UK LOCKSS Alliance: Investigation into Private LOCKSS Networks Adam Rusbridge EDINA, University of Edinburgh 10 th May 2011

National Activities: Session Agenda What is a Private LOCKSS Network (PLN)? UK Interest in PLNs Open Questions about a UK Based PLN Next Steps 2

What is a Private LOCKSS Network? 3 Same software; distinct content & organisation

4 What is a Private LOCKSS Network? A distributed digital preservation solution depends on a collaborating set of institutions agreeing to preserve each other’s content. –Tyler Walters, A Guide to Distributed Digital Preservation –Participate in shared initiative (consortia agreement) –Content preserved across institutions (license) –Maintain necessary LOCKSS boxes (hardware) Requires a degree of coordination, shared enthusiasm, resources and benefit

MetaArchive Provide a ‘Preservation Service’ Distributed, multi-tier initiative to support practical preservation –Sustaining Members *Development, maintenance of hardware and software –Preservation Members *Ongoing activity of preserving digital content –Contributing Members *Own and possess digital content and wish to preserve it Strong governance model –Activities separated into subcommittees *Steering, Content, Preservation, Technical 5

COPPUL The Council of Prairie and Pacific University Libraries (COPPUL) –21 universities in Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia. COPPUL PLN aims: –to preserve collections of local interest –that are not already being preserved through any other means Content of interest includes: –university press publications –open access journals –born digital government publications –other electronic journal collections that are at risk of being lost Collection Guidelines: –Of local interest and significance –At notable risk of being lost –All members must have access –Content in large commercial packages should be excluded 6

Background to UK Private LOCKSS Network Interest in PLN expressed at previous meetings Neil Grindley (JISC) interested in exploring use of LOCKSS for community preservation –Funding awarded in part to explore PLNs Discussion at Steering Committee meeting –Step 1: Identify communities and content of interest *Survey UKLA members to understand content of interest –Step 2: Understand associated digitisation and licensing issues –Step 3: Understand possible models for implementation Short working group to assess demand and operation –Outcome: Scoping report with recommendations 7

Content Considerations PLN needs a common scope and sense of purpose among the content contributors that are jointly investing in preserving each other’s collections. Why use a community-based PLN? –Is content of community benefit? *Need to define the community: Library patrons? –Or for local reasons *Do the institutions simply want a low-cost solution to preservation? How is access defined, and under what condition? –Dark, dim, light? –What security measures are in place? –Who will use the content? –Who will select the content (appraisal)? –Who will preserve the content (all participants, or subset)? –Who will make available / republish the content? 8

Scope of Collections Suggestions welcome Licensed content of national interest –Electronic Books or Electronic journal materials (CLOCKSS/Pecan) Subject matter –UK Cultural materials and literature –Biological Chronology Digitised special collections –Manuscript collections Category of items –E-prints, Electronic Thesis Dissertations or other documents produced in-house Geographic Collections –UK-specific cultural materials, for example, web archives that would otherwise be lost Learning and teaching objects 9

Copyright: Contributing, Accessing and Preserving Content Is there a mandate for preservation? –ie. Explicitly referenced in a preservation policy? Has the organisation secured permission or license to preserve? (e.g. under fair use) –What rights does the organisation hold to allow participants to make copies? –How can access to content be restricted across multiple participants? Was the work published with any statement of copyright? When was the work created? Under what circumstances? Who created the work? Was it created in the UK? 10

Candidate Architectures for a UK PLN Distributed Approach –Repository maintained by individual libraries –Level of support offered by EDINA –Governance board comprised of participants Centralised Approach –Repository maintained at EDINA and partner sites –Technology under EDINA control –Responsibility for activity lies with EDINA –Better when single collection benefits entire community 11

Technical Considerations How many participants required to run the network? –Either as Content Contributor or Technical Host Minimum hardware requirement for each participant? –And what is the cost? Who will administer the hardware at each institution? –Noting that it hasn’t always been straightforward to manage hardware within LOCKSS How will PLN and ongoing development be resourced? 12

Next Steps Scoping study to highlight features of current models –Addressing issues highlighted in UK context Assess content of UK interest –Community interest in participating Establish short working group to review options 13