William Kilbride from the DPC asked the audience what were their main concerns and some of the answers were: obsolescence and migration issues; partners links; storage requirements; business cases and funding development. He explained the challenges for preserving digital data; the value and opportunities that preservation creates and the key approaches to achieve digital preservation (migration; emulation; hardware preservation and exhumation) as well as the risk management approach.

Our own Patricia Sleeman from ULCC explained clearly and with a very interesting example how to use the OAIS model for preserving our personal archive of photos, giving us some light on how to start and how to avoid losing crucial data.

She described the OAIS model as a tool that develops consensus from different sectors providing shared vocabulary, bringing everybody together. We were shown how an information package (digital object, metadata, packaging information which related digital object and metadata) travels through the OAIS model using a photographic archive example for the SIP, AIP and DIP stages. We had the opportunity to see other models from Portico and DCC

Bram Van Der Werf from Open PLANETS Foundation presented and demonstrated the Plato tool . He raised the need for more technical background connected to archival training paths. He welcomed the attendees to participate on the content community at Open Planets Foundation.

Caroline Peach from BLPAC gave us the opportunity to use a preservation plan. We spent time with a working example to identify the plan, its status and triggers, description of the institutional setting and the collection, requirements for preservation, evidence of decision for a preservation strategy, costs, roles and responsibilities. We had to think about what is important about the digital access we want to preserve. We used the PLATO tool to assess the preservation plan and its collection.

Ed Fay from LSE explained in detail how they got to preserve the born digital and digitized collections; and how they maintain the Institutional Repository. Initially, they established user requirements and security analysis to establish where they were in the digital preservation process. They had to investigate all the formats and their backups at the LSE data centre and he praised the robust service and infrastructure from the LSE Information Services Department to maintain their secure digital library. He briefly explained the use of checksum creation and verification with MD5. In conclusion, we saw that the LSE digital Library is flexible extensible and modular. They have a transparent process for decision making so if any changes in the technical infrastructure, everything is well documented and there is an excellent engagement throughout the institution for the purpose of digital preservation.

Other Resources and Training:
DPC events
AIDA
DPTP
PRONOM
National Library of New Zealand metadata extraction tool
BagIt
JHOVE
DPC
PADI
Library of Congress
Gloucestershire Archives
Archivematica
UKLON
ULCC
Repositories Support Project
#starting_dp at Twitter

The Digital Preservation Coalition are also generously giving three, yes THREE scholarships to attend the DPTP. Once again open to DPC members. Remember folks, this can include your institution or your professional association.

Hope to see some of you there!

My naïve thinking in the area has been characterised by the assumption that the process is rather static or linear, and that the problem we’re facing is broadly the same every time; migrate data from a format that’s about to become obsolete or unsupported, onto another format that’s stable, supported, and open. MS Word document to PDF or PDF/A…now that, I can understand!

In fact, I learned at least two ways of thinking about formats that hadn’t occurred to me before. One simple one is costs; some formats can cost more to preserve than others. This can be calculated in terms of storage costs, multiplied over time, and the costs associated with migrations to new versions of that format. For example, we’ve tended to pin our faith on the TIFF format for images for many reasons, but there’s a high storage price to be paid for all that wonderful losslessness. This may be one reason why the DP world is looking with more favour on the JPEG2000 format, which is ‘virtually’ lossless and smaller in size.

Secondly, the problems of preserving digital data which doesn’t actually have a specified stable preservation format. Chris Puttick of Oxford Archaeology gave a vivid description of the problems he’s facing with CAD and GIS files, where the data can’t easily be tied to a single format in the first place (nor can a stable format for migration be identified). As the NLA put it on their PADI page, “At present there is little dealing specifically or comprehensively with the preservation of this particular type of data, although some aspects of database preservation are applicable to GIS. Some long term preservation issues include a lack of open source formats and metadata standards, large data volume and complex data objects.” Puttick suggests that his data doesn’t really perform at all unless it’s operated within a very specific environment of hardware and software. How do we preserve an environment? This appears to be quite a distinct preservation problem and much harder to solve than Word to PDF, to put it mildly.

William Kilbride suggested that such cases (and websites too, arguably, because they are time-based) are more like a stream of data – a handy image which conveys something about the dynamic of such information packages, and showing us that it’s much harder to nail them down into a single format. You can never step into the same river twice.

We had a brief preview of the new DPC website, which promises to be a much more effective mechanism for the membership to engage with each other and the wider world, and confirmed recommendations emerging from a planning day earlier in November which should keep the DPC busy (and financially secure) for a few years to come.

Finally, we had an entertaining and thought-provoking talk from Professor Michael Anderson. Professor Anderson touched on many issues relating to digital preservation from his research career, past and present. He mourned the loss of Scottish census microdata from 1951 and 1961, painstakingly copied to magnetic tape from round-holed punch cards for 1951 and standard cards for 1961, which had to be destroyed when ONS realised the potential for inadvertent disclosure of personal information. But more tellingly, he described the loss, or partial loss, of data closer to home for him, and which has implications for research publications underpinned by data. For a spreadsheet of fertility data for Scotland, no copy survives of the raw underlying data although many derived and aggregated copies exist. For other material, the data is still available but he is slowly losing the ability to do what he wants with it, as applications designed for 1980s-era Macintosh systems find it more and more difficult to operate properly under contemporary operating systems.

These problems are frustrating for specialists to hear about because we know they could have been resolved easily and cheaply if intervention took place early enough. The spreadsheet has been lost, it appears, because it seemed to difficult to access after one change of technology, so its owner simply destroyed it. The primary problem here, then, is one of advocacy rather than technology.

Professor Anderson also talked of two familiar barriers to the deposit of research data: the unwillingness to deposit data seen as being insufficiently polished for re-use, and the lack of reward or recognition for data depositors, as opposed to those who publish papers based on the data. Although he didn’t offer answers, he did make clear that this is a problem which has been with us for a long time. He ended with a plea to librarians and others to ensure that the type of publication he wants to produce now – such as publications containing actionable data – can be preserved and accessed in future more easily than some of the data that’s already been lost.

I had to leave shortly after a lively discussion had begun, which was a shame, As well as reassuring Professor Anderson that the 1961 census microdata were safe, I would have liked to thank him for his work in initiating the Research Support Libraries Programme (of which Ronald Milne was the director) which provided the funding to establish AIM25 – a service that’s still going strong over 10 years later, and which we’re proud to be involved with.

But I digress. I’m here to write about some outcomes from Friday’s DPC board meeting. Encouragingly, it looks likely that the digital preservation award will return in November 2010, although some hurdles remain to be overcome. It’s quite possible that some aspects (such as eligibility or marking criteria) may change. Watch out for news late this year or early next. In the meantime, if you have views on what would make the awards more interesting or relevant to you, and particularly on what might encourage you to enter, do let me or the DPC know.

The joint Society of Archivists’s digital preservation roadshows (supported by DPC, TNA, Planets and Cymal) have been extremely popular, with some events over-subscribed. They are proving a great way to get basic, practical information about digital preservation tools and methods into the hands of working archivists and records managers. The problems, and the reception, sound reminiscent of similar work I did for the SoA about 10 years ago, as part of their occasional training days for newly-qualified archivists.

I’m also pleased to say that the Board approved a proposal to allocate more money to training scholarships in 2009/10, which can be used to support attendance at DPTP or other member-provided courses such as DC 101 (which is currently free.) We’re also looking forward to a joint training showcase in Belfast with the DCC’s DC 101, facilitated by JISC and PRONI, in September. More details will appear here and elsewhere when we have them.

We’re expecting an increased number of DPC techwatch reports in the coming year. The latest, released on preview to DPC members yesterday (2009-07-10), covers geospatial data, and there’s a long list of candidate topics for the next couple of years.

Finally, the board said thanks and farewell to its current chair, Ronald Milne, who is taking up a new post at the National Library of New Zealand next month. The Vice Chair, Bruno Longmore, will act as DPC chair until elections are organised for the AGM in November.

Frank Steiner: I understand you’ve just recently taken on the post at DPC. What is your background in the field of digital preservation and how did you end up at the DPC?
William Kilbride: After my archaeology studies at Glasgow University and an MSc in computer applications I worked for the Archaeology Data Service at University of York. I started there in 1999 – which were early days in digital preservation – at least within archaeology. Part of our work involved raising awareness as well as ensuring long-term provision and access to archaeological research data. Because fieldwork can be very destructive, archaeologists have always had a close relationship with and respect for archives. The DPC came into existence at that time – also based in York. We had a lot of shared interests and quickly developed a close working relationship.

FS: So you basically switched camps and went to the other part of town to get into work in the mornings. (N.B.: DPC is based in York)
WK: No, I actually took a slight detour. For family reasons and because of some interesting work they were doing I moved to Glasgow in 2006 to work in Glasgow Museums as Research Manager.

FS: This sounds like there is more than one?
WK: Indeed, most people don’t know it, but the city of Glasgow owns one of the largest and most impressive civic collections in Europe, displayed in 13 museums across the Glasgow. Glasgow has a real love affair with its museums and although only about 2 percent of the collection is on display, a new research centre will soon provide access to the whole lot – like a massive reference library or public archive.It’s really innovative and shows a real commitment to access.

FS: So you went back to your archaeological roots, so to speak?
WK: Yes – but computing projects and the issue of digital preservation caught up with me once more. We developed online access to collections as well as trying to ‘make sense’ of the ever growing pool of native digital items which the collection contained. But the Executive job at the DPC became available and considering the history I had with DPC it was very attractive. I decided to apply, and now have an office in Glasgow University where I was already an honorary lecturer. So although DPC is based in York, my office is in ‘HATII’ – the Humanities Advanced Technology and Information Institute in Glasgow – which has an impressive track record in research and development with digital preservation. It’s a good place to work.

FS: I have spoken to both of your scholarship winners, who seemed very pleased to be given the opportunity to be funded to attend the most recent DPTP course. What other activities is DPC involved in to raise awareness of the importance of the preservation of digital material?
WK: You already mentioned part of our mission statement there. We are an agenda setting and enabling body with the ultimate goal to make our digital memory accessible in the future.

FS: I gathered from the competition, which you ran for the scholarships, that you are member’s only club. Is that right?
WK: Not really, we are a not-for-profit membership organisation, but by no means exclusive. Our members benefit through early bird rates at events, special discounts and preferred access to reports and such. Ultimately we share our reports and training with anyone who needs it. Members are able to share their work through the DPC and also able to set the agenda – to point us at issues they need resolved. Digital preservation is a topic for everyone from large commercial organisations, small charities down to each and every one of us. So it makes sense economically and intellectually if we work together.

FS: Interesting you should mention that. I realised there were a wide spread of backgrounds at the last DPTP.
WK: And I think that is one of the many benefits for people attending the course. Every time I present there is this sense of mutual problem solving, regardless which organisation the participants are from or what their background is. The chance for DPTP students to establish peer contacts and network with people trying to solve similar problems is something I like to see happening and it is also something we at DPC try to achieve.

FS: Can you shed some more light on the DPC’s involvement with the DPTP course?
WK: We helped ULCC develop the course with Cornell University, ADS, JISC and others, based on the general need within the community for training in digital preservation. I find it very satisfying to see some of the first students (in 2005) who went from looking for solutions to resolving their digital preservation issues to becoming significant leaders in the field – developing and applying solutions and sharing their experience with the community.

FS:Looking into the future, do you think there will be further scholarships by DPC?
WK: There’s no question about it, yes. There is a persistent need for digital preservation training and there are also growing expectations of what digital assets can do for organisations and individuals.

FS: Do you think the course itself has to change to stay relevant?
WK: Of course it does and it certainly has over the past 3 years. The field has developed quickly and I’m confident Patricia and the guys from ULCC will ensure the latest changes are reflected in the course syllabus. I think maybe there will be or could be a variation or targeting of DPTP, like ‘DPTP for Museums’, ‘DPTP for Publishers’ and so on. Although basic concepts and principles of digital preservation remain the same there is a trend of more specialised requirements which could be addressed by a more customised DPTP offering.

FS: William, thank you for your time and I hope to see you at the next DPTP course.
WK: Thanks for having me.

DPTP is of value to anyone with responsibility for digital preservation in an institutional context – its aim is to equip you with the knowledge to effect change in the organisation to allow the right things to happen. (If your primary responsibility is scientific data curation, you may find the DCC’s DC 101 course more applicable.)

Applications need to be in by May 5th – it’s not an onerous process, so don’t delay.

The JISC Digitisation Programme has made a wide variety of valuable resources digitally accessible, including:

• British Newspapers (1620-1900)
• Newsfilm Online
• First World War Poetry
• Newspaper Cartoons
• Welsh Periodicals
• Pre Raphaelite drawings
• East London Theatre Archive

More information about these, and other projects, is available on the JISC Digitisation web page.

The project will review the preservation plans and processes of the sixteen projects funded under Phase 2 of the JISC Digitisation Programme, and identify any medium or long-term access risks to the digitised content. It will also produce recommendations – for individual projects and for JISC as a whole – for processes and strategies to mitigate the risks, and case studies which would be helpful to the broader community.

This is an exciting opportunity for us to apply and extend the experience we have gained working on a range of projects in the field, including the European Visual Archive Market-validation Project (EVAMP) and risk assessments for the recently launched Newsfilm Online project. We will shortly be creating an online home to for the project collaboration and development, and will use DA Blog and the DigiPresSurvey Blog (on JISCInvolve) to keep you updated.

Chris Rusbridge has already done an excellent job of some near-real-time reporting on the sessions, and I’m not going to try to replicate that level of detail in this post. As a first-time attendee at iPres, I was impressed by the professional mix attending, which took in hard-core computer science, digital preservation and curation folk, repository managers and those from the traditional custodial professions. In that respect it was very reminiscent of the early DLM-Forums, which were eye-opening for me when I attended the first one in 1996. But it was also interesting to observe that, just as DLM was dominated by archivists and records managers, iPres is a very library-oriented event. For example, those who expressed a desire for a Europe-wide event bringing together all those with an interest in digital preservation didn’t seem to be aware that the DLM-Forums existed.

One positive observation (of many) is that there is more reassuring news on the oft-vexed issue of IPR barriers to digital preservation. At the close of day 1, we heard a summary of the findings of the international survey on the impact of copyright law on digital preservation. That indicated that the UK had one of the strictest set of constraints of all the countries looked at – in terms of who is permitted to carry out certain acts in the name of preservation and what those acts are. Other countries have more relaxed exemptions and that doesn’t appear to be causing the major rightsholdfers any significant financial loss. That should give us hope for some change in the law in the UK at least. And Horst Foster, making the keynote speech opening day 2, appeared to echo this at the European level, implying that the case for change had been made and accepted, although he was notably cautious about making any promises as to when this change might come about.

That’s an improvement on the situation in Europe a few years ago, though, when I was at one of a number of expert panels helping the European Commission to frame the forthcoming research questions and challenges in the digital preservation arena. At that time we were all warned off mentioning the (C) word at all – it seemed to have a somewhat toxic flavour. It’s really heartening to see that things have changed.

One should add a note of caution, however. After Adrienne Muir had commented favourably on how Australian law allows institutions such as the national library and archives to bypass DRM systems in order to preserve material, Colin Webb injected a note of caution. It is apparently still illegal to manufacture or to import a device to Australia which allows a DRM system to be bypassed. But if the national library happens to find such a device on its premises, it can use it without fear of breaking the law. Still some way to go, then, before the law is ‘joined up and working’ – the strapline of iPres2008.

I don’t think I could begin to do justice in a few words to the wide-ranging debate at the JISC/BL/DPC Workshop on Significant Properties at the British Library on Monday: I’d rather leave it to others to analyse the significant outcomes in more detail, or to further discussions like the one started by Chris Rusbridge (our cucumber-cool chairman on the day) on the DCC Blog. Suffice it to say there was a sack of food for thought in all the presentations, and lots of opportunities to wonder “now why didn’t I think of that?”

I think the most enjoyable presentation was that of Cal Lee from UNC Chapel Hill, who managed to lift us with a few laughs about his work – with Microsoft Word file format specifications – just as we were beginning to flag at the end of a long day of considering many things from many angles. The Moving Images study also looks like it may have useful information for our deliberations on standards and formats for PRIMO. If I wasn’t so taken with the presentation on E-learning objects, that was chiefly because I gave it – a mind-bending task to give our account of not only Learning Objects but also Significant Properties in 15 mins. But the slides look nice on the DPC website. (All credit to Ed for the excellent diagrams.)

Neil Grindley and the rest of the JISC/DPC/BL organisers did well to run it so smoothly and facilitate the discussion, and it was a rare opportunity to catch Andrew Wilson on a flying visit to this hemisphere and hear his first hand account of NAA’s approaches and models. I can’t remember if I’ve been to the British Library Conference Centre before or not, but it is certainly an impressive space, and with super-slick AV facilities.

I’ve been a judge for each of the awards and chaired the judging panel on this occasion; it’s been a fascinating and enjoyable experience and certainly makes one think again about what makes a project valuable to others. But we’re concerned that the awards might not be having the impact that they could be, and that we need to do something to change the type of entry we receive – as well as thinking about how we publicise the event and our association with it. The DPC has established a working group to look at a number of these issues, and I’m interested in views from the wider world – particularly from those outside the DPC itself – about the awards, their relevance to you and your work, and what might encourage you to submit an entry.

Have you considered submitting an entry ? What held you back ? What do you think of the entries that have been shortlisted in the past ? One contributor has suggested that the final judging process (in which each entrant does a 25 minute presentation, followed by about 25 minutes of questions from the judges) should be held in public, instead of in private as it is at present. What do you think of that idea ?

As well as using the comment facility on this blog to share your thoughts, you’re welcome to email me (K.Ashley@ulcc.ac.uk) if you would rather not share your thoughts with the rest of the world.