1. Tyler Walters Dean, University Libraries and Professor Virginia Tech July 18, 2013 Collaboratively Preserving Our Digital Memory

2.  History and Current Practices  Philosophy  Research  Practical Application Walters 2013 2

3.  Distributed digital preservation cooperative  Founded 2004  Supported by NDIIPP, NHPRC, NEH, IMLS  Preservation aims: prevent loss and corruption from human malice/error or from a disaster  First preservation network to preserve special collections/unique materials 3 Walters 2013

4.  Basic processes  “Producer” (OAIS) determines curation practices; brings SIPs to MetaArchive (low entry barriers)  Multiple copies of AIPs, dispersed across geographical, political, and environmental lines  Checks and repairs automated across network  Handles versioning, deaccession gracefully Walters 2013 4

5.  60 member institutions in four countries  Public, private, and academic libraries  200+ TB network preserving 1000+ AUs (collections)  Ingest via webcrawl or BagIt  Regular testing of restoration processes  TRAC audit 2010; will pursue certification under ISO 16363 once there are certified auditors (ISO 16919 not yet approved) Walters 2013 5

6. 6 Auburn University Boston College Carnegie Mellon University Clemson University Consorci de Biblioteques Universitaries de Catalunya Florida State University Folger Shakespeare Library GALILEO Knowledge Repository Georgia Tech Greene County Public Library HBCU Library Alliance Indiana State University Library of Congress Oregon State University Penn State University Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Rio de Janeiro Purdue University Rice University University of Hull University of Louisville University of North Texas University of South Carolina University of Tennessee Virginia Tech Auburn University Boston College Carnegie Mellon University Clemson University Consorci de Biblioteques Universitaries de Catalunya Florida State University Folger Shakespeare Library GALILEO Knowledge Repository Georgia Tech Greene County Public Library HBCU Library Alliance Indiana State University Library of Congress Oregon State University Penn State University Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Rio de Janeiro Purdue University Rice University University of Hull University of Louisville University of North Texas University of South Carolina University of Tennessee Virginia Tech

7.  Three membership levels  Collaborative members: $2.5K/year  Preservation members: $3K/year  Sustaining members: $5.5K/year  Server cost: <$5K/3 years  Storage cost: $1K/TB/year 7 Walters 2013

8.  Undertake a 3-year membership term;  Take responsibility for content preparation, evaluation, staging, and plugin development;  Monitor collections to ensure accurate long- term preservation;  Host and maintain a MetaArchive cache 8 Walters 2013

9.  Common, neutral center  Distribution of work  Community of engagement  Building knowledge  Accomplishing preservation  Concentrated effort toward unified goal 9 Walters 2013

10.  Founded on the premise that memory organizations should maintain their historical role as cultural stewards  Preservation of digital assets as corollary to preserving physical ones  Need in house expertise and knowledge  Value of curators and librarians and archivists  Chose technical and organizational infrastructure that capitalizes on memory organization proven methodologies  Distributed preservation  Partnership to keep costing affordable 10 Walters 2013

11.  MetaArchive is a cooperative, not a vendor:  All hardware and software assets are owned by members  Membership fees and storage fees go to a central pool of support for members’ co-op activities 11 Walters 2013

12.  Compatible with any repository system  E.g., Dspace, Fedora, Archivalware, ETDb, CONTENTdm, BePress, etc  Member institutions determine their own curatorial practices  MetaArchive is a community of support to help them make informed decisions 12 Walters 2013

13.  Reducing short- and long-term costs  Investing in a commonly-owned solution, not purchasing a service  Sharing technological development and organizational tasks  Decentralizing activities  Safety in digital preservation may well reside in shared knowledge and shared commitment  Decreasing silos; increasing interdependence  There is room for various types of solutions  Increased capacity for acting as a community of cultural stewards 13 Walters 2013

14.  Chronicles in Preservation (NEH, 2012-14)  Deliverables: Guidelines, Comparative Analysis of Distributed Digital Preservation Frameworks, Interoperability Tools  Lifecycle Management for ETDs (IMLS, 2012- 14)  Guidance Documents, Workshop and Training Materials, Lifecycle Management Tools Walters 2013 14

15.  Distributed Digital Preservation Frameworks (Royal Library of Denmark/Educopia, 2011-2013)  Partnership with DDP practitioners (Internet Archive, Royal Library Denmark, Chronopolis, DuraCloud, etc)  Establishing framework for evaluating/auditing distributed preservation environments  ICONC (Library of Congress, 2013)  Deliverables: surveys and reports on gaps and opportunities for collaborative preservation 15 Walters 2013

16.  Based on ANADP volume (SAA digital preservation publication award winner 2013) and alignment tracks charted therein  Action assembly—highly participatory event  Studying and actualizing alignment trajectories across nations and sectors Walters 2013 16

17.  NHPRC: Earlier research with Chronopolis: created business plan and exit strategy  ICONC: identifying gaps/opportunities for preservation alignment activities  NEH/IMLS projects:  BagIt implementation  Curation guidelines to facilitate proper SIP preparation  (Matt, fill in) Walters 2013 17