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.]
|