[RLG logo] This site was frozen in 2004 and is now out of date. Please go to RLG's current Web site for all information. Questions? Contact us.

RLG and Preservation

RLG Preservation Working Group on Digital Archiving

Final Report: Recommendations for RLG
 January 14, 1998

INTRODUCTION

The Research Libraries Group and the Commission on Preservation and Access jointly supported a task force to produce a set of recommendations on ensuring the long-term preservation of digital information . Comments on the draft report were received from a variety of sources and a final report was published in Spring 1996.

In March of 1997 a new group, the RLG Preservation Working Group on Digital Archiving, was appointed with the purpose of reviewing the joint RLG/CPA report, Preserving Digital Inf ormation, assessing the responses and work plans from the United Kingdom, Australia and elsewhere, and making recommendations to RLG for further action. The formal charge to this group can be found on RLG's web site <w ww.rlg.org>. The group's preliminary report was presented at the RLG Annual Meeting in May of 1997 and distributed widely among the RLG membership for input to further guide the work of the group. The Working Group was informed by these comments and incorporated many of them in the Final Report.

In the Final Report, the Working Group recommends RLG give priority and immediate attention to three critical areas and proposes specific actions to be taken. These areas were drawn from the Preliminary Report which identified six potential areas where an RLG role would be useful to move the digital archiving agenda forward. Each of these areas was followed by notes suggesting possible ways work might be undertaken. Since all areas cannot be undertaken at this time, the Preliminary Report is appended to ensure this information remain available for possible future activities.

RECOMMENDED AREAS FOR RLG ACTION:


Area #1: Identify and analyze the digital archiving needs of RLG member institutions.

RLG should identify and better quantify the kinds of services members need to continue meeting their institutional mission in an increasingly electronic environment. The RLG membership consists of diverse, international institution s with wide-ranging needs and differing levels of expertise and technical capacity. The analysis must take into account these institutional and international variations as well as considering long-term storage needs and the required a ccess to both locally created and owned electronic data.

Tasks:

a. Develop a survey instrument to gather and analyze data about needed services. These might include services for the management of metadata about digital holdings of member institutions, the preservation of common or shared coll ections, the preservation of digital objects in specialized formats, the conversion of digital materials from obsolete formats, or a cooperative/consortial digital archiving facility.
b. Test the survey instrument, administer the survey to RLG member institutions, and compile and analyze results.
c. Prepare final report with data that informs and feeds directly into the work proposed in Area #2 below.

Time Frame: The project could be done in 4 months or one academic semester. Work could begin by January, 1998 and be completed by Spring/Summer 1998.

Working Group: This work could be contracted as a graduate or internship research project with appropriate management and project oversight. The Working Group recommends the project be coordinated by Margaret Hedst rom, Associate Professor at the School of Information, University of Michigan, and a member of the working group

Outcomes:

Survey Complete. Final report, Digital Preservation Needs and Requirements in RLG Member Institutions now available.


Area #2: Examine and evaluate existing models for managing digital archiving facilities to determine models that can be adopted by member institutions and implemented by RLG to satisfy member n .

A selected group of existing digital repositories should be examined in detail for their policies, procedures, and strategies for managing their digital archiving facilities and services. A summary of the common denominators, speci fic strategies, and best practices can be used to define models for the digital library community. Models will be compared to member survey data to determine which elements are applicable and can be implemented to meet the archiving n eeds of RLG members.

Below is a working group charge and a specific set of tasks to accomplish the proposed work.

Charge to the Working Group:

Tasks:

a. Identify a variety of existing, successful digital repositories representing a range of formats, users, and practices. Possible sites include: the Essex Data Archive; Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Resea rch (ICPSR); a scholarly society that is preserving electronic journals (American Physical Society, Association of Computing Machinery, Institute Of Electrical And Electronics Engineers); a commercial publisher; a pharmaceutical compan y (Pfizer, Astra); a scientific database (Hubble Space Telescope data archive, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration database, National Space Science Data Center); a film producer (Dreamworks); the Council on Library Resource s' Digital Library Federation program; Consortium of University Research Libraries'' CEDARS Project; etc.
b. Collect and analyze reports, policies, procedures, etc. and analyze public service interfaces where they exist.
c. Develop a survey instrument to collect data on the types of materials currently being archived; selection and appraisal criteria; preservation formats; description and cataloging practices; migration strategies, experiences and associated costs; hardware and software used; search and retrieval capabilities; charge-back policies to owners and/or users of digital materials; usage fees or charges; size and capacity; standards; costs for equipment, maintenance, and storage; types of expertise required to operate the repository; sources and amount of funding; and types and extent of user services.
d. Summarize the data to find common denominators and identify specific strategies that could be replicated and that would meet the needs of member institutions.
e. Identify gaps between what current models cover and what members need (based on survey results); recommend ways to address those gaps.
f. Prepare final report with recommended models that include requirements (systems, personnel, policies) and estimated costs for implementation.

Time Frame: This work can be carried out simultaneously with the work in Area #1. Work can be completed by Fall, 1998.

Working Group: To be appointed. Representation will be international in scope, with members recruited from key projects and programs.

Outcomes:

  • Assembled information about existing archiving models that brings together in a useful way information about best practices and lessons.
  • Recommended archiving model(s) that have been selected for their applicability or modified to meet the specific needs of RLG member institutions and the digital library community.
  • Information about requirements and costs for implementation.


Area #3: Develop guidelines for appraisal, selection, and priority setting for preserving information in digital form.

RLG should appoint a task force of archivists, curators/collection development managers, and preservation administrators to formulate appraisal guidelines for digital materials. This task force should be formed under the leadership of RLG's Primary Sources program and be integrated into their strategic action plan.

The task force should pay particular attention to information resources which exist exclusively in digital form or where digital formats offer distinct advantages over paper or analog formats.

Guidelines for preserving digital materials should be coordinated with broad appraisal and selection guidelines for archival and library materials. The task force should investigate mechanisms for distributing selection and preserv ation responsibilities among different institutions based on subject areas, formats, or particular user communities.

Charge to the Working Group:

Tasks:

a. Appoint a task force of interested members who are involved in appraisal, selection and preservation of digital materials.
b. Survey, collect and analyze existing guidelines in this area.
c. Prepare a draft set of guidelines based on good existing examples or recommended best practices.
d. Circulate draft guidelines for comment to wider group of members.
e. Analyze comments and incorporate changes to the guidelines as appropriate.
f. Issue set of guidelines that could be used in multiple kinds of institutions.
g. Revisit the guidelines on a regular basis to ensure they are kept in line with the latest information available on long-term preservation of digital materials.

Time Frame: The work should be completed within a year of appointing the task force.

Working Group members: To be appointed. Membership should include representation from archival, collection development, and preservation areas. At least one representative from the PRESERV community with appropria te expertise will be included.

Outcomes:

ATTACHMENTS:

Draft Report - May 6, 1997
List of Working Group Members
Working Group Charge


Find more at the digital preservation initiative home page.

Last updated May 1998

This site was frozen in 2004 and is now out of date. Please go to RLG's current Web site for all information. Questions? Contact us.

HOME | SEARCH | CONTACTS | USER SUPPORT