# /programs/ourwork/past/earlydig/progress.htm

originally: http://www.oclc.org/programs/ourwork/past/earlydig/progress.htm

# Progress Report on Potential RLG Digital Archiving Activities Presented by the chair of the RLG Preservation Working Group on Digital Archiving May 6, 1997 Sherry Byrne Preservation Librarian University of Chicago In March of this year, a new working group was appointed and charged to review the joint RLG-CPA report on Preserving Digital Information to assess the subsequent responses from Australia, the United Kingdom, and elsewhere, and to make recommendations to RLG as to further areas for action. Although the final report is not expected until August, the group provided a progress report at the Annual Membership Meeting in Chicago. It should be emphasized that this is very much a preliminary report, a work in-progress at this point. So far, the group has worked solely through an electronic discussion group, so they have not yet been able to fully discuss and develop ideas as a group. The group welcomes feedback from RLG members that will further inform and guide the work that is yet to be done. Two fundamental concerns have already been expressed by working group members about the US environment for digital archiving: (1) issues of financing these activities are unclear, and (2) the lack of a central leadership structure akin to that in the UK and Australia is not surprising, but may hinder progress. On the other hand, members feel that RLG has a pivotal role to play through bringing its member institutions together with affiliated organizations that can minimize the effect of the second concern (the central leadership issue). ## Areas for potential RLG activity The group has identified six potential areas where an RLG role would be useful to move the collective digital archiving agenda forward. These areas are listed below and then followed by a more detailed description that provides a sense of the issues and the possible approaches and actions that have been suggested. They are to: 1. Explore the feasibility and economics of centralized and distributed models for digital archiving. 2. Investigate, develop, test and/or evaluate methods for managing a digital archiving facility. 3. Develop guidelines for appraisal, selection, and priority setting for preserving digital information. 4. Develop a model mechanism for reviewing and certifying agencies, institutions, and other bodies that provide digital archiving services. 5. Investigate the legal and policy implications of certified repositories, particularly in the context of "aggressive rescue"; work with appropriate organizations to move copyright discussions forward. 6. Coordinate efforts centered at RLG with efforts in the UK, Australia, and elsewhere in order to minimize investment and maximize gains. ## Description of each area ### 1. Explore the feasibility and economics of centralized and distributed models for digital archiving Within the context of an envisioned international system of digital archives, there could be a role for RLG as a centralized archival repository for its members, or as the coordinator for a distributed system of archives where individual institutions develop the capacity to preserve their own digital materials, or both. Therefore, RLG should fully explore the feasibility and economics of both models and possible blends, and determine what would be the most appropriate role for RLG. The exploration could include any or all of the following tasks/initiatives: RLG could work with member institutions to analyze their service needs and define which services are most effectively provided by a central repository and which are best done locally. Some potential central services might include: —management of centralized metadata about the digital holdings of member institutions; —preservation of common or shared collections; —preservation of digital objects in specialized formats where member institutions lack technical capacity or where economies of scale can be achieved by handling similar formats in one place; and —the conversion of digital materials in certain obsolete formats. RLG could appoint a group to look into identifying or defining what constitutes common or shared collections and specifying which formats might be handled separately versus centrally. RLG could solicit from its members descriptions of prototype digital imaging projects that have reached the point of needing to be rescued/preserved (working group members are themselves aware of several pioneering efforts that are no longer accessible) and then seek grant funding and a voluntary group of institutions to assess such things as: —Can the project output be rescued? If so, at what cost? —By whom (single institution or consortial action; central vs. distributed model)? —In what form (analysis of original digital form and options for "salvaged" form)? —With what access in future? And, at what costs for ongoing maintenance and migration into the future? (This last point will help get at the question of whether it would make sense to reformat holdings into a common, simple format—perhaps at the cost of some information loss—so that future migrations would be easier.) RLG could gather input from member institutions about what types of coordination are needed (e.g. among digital projects within institutions, across RLG member institutions, in specific subject/topical areas, for specific types of formats or users, or for types of materials—published vs. primary sources). There is especially a critical need for more coordination of digital projects that involve primary sources such as archives and manuscripts and collections of photographs, as well as out-of-print published materials. RLG is well positioned to provide leadership in this area, and could serve as a focal point for consultation and exchange of experience among institutions engaged in similar activities. RLG could form a working group in partnership with the National Digital Library Federation (NDLF) of institutions already taking leadership roles in developing the capacity to archive the digital objects they have created. This group would identify points of similarity and difference in practice; disseminate findings as a means of stimulating further discussion; and contribute to the evolution of a set of common practices for institutionally owned and archived materials. RLG already provides services in management of, and access to, metadata (such as the RLIN [RLG Union Catalog] database). RLG could extend these services to digital preservation projects so that there are explicit linkages (and standards for them) between the [RLG Union Catalog], findings aids, and the contents of digital collections. ### 2. Investigate, develop, test and/or evaluate methods for managing a digital archiving facility RLG is an appropriate organization to contribute to the development of technical standards and best practices to ensure long-term accessibility of our intellectual heritage in digital form. Specific areas of investigation should include storage, migration paths, means for authenticating documents, and requirements and standards for describing digital information. RLG could start by sponsoring an effort to gather and provide a filter for all relevant national and international standards, current research, and "best practices" in the electronic arena and to make this resource widely available. RLG could also explore joint efforts with the Commission on Preservation and Access and the National Preservation Office (UK-Ireland). RLG already has two digital projects in progress—"Studies in Scarlet" and "Global Migration," one based on a centralized repository model and one on a distributed model. [RLG's proposal to enable participants to create the collaborative "Global Migration" digital collection was not funded.] RLG could identify areas for investigation that cannot be resolved within the framework of these projects and seek partners with whom to pursue those investigations. Work could be accomplished by providing or contracting research in an area, and/or by sponsoring cooperative digital pilot projects and case studies. RLG could work closely with those institutions that are currently working out their own institutional archiving strategy, analyze these several experiences for the common denominators, and develop a generic institutional archiving strategy for the digital library community. RLG could test the technical feasibility of various approaches to migration, to determine cost models and establish benchmarks and best practices for each. To that end, RLG could appoint a small group of member staff to analyze the about-to-be-completed report entitled "Framework of Data Types and Formats," sponsored by the National Preservation Office, UK-Ireland (NPO), the Joint Systems Information Committee (JISC), and the British Library Research and Innovation Centre (BLRIC). Such a group should consider how the report and its successors can be helpful in the North American environment. A cooperative pilot project idea might be to identify extant digital objects from the early computer age that are in danger and truly warrant investigation and possible rescue. Guidelines might be developed to assist in determining how much effort and resources should be devoted to the rescue. JISC and NPO are also carrying out a study in this area with a report expected by July 1997. ### 3. Develop guidelines for appraisal, selection, and priority setting for digital information RLG should develop guidelines for appraisal, selection, and priority setting for what significant digital information should be preserved and archived for future generations. An underlying assumption here is that everything won't be saved. The 1995 RLG symposium on Selection for Digital Preservation (the proceedings have been published) was a first step in this direction. As a next step, RLG should appoint a task force of archivists, curators/collection development managers, and preservation administrators to formulate appraisal guidelines for digital materials. This task force might help the membership document the need for, and develop, a selection process to complement the forces of commercial viability or alternatively, come to terms with the consequences to research of having all significant selection decisions be determined by commercial viability. In preparation for this work, the group should consider the related work of the (UK-Ireland) Mellon Microfilming Steering Group and the principles developed by the Selection Committee on Online Australian Publications (SCOAP), and coordinate this effort with others. ### 4. Develop a model mechanism for reviewing and certifying agencies, institutions and other bodies that provide digital archiving services RLG might approach the issue in two ways: Using defined best practices, RLG could work with managers of existing electronic repositories (ICPSR, UK Data Archive, et al.) and with other developers of such collections (Arts & Humanities Data Service, Library of Congress, National Archives, Public Record Office, et al.) to identify operational guidelines and criteria for verifying that the best practices are being met. Another approach would be to consider whether RLG "can" or "should" take on an evaluative role in assessing service providers for performance against the established guidelines. This assumes that some private firms will appear (a few already exist) that offer "archiving" services. A possible model would be the use of ISO 9000 as a prototype standard. (ISO 9000 is an international standard for quality manufacturing that delineates process, including documentation requirements. While the standards and the environment are quite different, this model sets out standards for quality and then has a certification process where manufacturers demonstrate how they meet the standards.) RLG could appoint a small group of members to take on this task, or commission research, if necessary and act as an oversight group. ### 5. Investigate the legal and policy implications of certified repositories, particularly in the context of "aggressive rescue"; and work with appropriate organizations to move copyright discussions forward Current copyright law provides an exception for libraries to make copies of certain unavailable materials for preservation purposes. Technically, materials must be out of print or otherwise not available for purchase, only one copy can be made, and the copy cannot substitute for a purchase. This exception is too limited to deal with preservation copying of digital materials. ### 6. Coordinate efforts centered at RLG with efforts in the UK and elsewhere in order to minimize investment and maximize gains First steps in this direction have already been accomplished: RLG invited Jan Lyall from the National Library of Australia to serve as a liaison to the working group, Nancy Elkington serves as a member of the UK-Ireland National Preservation Office's Digital Archiving Working Group, and Vanessa Marshall, the NPO Director, serves as a member of the RLG PRESERV Advisory Council [a standing advisory group in the 1990s, drawn from the RLG preservation community] and as a member of the working group making this report. Further efforts will be identified as appropriate. ## Next steps Next steps for the Working Group will be to receive comments and feedback on this preliminary report from RLG Primary Sources and PRESERV members. Responses shared on the electronic discussion list will provide input and guidance to us. The working group will work to refine these recommendations. The final report is due August 1997. The new agenda and actions will be folded into the work of PRESERV and Primary Sources. [Program names of the time for the RLG-member preservation community and archives community. Member institutions determine their participation in these communities of interest and action.]