This article was downloaded by: [Flinders University of South Australia]On: 08 October 2014, At: 02:32Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Electronic Resources inMedical LibrariesPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/werm20

Conserving Digital Resources: Issues andFuture AccessEsther Y. Dell a & Suzanne M. Shultz ba Penn State Hershey , Hershey , Pennsylvania , USAb Harrisburg , Pennsylvania , USAPublished online: 09 Sep 2014.

To cite this article: Esther Y. Dell & Suzanne M. Shultz (2014) Conserving Digital Resources: Issuesand Future Access, Journal of Electronic Resources in Medical Libraries, 11:3, 124-133, DOI:10.1080/15424065.2014.937657

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15424065.2014.937657

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Conserving Digital Resources: Issuesand Future Access

ESTHER Y. DELLPenn State Hershey, Hershey, Pennsylvania, USA

SUZANNE M. SHULTZHarrisburg, Pennsylvania, USA

This article explores the need for and the problems with digitalpreservation. Digital documents are much more easily discoveredand shared than their analog counterparts, but not only is therea mistaken belief that digital preservation will occur without con-scious intervention, there are also outstanding technical issues tobe resolved. Even when these problems are recognized, it is unclearwhat materials should be preserved. Medical librarians have animportant role to play in these decisions and should engage withtheir communities and play an active role in the process.

KEYWORDS digital preservation, electronic information resources,institutional repositories, information access, history, archiving

INTRODUCTION

Medical history is being created continuously. Much of this material isavailable in digital formats only. What we collect today is what will beavailable to future scholars. Digital preservation needs immediate attention.We need to be proactive. But how can we judge what should be saved?

David McCullough, a prominent historian, in researching his book onJohn Adams, used original letters that were saved for centuries. McCulloughsaid, ‘‘The value of the papers of the Founding Fathers goes far beyond theirscholarly importance, immense as that is. These papers are American scripture.They are our political faith, the free and open exchange of ideas, the often

# Esther Y. Dell and Suzanne M. ShultzReceived March 27, 2014; revised May 19, 2014; accepted May 12, 2014.Address correspondence to Esther Y. Dell, Penn State Hershey, George T. Harrell Health

Sciences Library-H127, P.O. Box 850, Hershey, PA 17033. E-mail: eyd1@psu.edu

Journal of Electronic Resources in Medical Libraries, 11(3):124–133, 2014

Published with license by Taylor & Francis

ISSN: 1542-4065 print=1542-4073 online

DOI: 10.1080/15424065.2014.937657

124

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flin

ders

Uni

vers

ity o

f So

uth

Aus

tral

ia]

at 0

2:32

08

Oct

ober

201

4

brilliant expressions of some of the most fertile minds, the greatest statesmen,patriots and seers in our history.’’1 McCullough also drew on original lettersand diaries when writing his book on Theodore Roosevelt.2 In order for theseitems to remain extant to the present day, someone in the past placed historicalvalue on this correspondence and kept it for posterity (whenever that mightoccur.) If the letters and diaries were intended to be private, they could havebeen destroyed. Such was the case with the diaries of Philip Syng Physick, MD,the father of American surgery, which were discarded nearly a century after hisdeath by two of his elderly descendants.3

Where a single physical copy exists, its access is limited and discover-ability may be difficult. Someone with access to the document assesses thevalue and decides whether or not to preserve it for future use. On the con-trary, digital documents are easily copied and shared and therefore, muchless private and more discoverable. When the original copy is digital, accessis much wider. Privacy, in most cases, is out of the control of the creator. Thefuture value of a digital collection is undetermined. It must be assessed and adecision on preservation made before digital decay occurs. The design ofdigital archives, therefore, will be prospective in nature rather than retrospec-tive. While it is a vast oversimplification to say that preservation of analogmaterials is simply a yes or no decision, digital preservation brings with ita whole new set of issues and concerns that did not previously exist in apaper world. Digital materials are easier to discover, but their preservationis much more complex.

CURRENT ENVIRONMENT

Digital preservation ‘‘combines policies, strategies and actions to ensureaccess to digital content over time.’’4 It is a series of managed activities neces-sary for long-term maintenance of a byte stream (including assignment ofmetadata) sufficient to produce a facsimile of the original and it must providefor continued access over time and through technological evolution.5 Eacharchiving unit (subject specialty) must have guidelines that define what tocollect and save and these should relate to methodologies applied by insti-tutional repositories and the types of materials they preserve. Not unlike printmaterials, saving ‘‘everything digital,’’ though technically possible, is notlikely to occur. As a result, there cannot be an absolutely complete historicalrecord.6 When the Library of Congress announced its plan to archive the col-lected works of Twitter in April 2010, there was a 55 million messages-per-day output. This is but a small percentage of the total record of activitiesand communications, and further demonstrates the massive scope of a com-prehensive preservation effort.7 Even though organizational priorities governfunding allocations for large-scale projects, digital preservation should notbe based on narrowly focused individual or institutional values and goals.

Conserving Digital Resources 125

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flin

ders

Uni

vers

ity o

f So

uth

Aus

tral

ia]

at 0

2:32

08

Oct

ober

201

4

Born digital data is too voluminous and too fragile to be left to the caprice ofshort-term needs and priorities. The quandary in the face of such wealth of adigital memorable is saving selectively and yet preserving enough to providean accurate record for future scientists.

In a 1976 paper about biomedical research, Comroe and Dripps8 set outto prove that many important contributions to medical science are often theproduct of undirected, nontargeted research. The results of this carefullycrafted examination of essential knowledge necessary to accomplish success-ful open-heart surgery revealed that 41% of the work deemed crucial for sub-sequent advance was not clinically-oriented or goal-directed at the time itwas done. ‘‘Forty-one percent of the investigators, when they did their work,expressed no interest in a clinical problem.’’ The implications of results ofthis study for saving research and data for future use point out one of the dif-ficulties of selective digital preservation. Data may be broadly defined assomething known or assumed as fact from which inferences can be formu-lated. Data that may be judged without merit today may be key to resolutionof a future procedure, treatment, or cure of a disease.

By looking at an issue in different ways, fresh ideas and new resourcesmay be revealed that were previously thought to be of little import, thusdifferentiating memory from memorable—that which is deemed ‘‘worthy ofremembrance or note.’’9 A holistic, panoramic approach to research shouldguide the way in which data preservation is planned for future generations.An example of ‘‘big picture’’ data preservation for future applications is the per-mission sought through consent documents in certain research studies. Usuallytitled a ‘supplemental consent form,’ these documents request a study parti-cipant’s permission to collect and retain tissue samples for extended evaluationin the hope that the information can help future patients with similar disease.

Collaboration is essential between the collectors of memory, such aslibrarians and archivists, and the users of memory, such as researchers so thatthe needs of tomorrow’s investigators can be met.10,11 The librarian is theprocess expert and may be the linchpin on which the saving of the memorablehinges. Librarians are uniquely prepared to accomplish the organization andcataloging of repositories (the potentially memorable) for future access, bothpaper and virtual, and can thus provide the framework to capture digital infor-mation. However, for the creation of proactive digital archives, the world ofarchives will need to change its focus from the retrospective to the prospective.

Items contained in traditional library collections, by virtue of publi-cation, have an assigned value before the librarian begins organizing thematerials for ease of storage and future access. Digital or virtual materialsare created spontaneously and require a more proactive approach, in thatthe prospective value must be determined. Will these items be of interestto researchers of the future? How much redundancy (saving multiple ver-sions of the same event) is enough? The framework for processing and accesswill be essentially the same.

126 E. Y. Dell and S. M. Shultz

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flin

ders

Uni

vers

ity o

f So

uth

Aus

tral

ia]

at 0

2:32

08

Oct

ober

201

4

LIBRARIES, REPOSITORIES AND SCHOLARLY SOCIETIES

Universities and scholarly societies, individually and collaboratively, areactively pursuing digitization projects of their own. Many of these activitiesare, however, retrospective. National level organizations such as the Well-come Institute in the United Kingdom and the National Library of Medicinein the United States are actively curating digital history in medical collections.That is, they are digitizing (preserving) the past. On a more proactive courseof action, institutional repositories at universities, medical schools or possiblylarge hospitals are collecting and digitizing published materials as well asborn-digital materials of their constituencies.

Institutional repositories are digital collections that capture and curatethe intellectual output (research) of the institution, usually a university, byproviding expanded access to that research thus show-casing a tangibleindicator of the university’s quality.12 Digital curation is the process ofestablishing and developing long-term repositories of digital assets forcurrent and future reference by researchers, scientists, historians, and scho-lars generally.13 Curation is the collective duties and activities necessary tomaintain digital research data over the entire lifecycle of the data.13

In fields such as medicine, the science itself is fairly systematically pre-served through the formal publication process which is developing its ownarchiving models. However, the process of scientific discovery, the ‘‘stuff’’ thatresearchers use, is another story. To fulfill the need for future access to thistype of data, the repository concept must be expanded to the next level—thatof a network open access ‘‘trusted’’ repository. Trusted repositories have amission to provide long-term access for which they accept responsibility forlong-term maintenance by applying commonly accepted standards that meetcommunity expectations of trustworthiness. Their practices can be tracked,audited and measured.5 In addition to those attributes, open access (the free,immediate and unrestricted availability of content to the wider scientificcommunity) must be available to all scholars.

ISSUES

The most troubling questions before us are:

. Who decides what is potentially memorable, and thus worth saving?

. Who decides what the prospective value is?

. Who collects that which is deemed memorable?14

Given enough data, a powerful computer in conjunction with an algorithm canextract ‘‘new insights that would previously have remained hidden.’’15 Inaddition, the accessibility and discoverability of data from ‘‘failed’’ research,

Conserving Digital Resources 127

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flin

ders

Uni

vers

ity o

f So

uth

Aus

tral

ia]

at 0

2:32

08

Oct

ober

201

4

though not life-saving and rarely published, can potentially prevent futurefunding dollars from being spent on answering the same question again andagain. What data, then, shall be saved and how much can be afforded?

Cost

The Report of the Blue Ribbon Task Force on Sustainable Economics for aDigital Planet: Ensuring Long-Term Access to Digital Information16 wasreleased in February 2010, in which the members addressed the economicchallenge of sustainable digital preservation. The economic value is morethan merely a dollars-and-cents issue. It is becoming increasingly apparentthat researchers are using digital information much more frequently thanolder print materials.17–19 Though the reasons for this behavior may be varied,it does point out the importance of digital information and the need forarchival preservation. ‘‘Total Economic Value’’ is a concept that has recentlybeen used to determine the monetary value of environmental products suchas polar bears, elephants or virgin forest for both current and future use. Thisconcept could also be applied to the digital record to preserve a good or ser-vice for future use. What worth is placed on that potential use, which is asocial and cultural value that can change over time, determines its economicmerit. The question is how today’s dollars can be assigned to get the greatestvalue or return on our investment for future success of research. Can officialnational bodies such as the Library of Congress or the National Library ofMedicine continue digital preservation projects in the face of diminishing bud-gets? What record exists of digital items not saved by virtue of lack of funding?

Evolving Technology

The Blue Ribbon Task Force16 acknowledges that considerable attention hasbeen devoted to technical and policy problems of digital preservation as well.There is an unsupported public—or possibly generational—assumption thatdigital will always be available. Yet even the casual Internet researcher hasencountered the message ‘‘404 File Not Found!’’ often enough to know thatdigital data disappears. It may vanish for many reasons but obsolete tech-nology is a serious technical problem.20 Eight track tapes cannot be heardwithout eight-track playback units, a technology that is no longer inproduction. In order to preserve fragile digital data, the hardware and soft-ware must be conserved as well. Technology is progressing at such a fast pacethat surviving documents or media from just a few years ago will becomeunreadable or unusable. An archive must maintain hardware in the structureand format that allows access and retrieval of older digital information. If suchhardware is not available, then the technical problem of data migration to acompatible platform must be planned with the assurance that the item beingtransfigured will maintain its integrity, authenticity, and provenance.21

128 E. Y. Dell and S. M. Shultz

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flin

ders

Uni

vers

ity o

f So

uth

Aus

tral

ia]

at 0

2:32

08

Oct

ober

201

4

Access and Availability

It is probably not possible to determine the exact number of web pages thatcomprises the web. Numbers were recorded for indexed web entries forNovember 14, 2013, at 1.37 billion pages. That number changes daily.22

The average lifespan of a web page has been estimated between 44 to 100days. That means that the average web page will disappear in as little as44 days.23 Google has changed the way in which searching is accomplished.Users perceive Google to be an accessible and user-friendly search tool thatworks well. Its employment of search algorithms rather than metadata forretrieval may yet prove to be the solution to the burgeoning and evolvingmass of internet data. Metadata, technically defined as data about data, isthe cornerstone of library cataloging and is said to be crucial to searchingbecause it applies a controlled vocabulary that labels content in a standardand consistent way. It improves word matching and creates a reliable path-way that can be followed throughout the life of the tagged object. Is catalo-ging (using metadata) still the ideal structural model and finding aid? Theideal concept for access may now be more than the library community canconceivably produce and maintain in the digital explosion. Traditional orga-nizational frameworks using long-established procedural methodologies maylimit access to only that which can be processed within human time con-straint. Digital data is accruing faster than we can cope. The ResearchLibraries Group-Online Computer Library Center (RLG-OCLC) report sug-gests that ‘‘the minimal-level metadata required for long-term managementand development of tools to automatically generate and=or extract as muchof it as possible’’ as a very reasonable objective.24 Lewis25 suggests thatGoogle works so well because it ‘‘operates at network scale and because theyuse algorithms, not human decision making. Authority control and Booleansearching are clearly no longer adequate to the task at hand’’. Not all writersagree citing divergent results and lack of precision when searching forbiomedical information in Google Scholar compared with PubMed.26,27

Privacy and Copyright

Other distressing issues include intellectual property rights and privacyrights. The process of archiving includes the intellectual property rights ofthe author, whether paper or digital. Anything on the Internet may be subjectto copyright restrictions, which may in turn be a barrier to saving this infor-mation.28,29 The Copyright Law (1976) rules on preservation are slantedtoward paper rather than digital products.30 These restrictions govern copy-ing for replacement of items for a ‘‘permanent collection,’’ are understood tobe for reference, and are not intended to be loaned or circulated.30 In theExecutive Summary of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (1998), a funda-mental disconnect is described between ‘‘prevailing practices and procedures

Conserving Digital Resources 129

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flin

ders

Uni

vers

ity o

f So

uth

Aus

tral

ia]

at 0

2:32

08

Oct

ober

201

4

most people and businesses follow’’ and section 117 (a)(2) of the law, whichlimits backup for archival purposes to ‘‘computer programs,’’ the so-calledarchival exemption. Gasaway notes that because digital works are licensedand not owned, there is no universally accepted mode of archiving.‘‘Preservation of digital works requires reproduction which may conflict withthe rights of the copyright holder.’’31 The basis for limitation of the archivalexemption seems to reside in sections 107 and 109 of the Copyright Law[Title17] wherein section 107 permits a backup copy and section 109 permitsfree distribution.32 The legal framework for digital archiving remains anuncertain and wobbly foundation upon which to build. In questions of rightsor responsibilities in preservation, how can those issues be identified andrectified on a global scale before memorable materials are lost forever?Besek,33 representing four countries, offered five specific minimum recom-mendations in establishing global ‘‘laws and policies to encourage andenable the digital preservation of at-risk copyrighted materials.’’ They suggestthat laws and policies should (1) apply to all non-profit libraries or otherwisenamed ‘‘preservation institutions,’’ (2) apply equally to all categories ofcopyrighted materials, (3) apply to all media and formats, (4) allow proactivepreservation, and (5) extend preservation activities as necessary in accord-ance with international best practices for digital conservation.

Proprietary information, often held by corporations and unavailable forpublic access, is also part of the historical record. Even academic institutionscan be limited in their ability to share research outcomes that result from col-laboration with or funding from for-profit entities.

Confidentiality and privacy of data are well-understood concepts in themedical community. For example, both legal and ethical protections throughthe use of informed consent documents and Institutional Review Boards(IRBs) are in place to ensure that limitations on sharing certain informationcollected about human participants in research studies are honored. But inorder for science to more forward, a la Comroe, access to high-quality datamust be not only stored but also available and accessible. ‘‘A major challengeto the data privacy community is the development of disclosure limitationtechniques that are flexible enough to be used in a wide variety ofsituations.’’34 Protection of confidentiality is a significant unresolved issuein the world of digital archives.

CONCLUSION

At a time when events are recorded at lightning speeds, knowledge is cre-ated faster than ever before. Progress in technology provides ways for thesehappenings to be easily recorded and communicated, but just as easily lost orrendered obsolete. While ‘‘organizing’’ data may be a daunting task, librar-ians must not only consult upon the techniques in which the memorable

130 E. Y. Dell and S. M. Shultz

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flin

ders

Uni

vers

ity o

f So

uth

Aus

tral

ia]

at 0

2:32

08

Oct

ober

201

4

is to be preserved, but also collaborate to accomplish it before much islost. Lilly Koltun, Canadian archivist and historian, comments, ‘‘Becausedigital data are so ephemeral and technologically dependent, they must besaved, if at all, at the moment of creation, or be lost. Consequently, thesedata recast the instrumental actors of history, turning it from a story provedlater by the capture of remnants valued by experts, to a milieu imbuedinstantly with presence and worth by an unsanctioned and ‘‘historically’’unpositioned individual. This individual is the one who selects the ‘‘save’’key, for purposes usually other than commemorative engagement. This kindof making of meaning or history entails a myth-shattering realization forarchivists.’’35

Scholars in many disciplines are considering options to address the issueof digital preservation and medical librarians should become engaged in thediscussion and actively participate in the process within their communities.

REFERENCES

1. Founders Online: Open Access to the Papers of America’s Founding Era. AReport to Congress. NARA. April 2008. Available: <http://www.archives.gov/nhprc/publications/founders-report.pdf>. Accessed: December 10, 2013.

2. McCullough, David. Excerpts of David McCullough’s Opening Address at SpecialLibraries Association Annual Conference. New York. June 9, 2003.

3. Bell, W.J. Jr. ‘‘Editing a Scientist’s Papers.’’ Isis 53 (March 1962): 14–20.4. ALA. ‘‘Definitions of Digital Preservation.’’ Prepared by the Association for Library

Collections and Technical Services, Working Group on Defining Digital Preser-vation. ALA Annual Conference, Washington, DC, June 24, 2007. Available:<http://www.ala.org/ala/mgrps/divs/alcts/resources/preserv/defdigpres0408.cfm>. Accessed: February 10, 2013.

5. Jantz, R., and Giarlo, M.J. ‘‘Digital Preservation: Architecture and Technology forTrusted Digital Repositories.’’ D-Lib Magazine 11, no. 6. Available: <http://www.dlib.org/dlib/june05/jantz/06jantz.html>. Accessed: December 10, 2013.

6. Pearson, D. ‘‘Medical History for Tomorrow – Preserving the Record of Today.’’Health Information Library Journal 18 (2001): 139–143.

7. Lohr, S. ‘‘Library of Congress Will Save Tweets.’’ New York Times. April 14,2010. Available: <http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/15/technology/15twitter.html?emc=eta1> Accessed: December 10, 2013.

8. Comroe, J.H. Jr., and Dripps, R.D. ‘‘Scientific Basis for the Support of BiomedicalScience.’’ Science 192, no. 4235 (April 9, 1976): 105–111.

9. ‘‘Memorable.’’ In Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd edition, Volume 9, edited byJ.A. Simpson and E.S.C. Weiner. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1989, 594.

10. Rosenzweig, R. ‘‘Scarcity or Abundance? Preserving the Past in a Digital Era.’’American Historical Review 108, no. 3 (June 2003): 735–762.

11. Brand, S. ‘‘Escaping the Digital Dark Age.’’ Library Journal 124, no. 2 (1999): 46–49.Available: <http://www.rense.com/general38/escap.htm>. Accessed: December10, 2013.

Conserving Digital Resources 131

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flin

ders

Uni

vers

ity o

f So

uth

Aus

tral

ia]

at 0

2:32

08

Oct

ober

201

4

12. Crow, R. ‘‘The Case for Institutional Repositories: A SPARC Position Paper.’’SPARC 2002. Available: <http://www.sparc.arl.org/sites/default/files/media_files/instrepo.pdf>. Accessed: December 10, 2013.

13. DCC. ‘‘What Is Digital Curation?’’ Digital Curation Centre. Available: <http://www.dcc.ac.uk/digital-curation/what-digital-curation>. Accessed: December10, 2013.

14. Barksdale, J., and Berman, F. ‘‘Saving Our Digital Heritage.’’ Washington Post.May 16, 2007. Available: <http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/15/AR2007051501873.html. Accessed: December 10, 2013.

15. Cukier, K. ‘‘Data, Data Everywhere.’’ The Economist. February 25, 2010.Available: <http://www.economist.com/surveys/PrinterFriendly.cfm?story_id=15557443>. Accessed: December 10, 2013.

16. BRTF. Final Report, Sustainable Economics for a Digital Planet: EnsuringLong-Term Access to Digital Information, February 2010. Available: <http://brtf.sdsc.edu/biblio/BRTF_Final_Report.pdf>. Accessed: December 10, 2013.

17. Kaplan, R.; Steinberg, M.; and Doucette, J. ‘‘Retention of Retrospective Print Jour-nals in the Digital Age: Trends and Analysis.’’ Journal of the Medical LibraryAssociation 94, no. 4 (October 2006): 387–393.

18. Conkling, T.W.; Harwell, K.R.; McCallips, C.; Nyana, S.A.; and Osif, B.A.‘‘Research Material Selection in the Pre-Web and Post-Web Environments: AnInterdisciplinary Study of Bibliographic Citations in Doctoral Dissertations.’’Journal of Academic Librarianship 36, no. 1 (January 2010): 20–31.

19. Boyce, P.; King, D.W.; Montgomery, C.; and Tenopir, C. ‘‘How ElectronicJournals Are Changing Patterns of Use.’’ The Serials Librarian 46, no. 1–2(2004): 121–141.

20. Lyman, P. ‘‘Archiving the World Wide Web.’’ In Building a National Strategy forDigital Preservation: Issues in Digital Media Archiving. Council on Library andInformation Resources, Washington, DC, and Library of Congress. April 2002.Available: <http://www.clir.org/pubs/reports/pub106/pub106.pdf>. Accessed:December 10, 2013.

21. Barateiro, J.; Antunes, G.; Freitas, F.; and Borbinha, J. ‘‘Designing Digital Preser-vation Solutions: A Risk Management-based Approach.’’ International Journal ofDigital Curation 5, no. 1 (2010): 5–17.

22. ‘‘The Size of the World Wide Web on 29 Nov. 2013.’’ Available: <http://www.WorldWideWebSize.com>. Accessed: December 10, 2013.

23. ‘‘What’s the Average Lifespan of a Web Page?’’ Posted August 12, 2009. Available:http://jiscpowr.jiscinvolve.org/wp/2009/08/12/whats-the-average-lifespan-of-a-web-page/>. Accessed: December 10, 2013.

24. Trusted Digital Repositories: Attributes and Responsibilities. A Research LibrariesGroup-Online Computer Library Center (RLG-OCLC) Report. May 2002.Available: <http://www.oclc.org/content/dam/research/activities/trustedrep/repositories.pdf>. Accessed: December 11, 2013.

25. Lewis, D.W. ‘‘Reference in the Age of Wikipedia, or not . . .’’ In M. Radford &R. Lankes (Eds.), Reference Renaissance: Current and Future Trends. New York:Neal-Schuman, 2010, 5.

26. Shultz, M. ‘‘Comparing Test Searches in PubMed and Google Scholar.’’ Journal ofthe Medical Library Association 95, no. 4 (October 2007): 442–445.

132 E. Y. Dell and S. M. Shultz

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flin

ders

Uni

vers

ity o

f So

uth

Aus

tral

ia]

at 0

2:32

08

Oct

ober

201

4

27. Anders, M.E., and Evans, D.P. ‘‘Comparison of PubMed and Google ScholarLiterature Searches.’’ Respiratory Care 55, no. 5 (May 2010): 578–583.

28. Patel, K. ‘‘Authors v Internet Archives. The Copyright Infringement Battle overWEB Pages.’’ Journal Patent Trademark Official Society 89 (May 2007): 410–434.

29. Bolin, R. ‘‘Locking Down the Library: How Copyright, Contract, and Cyber-trespass Block Internet Archiving.’’ Hastings Communications EntertainmentLaw Journal 29 (Fall 2006): 1–43.

30. Whyte, A. ‘‘Report from the DCC Workshop: Legal Environment of DigitalCuration.’’ International Journal of Digital Curation 2, no. 2 (November2007): 134–142.

31. Gasaway, L.N. ‘‘America’s Cultural Record: A Thing of the Past?’’ Houston LawReview 40, no. 3 (2003): 643–671. Available: <http://www.houstonlawreview.org/archive/downloads/40-3_pdf/gasawaygr3.pdf>. Accessed: December 11,2013.

32. DMCA Executive Summary: Digital Millennium Copyright Act; Section 104 Report.Available: <http://www.copyright.gov/reports/studies/dmca/dmca_executive.html>. Accessed: December 11, 2013.

33. Besek, J.M.; Coates, J.; Fitzgerald, B.; Mossink, W.; LeFurgy, W.G.; Muir, A.;. . .Weston, C.D. ‘‘Digital Preservation and Copyright: An International Study.’’International Journal of Digital Curation 2, no. 3 (September 2008): 104–111.

34. Lane, J.; Heus, P.; and Mulcahy, T. ‘‘Data Access in a Cyber World.’’ Transactionson Data Privacy 1 (2008): 2–16. Available: <http://www.tdp.cat/issues/tdp.a002a08.pdf>. Accessed: December 10, 2013.

35. Koltun, L. ‘‘The Promise and Threat of Digital Options in an Archival Age.’’Archivaria 47 (Spring 1999): 114–135.

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

Esther Y. Dell, AMLS, AHIP (eyd1@psu.edu), is Associate Librarian for Inter-library Loan and Reference at The George T. Harrell Health Sciences Library,Penn State Hershey, P.O. Box 850, Hershey, PA 17033. Suzanne M. Shultz,MA (ozark52@verizon.net) lives in Harrisburg, PA.

Conserving Digital Resources 133

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flin

ders

Uni

vers

ity o

f So

uth

Aus

tral

ia]

at 0

2:32

08

Oct

ober

201

4