Digital Preservation:Needs in the RLG Community

eLib Conference

Information Ecologies:The Impact of New Information 'Species'

York, 2-4 December 1998Nancy Elkington, Research Libraries Group

Project Goals

• Develop and pre-test survey instrument• Collect data on needs, accounting for:

– diverse institutional types– wide-ranging needs– differing levels of expertise

• Use data to:– examine and evaluate existing models– recommend preferred archiving model(s)– develop guidelines in concert with others

Defining Project Focus

• Limited to data about “those materials for which your institution assumes responsibility for preservation”

• Include those institutions currently not addressing digital preservation

Summary of Results

• 54 surveys returned– 9 European, 2 Canadian, 1 Australian– 45 US

• 15 interviews completed

• Achieved broad representation

• Data analysis nearly complete

Data Gathered

Digital materials preservation policy Digital holdings (take responsibility) Formats of holdings Methods of preservation Digital knowledge/training Future needs for services & training

0 10 20 30 40

Database

Other

GIS

Vector

Spreadsheet

Video

Audio

WordProcessing

ASCII

Text w/ Markup

Image Format

Total

Institutions Acquiring Materials in Selected Digital Formats

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Policy

No Policy

All Institutions

Total

No Holdings

Holdings

Institutions with Digital Preservation Policies

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

_WMF

Don't know

MPEG

EPS

Other

ASCII

GIF

PDF

JPEG

Text w/ Mark-up

TIFF

Formats Chosen for Archival Masters of Converted Materials

Preservation Methods Used by 36 Institutions with Digital Holdings

0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

Standards for Archival Master

Limit Formats Accessioned

Migrate

Refresh

Transfer Accessions to New Media

Preservation Methods

Preference of Methods to Increase Staff Expertise with Digital Preservation

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%

Other

Hire Consultants

Vendor Training

Hire Staff

Local Training

Independent Study

Professional Training

Preferred Methods of Increasing Staff Expertise

Recommendations (for RLG)

• Compile a concrete set of guidelines, standards, and best practices for digital preservation

• Provide leadership and coordination in emerging standards and practices for digital preservation

Recommendations(for institutions)

• Develop means to coordinate digital preservation activities within institutions

• Develop institutional policies for acquisition, conversion, storage, and maintenance of digital materials

Recommendations(for service providers)

• Develop trusted services and tools to support digital preservation in critical areas of need

Project Staff

• Margaret Hedstrom– Associate Professor, School of Information,

University of Michigan

• Sheon Montgomery– Graduate Student Research Assistant,

School of Information, University of Michigan

• Robin Dale– RLG Program Officer

Web Address for Report(forthcoming)

http://www.thames.rlg.org/preserv/

Executive Summary in RLG DigiNews(December 15 issue)

http://www.thames.rlg.org/preserv/diginews

Status of Survey Project

• Survey to all RLG members (April-Aug '98)

• Interviews (May-June '98)

• Analysis (Sept-Nov '98)

• Dissemination (late Dec '98)

• Pursue recommendations (Jan-Jun '99)

Digital PreservationNeeds Assessment

• Result of recommendation by the RLG Preservation Working Group on Digital Archiving (May 1996)

• #1 Recommendation: “Develop a survey instrument to gather and analyze data about needed services.”

Distribution of 36 Institutions with Digial Holdingsby Date of Oldest Digital Materials

22 1

12

18

05

101520

1975-1979

1980-1984

1985-1989

1990-1994

1995-1998

Creation Date of Oldest Digital Materials

Num

ber

ofIn

stitu

tions

Age of Oldest Digital Holdings

Number of Formats in 36 Institutions with Digital Holdings

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

1 format 2 formats 3 - 5 formats 6 - 9 formats 10+ formats

Num

ber o

f Ins

titut

ions

Number of Different Digital Formats Held

Estimated Volume of Digital Holdings in Gigabytesfor 19 Responding Institutions

0

3

54 4

1 1 10123456

<1 GB 1-5 GB 6-20 GB 21-100GB

101-500GB

501-1,000GB

1,001-2,000 GB

>2,000GB

Note: Of these 19 respondents, 3 institutions hold over 90% of the digital materials.1,000 Megabytes (MB) = 1 Gigabyte (GB) 1,000 GB = 1 Terabyte (TB)

Num

ber o

f Ins

titut

ions

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

University Libraries

TOTAL RESEARCH LIBRARIES - 56%

Archives/Historical Societies

Museums

TOTAL OTHER REPOSITORIES - 44%

Distribution of 54 Survey Respondents by Type of Institution

Consortia Digital Archiving Services Chosen by Majority of Institutions

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Standards / Best Practices

Model Policies

Technical Training

Share Preservation Facility

Consultant Services

Administrative Training

Desired Consortial Services

Ranking of Threats to Digital Holdings

0.62.32.43.3

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

TechnologyObsolescence

Insuff icientResources

Insuff icientPlanning

Physical Condition

Greatest Threat

Greater

Lesser

Least Threat

Average Ranking