 |
 |
Hi Chris, I'd echo Andy's comment that you should separate out the question of preservation from the use of OAIS and that any preservation question should assess resourcing. I'd add that if you're interested in the use of OAIS as a reference model it may be useful to have a finer gradation of use; I'm not sure 'actual'/'intended' would capture it purely because OAIS is quite vague about what constitutes compliance or use (unless I'm mistaken), how about: *I haven't heard of OAIS *My repository does not engage with OAIS *My repository borrows concepts from OAIS that are helpful (thinks about AIP,SIP,DIP and a couple of the diagrams but doesn't consider the full model) *My repository takes a lightweight approach to OAIS (has gone through the model, thought about the questions, and how they apply to structures/systems) *My repository design is based on the OAIS model *Other The digital library requirements specification produced by the SAFIR project at University of York provides an interesting example of the use of OAIS by a repository - they engage with OAIS in about 8 pages and use this analysis as the basis of their subsequent technical specification. https://vle.york.ac.uk/bbcswebdav/xid-89716_3 (link to pdf). John -- R. John Robertson skype: rjohnrobertson Repositories Research Officer (JISCCETIS), Centre for Academic Practice and Learning Enhancement University of Strathclyde Tel: +44 (0) 141 548 3072 http://blogs.cetis.ac.uk/johnr/ The University of Strathclyde is a charitable body, registered in Scotland, with registration number SC015263 -----Original Message----- From: Repositories discussion list [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Andy Powell Sent: 10 March 2009 10:16 To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: [Digital Curation Blog] Repository preservation revisited If you are interested in both 1) peoples attitudes and intentions w.r.t. long term preservation and 2) people's attitudes to OAIS as a helpful mechanism to achieve that then I'd be tempted to separate out those two things into different questions. Something like: - My repository is resourced and is intended to keep its contents accessible and usable for the long term, through potential technology and community changes. - My repository is resourced and is intended to keep its contents accessible and usable unless there are significant changes in technology or community. - Some other choice, please explain in free text - The OAIS reference model is used for the planning and measurement of the preservation-related aspects of my repository. (The last question could be separated into 'actualy use' and 'desired use' I suppose?) It might also be interesting to be able to separate out answers from actual repository managers (people with direct responsibility for delivering repository services if you prefer) vs other interested parties? Andy -- Research Programme Director, Eduserv http://www.eduserv.org.uk/research http://efoundations.typepad.com http://twitter.com/andypowe11 +44 (0)1225 474319 > -----Original Message----- > From: Repositories discussion list > [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Chris Rusbridge > Sent: 09 March 2009 18:27 > To: [log in to unmask] > Subject: Fwd: [Digital Curation Blog] Repository preservation > revisited > > Are institutional repositories set up and resourced to > preserve their contents over the long term? Potentially > contradictory evidence has emerged from my various questions > related to this topic. > > You may remember that on the Digital Curation Blog and the > JISC- Repositories JISCmail list on 23 February 2009, I > referred to some feedback from two Ideas (here and here) on > the JISC Ideascale site last year, and asked 3 further > questions relating to repository managers' views of the > intentions of their repositories. Given a low rate of > response to the original posting (which asked for votes on > the original Ideascale site), I followed this up on the JISC- > Repositories list (but through oversight, not on the blog), > offering the same 3 questions in a Doodle poll. The results > of the several different votes appear contradictory, although > I hope we can glean something useful from them. > > I should emphasise that this is definitely not > methodologically sound research; in fact, there are > methodological holes here large enough to drive a Mack truck > through! Nevertheless, we may be able to glean something > useful. To recap, here are the various questions I asked, > with a brief description of their audience, plus the outcomes: > > a) Audience, JISC-selected "expert" group of developers, > repository managers and assorted luminaries. Second point is > the same audience, a little later. > > - Idea: "The repository should be a full OAIS [CCSDS 2002] > preservation system." Result 3 votes in favour, 16 votes against, net > -13 votes. > - Idea: "Repository should aspire to make contents accessible > and usable over the medium term." Result: 13 votes in favour, > 1 vote against, net +12 votes. > > b) Audience JISC-Repositories list and Digital Curation Blog > readership. Three Ideas on Ideascale, with the results shown > (note, respondents did not need to identify themselves): > > - My repository does not aim for accessibility and/or > usability of its contents beyond the short term (say 3 > years). Result 2 votes in favour, none against. > - My repository aims for accessibility and/or usability of > its contents for the medium term (say 4 to 10 years). Result > 5 votes in favour, none against. > - My repository aims for accessibility and/or usability of > its contents for the long term (say greater than 10 years). > Result 8 votes in favour, 1 vote against, net +7 votes. > > A further comment was left on the Digital Curation Blog, to > the effect that since most repository managers were mainly > seeing deposit of PDFs, they felt (perhaps naively) > sufficiently confident to assume these would be useable for 10 years. > > c) Audience JISC-Repositories list. Three exclusive options > on a Doodle poll, exact wording as in (c), no option to vote > against any option, with the results shown below (note, > Doodle asks respondents to provide a name and most did, with > affiliation, although there is no validation of the name supplied): > > - My repository does not aim for accessibility and/or > usability of its contents beyond the short term (say 3 > years). Result 1 vote in favour. > - My repository aims for accessibility and/or usability of > its contents for the medium term (say 4 to 10 years). Result > 0 votes in favour. > - My repository aims for accessibility and/or usability of > its contents for the long term (say greater than 10 years). > Result 22 votes in favour. > > I guess the first thing is to notice the differences between > the 3 sets of results. The first would imply that long term > is definitely off the agenda, and medium term is reasonable. > The second is 50-50 split between long term and the > short/medium term combination. The third is overwhelmingly in > favour of long term (as defined). > > By now you can also see at least some of the methodological > problems, including differing audiences, differing anonymity, > and differing wording (firstly in relation to the use of the > term "OAIS", and secondly in relation to the timescales > attached to short, medium and long term). So, you can draw > your own conclusions, including that none can be drawn from > the available data! > > Note, I would not draw any conclusions from the actual > numerical votes on their own, but perhaps we can from the > values within each group. However, ever hasty if not > foolhardy, here are my own tentative interpretations: > > - First, even "experts" are alarmed at the potential > implications of the term "OAIS". > - Second, repository managers don't believe that keeping > resources accessible and/or usable for 10 years (in the > context of the types of material they currently manage in > repositories) will give them major problems. > - Third, repository managers don't identify "accessibility > and/or usability of its contents for the long term" as > implying the mechanisms of an OAIS (this is perhaps rather a > stretch given my second conclusion). > > So, where to next? I'm thinking of asking some further > questions, again of the JISC-Repositories list and the > audience of the Digital Curation Blog. However, this time I'm > asking for feedback on the questions, before setting up the > Doodle poll. My draft texts are > > - My repository is resourced and is intended to keep its > contents accessible and usable for the long term, through > potential technology and community changes, implying at least > some of the requirements of an OAIS. > - My repository is resourced and is intended to keep its > contents accessible and usable unless there are significant > changes in technology or community, ie it does not aim to be an OAIS. > - Some other choice, please explain in free text... > > Are those reasonable questions? Or perhaps, please help me > improve them! > > This post is made both to the Digital Curation Blog and to > the JISC- repositories list... > > OAIS: CCSDS. (2002). Reference Model for an Open Archival > Information System (OAIS). Retrieved from > http://public.ccsds.org/publications/ > archive/650x0b1.pdf. > > -- > 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. >