I have a question about how repository managers view their role in  
relation to long term preservation.

I’m a member of the Blue Ribbon Task Force on Sustainable Digital  
Preservation and Access (hereafter BRTF). At our monthly  
teleconference last week, we were talking about preservation  
scenarios, and I suggested the Institutional Repository system,  
adding that my investigations had shown that repository managers did  
not (generally) feel they had long term preservation in their brief.  
There was some consternation at this, and a question as to whether  
this was based on UK repositories, as there was an expressed feeling  
that US repositories generally would have preservation as an aim.

My comment was based on a number of ad hoc observations and  
discussions over the years. But more recently I reported in an  
analysis of commentary on my Research repository System ideas (see  
http://digitalcuration.blogspot.com/search/label/Research%20Repository 
%20System) on discussions that had taken place on Ideascale last  
year, during preparatory work for a revision of the JISC Repositories  
Roadmap.

In this Ideascale discussion, I put forward an Idea relating to Long  
Term preservation: “The repository should be a full OAIS preservation  
system”, with the text: “We should at least have this on the table. I  
think repositories are good for preservation, but the question here  
is whether they should go much further than they currently do in  
attempting to invest now to combat the effects of later technology  
and designated community knowledge base change...” See  http:// 
jiscrepository.ideascale.com/akira/dtd/2276-784. This Idea turned out  
to be the most unpopular Idea in the entire discussion, now having  
gathered only 3 votes for and 16 votes against (net -13).

Rather shocked at this, I formulated another Idea, see http:// 
jiscrepository.ideascale.com/akira/dtd/2643-784: “Repository should  
aspire to make contents accessible and usable over the medium term”,  
with the text: “A repository should be for content which is required  
and expected to be useful over a significant period. It may host more  
transient content, but by and large the point of a repository is  
persistence. While suggesting a repository should be a "full OAIS"  
has not proved acceptable to this group so far, investment in a  
repository and this need for persistence suggest that repository  
managers should aim to make their content both accessible and usable  
over the medium (rather than short) term. For the purposes of this  
exercise, let's suggest factors of around 3: short term 3 years,  
medium term around 10 years, long term around 30 years plus. Ten  
years is a reasonable period to aspire to; it justifies investment,  
but is unlikely to cover too many major content migrations.

“To achieve this, I think repository management should assess their  
repository and its policies. Using OAIS at a high level as a yard  
stick would be appropriate. Full compliance would not be required,  
but thought to each major concept and element would be good practice.”

This Idea was much more successful, with 13 votes for and only one  
vote against, for a net positive 12 votes. (For comparison, the most  
popular Idea, “Define repository as part of the user’s (author/ 
researcher/learner) workflow” received 31 votes for and 3 against,  
net 28.)

Now it may be that the way the first Idea was phrased was the cause  
of its unpopularity. It appears that the 4 letters OAIS turn a lot of  
people off!

So, here are 3 possible statements:

1) My repository does not aim for accessibility and/or usability of  
its contents beyond the short term (say 3 years) (http:// 
jiscrepository.ideascale.com/akira/dtd/14100-784 )

2) My repository aims for accessibility and/or usability of its  
contents for the medium term (say 4 to 10 years) (http:// 
jiscrepository.ideascale.com/akira/dtd/14101-784 )

3) My repository aims for accessibility and/or usability of its  
contents for the long term (say greater than 10 years). (http:// 
jiscrepository.ideascale.com/akira/dtd/14102-784 )

Could repository managers tell me which they feel is the appropriate  
answer for them? Just click on the appropriate URI and vote it up  
(you may have to register, I’m not sure).

(ermmm, I hope JISC doesn’t mind my using the site like that… I think  
it’s within the original spirit!)

(This will also be a blog post...)

--
Chris Rusbridge
Director, Digital Curation Centre
Email: [log in to unmask]    Phone 0131 6513823
University of Edinburgh
Appleton Tower, Crichton St, Edinburgh EH8 9LE

The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in  
Scotland, with registration number SC005336.