1. Cornell’s Project Harvest CNI Fall 2001 Task Force Meeting Anne R. Kenney and Nancy Y. McGovern

2. Project Harvest Overview Subject-based approach: agriculture –National Preservation Plan –USAIN –Mann Library Core Historical Literature TEEAL USDA 75% of core journals now available in electronic form

3. Focus of Planning Year Investigating conditions under which publishers willing to participate in the development of an Subject-Based Digital Archives (SBDA) Two pronged iterative cycle: –Explore (potential of SBDA, business model, broader preservation matrix) –Build (using agriculture as pragmatic application)

4. PBDA

5. SBDA

6. Intersection of Digital Archives Format-based

8. USAIN Survey Access –45% indicated need for both print and electronic –55% indicated e-journal already substituted for print; –84% would cancel print if reliable archives built –JSTOR study – 78% of faculty think hard copy should be retained even if reliable digital archives

9. USAIN Survey Observed loss in e-journals: 45% don’t know 22% yes noted difference 22% no, no difference What to preserve (priority order): 1. Preserve content plus journal “look and feel” plus publisher functionality 2. Preserve content plus journal “look and feel” How to preserve: Over 90% rejected single solution; prefer multiple custodians or 3 rd party

10. Sept. 6 Publishers’ Meeting American Dairy Science Academic/Elsevier American Phytopathological Society BioOne CABI NRC-Canada Wiley NLA and USAIN representation

11. What’s the Publisher Incentive to Archive? Protect assets, continuing value of material as it ages Low additional overhead Satisfy customers Risk tolerance; sustainable loss As calling card for or bi-product of services

12. Meeting Results All publishers intend to establish archives Shift from content currency to database development Publishers see revenue stream in retrospective holdings Publishers less concerned than librarians about “artifactual” archiving

13. Meeting Results Differing perceptions around who should do digital preservation Librarians want trusted third-party archiving Publishers insufficiently aware that others don’t trust them to safeguard materials and insufficiently aware of what it takes to archive Distrust of government (competition)

14. Meeting Results Publishers not enthusiastic about “lit” archives—some would consider it if revenue returned to publisher Convergence in formats Reluctance to force authors to conform Unwilling to share proprietary publisher DTD Willing to consider archival DTD as another output

15. Trigger Events None acknowledged by publishers Technology watersheds: –Retrofitting legacy digital files –When paper no longer represents access and preservation alternative for electronic

16. SBDA triggers Different subject domains have different half-lives When common interests outweigh individual interests Stakeholder pressure: when detrimental not to participate

17. Access and Funding Publishers and librarians went into the meeting presuming different things Publishers differed on access issues Librarians asserted that publishers would have to finance dark archives

18. SBDA Distinguishes Between Metadata and Data Dark metadata/dark data Light metadata/light data Light metadata/dark data Light metadata/no data Multiple options for different publishers and audiences

19. SBDA Hybrid Model Ultimate goal is lightness Comprehensiveness and buy-in trumps lightness Commonality over distinctiveness emphasized Hybrid model enables combinations of light to dark metadata and data Access to metadata/data will change over time and in response to particular circumstances Offers win/win possibilities

20. Possible Sustainability Models Preservation surcharge on subscription Preservation endowment Bartered access privileges for preservation Business insurance policy model Government support

21. Preservation pledge drives Possible Sustainability Models

22. Develop new markets Harness the free riders Charge for services, not content and archiving Build value-adds on the SBDA

23. Next Steps Developing subject domain profile Surveying agricultural publishers to determine level of cooperation in SBDA Evaluating existing architectural models Writing CLIR report on the significance of the SBDA

24. Subject-based Profile Who are the stakeholders? How many publishers? Research demographics of new user groups? How big is the field? How structured and defined is it? What’s important? Why? Change driven by discipline and by technology How standardized is the literature? (xml, etc) How complex/fixed is it? (database, virtual) Who owns rights for re-use? Assessment of economic, first-use, citations, second use, technology

25. How Willing to Cooperate? Pre- and post-competitive collaboration Standardized, normalized, and limited number of formats Preservation from conception (requirements of authors; shut off point for non cooperation) Archival DTD Preservation metadata

26. How Willing to Cooperate? Self certification/ external certification Light (and common) metadata, move toward light data (monitoring with scheduling) Economy of scale Willing to financially support the effort