1. Challenges of Digital Media Preservation Karen Cariani, Director Media Library and Archives Dave MacCarn, Chief Technologist

2. Who we are: WGBH Media Library and Archives 2

3.  Preservation needs are more complicated — New and changing content formats — Network connections — Software — Storage media — Hardware  Access expectations challenging — Faster access — Anywhere, anytime Transition challenges (Analog to Digital) 3

4. Content formats 4

5. Storage and retrieval How do we:  Capture the audio and video generated by myriad cameras  Store the project information to allow potential re-edit  Store files with rich, meaningful metadata  Store born-digital materials  Display and retrieve born-digital materials 5

6. Access: Organizational Issues  Metadata  Descriptive metadata — Need description for video to be useful, findable — How to capture that — How to make sure it is linked to video files 6

7. Folder Structure  Create folders by card — Assign unique number — Continue numbers — Add description — Place ENTIRE card contents into this folder!! 7

8. Original footage © 2011 WGBH 8

9. Proposed tapeless workflow  Create a mapping document between filemaker and DAM  Used to generate an xml stylesheet  Video is ingested simultaneously with the metadata from filemaker using the xml stylesheet  Technical metadata is ingested simultaneously with the video and production data using the xml generated by the source digital files 9

10. Challenges - again  Access issues — File size — Formats – to playback — Useable - — Search/findable  Metadata  Organize files  Preservation issues — Copies — Formats – for migration — Being able to play again later — Speed of access (big file size) – to use/process — Migration ease 10

11.  File management — Where are the files?  Needed for access to files — Large preservation files — Smaller access, proxy files  Network speed — Larger files, need faster network to meet speed expectations Software /Network 11

12. Issues with current file mgmt systems/software  Preservation not a priority  Interface issues — Access vs. Preservation  IT relationship — Tech support — Vendor reliance issues — Need library based system for Archivist needs rather than traditional IT company needs  Expense — License cost — Development — Customizations 12

13. Access  Can find  Can view  Can select  Can get out of system  Can reuse in editing system 13

14. Preservation Needs  Multiple Copies  Validity  Bit quality checks  Long lasting storage  Regular migration  Persistence 14

15. Challenges of preservation and access  For preservation — Want to capture as close to original as possible — Originals may be many different formats — Will need to make sure you can export and use different formats in future — File format issues — Fixity check big files  For access — Want one consistent format for playback/access — Needs to be easy to migrate, use 15

16. What makes video different?  Preservation files are large — Uncompressed — Slow to move around  Need proxy files for viewing — Smaller size for quick transport over network  Complicated formats — Not just one file type — Codecs, wrappers, frame speed, etc 16

17. Technology Mix: 17

18. Hydra project  Combine preservation system with access system  Better interface  Flexible design  Easy to evolve 18

19. Insert graphic  Blacklight Hydra heads  Hydra mgmt layer  Fedora repository  HSM storage system 19

20. Fundamental Assumption #1  No single system can provide the full range of repository-based solutions for a given institution’s needs,  …yet sustainable solutions require a common repository infrastructure. 20

21. Fundamental Assumption #2  No single institution can resource the development of a full range of solutions on its own, — …yet each needs the flexibility to tailor solutions to local demands and workflows. 21

22. Hydra Philosophy -- Community An open architecture, with many contributors to a common core Collaboratively built “solution bundles” that can be adapted and modified to suit local needs A community of developers and adopters extending and enhancing the core “If you want to go fast, go alone. If you want to go far, go together.” 22

23. CRUD in Repositories

24. Major Hydra Components

25. Hardware/Storage media: HSM  Access — Online  XX bytes Spinning disk — Offline — Nearline  Preservation (offline) — Robotic tape library system — LT04 data tapes — 2 copies — One stored off site  Migration needs 3-5 years — Both tape migration to newer formats — Technology migration

26. New Storage Types and Costs  Need hierarchical storage (HSM) — Video files are large — Spinning disks are expensive — Tape can help save cost — Tape copies/migration can be automated 26

27. New Storage Types and Costs  But HSM has licensing issues — Some systems cost by gigabyte managed — Need Open source alternative 27

28. Q & A  Karen: karen_cariani@wgbh.org  Dave: dave_maccarn@wgbh.org 28