1. Two little talks CrossRef Membership Meeting November, 2004

2. * Appropriate copy issue * Some ruminations on digital preservation

3. Appropriate copy issue… Talk One

4. A reminder “Appropriate copy” problem is about which copy a user is directed to

5. Any old system Citation DOI Step 1 Step 2 DOI Resolver DOI URL Cited article Search response Repository URL Article Step 3 DOI resolution CLICK

6. But – what if more than 1 copy exists? Elsevier journals, for example, are on-line at: –Elsevier ScienceDirect –OhioLink –University of Toronto

7. Which URL? DOI Resolver DOI URL? Sciencedirect.com? Ohiolink.edu? Utoronto.ca?

8. The APPROPRIATE copy When more than 1 copy exists, specific populations frequently have the right to access specific copies

9. DOI localization Architecture created by CrossRef, CNRI, some publishers, and group of digital librarians Implemented in 2002

10. Any old system Citation DOI Step 1 Step 2 DOI Resolver DOI Search response Localization architecture CLICK DOI proxy Does user have localization? Local link server Y N Redirect resolution for local decision making

11. Local link servers Directs user based on local business arrangements Can provide rich services –the right digital copy, a paper copy, other works by the author… Also provides a place in the architecture to insert proxies for off-campus users Now widely implemented and heavily used

12. Local link serving is VERY popular

13. A new concern (and CrossSearch…)

14. Google – what happened to the DOI? Most journal article links look like this! Viewed 40 CrossSearch results pages to find a DOI…

15. The problem… I clicked this

16. and got… But Harvard subscribes!

17. Frustration! Just as we’ve gotten local linking to work with A&I services, journal references, and the DOI in general… publishers are filling Google with direct links to their copies!!

18. Talk 2 Some ruminations on digital preservation

19. Role of publishers in digital preservation? After years of talk, this remains murky, very murky… but it is certain that “none” is not the answer!!

20. 1. My most important point Cost and effectiveness of preservation is determined at or near the point of creation

21. Think up front * about format * about metadata * about quality

22. Format Formats vary significantly in “preservability”

23. Format Some criteria (from Library of Congress) –disclosure (how well documented?) –adoption (how widely used?) –transparency (is compression used?) –self documenting (good!) –external dependencies (self sufficiency is good) –patents (could limit preservation actions) –encryption (what if decryption key is not available?)

24. Different formats for different purposes * archival master * production master * use copy

25. Metadata The basis of decision-making for preservation –technical metadata what format is this in what format options are used –structural if I change this, what else is affected? –administrative who has the right to make decisions about this?

26. Metadata –relationships are there other versions of this object? –how do these affect my preservation strategy? –provenance where did this come from? what changes has it already undergone? Key difference between preservation repositories and content management systems

27. Quality If that archival version is bad when you put it on the shelf, it will still be bad 10 years later when you need it… and it will be hard to go back to the creator at that point!

28. 2. There is a LOT happening in the domain …are you watching?

29. Preservation initiatives OAIS “Open Archival Information System” reference model –Formal, structured model for designing digital preservation archives –ISO standard PREMIS (PREservation Metadata: Implementation Strategies) –Define core metadata by end of year –Survey of current practices just published

30. Initiatives… Format registry –Definitive sources of description for technical formats –community effort to share effort of documenting digital formats RLG/NARA Digital Repository Certification Task Force –recommend structure and metrics of an international process for certifying preservation repositories

31. Initiatives… JHOVE (JStor/Harvard Object Validation Environment) –Open source tool to identify format of an object, generate technical metadata from an object, test to see if object is well-formed Library of Congress NDIIPP –Define a shared national program of digital preservation –Well funded: $100M from Congress, $75M matching contributions

32. NDIIPP national preservation grants Web archiving (California Digital Library) Geographic information UC Santa Barbara North Carolina State Digital television (Educational Broadcasting Corporation) Digital archives (Emory) Selection for preservation (U Illinois) Business history (U Maryland) Social science data sets (InterUniversity Consortium for Political and Social Research)

33. Other NDIIPP grants Repository interoperation (Stanford, Johns Hopkins, Harvard, Old Dominion) Architecture and tools (Los Alamos National Laboratory) Research in digital preservation (together with National Science Foundation)

34. Major programs abroad National Library of Australia British Library –and a UK national Digital Preservation Coalition Koninklijke Bibliotheek (National Library of the Netherlands) –major digital preservation research program

35. 3. Think of 50 years, not 5 years The questions are different: * discontinuous technological change * loss of “common knowledge” * very antique formats Thus the need for deep documentation and metadata…

36. 4. So many things to preserve GIS, survey and economic data, visual resources, research datasets, web stuff, institutional records, faulty papers, audio & video, visualizations, blogs, newsletters, etc. Setting priorities –fleeting things demand immediate attention “the web”… –attend to your own house first faculty output, library digitization, institutional records

37. A lot to do…. Where does the formal literature fit in setting priorities? What will be the role of digital copyright deposit?

38. 5. Paying for a common good Only one or a few institutions need to archive a given resource Two related questions –motivation: why would you not wait until the other follow does it? –if I do it, can I get others to share the cost? Digital is different than paper –Costs of preservation more apparent –Possibility of remote access means you don’t have to do it locally Fundamental question, now topic of research –NSF digital preservation grant program –OCLC research paper: Brian Lavoie, The Incentives to Preserve Digital Materials

39. 6. LOCKSS is not preservation LOCKSS ignores most of the key issues –format –metadata –management –reformatting –repository… LOCKSS is great technology for distributed replication, but does not truly address preservation

40. 7. “Hand-off” is a critical component What happens if there is one archival copy, and the repository gives up responsibility? –priorities change, institutions come and go… Handing off responsibility is a repository’s final preservation action How does this relate to publishers?

41. Lastly…what about preserving e-journals? Well, we have the KB, maybe the JStor archive, and LOCKSS(?)… Some movement on national digital copyright deposit The library/publisher dialog of a few years ago needs to be re-invigorated! In the mean time, publishers are hopefully paying attention…