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 2009
2
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 2009
3
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 2009
4
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 2009
5
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%), email (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 2009
6
ETDs:




80% accept ETDs; 40% only accept ETDs
Range: 22-60 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 2009
7
Formats (ETD & Cultural Memory)
ETD
.ppt
.qt
.tif
.xml
.wav
.png
.pdf
.mpg
.mp3
.aif
.avi
.doc
.gif
Cultural Memory
.html
.jpg
.mov
.dwt
.xls
.csv
.zip
.mix
.snd
.tex
.txt
.midi
.exe
.jar
MetaArchive 2009
JP2
.ps
Textual documents
Databases
Still images
Video
Audio
GIS
Websites
Email
Computer games
Science data
Publications
Presentation materials
8
Platforms (ETD & Cultural Mem.)
ETDdb
Eprints
Fedora
DSpace
Archimede
bepress/
Digital Commons
CONTENTdm
Cybertesis
Dias
DigiTool
DLXS
ProQuest
MetaArchive 2009
MS Access
Excel
SRB
ResCarta
Augias-data
Cumulus
CollectiveAccess
Windows Explorer
IRODS
Filesystem
ArchivalWare
Filemaker Pro
iTunes
9
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%)
ETD
All in one directory (28%)
Date (26%)
Departments, Authors, or
Disciplines (26%)
Access-level labels (7%)
Don’t know (13%)
*some Cultural Memory respondents selected multiple ways
MetaArchive 2009
10

Variation is the theme
 Infrastructures
 Data Structures
Presents preservation challenges, to be sure!
MetaArchive 2009
11
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 2009
12
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 2009
13
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 2009
14



CMO’s engaging actively with the idea of
digital preservation
High level of knowledge about communitybased 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 2009
15
What are the biggest barriers to preservation?






Growth of digital collection
Backups. NOT
File formats
Platforms
Structures. NOT
Lack of documented policies, procedures
MetaArchive 2009
16
What are the threats identified by our
survey respondents?
MetaArchive 2009
17
What are the most desired preservation
offerings?
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Training provided by professional
organizations
Independent study/assessment
Local courses in computer or digital
technology
Hire staff with digital knowledge experience
Hire consultants
Training provided by vendors
MetaArchive 2009
18
The MetaArchive Cooperative

The most effective preservation strategies
incorporate
 replication of content
 geographically distributed
 secure locations
 private network of trusted partners
MetaArchive 2009
19
Desirable Preservation Service
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Cooperative preservation network
Standards
Training: Best practices, inc. technical
Model policies
Conversion or migration services
Preservation services provided by third
party vendors
Access services
MetaArchive 2009
20
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 2009
21
Katherine Skinner
katherine.skinner@emory.edu
Gail McMillan
gailmac@vt.edu
MetaArchive 2009
22