Not much luck so far getting responses; a total of 8 votes. That's 4  
for long term, and 2 each for medium and short term. I think there  
are more than 8 of you out there (;-)!

Thinking that it's possible the Ideascale site is putting people off,  
I've created a Doodle poll with the same questions in it, at http:// 
www.doodle.com/qswrycxhmx3y458e.

Do please vote, if you are a repository manager (or can represent  
one) and haven't voted yet. I'll combine the two sources, but if you  
want to comment, do so either on this list, on the Ideascale site  
(URIs below), or the related blog post at http:// 
digitalcuration.blogspot.com/2009/02/repositories-and-preservation.html.

Thanks,

--
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.



On 23 Feb 2009, at 17:38, Chris Rusbridge wrote:

> 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.
>