. Tools Module 4 Eprints preservation apps, including the storage controller, Dave Tarrant and Adam Field, University of Southampton Plato, preservation planning tool from the Planets project, Andreas Rauber and Hannes Kulovits, TU Wien

26. Hybrid Storage Policies

27. EPrints Storage Manager

28. Preservation - Analyse EPrints File Classification + Risk Analysis Risk Analysis Risk Analysis In EPrints

29. Preservation - Action Mock up Transformation Interface Transformation? Tool Preservation Level PPT -> PPTX PPT -> PDF Migration Tools Risk Analysis In EPrints Migration?

30. Viewing high-risk objects

31. Exercise: EPrints Adding ‘at risk’ image collection

32. Preservation Planning

33. Plato  Assists in analyzing the collection -Profiling, analysis of sample objects via Pronom and other services  Allows creation of objective tree -Within application or via import of mindmaps  Allows the selection of Preservation action tools Preservation Planning with Plato

34. Plato  Runs experiments and documents results  Allows definition of transformation rules, weightings  Performs evaluation, sensitivity analysis,  Provides recommendation (ranks solutions) Preservation Planning with Plato

35. Exercise Time! The Scenario  National library  Scanned yearbooks archive  GIF images  The purpose of this plan is to find a strategy on how to preserve this collection for the future, i.e. choose a tool to handle our collection with.  The tool must be compatible with our existing hardware and software infrastructure, to install it within our server and network environment.  The files haven't been touched for several years now and no detailed description exists. However, we have to ensure their accessibility for the next years.  Re-scanning is not an option because of costs and some pages from the original newspapers do not exist anymore.

36. Exercise: EPrints Adding ‘at risk’ image collection

37. Exercise: Plato-EPrints Plan-migrate-review

38. Tools Module 5 TRAC, Trusted Repository Audit and Certification: criteria and checklist DRAMBORA, Digital Repository Audit Method Based On Risk Assessment, Martin Donnelly, Digital Curation Centre, University of Edinburgh

39. … because good research needs good data DRAMBORA and DAF, EDINA, 27th October 2009 www.data-audit.eu www.repositoryaudit.eu Trustworthy Repositories Audit & Certification (TRAC) Criteria and Checklist RLG/NARA assembled an International Task Force to address the issue of repository certification TRAC is a set of criteria applicable to a range of digital repositories and archives, from academic institutional preservation repositories to large data archives and from national libraries to third-party digital archiving services Provides tools for the audit, assessment, and potential certification of digital repositories Establishes audit documentation requirements required Delineates a process for certification Establishes appropriate methodologies for determining the soundness and sustainability of digital repositories

40. TRAC Criteria Checklist Within TRAC, there are 84 individual criteria Only 82 criteria to go!

41. To certify or not to certify? That is the question 1.Take a spreadsheet with all 84 TRAC criteria. 2.Select one. 3.Decide whether you could certify your repository for this, based on where your repository is now or where you think it might be after participating in this course. by CayusaCayusa by fabiuxfabiux

42. … because good research needs good data KeepIt #5: University of Northampton, 30 March 2010 www.repositoryaudit.eu DRAMBORA Method Discrete phases of (self-)assessment, reflecting the realities of audit Preservation is fundamentally a risk management process: Define Scope Document Context and Classifiers Formalise Organisation Identify and Assess Risks Builds audit into internal repository management procedures

43. … because good research needs good data KeepIt #5: University of Northampton, 30 March 2010 www.repositoryaudit.eu Repository Administration

44. … because good research needs good data KeepIt #5: University of Northampton, 30 March 2010 www.repositoryaudit.eu Part I – Identify a risk (30 minutes) Each group should identify one risk (based on your own experiences wherever possible), and complete the DRAMBORA worksheet. Groups should complete: name and description of the risk; example manifestations of the risk; nature of the risk; risk owner(s); stakeholders who would be affected; if possible, relationships with other risks.

45. … because good research needs good data KeepIt #5: University of Northampton, 30 March 2010 www.repositoryaudit.eu Part II – Mitigate the risk (30 minutes) Now identify what steps your archive might take to manage and mitigate the identified risk over time… Each group should complete: Risk management strategy/-ies; Risk management activities; Risk management activity owner(s).