Katherine Skinner, Emory University Gail McMillan, Virginia Tech NDIIPP Annual Partners Meeting June 24, 2009

Central aim: to better understand the terrain of the emergent field of digital curation.  how emergent is it?  what trends are beginning to emerge within it? MetaArchive 20092

ETD:  December 2007-April 2008  Universities and Colleges  96 Respondents  Five Listservs: ▪ Association of Research Libraries, Association of Southeastern Research Libraries, Council of Graduate Schools, Digital Library Federation, and Electronic Theses and Dissertations MetaArchive 20093

Two surveys, 158 participants Cultural Memory:  March 2009  Archives, Museums, Libraries, Historical Societies, Government Agencies  62 Respondents  Three Listservs: ▪ H-Museum, A&A-L (Society of American Archivists), and ERECS-L (Electronic Records Managers) MetaArchive 20094

 Who is collecting digital materials, what are they collecting, and how are they storing these materials?  Who seeks to preserve their digital collections and how do they want to preserve them?  What are the biggest barriers to preservation?  What are the most desired offerings in preservation? MetaArchive 20095

Cultural Memory:  98.4% are collecting  Range: 1 GB-20 TB, average 2 TB  Average Growth: 540 GB/year  Formats/Genres include: text (83%), video (76%), audio (75%), (47%), databases (48%), websites (41%), and GIS material (36%) + scads more  Repository structures include: home-grown (65%), CONTENTdm (17%), Fedora (9%), DSpace (7%), Access/Excel (6%), plus SRB, Filemaker, and 10 others MetaArchive 20096

ETDs:  80% accept ETDs; 40% only accept ETDs  Range: GB, average 41 GB  Average Growth: 4.5 GB/year  Formats/Genres include: images (92%), applications (89%), audio (79%), text (64%), video (52%), and other (15%)  Repository structures include: DSpace (31%), ETD-db (15%), Fedora (5%), Eprints (2%), as well as locally developed solutions (34%) and vendor-based solutions: bepress (6%), DigiTool (6%), ProQuest (6%), and CONTENTdm (6). MetaArchive 20097

Formats (ETD & Cultural Memory) ETD.ppt.qt.tif.xml.wav.png.pdf.mpg.mp3.aif.avi.doc.gif MetaArchive html.jpg.mov.dwt.xls.csv.zip.mix.snd.tex.txt.midi.exe.jar Cultural Memory Textual documents Databases Still images Video Audio GIS Websites Computer games Science data Publications Presentation materials JP2.ps

Platforms (ETD & Cultural Mem.) ETDdb Eprints Fedora DSpace Archimede bepress/ Digital Commons CONTENTdm Cybertesis Dias DigiTool DLXS Proquest MetaArchive MS Access Excell SRB ResCarta Augias-data Cumulus CollectiveAccess Windows Explorer IRODS Filesystem ArchivalWare Filmaker Pro iTunes Documentum Fez Millennium Online Catalog OhioLINK Oracle Sesame VTLS Vital Past Perfect ANCS MINISIS CDs/DVDs In House

Structure (ETD & Cultural Mem) Cultural Memory subject (33%) collection (35%) format (21%) date (10%) department (10%) creator (8%) funder (4%) *some Cultural Memory respondents selected multiple ways MetaArchive ETD All in one directory (28%) Date (26%) Departments, Authors, or Disciplines (26%) Access-level labels (7%) Don’t know (13%)

 Variation is the theme  Infrastructures  Data Structures Presents preservation challenges, to be sure! MetaArchive

Who seeks preservation and how do they want to preserve?  Readiness is low  Most institutions are not even backing up  Dearth of preservation plans and policies  Desire is high  Want training  Want independent assessments  Want to manage their own digital preservation solutions MetaArchive

Cultural Memory:  Only 50% back up 100% of their digital holdings  Only 19% report having in-house “expert” knowledge in digital preservation  79% have NO preservation plan  55% have NO written policies ETDs:  95% are engaging SOME backup strategies  72% have NO preservation plan MetaArchive

Cultural Memory  83% will develop policies in the next 3 years  90% cited interest in participating in a community-based digital preservation solution  Only 30% cited interest in third-party vendor offerings, even at a reasonable cost ETDs  70% have experience with/knowledge of LOCKSS  92% cited interest in participating in an NDLTD- supported LOCKSS-based EDT archive MetaArchive

 CMO’s engaging actively with the idea of digital preservation  High level of knowledge about community- based approaches to digital preservation  Outsourcing is not the top choice of institutions as they pursue digital preservation; they would rather participate in it themselves MetaArchive

What are the biggest barriers to preservation?  Growth of digital collection  Backups. NOT  File formats  Platforms  Structures. NOT  Lack of documented policies, procedures MetaArchive

What are the threats identified by our survey respondents? MetaArchive

What are the most desired preservation offerings? 1. Training provided by professional organizations 2. Independent study/assessment 3. Local courses in computer or digital technology 4. Hire staff with digital knowledge experience 5. Hire consultants 6. Training provided by vendors MetaArchive

The MetaArchive Cooperative  The most effective preservation strategies incorporate  replication of content  geographically distributed  secure locations  private network of trusted partners MetaArchive

Desirable Preservation Service 1. Cooperative preservation network 2. Standards 3. Training: Best practices, inc. technical 4. Model policies 5. Conversion or migration services 6. Preservation services provided by third party vendors 7. Access services MetaArchive

Conclusion  Calf-Path Syndrome  Idiosyncratic, ad-hoc data storage structures  Increasingly difficult remediation  MASH: triage  Survey documented narratives  Outreach  Offer help to those adrift in cyberspace  Through collaboration there are cost-effective and strong strategies that can protect cultural memories MetaArchive

Katherine Skinner Gail McMillan MetaArchive