These are very good points, indeed!
Repository systems like DSpace are good cases of "content management" tools,
but barely can be claimed to address any specific preservation requirement.
But sometimes it is hard for people to gains a conscientiousness of that!
I still remember when I was working at the National Library of Portugal and
had to stop saying that our Digital Library was targeted to resource discovery
and access, and not to preservation. People could not understand why were we
trying so hard to stress our "incompetency" in that area, so after some time I
simply found it easier to align with the mainstream and say that we were also
in that business (after all, was easy, as we were using METS... and as OAIS is
simply a way to explain how a computing system works, it also was easy to
demonstrate that we were OAIS complaint -and so everyone was happy... but me!)
IMHO the purpose of an institutional repository is "simply" to support a
content management processes, which is a business purpose common to many areas
of activity, and not only to academia and research. Now, if in the scope of
that business purpose an organization also decides to define long-term
preservation purposes and presents the related requirements, IMHO that is
other business! Of course that if we have a properly designed Enterprise
Architecture we must govern all the processes, contents and technological
solutions properly aligned, but that should be just like with accounting,
inventory, etc...
So I totally subscribe Steve's arguments!
José Borbinha
(INESC-ID / IST)
-----Original Message-----
From: Repositories discussion list [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
On Behalf Of Steve Hitchcock
Sent: Tuesday, March 10, 2009 1:49 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [Digital Curation Blog] Repository preservation revisited
There has long been a misunderstanding that repositories, or effectively
repository software, should do preservation. When we look at the resources
currently available to repositories, in terms of the number of people managing
and working for a repository and the skills they bring, or in terms of support
built into software, this is unlikely.
Instead we need to be cultivating a services-based approach. The repository
goals should align with what matters to them, i.e. data management today and
into the future. From this they can develop a strategy for reliable
longer-term data management. This sounds like preservation, but is not quite
the same, and I suspect is more easily accommodated by repository thinking and
practicalities.
This approach enables the repository to prioritise. Importantly it must
prioritise against resources. Another common misunderstanding is that we
should idealise the concept of preservation to do what must be done at all
costs rather than what can be done against real costs.
From this analysis the repository could in principle work with a preservation
service provider to put the requirements into practice.
It has to be a two-party approach, however. The other danger, as was evident
at the recent DPC meeting on repository preservation, is that preservation is
seen as too complex to understand in its fullness so repositories will look
for a services solution that simply takes the problem away. This overlooks the
need for an informed requirements analysis in order to be able to specify the
service the repository would like to be provided with and can afford.
We need to help repositories identify what they need to know to get to an
informed two-party arrangement of this sort rather than coaxing them towards
becoming preservation experts.
So as Andy and John have said, we need to separate what matters to the
repository, data management, from the practice of preservation and all that
involves, OAIS, etc. One is for the repository, one for the specialist. We
shouldn't be afraid to recognise this.
As has been pointed out, different versions of Chris's survey mix these issues
up, somewhat surprisingly since Chris has been ahead of most of us in
questioning approaches and terminologies used in preservation, especially with
a view to widening the reach of preservation practice to different audiences.
I'm doubtful about the value of surveys that ask people what they think, which
tend to prevail in this area ('yes, I agree preservation is terribly
important'), rather than what they do ('no, I don't do anything about
preservation except demand pdf, and I don't have so much as a policy to guide
my decisons')
<http://preserv.eprints.org/papers/survey/survey-results.html>http://preserv.e
prints.org/papers/survey/survey-results.html
Steve Hitchcock
Preserv Project Manager
IAM Group, School of Electronics and Computer Science University of
Southampton, SO17 1BJ, UK
Email: [log in to unmask]
Tel: +44 (0)23 8059 7698 Fax: +44 (0)23 8059 2865
http://preserv.eprints.org/
At 11:18 10/03/2009, Robert Robertson wrote:
>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.
> >
|
