1. Digital Preservation MetaArchive Cooperative, Digital Preservation Policy Planning Workshop Boston College, Boston, MA October 26, 2010

2. MetaArchive Cooperative, Digital Preservation Policy Planning Workshop Boston College, Boston, MA October 26, 2010

3.  MetaArchive Cooperative  Preservation Committee ▪ Bill Donovan ▪ Rachel Howard ▪ Susan Parham ▪ Mark Stoffan ▪ Katherine Skinner ▪ Matt Schultz Schultz, Donovan, Howard, Skinner, 2010

4.  Digital Preservation Policy Building  University Libraries have begun the process of engaging digital preservation ▪ Performing digitization ▪ Building digital libraries ▪ Establishing institutional repositories  Digital Preservation Policies have often lagged behind digital preservation activities ▪ The result is a myriad non-standard developments Schultz, Donovan, Howard, Skinner, 2010

5.  Policies can also drive development and standardization  MetaArchive Preservation Committee  Began reviewing successful policies ▪ Found a lot of commonalities  Developed a Digital Preservation Policy Template  Developed a Digital Assets Survey Schultz, Donovan, Howard, Skinner, 2010

6.  Session 1: Digital Preservation Trends  Session 2: Preservation Policy Overview  Resource: Policy Template  Break  Session 3: Planning for Policy Development  Resource: Digital Assets Survey  Session 4: Policy Development Schultz, Donovan, Howard, Skinner, 2010

7.  Not a Final Product!  We need your feedback!  We will have Q&A breaks and activities  But feel free to ask questions anytime  We are taking a top-down approach to digital preservation – BIG POLICY DEVELOPMENT  Not all institutions are the same  Feel free to tailor our resources to any scale Schultz, Donovan, Howard, Skinner, 2010

8. Digital Preservation MetaArchive Cooperative, Digital Preservation Policy Planning Workshop Boston College, Boston, MA October 26, 2010

9. Session 1

10.  What is Digital Preservation?  Trends in Digital Preservation The Goal: To understand the coalescing landscape of digital preservation requirements and consider the potential investments needed for developing a policy driven approach to digital preservation. Schultz, Donovan, Howard, Skinner, 2010

11.  “The series of managed activities necessary to ensure continued access to digital materials for as long as necessary.” - Definition from Digital Preservation Coalition Schultz, Donovan, Howard, Skinner, 2010

12.  Centralized & Distributed Preservation  Full & Bit-level Preservation  Preservation Metadata  Open Source solutions  Focus on economies of scale and benefits  Roles & Responsibilities  Sustainability  Standards and auditing metrics  National mandates  Avoiding silos & pursuing interoperability Schultz, Donovan, Howard, Skinner, 2010

13.  Centralized preservation:  Preservation activities managed by single institution  Examples: ▪ Chronicling America ▪ DAITSS  Distributed preservation:  Preservation activities managed by multiple institutions replicating and/or geographically locating collections  Examples ▪ LOCKSS ▪ MetaArchive Cooperative ▪ Chronopolis Schultz, Donovan, Howard, Skinner, 2010

14.  Many archives doing a bit of both  Something of a false dichotomy  Full Preservation  Focuses heavily on format migration and normalization (may still preserve the original) ▪ Highly concerned with monitoring and intervening against format obsolescence up-front  Bit-level Preservation  Focuses primarily on preserving the original bits ▪ Avoids migration, normalization, and monitoring up-front and cites long-lived support or convertability of the majority of formats Schultz, Donovan, Howard, Skinner, 2010

15.  PREMIS  Administrative metadata  Technical metadata  Structural metadata  Provenance metadata  Metadata standards are always under development – mark the moment to learn and continue to watch the horizon Schultz, Donovan, Howard, Skinner, 2010

16.  Open source is a well recognized best practice at this point – real question is: How open?  Why Open Source?  Avoiding proprietary solutions can guard against dependencies and sudden loss  Open source formats and technologies maximize communities of support and ensure flexibility and long-lived solutions  Open source approaches dramatically reduce technology costs and can lead to building of expertise Schultz, Donovan, Howard, Skinner, 2010

17.  Digital preservation needs are great at most institutions and digital preservation can be costly  You don’t have (shouldn’t try) to save everything!  Blue Ribbon Task Force on Sustainability  Economies of scale can reduce staff costs  Focus on communicating the benefits to the institution aids in selection and prioritization ▪ Prioritization crucial for offsetting costs ▪ Define the institutional value of your assets Schultz, Donovan, Howard, Skinner, 2010

18.  Partnering with other institutions to preserve content is becoming more popular  Sharing resources and expertise reduces costs  Maintains control over institutional assets rather than handing over responsibility to third parties  Consumers also becoming Producers and Preservers of digital assets  Modularizing the chain of preservation activities (ingest, storage, dissemination)  Microservices and interoperability Schultz, Donovan, Howard, Skinner, 2010

19.  Many grant funded projects are short-lived or narrowly focused  Institutions have been pressured to just enter the game and hope for the best  Diverse revenue streams becoming essential  NDIIPP transitions to NDSA  Emphasis on Collaboration  Promoting self-sustaining cost models Schultz, Donovan, Howard, Skinner, 2010

20.  Trustworthy digital repositories!  Reference Model for an Open Archival Information System (OAIS) - 2002  Trusted Repositories Audit & Certification (TRAC) – 2007  Metrics for Digital Repository Audit & Certification – awaiting ISO standardization Schultz, Donovan, Howard, Skinner, 2010

21.  Scientists seeking funding will soon be required to submit data management plans – NSF Press Release (May 10, 2010)  Ensuring long-term accessibility and sharing of data and digital assets to improve research  There is no access without preservation  A massive undertaking requiring top-down institution-wide policies Schultz, Donovan, Howard, Skinner, 2010

22.  Information, data, and research silos result from institutional management structures  Result is a multiplicity of practices and technologies that prevent sharing and re-use  An acknowledged problem  We’re just getting started on solutions  Institution-wide policies have potential to help catalyze institutional change and break down silos Schultz, Donovan, Howard, Skinner, 2010

23. Digital Preservation MetaArchive Cooperative, Digital Preservation Policy Planning Workshop Boston College, Boston, MA October 26, 2010

24. Session 2

25.  Libraries as Ideal Curators  Policies as Catalytic Solutions  What is a Digital Preservation Policy?  Building on Successful Digital Preservation Policies  Preservation Policy Template Schultz, Donovan, Howard, Skinner, 2010

26. The Goal: To get a glimpse into the higher level concerns that a digital preservation policy attempts to address and the statements used to reflect your Library’s strategic positions. Schultz, Donovan, Howard, Skinner, 2010

27.  Libraries as Curators for the Public Good  Only librarians understand and appreciate the needs of their collections and their users  Irreplaceable stewards of our collective cultural memory  Avoiding the Broker trap  Constantly outsourcing preservation roles, services & infrastructure may threaten institutional mission and societal role  Reversing the Trends  Private LOCKSS Networks are enabling libraries to maintain control of research data and digital collections  IIPC is enabling libraries to preserve our shared Web culture  Can you think of some other examples? Schultz, Donovan, Howard, Skinner, 2010

28.  Success of the MetaArchive Cooperative  Reducing the cost for libraries to engage preservation of their collections through shared resources and open source technology  Empowering libraries and other cultural memory institutions through growing expertise and embedding infrastructure in the libraries  Actively Addressing Trends in Digital Preservation Schultz, Donovan, Howard, Skinner, 2010

29.  Policies can trigger collaboration and action!  Impacts of Institutional Policy Building  Content Policy (MetaArchive Cooperative) ▪ Solidified shared commitments while retaining institutional flexibility  ETD Preservation Policy (Boston College) ▪ Defined institutional commitment and responsibility and achieved administrative buy-in  Other institutional policy examples ▪ Promoting shared infrastructure (ISU) ▪ Guaranteeing open access (FSU) ▪ Pursuing reliable research (Georgia Tech) Schultz, Donovan, Howard, Skinner, 2010

30.  “Digital preservation policies document an organization’s commitment to preserve digital content for future use; specify file formats to be preserved and the level of preservation to be provided; and ensure compliance with standards and best practices for responsible stewardship of digital information.”  From Long Definition of Digital Preservation, prepared by the ALCTS Preservation and Reformatting Section, Working Group on Defining Digital Preservation, accessed at http://www.ala.org/ala/mgrps/divs/alcts/resources/preserv /defdigpres0408.cfm. http://www.ala.org/ala/mgrps/divs/alcts/resources/preserv /defdigpres0408.cfm Schultz, Donovan, Howard, Skinner, 2010

32.  Digital Preservation Policy Template  General Questions for Feedback ▪ Are there additional policy sections that would be helpful for your institution to define? ▪ What are the policy areas that would require the most effort at your institution to define? ▪ How and where would such a policy be promoted and publicized? ▪ Who are the most important audiences for a policy of this type? Schultz, Donovan, Howard, Skinner, 2010

33.  This is a simple statement that relates digital preservation to the institution’s mission and the communities it serves. Schultz, Donovan, Howard, Skinner, 2010

34.  This is a set of simple paragraphs that summarize the overall intent of the institution. Schultz, Donovan, Howard, Skinner, 2010

35.  This section summarizes the resource groups (e.g., units, departments, or external parties) for which the institution takes responsibility and prioritizes these according to institutional importance. Schultz, Donovan, Howard, Skinner, 2010

36.  This section outlines the way decisions are made regarding what will be preserved. Schultz, Donovan, Howard, Skinner, 2010

37.  This section summarizes the lifecycle management practices of the institution. Broad categories might include content creation, content integrity, and content maintenance. Schultz, Donovan, Howard, Skinner, 2010

38.  This section provides overview of methodologies and philosophies undergirding preservation activity (e.g., OAIS, TRAC, etc). Schultz, Donovan, Howard, Skinner, 2010

39.  This section details who is involved and at what level they are involved. Who is charged with preservation responsibility? Schultz, Donovan, Howard, Skinner, 2010

40.  This section describes policy/policies for ascribing metadata to preservation objects. May include schema references or documentation bodies (e.g., LC, DLF, NARA). Schultz, Donovan, Howard, Skinner, 2010

41.  This section documents policies around permissions and access of preserved content. Schultz, Donovan, Howard, Skinner, 2010

42.  This section contains information about what the institution’s relationship is to other institutions, and whether it may partner with other institutions to preserve its own collections or the collections of other institutions and under what circumstances. Schultz, Donovan, Howard, Skinner, 2010

43.  This section documents expected costs and who shoulders the responsibility for those costs. Schultz, Donovan, Howard, Skinner, 2010

44.  This section acknowledges the challenges the institution/field faces in preserving digital collections. Schultz, Donovan, Howard, Skinner, 2010

45.  This section gives an overview of any outreach and education activities undertaken by the institution. Schultz, Donovan, Howard, Skinner, 2010

46.  This section provides the date of last revision and contact information for the authors Schultz, Donovan, Howard, Skinner, 2010

47.  This section lists other institutional documentation that has a relationship to digital preservation and/or this policy itself. Examples might include such documentation as Disaster Plan, Records Management Policy, and Collections Development Policy. Schultz, Donovan, Howard, Skinner, 2010

48.  This section would clarify terms used throughout the document. Schultz, Donovan, Howard, Skinner, 2010

49. Digital Preservation MetaArchive Cooperative, Digital Preservation Policy Planning Workshop Boston College, Boston, MA October 26, 2010

50. Session 3

51.  Libraries Leading the Way  Policy Building Costs & Benefits  Policy Preparation Schultz, Donovan, Howard, Skinner, 2010

52. The Goal: To familiarize policy developers with the assessment and development activities that may need to take place to bridge policy with reality. Schultz, Donovan, Howard, Skinner, 2010

53.  First Steps  Get the green light from upper library administration to form an exploratory team ▪ Who would lead this charge at your institution? ▪ What does that process look like? ▪ How are such teams formed? ▪ Anticipate the politics? Schultz, Donovan, Howard, Skinner, 2010

54.  Establish an exploratory committee of:  Library Heads  Digital Librarians and Archivists  Content/Collection Specialists  Catalog Specialists…  …to research and define:  Policy Building Costs & Benefits  Policy Preparation Schultz, Donovan, Howard, Skinner, 2010

55.  Define the costs of not preserving your institution’s digital assets  Operational Costs?  Scholarly & Scientific Research?  Institutional Reputation?  Define the potential benefits of building an institutional policy  Integrated Workflows and Cost Reductions  On-going Scholarly Access and Use (re-use)  Digital Expertise and Leadership in the Field Schultz, Donovan, Howard, Skinner, 2010

56.  Define the costs of building a policy  Dedicating staff hours  Building inter-departmental cooperation  New administrative, departmental, and library staff training and procedures  New technology & infrastructure investments  Exploring legal obligations (IP, Partner Institutions, etc.)  Other? Schultz, Donovan, Howard, Skinner, 2010

57.  Preparing to build a Digital Preservation Policy for your institution requires a thorough assessment of where you are and where you should be – let’s take a look! Schultz, Donovan, Howard, Skinner, 2010

58.  We’ll get to these later:  Policy Statement  Summary Statement  Let’s start with:  Scope & Selection Criteria Schultz, Donovan, Howard, Skinner, 2010

59.  Defining digital assets at your institution  Digitized (Ex: scanned newspapers)  Born-digital (Ex: websites)  Electronic records (Ex: spreadsheets, databases, emails)  Digital Research Data (Ex: raw sensor data)  Where do your digital assets reside?  At the departmental & unit level? Outside your institution?  Who are the major producers and consumers?  Researchers? Scholars? External parties?  Can they be deposited for preservation?  To what extent? Schultz, Donovan, Howard, Skinner, 2010

60.  Digital Assets Survey  Points for Feedback ▪ What additional questions might you ask? ▪ What questions seem extraneous or problematic? ▪ What form should this take for your institution? Paper survey? Electronic? ▪ How would results be gathered? ▪ How would you follow-up with respondents? Schultz, Donovan, Howard, Skinner, 2010

61.  Summarize the resource groups (e.g., units, departments, or external parties).  Who are the departments and individuals you might need to coordinate with to facilitate a successful survey distribution to all the potential resource groups that might exist across your institution. Schultz, Donovan, Howard, Skinner, 2010

62.  Outlines the way decisions are made regarding what will be preserved.  Based on survey feedback and follow-up interviews with resource groups, can begin to grasp the range of digital assets, their preservation needs, and how they should be prioritized for selection. Schultz, Donovan, Howard, Skinner, 2010

63.  Summarize the lifecycle management practices of the institution.  Perform a technical assessment of your Library’s existing approaches and capacity for creating, and maintaining digital assets.  Factor in a organizational structure, staffing and skill sets.  Address issues of quality control Schultz, Donovan, Howard, Skinner, 2010

64.  Technical Assessment  Library IT and Campus IT - Relationships  Hardware & Software Policies and Purchasing  Storage & Storage Management Environment(s)  Existing Back-Up Measures or Archiving Practices  Inventory and File Management  Quality Measures and Replacement Cycles Schultz, Donovan, Howard, Skinner, 2010

65.  Organizational Structure/Staffing  Identify duties required to support digital preservation  Identify staff with adequate skills and expertise to fulfill those duties  Review staffing plans, position descriptions, develop a matrix of duties and staff skills and expertise  Implement professional development training Schultz, Donovan, Howard, Skinner, 2010

66.  Quality Control  Identifying acceptable files & formats  Defining preservation levels and migration policies  Building a Preservation Plan  Enforcing risk assessment and technical evaluation schedules Schultz, Donovan, Howard, Skinner, 2010

67.  Provide an overview of methodologies and philosophies undergirding preservation activity  Communicate position toward trustworthy preservation by identifying steps taken to ensure use of standards (OAIS), transparency (willingness to engage in audit and review - TRAC) and accountability (making documentation available). Schultz, Donovan, Howard, Skinner, 2010

68.  Detail who is involved and at what level they are involved. Who is charged with preservation responsibility?  Preservation responsibility will undoubtedly be a joint endeavor (particularly between your Library, campus IT, and other external parties) and policy should reflect solidified agreements between all parties charged with responsibility. Schultz, Donovan, Howard, Skinner, 2010

69.  Central Administration  Evaluators? Enforcers? Consultants?  Institutional Departments & Units  Producers? Evaluators? Curators? Consultants?  Librarians & Archivists  Preservation Services? Curators?  Designated Community  Consumers and Users?  External Partners  Producers? Consumers? Preservation Services? Evaluators?  Vendors  Preservation Services? Consultants? Schultz, Donovan, Howard, Skinner, 2010

70.  Describe policy/policies for ascribing metadata to preservation objects.  Metadata is increasingly becoming central to trustworthy preservation, and statements of policy should be able to articulate your Library’s position on responsibility for capturing some level of preservation metadata, and the role it will play in managing that metadata on behalf of the digital objects you collect. Schultz, Donovan, Howard, Skinner, 2010

71.  Document policies around permissions and access of preserved content.  Consult with legal representatives for your institution  Research rights issues related to digital preservation  Limit your liability and develop a strategy for breach of copyright and removal of offending content Schultz, Donovan, Howard, Skinner, 2010

72.  Considerations:  The right to change or alter digital information is often limited by law to the creator  Digital program contracts must address the need to be able to work with and potentially modify digital objects to keep them accessible.  Agreements with depositors must specify and/or transfer rights to the program enabling appropriate and necessary preservation actions for the digital object.  Third party organizations should guarantee that relevant contracts, licenses, etc express rights, responsibilities and expectations of each party. Schultz, Donovan, Howard, Skinner, 2010

73.  Establishing the options for access and use of your institutions’ digital assets will go a long way toward both defining what sorts of management and dissemination workflows might need to be developed, as well as how to communicate the terms of such access and use. Schultz, Donovan, Howard, Skinner, 2010

74.  Define your institution’s relationship to other institutions, and whether it may partner to accomplish preservation.  Rights & Agreements ▪ Navigating the rights issues related to the digital objects that fall under your Library or institution’s preservation responsibility will go a long way toward articulating the terms under which partnerships can be pursued to further preservation development and activities. Schultz, Donovan, Howard, Skinner, 2010

75.  Document expected costs and who shoulders the responsibility for those costs.  Policies should confidently communicate an acknowledgement of the types of preservation activities that are in need of on-going financial support and general strategies that the Library will pursue to ensure that these activities will be adequately supported. Policy statements should be under-girded by responsible financial planning, accounting, and management. Schultz, Donovan, Howard, Skinner, 2010

76.  Financial Sustainability:  Sustainable Management & Financial Plans  Multi-Year Budget ▪ Factoring in financial cycles  Review Schedules (annual)  Seek diverse revenue streams to support preservation activities Schultz, Donovan, Howard, Skinner, 2010

77.  Acknowledge the challenges the institution/field faces in preserving digital collections.  Remember Trends in Digital Preservation  Perform Risk Assessment Schultz, Donovan, Howard, Skinner, 2010

78.  Trends in Digital Preservation  Centralized & Distributed Preservation  Full & Bit-level Preservation  Preservation Metadata  Open Source solutions  Focus on economies of scale and benefits  Roles & Responsibilities  Sustainability  Standards and auditing metrics  National mandates  Avoiding silos & pursuing interoperability Schultz, Donovan, Howard, Skinner, 2010

79.  Risk Assessment  Committing to analyze and report on risk, benefit, investment and expenditures  Identifying the real and potential threats to the digital preservation program, the digital collections, producers and consumers  Should include an inventory of file formats, technology infrastructure, legal mandates, staffing, etc. Schultz, Donovan, Howard, Skinner, 2010

80.  Give an overview of any outreach and education activities undertaken by the institution.  Champion your policies  Share your development  Develop workshops  Join coalitions and working groups  Know your sphere of influence  Be open to learning! Schultz, Donovan, Howard, Skinner, 2010

81.  Policy Statement  Summary Statement Schultz, Donovan, Howard, Skinner, 2010

82.  A simple statement that relates digital preservation to the institution’s mission and the communities it serves.  Review your institutions broader mission statements  Consider other legal, ethical, and policy mandates  Articulate the needs and the opportunities related to your institution’s resource groups Schultz, Donovan, Howard, Skinner, 2010

83.  A set of simple paragraphs that summarizes the overall intent of the institution.  Why does it preserve content (e.g., institutional, legal, consortial obligations)?  Who wrote this policy?  How often is this policy re-evaluated and by whom? Schultz, Donovan, Howard, Skinner, 2010

84.  Date/Author  Related Documents  Definitions/Glossary Schultz, Donovan, Howard, Skinner, 2010

85. Digital Preservation MetaArchive Cooperative, Digital Preservation Policy Planning Workshop Boston College, Boston, MA October 26, 2010

86. Session 4

87.  Moving the Committee Forward  Policy Development Process  Policy Development Timeline  Getting Policy Approval Schultz, Donovan, Howard, Skinner, 2010

88.  Secure the input of reliable policy enablers and force multipliers (Faculty? Staff? Other?)  Use the survey to generate interest and support ▪ Identify most interested departmental or unit stakeholders ▪ Identify faculty in key positions of influence ▪ Don’t forget campus IT!  Who are these people at your institution?  How would you get them involved? Schultz, Donovan, Howard, Skinner, 2010

89.  Discuss your policy preparedness  Discuss your institution’s identified digital assets  Digital Assets Survey  Draft an institutional digital preservation policy  Digital Preservation Policy Template  Develop a roadmap to implementation  Account for under-resourced policy areas Schultz, Donovan, Howard, Skinner, 2010

90.  Process will require substantial faculty commitment and participation so timing is critical  Avoid the beginning and end of semesters and the summer as so many faculty are preoccupied or away  At least a year or more might be required to gain support for a preservation policy. Schultz, Donovan, Howard, Skinner, 2010

91.  Establish regular reporting to Deans and Provosts on progress toward benchmarks  Face-to-face meetings  What does upper administration need to know to sustain and ultimately give approval?  Point to institutional Mission and Vision  Point to cost savings & benefits ▪ Tie to operational costs, research needs & reputation  Address digital preservation needs & trends  Suggest a viable roadmap to implementation  How might this need to be packaged to be concise and effective for your institutions? Schultz, Donovan, Howard, Skinner, 2010

92.  Digital Preservation Policy Template  Digital Assets Survey Schultz, Donovan, Howard, Skinner, 2010

93.  Will populate after final feedback from Pres- Comm  Need to list universities whose policies we referenced  Need to point to the role of consultants Schultz, Donovan, Howard, Skinner, 2010