Skip to end of metadata
Go to start of metadata

You are viewing an old version of this page. View the current version.

Compare with Current View Page History

« Previous Version 5 Next »

Begun in 2019 this project for the most part has been superseded by the work of the Digital Preservation & Access work-group  (go.osu.edu/libraries-dpa). This project page will be updated occasionally as necessary.

Link to this site: http://go.osu.edu/DigiPresEthos-EnviroScan

Introduction

Along with the establishment of the new position of digital preservation librarian, there is a need to explore, investigate, discuss and develop recommendations for The Ohio State University Libraries’ (OSUL) digital preservation ethos, infrastructure and initiatives. At the heart of this initial step is a brainstorming mind map. While not comprehensive, it will serve as the jumping off point to study these issues and develop recommendations. This effort to develop and provide, in a transparent manner, a sustainable and scalable digital preservation environment that provides continuous access to not only our distinctive collections, but to all of our digital content, aligns with our strategic directions to Empower Knowledge Creators, Engage for Broader Impact, Enrich the User Experience and Model Excellence.

Digital preservation at OSUL is built upon (or needs to be built upon) content, repositories, tools, standards, documentation, personnel and users. The following is an explanation of the various parts of the mind map.

Content

There are several forms of content that OSUL may want to preserve including digitized or reformatted objects, as well as born digital objects. In both of these cases, these may be new or legacy objects. The content may also be obsolete audiovisual materials, scholarly content such as ETDs, or even our e-resources.

Tools

Many tools need to be deployed to conduct proper digital preservation. These may be internally developed tools such as our current batch DC ingest tools, or proposed tools for drop-n-drag ingest. The mind map identifies a large number externally developed tools, some of which we are currently using such as DROID, DSpace, Fedora and soon to be Hyrax; while there are others we could potentially utilize such as BitCurator.

Repositories

Closely related to the tools and shown in the mind map with a dotted line relationship is our set of repositories. Our internally deployed repositories include the DC, KB and OJS along with our share drives and the “Dark Archive”. Our externally hosted repositories include the Internet Archives’ Archive-It, OhioLINK, DPN, Hathi Trust and BuckeyeBox.

Documentation

OSUL has a good amount of internal documentation that warrants review as part of this investigation including:

  • 2013
    • Digital Preservation Policy Framework
    • Digital Initiatives Guiding Principals
  • 2014
    • Implementing a Modern Digital Library
    • Master Objects Repository Task Force Report
  • 2015
    • Digital Content Management Workflow Task Force Report
  • 2016
    • Digital Preservation Disposition Task Force Report
    • Digital Reformatting Guidelines for 2D Imaging

The Big Ten Academic Alliance’s Digital Preservation group has begun to amass documentation from member institutions that we will also be able to review, along with other external resources.

Standards, et al

Closely related to documentation are the standards that they refer to, interpret and/or document. Internally, OSUL has standards and guidelines for digital reformatting, file naming, and the metadata application profile (MAP) among others. There is also a desire to create a MAP specific to audiovisual objects. There are numerous external standards and guidelines we can utilize including, but not limited to:

  • Open Archival Information System (OAIS)
  • Trusted Digital Repository (TDR) and Trustworthy Repositories Audit Checklist (TRAC)
  • National Digital Stewardship Alliance’s Levels of Preservation
  • Kenny & McGovern’s There Legged Stool and Five Organizational Stages of Digital Preservation
  • Various standards for metadata, ontologies, schemas and formats

Users

The only reason we preserve stuff is to be able to provide access to that cool stuff for our users; if we do not intend to provide access to our users there is no point in preserving it. Therefore, our users as well as their habits and needs are part of our digital preservation ethos equation.

Task #1: Historical policies and task force reports review

Link to this section: http://go.osu.edu/DigiPresEthos-task1

Summary

Starting with the Digital Preservation Policy Framework, minted in 2013, there are several principal documents listed in the aforementioned "Documentation" that needed to be reviewed for currency, as well as to benchmark progress and levels of success of the various recommendations made within the reports. While, a lot of the content of these documents go beyond just digital preservation practices, it is their intersectionality with digital preservation that is important. The following exploration reviews these key documents, identifying their importance to a digital preservation ethos, providing an analysis as to where we have been effective, as well as less than successful, and proposes recommended action items.The action items are listed as:

  • Action Items: Activities which are directly related to digital preservation.
  • Suggested Action Items: Activities that the review of the documentation suggest should be addressed, but more broadly affect our digital content efforts beyond just preservation, and will likely need to be articulated as well-formed projects.

Below are several foundational or key action items that should be acted upon immediately, while we begin to address additional, more targeted, action items indicated in the ensuing narrative.

Foundational Action Items:

  • Draft updated Framework by March 31, 2020: This along with existing documentation will serve as the seeds for a Digital Content Documentation Portal (see below). 
    • Assigned to: Digital Preservation Librarian
  • Formation of a Digital Preservation & Access Group (DP&A): This group will be a successor to the Digital Content Strategy Group. It is intended to guide the Libraries' policies, strategies and tactics for managing, preserving and providing access to its digital content. The group will be comprised of several key roles within the Libraries who will meet on a regular basis, as well as included other roles as necessary. This supplants the idea visualized in the DP Mind-Map of the proposed Digital Preservation Work Group; it will have a broader focus of managing all aspects of digital content.
    • Assign to: Digital Preservation Librarian (convener), Acquisition and Discovery Strategist, Digital Humanities Librarian, Head of Application Development & Support, Head of Digital Initiatives and IT Infrastructure Support, Publications & Repository Services Librarian, Scholarly Sharing Strategist (temporary) and Preservation & Digitization Strategist. Other roles may be added as needed.
    • Assignment: The full-time members of this group will articulate the purpose and its role within the Libraries' environment.
  • Development of a Digital Content Documentation Portal: Constructed on this wiki-platform, this will serve a "go to" place for Libraries' personnel to find content (policies, standards, guidelines, workflows, examples, etc.) regarding the acquiring, description, processing, management, access and preservation of our digital content. This does not mean that the content will necessarily live here, but it will serve as the linking hub.
    • Assigned to: DP&A Workgroup

/wiki/spaces/libraries/pages/1719010 (2013)

The Digital Preservation Policy Framework (document | team wiki), adopted in August of 2013, is the University Libraries' foundational document for digital preservation (DP). After six years, this is the first real review of the Framework that was noted to be done annually. With no "ownership" of this Framework, it is not surprising that this never happened in its six years of existence. Much of it is still pertinent and relevant to the Libraries' needs, but It is in need of updating. The "Objectives" can serve as the basis for establishing a benchmark and roadmap for guiding our DP program.

Areas of review include:

  • Synchronicity with current University Libraries' strategic vision and goals
  • In the "Scope" section there is concern as to whether we understand what "primary custodian" means. Further, It suggests the Libraries will be the definitive expert on DP for the campus; are we or should we be?
  • In general our guiding principals are couched in OAIS and its terminology. There is concern in the profession that we are to slavish to the OAIS model. Further, the OAIS terminology is so jargony, that it is inaccessible to most folks not steeped in the ways of digital preservation.
  • At the time we drafted the Framework, the NDSA's Levels of Preservation (LoP) was just newly minted and appeared to be more of an implementation roadmap. We chose to use the Digital Archiving Maturity Model by Tessella (now Preservica) to articulate this. In light of NDSA's nearly complete reboot of the LoP, of which I have been an integral player, it is timely to review this area. It is different than an overall maturity model as it focuses on the technological aspects of DP. There is an assessment tool being developed for the LoP which we should consider when completed. In regards to more holistic modeling, we should also consider a mash-up of Kenny & McGovern's Three-legged Stool and Five Organizational Stages of Digital Preservation.
  • The "Roles & Responsibilities"  section is steeped in OAIS terminology based upon the presumption that the Libraries are really using OAIS as the basis for its DP efforts. I’m not sure we are or are able to. We will need to revisit this. Further, it is very jargony, which we need to simplify. "Appendix 1: Administrators" will also be impacted by this.
  • Appendix 2 and Appendix 3 will need to be refreshed.

Tools/resources for future consideration:

Action Items:

  • See "Foundational Action Items"

Digital Initiatives Guiding Principles (2013)

Developed as the Digital Preservation Policy Framework Task Force was wrapping up its work, another group was drafting the Digital Initiatives Guiding Principles (DIGP). It notes:

"The Digital Initiatives Program plays an important role in the Libraries’ mission, providing the mechanical and intellectual scaffolding that enables the OSU Libraries to create, preserve, and disseminate digital forms of information both now and in the future. The Digital Initiatives Program will ensure that the Libraries remains well positioned to continue supporting the mission of the university and its communities, through the active assessment of the Libraries’ digital infrastructure and policies and ensuring that our systems and processes evolve to meet the changing needs of a large, dynamic research organization."

The DIGP articulates eleven (11) principles to guide the University Libraries' digital program efforts. These are a good set of principles; as such there is not a set of particular action items that are related to this document, nor is there a current need to update. However, there are five (5) principles worth noting here in relation to the Libraries' digital preservation efforts:

  • We don’t keep everything forever: The Libraries has addressed this somewhat via definitions developed on the Master Objects Repository Task Force Report, however, this should be better reflected in the Framework and in concert with collection development and selection policies. Collection development and selection policies, need to be in-sync with preservation intents and commitments.
  • We will build in assessment: In regards to our in-house DP environment, this has not been optimal and there is room for improvement. This and the following point are very much tied together.
  • We focus on the user: In regards to our in-house DP environment, this has not been optimal and there is room for improvement. The discovery needs of our external users are significantly different from those needed for the archival and curatorial personnel.
  • We are driven by standards: We are making progress in this area, and it is a key underlying principle to what we do. Where we have room for improvement is providing a more centralized and transparent documentation.
  • We strive to stay grounded in the real world: This is the great balancer in all of we do. We cannot do everything, nor can we do it all at once. We need to think incrementally and tactically, while trying to achieve our strategic objectives.

Suggested Action Items:

  • DP&A Review and potential grounding document: The Digital Strategy Advisory Group should collectively review this document from the point-of-view as a guiding document for their activities.
    • Assign to: Digital Strategy Advisory Group

Implementation of a Modern Digital Library (2014)

The following April, the Strategic Digital Initiatives Working Group, published this report, couched in the DIGP, that evaluated "...the Libraries’ existing digital libraries environment and [developed] a set of guidelines to enable the Libraries to adopt a more modernized digital library environment." The document in general reinforces the need for a holistic approach to digital preservation:

"...OSUL’s digital library program...wants to expand the concept of Preservation and address it more holistically as a key part of the larger curatorial lifecycle, and shift how preservation is thought about from that of a black box to something more dynamic that has significant implications around access and content management decisions. In fact, for the purposes of the digital library program, it would be instructive to think of preservation as continued access for the future. With this shift, a number of key functional needs emerge to support preservation functions within a digital library environment."

Concerns expressed in the "Key Policies" sections that are currently being addressed:

  • "Metadata Standards Policy – Like  Content Formats, the Libraries has no organizational metadata standards policy detailing metadata standards currently supported by the libraries or the context in which these standards are used."
    • With the arrival of the Metadata Initiatives Librarian this is in the process of being worked out. Where we will need to identify and specify what preservation metadata we will want to collect and manage.
  • "Master Objects Retention policy"
    • This was addressed through the Master Objects Repository Task Force, and while it is described in the MORTF's report, it will be published in the Digital Preservation portal.
  • "Discovery policy–Presently, the Libraries has a working group that examines discovery, as it relates to the Libraries’ access to vended content."
    • This is being addressed by the Discovery Project; however, policy documentation should be linked through the Digital Preservation portal.
  • “Identification of Key Gaps: #4 – OSUL’s current digital library environment suffers from a lack of clear roles and responsibilities"
    • Progress is being made with the addition of the Digital Preservation Librarian and the Metadata Initiatives Librarian (MDIL), as well ad the reconfiguration of the AD&A and Scholarly Sharing units. Hopefully, this assessment will help outline these roles further.

  • “Identification of Key Gaps: #7 – One of the challenges within the current OSUL digital environment is that different units and departments utilize locally developed and specialized workflows to manage accession, description, and curation of similar content."

    • The Libraries have made great strides in this area through the AD&A unit for analog and paper-based records. We will need to build upon those successes in developing born digital accessioning and processing workflows.

  • “Recommendations: #4.b – Appointment of a group responsible for the development and management of an organizational wide metadata standards policy."

    • This is now in the purview of the MDIL, and possibly in the future assisted by the rebooted Digital Content Strategy Group (see below)

  • “Recommendations: #5 – Utilizing the OSUL Preservation Framework, determine the OSUL’s preservation/archiving scope and long-term commitments – and then make that information available as OSUL’s trusted repository program."

    • That is the one of the outcomes of this exercise.

Concerns expressed in the "Key Policies" sections that still need to be addressed:

  • "A uniform procedure around the naming of digital assets."
    • While we do have an articulated set of procedures for file naming, they are not universally embraced. However, progress is being made in this area, especial through the efforts of the Archival Description and Access and Digitization unit.
  • "A discussion around the type of unique identifiers that will be supported within the Libraries’ infrastructure. Currently, the Libraries support handles, but questions arose around support for alternative identifiers like ARKs and DOIs."
  • "Presently, the Libraries’ Reformatting Working Group works with curators and digital project submitters to determine appropriate format standards for digital materials. However, there appears to be no organizational wide content format standard describing acceptable best practices for supported archival and derivative content types."
    • We have made modest progress in this area, especially in regards to image and text based object, however, we need to establish transparently documented standards for time-based media.
  • "Selection  Policy – As OSUL seeks to formalize content management processes for digital assets, the Libraries needs to provide clear guidance around the selection policy of items for digitization and acquisition."
    • Collection development and access policies for our distinctive collections should be formally articulated and include statements of our preservation intents.
  • “Identification of Key Gaps: #6 – While having byte backup helps to provide some level of protection of the digital content, the Libraries currently utilizes no significant auditing mechanism or utilizes any mechanism for preserving digital resources as complex digital objects; linking the item, descriptive, structural, preservation, and administrative metadata together."
    • This is an area we are clearly deficient in. While we may actually be doing it, we have not articulated and documented how we are doing it.

  • “Recommendations: #4.a – Expand and empower the Digital Reformatting Working Group to take organizational leadership around the development and management of an organizational wide content formats and standards policy."

    • This is an area we regressed on due to changes in organizational culture (appointed groups such as the Digital Reformatting Working Group no longer exist), as well as an extended period of missing key personnel. Prior to some key personnel departures in 2017 and 2018 a group of self-identified interested parties formed the Digital Content Strategy Group. It is something that should be reconsidered in the very near future.

  • “Recommendations: #4.d & 4.e – Develop clear selection criteria to enable the selection of materials for digitization that would have the greatest impact for access across the OSUL’s various user communities. AND Develop clear selection criteria to enable to selection of materials acquired from outside the OSUL."

    • This is clearly something we are lacking and is still a gap that needs to be addressed, likely initiated via the Digital Content Strategy Group in conjunction with representatives from the Distinctive Collections.

  • “Recommendations: #6 – Recognizing the many different submission workflows and processes currently in use by departments and units throughout OSUL, it is apparent that some level of education and workflow management will need to take place as the Libraries moves to integrate its infrastructure."

    • Like Key Gaps #7, the Libraries have made great strides in this area through the AD&A unit for analog and paper-based records. We will need to build upon those successes in developing born digital accessioning and processing workflows.

Action Items:

  • Identify and specify the preservation metadata we will want to collect and manage: This has been informally discussed between the Digital Preservation Librarian and the Metadata Initiatives Librarian, but should be articulated as a full-fledged collaborative project.
    • Assign to: Digital Preservation Librarian and the Metadata Initiatives Librarian
  • Identify and document auditing mechanism for digital preservation assessment activities: This is a project that needs to be articulated and acted upon, depending upon AD&S bandwidth; it may be a consideration to implement in conjunction with eventual migration to Fedora 6.
    • Assign to: Digital Preservation Librarian, Metadata Initiatives Librarian and Head of Digital Initiatives.
  • Reboot the Digital Content Strategy Group (see Foundational Action Items)

Suggested Action Items:

  • Identify and link to collection development and access policies
    • Assign to: DP&A
  • Born digital accessioning and processing workflows: With the influx of born digital content, the University Libraries needs to develop workflows and best practices for accession and processing born digital content.
    • Assign to: Digital Preservation Librarian, Metadata Initiatives Librarian and Head of Archival Description and Access

Master Objects Repository Task Force Report (2014)

As part of the Charge to this group, we were asked to "Provide definitions of Master Objects and Derivative Objects in the OSUL digital environment." We accomplished this in the "Normalizing the Language" and "Types of Digital Assets" sections of the document.

  • Normalizing the Language: these are solid definitions. An interesting outlier is that of the "Archival Object" where we defined it in terms similar to an OAIS AIP, but we then never used the term in the document. Further, we have not subsequently articulated how we identify and mange these in our Fedora/Hyrax environment. This is a crucial concept and set of actions we need to be able to identify, articulate, execute and monitor.
  • Types of Digital Assets: in the ensuing five years with the evolution of our systems from Dark Archive to Image Management System to Digital Collections (Sufia) to Digital Collections (Hyrax) some of these "types" of digital assets no longer exist. It may behoove us to maintain these definitions as historical context and/or in regard to the complete workflow process, but we no longer maintain derived masters or access copies (other than those cached in the system). Working copies and reproduction copies are still things we will manage for a short duration–during processing and to deliver to patron, respectively--however, the definitions need to be updated.

The Preservation Workflows section notes:

“Within the new infrastructure, digital objects will be ingested and managed through a dedicated repository interface…For users submitting content into the Libraries’ MOR for preservation and management, the act of submitting the material for the generation of metadata and access will also result in the creation of an archival package [AIP] that will be inserted and managed within the Libraries’ preservation system.”

Currently, we have no useful reporting tools to know who and when things were ingested, etc; nor, am I convinced that we have an articulated example of an actual archival object within the DC.

It further notes:

“While Figure 9 demonstrates a proposed approach for managing both public and preservation content via a dedicated content repository, this approach will also allow for the development of a more inclusive set of management workflows, i.e., a Curation Dashboard, that would enable the management of all content across the MOR, regardless of repository or delivery system.” --and--

The Preservation Tools and Services section suggests, "...a number of tools are offered as part of the Fedora project to support the management of and monitor the health of the archive."

Unfortunately, as of yet we have not developed a Curation Dashboard, nor made the inherent, Fedora-based tools widely available to the appropriate staff for monitoring the digital preservation health of the system.

In the For Further Discussion section several points were posed that we have yet to act upon:

  • Integrated DSpace/Fedora environment.
    • This is a topic we need to revisit, but not in the immediate future due to other priorities.
  • While the Master Objects Repository is content agnostic, what digital formats should the Libraries utilize when creating digital objects?
    • we initially responded with, "This question, though an important one, is outside of the scope of this group, and is presently part of the charge of the Digital Reformatting Working Group." however, that would likely be an activity sponsored by the re-booted DCSAG.
  • What role will RDF data play when modelling data in Fedora?
    • I do not believe we have articulated and documented this activity. When we do we should be doing it from a POV that is not Fedora-centric, but how it relates to the Fedora environment.
  • As the Libraries’ Special Collections shifts away from PastPerfect to ArchivesSpace, more discussion will need to be held around the development of workflows and processes to seamlessly integrate ArchivesSpace and the MOR.
    • Well...So we abandoned Aspace and went with Archivists Toolkit (AT). Because of the tentative longevity of AT, this is an activity that likely will not be "seamlessly" integrated. That being said, we do need to develop workflows to deal with metadata remediation to feedback to AT, and articulate AT's place in born digital accessioning and processing workflows.

Action Items:

  • Develop a process to identify and manage our "archival objects" (AIPs) within the preservation environment. This is related to the aforementioned Action Item: Identify and document auditing mechanism for digital preservation assessment activities.
    • Assign to: Digital Preservation Librarian, Metadata Initiatives Librarian and Head of Digital Initiatives.
  • RDF articulation/documentation: This is related to the aforementioned Action Item: Identify and document auditing mechanism for digital preservation assessment activities.
    • Assign to: Digital Preservation Librarian, Metadata Initiatives Librarian and Head of Digital Initiatives.

Suggested Action Items:

  • Update "Types of Digital Objects" and definitions; integrate into Digital Content Documentation Portal
    • Assign to: DP&A
  • Define and develop Curation Dashboard
    • Assign to: DP&A to discuss initially, eventually this will need to be a project turned over to AD&S
  • Develop a metadata remediation feedback loop to ArchivistToolkit (AT) and its successors

    • Assign to: Metadata Initiatives Librarian and Head of Archival Description and Access

  • Determine AT's role in born digital accessioning and processing. This is likely part of the aforementioned Born digital accessioning and processing workflows Suggested Action Item.
    • Assign to: Digital Preservation Librarian, Metadata Initiatives Librarian and Head of Archival Description and Access

Digital Content Management Workflow Task Force Report (2015)

Building upon the Master Objects Repository Task Force Report, this group set out to develop "...a set of recommendations detailing how digital assets of various types will move into the Libraries’ various digital repositories.” While this group was successful in articulating this in a report to the Libraries' Executive Committee (Exec), it was not well socialized, nor made implementable.

The report created a graphical workflow for making bifurcated content ingest decisions for the Digital Collections system (DC) and KnowledgeBank (KB), while also identifying content types and additional repository options matrix (not visualized in the workflow diagram).

The following recommendations were made:

  1. Articulate a clear delineation between the scope of content managed within the MOR and within the IR, respectively.
    • This was approved by Exec, but was not widely acted upon. 4 years on, anecdotal information suggests we were not wholly successful in disseminating this information.
  2. Define/develop an Institutional Records, Manuscripts, and Papers Management System for the Libraries’ archival content in these formats.
    • This has not happened, at least from the perspective of a system separate from the DC to handle Information Security designated S3 and S4 content.
  3. Plan and implement a series of information sessions and smaller trainings to present the work of this Task Force, in order to familiarize relevant OSUL faculty and staff with emerging digital content management workflows, address questions and concerns, and define roles and responsibilities around content creation, preparation and ingest.
    • While this did happen through Special Collections Forum and various meetings regarding the Master Objects Migration (MOM) project, it is clear the message need to be re-iterated. Further, there should be public facing documentation (i.e. the aforementioned digital preservation portal), and there needs to be decision-making workflows for content that  goes beyond DC and KB.
  4. Actively pursue archiving monographic content within HathiTrust/Internet Archives.
    • This is happening, but once again it needs to be more widely/publicly documented
  5. Work with the OSUL Exhibits Coordinator to identify expectations around preservation of digital exhibit content and structure
    • At the time of the report, it was approved, but "Hold for now on any action." This was do in part to a lack of a designated strategy around digital exhibits. Once again we need to better delineate where content is stored that will be drawn upon for digital exhibits; and we need to articulate a preservation policy around web archiving of said exhibits.
  6. Clarify organizational priorities around the Libraries’ commitment to reformatting audio and video materials given other organizational priorities and the significant investments needed to support an A/V reformatting program.
    • The Libraries have made significant progress over the past few years in completing an initial collection survey to inform prioritization for reformatting. Once again we need to make this documentation more widely visible within the organization.
    • The other recommendation from Exec was to have the Strategic Digital Initiatives Work Group (SDIWG) survey Archives and Special Collections curators to identify “born-digital” A/V materials and develop priorities for ingest into the MOR (now the DC). To some extent this happened via the MOM prioritization process, except that was only for materials in our so-called "Dark Archive" it has not been addressed in regards to born digital A/V (or other formats for that matter) on external media. The Libraries would benefit from a position to review collections for such materials as was done for analog A/V.
  7. Investigate workflows for preserving OSUL Publishing Program content, specifically integration opportunities with DSpace or via the Public Knowledge Project for long-term disaster recovery and preservation.
    • This is a project yet to be embarked upon.

Action Items:

  • The next steps in the larger project–Tasks #2 Repository Review and Task #3: Content Review–will help inform actions to be taken upon Recommendations 1, 4, 5, 6 and 7.
    • Assigned to: Digital Preservation Librarian
  • Develop an expanded decision-making workflow(s) to account for other pertinent repository options. This will be dependent upon the outcome of the previous Action Item.
    • Assigned to: Digital Preservation Librarian (in consultation with DP&A).
  • Reboot the Digital Content Strategy Group (see Foundational Action Items) to oversee coordination of activity among Preservation and Digitization, Content and Access, and Distinctive Collections and Digital Programs partners.

Digital Preservation Disposition Task Force Report Draft (2016)

This Task Force was charged with conducting an environmental scan of the current preservation environment, noting where OSUL already has existing relationships and how those relationships impacted the Libraries’ long-term preservation activities. Furthermore, the Task Force proposed a set of recommendations related to the Libraries’ long-term preservation activities, its relationships with specific providers, and the continued development of the Libraries’ own internal preservation policy. While the report was provided to Exec, no formal feedback was received at the time.The report was constructed into the following four sections:

  • Backup, Disaster Recovery, Digital Preservation, and Digital Curation

    • The text initially defines these terms.

    • KEY POINT: “The challenge for OSUL is to develop a comprehensive digital preservation program, which will include backups and disaster recovery planning but must go beyond these passive measures to ensure that digital collection data is actively managed on a systematic basis.”

      • We have not yet achieved “actively managed” status.
  • Environmental Scan Matrix of current options
    • "The Task Force took a long look at a variety of potential preservation partners and communities that are currently under development. This included a wide range of conversations...and numerous webinars, chats, and literature reviews. The Task Force also considered current partners – groups that the Libraries have used to preserve or manage content in the past – to develop a comprehensive scan of potential and current options. The Task Force feels that in addition to identifying particular preservation options, that we identify what, if any, current relationships the Libraries may have with the provider."
      • In retrospect, the analysis did not go far enough. The two sets of matrices contain great data, but we should expend upon them and rate whether they may be viable options or not for further investigation and decision-making. We need to revisit these potential options, and other newer options.
  • OSUL’s Current Preservation Environment

    • “The best way to describe OSUL current digital preservation environment is that it is in flux.” Among other OSUL documents it references, “Digital Exhibits Working Group’s recommendations related to the development and evaluation of digital exhibits.”

      • Were those recommendations articulated and circulated?
    • "Presently, the Libraries uses a number of different services to manage, backup, and preserve digital content."
      • HathiTrust and Google Books, where does this fit into the DP Ethos? did we retain the books? Did we get rid of those owned by others?
      • Internet Archive: "Web archive, brittle books, contracted digitization services" - What are the contracted digitization services?
  • Recommendations:

    • “Today, we do not have a comprehensive plan related to the collection of digital content. Nor does the Libraries have any statements describing the collection priorities and strengths for the institution.”

      • The first statement is true, and part of this effort should be to create such a plan.
      • The second statement is not wholly true; there is localized documentation that needs to be gathered and aggregated and augmented as necessary, and made more accessible and public facing.
    • The actual recommendations were thus:
      1. Build on the Digital Preservation Framework to develop and implement a comprehensive Digital Preservation Plan.
        • his effort should begin to lead to a more comprehensive holistic approach.
      2. Focus on what can be done locally:
        1. Productionize the Master Objects Repository (MOR).
          • We have had mild success here that has been slowed by technical difficulties and staffing issues.With the MDIL in place and a more stable Hyrax/Fedora environment we are beginning to see forward movement again.
        2. Complete (or make substantial progress) around the Dark Archive Migration to the MOR and/or appropriate repository.
          • This has just not happened for the same reasons indicated in 2.a. However, as we review our preservation intents, the content quality in regards to preservation and metadata standards, and its use or lack there of over the past decade or two, maybe some of the content just should not be kept.
        3. Integrate support for the BagIt specification.
          • This definitely has not happened, and in retrospect, not sure what we meant by this, unless it means scooping up content w/in DC for transfer to say Hathi or the then DPN or similar dark repository?
        4. Continue to work with OCIO and other campus partners to identify additional potential, external, disaster recovery options.
          1. This work is ongoing. Certainly progress was made with moving our infrastructure to the SOC; further, we can now begin to entertain cloud storage solution such as AWS.
      3. Invest in our partners.
        • We have been doing this, however, in the light of DPN's demise, we need to be cautious and informed decisions to fund such endeavors.

Action Items:

  • Key action items will be the completion of Tasks #2 and #3, Repository Review and Content Review respectively.
    • Assigned to: Digital Preservation Librarian
  • Distinctive Collections' collecting policies need to be reviewed for preservation intents, in conjunction with prior MOM priorities determinations, metadata readiness, and adherence to standards to guide further MOM actions and dispositions. Further, they need to be integrated into the Digital Content Documentation Portal.
    • Assigned to: Digital Preservation Librarian for intial documentation review and recommendations for further action.

Digital Reformatting Guidelines for 2D Imaging (2016)

"The Ohio State University Libraries is committed to creating high-quality, high-value digital content that is made as widely accessible as rights permit and that is securely managed and preserved for the long term...The following guidelines are based on published standards and are recommended Libraries-wide for all digital reformatting, regardless of which unit or department within the Libraries performs the digitization or scanning [emphasis added] .  Adherence to community standards for the creation of good digital collections helps the Libraries ensure that content can be efficiently and effectively managed, preserved and made accessible over the long-term. This document was created in response to the need for a policy around Content Standards identified in the White Paper entitled “Implementation of a Modern Digital Library at the Ohio State University Libraries”, produced by the Strategic Digital Initiatives Working Group. These guidelines apply to scanning and still digital imaging of 2- and 3-dimensional works; guidelines will be developed in the future for reformatting of time-based, dynamic and multimedia collections, and for 3-dimensional scanning and modeling...Standards for digital reformatting are numerous and, of necessity, complex. A digital file is a multipart construction whose encoding fixes decisions about access and long-term preservation into the file itself.  The appropriate standards to employee can vary from one project to the next, and from one object to the next. These guidelines address some of the most common factors affecting the accessibility, usability, and long-term viability of digital objects..."

Action Items:

  • This is great documentation and guidelines; we should be expanding upon it for other types of content, most imminently for time-based media.
    • Assign to: DP&A

Task #2: Repository Review

Task #3: Content Review

Task #4: Standards/Guidelines/Best Practices Review

Task #5: Tools Review


  • No labels

null

If you have a disability and experience difficulty accessing this content, please contact LIB-a11y@osu.edu.