By funding projects like KeepIt, JISC has for many years sought to develop and promote best practice in digital preservation. This is consistent with JISC’s role as an advisor on technology and digital strategies to UK higher and further education, through the Higher Education Funding Councils. At the invitation of Neil Grindley, JISC digital preservation programme manager, a small number of current digital preservation projects, all working on developing preservation exemplars, met recently to discuss progress with a view to identifying future directions.

These projects included Biophysical Repositories in the Lab (BRIL), Embedding Institutional Data Curation Services in Research (EIDCSR), PEKin (Preservation Exemplar at King’s) – all of which were linked from my previous blog on DP-related JISC projects – and Significant Properties in the Lab (SPIL), another Kings College London project which for some reason was missed from my earlier list.

We will learn what future directions JISC is to adopt in due course. This blog reports on the KeepIt presentation to the meeting and acts as an update on the project. Remember this is intended to be a short presentation (20 mins) for an informal small group discussion, so we did not over-elaborate the slides. A few slides may be familiar from earlier presentations, but complete the story here.

Broadly, our interest is in the preservation of digital repositories, particularly institutional repositories, which have sprung up across higher education institutions in the UK largely thanks to JISC.

What we have found is that instead of sticking strictly to the original open access agenda – providing access to published research papers – repositories have been diversifying, storing and providing access to different types of content (Slide 2). This recognition, that repository content was changing and hence content management practices would need to change, framed KeepIt’s repository preservation agenda.

When we began in 2004 with our first JISC preservation project, Preserv, the holy grail was to provide preservation services so we could say to repositories: “you don’t have to worry about preservation because there are other experts who can do this for you”.

What we have, instead of organisations providing these services, are a set of tools that have effectively abstracted this preservation expertise for application by others. We may have witnessed a golden age in the development of preservation tools, many produced by JISC projects, and some by the behemoth Planets project, and by other organisations.

With an array of preservation tools come an array of interfaces, which have begun to be subjected to evaluation by users such as Prom (Practical E-Records blog). An ongoing development is the integration of tools within packages, accessed through single, unified interfaces. One example is from KeepIt, which has continued work from Preserv to integrate tools within an EPrints repository interface (more below).

We can simplify this picture (Slide 3).

Tools are one side of the story. The grail is not achievable without those responsible for digital content management, in our case the repository managers and administrators, having sufficient knowledge and confidence to identify and set out the parameters for preservation, taking account of policy, cost and risk, and then to select and apply appropriate tools and services.

So KeepIt has two strands - People and Technology – and it seeks to connect the two.

Strand 1: People. Early in the project we surveyed our exemplar repositories, selected to represent a range of content types, then asked the managers to set out their preservation objectives and work with us to design what turned out to be a five-part KeepIt course focussed on preservation tools (Slide 4). The course covered: organisations, costs, content description, format management and storage, and trust. The course was presented by the experts who had developed the tools, was opened up to other repositories beyond our exemplars, and between 15-18 people attended each module, which was about the right number for a practical, hands-on approach.

The course has now completed, and was evaluated by participants. The biggest test was whether the number of participants would hold up over all five modules. The course was free, so they had plenty of scope to vote with their feet between modules. Yet the numbers remained consistent throughout.

It was clear we must be doing something right. Our course evaluations confirmed this. Participants liked the course structure, mixing presentation with practical (Slide 5). We set clear objectives for the course, outlined in the original course notice. We achieved those objectives and those of the participants (Slide 6). You can find out more on the outcomes of the KeepIt course from our presentation at the European Conference on Digital Archiving (April 2010).

The culmination of the course was a two-day module on preservation planning using Plato and the EPrints preservation tools.

Strand 2: Technology. At this point in the presentation Dave Tarrant gave a live demonstration of the EPrints preservation tools, which work with the latest version of the repository software (v3.2). You can recreate this demo by watching a series of three short videos, with sound commentary, prepared by Dave.

Although preservation planning can initially appear to be complex, persistence pays off, as evaluation of this course module showed (Slide 7).

Back to the people and the exemplar repositories. Following the course we asked the managers of our exemplar repositories to re-examine and prioritise their original objectives, and we are working with them to achieve their primary objectives within the project (by end of September), and to set them up to achieve those objectives with a longer time horizon.

All want to upgrade to EPrints 3.2 and apply the preservation tools. The speed with which this can happen depends on local IT support and repository service providers (Slide 8).

The two type-specific repositories want to specialise the EPrints preservation tools (Slide 9):

• Edshare: to identify a typical format profile for teaching and learning repositories and assess the preservation implications
• eCrystals: to add the two main formats used in storing crystallography data (Crystallographic Information File, CIF; Chemical Markup Language, CML) to the tools, and to seek to coordinate this with the organisations who maintain the formats

No two exemplars are the same, and the institution-wide exemplars are taking different approaches (Slide 10):

• NECTAR (Northampton) is using DAF
• UAL Research Online is using DRAMBORA

This is not to ignore the critical role of costs in managing digital preservation (Slide 11). eCrystals contributed to the KRDS2 survey, and the KeepIt exemplars and all course participants have been invited to evaluate the LIFE3 beta tool, which made such an impact in the KeepIt course, for assessing the costs of managing digital content over its lifecycle.

The KeepIt course provided a number of  lessons for the project, its participants and the wider community (Slide 12).

A critical issue for the project, as it approaches its conclusion at the end of September, is how do the repository exemplars exemplify preservation practice? What does it mean to exemplify? (Slide 13) It is not enough for our exemplar preservation repositories themselves to be preservation-ready, according to the parameters they set. They have had the opportunity through this project to dedicate more time and energy to the problem than would have been possible otherwise. I want the repositories to present to, and influence, their peers, in their communities, in their fields. I believe that other repositories want to hear from their peers what has been achieved, and they are more likely to emulate that experience than they are to emulate experts. Will there be the opportunities in the time available?

Miggie Pickton will report in the general session of Open Repositories 2010 in Madrid in July. I hope other presentations and publications from the exemplars will follow.

As with the KeepIt course, perhaps we will need to create our own forum, again sponsored by JISC, DCC, Planets, on the theme: What we have done with the preservation tools? As we have reported on this blog and on the project Twitterstream, we know there has been application of the course tools among participants – e.g. Kingston, ESRC Restore project – and uptake of EPrints preservation tools among other repositories – e.g. at EDINA, Siena.

Of course, we will continue to blog developments and progress here.

UAL Research Online is a specialist repository of research outputs in arts, design, and media, operating on a version of EPrints that has been customised to be able to hold, manage and showcase our mainly practice-based research.  The research outputs of our university (University of the Arts London, which consists of London College of Fashion, Central Saint Martins College of Art and Design, London College of Communication, Chelsea College of Arts and Design, and Camberwell College of Art) are rarely text documents. They are exhibitions, paintings, textile designs, events, stage designs, films, costume design,  sound art, industrial designs, photography, sculpture, installations, etc. This means that our institutional repository is rather different than any other.

Our file formats include:

Images: jpeg, png, bmp, tiff, gif, pdf
Audio: avi, mp3, mpeg4, wav, ac3, flac, ogg
Video: mov, mpeg, quick time, flash, avi, theora/ogg

We are also beginning to include archived websites.

Because of this diversity, our preservation issues are a little more complicated. It will be important for us to use the EPrints extensions (developed by Dave Tarrant of the University of Southampton) that incorporate format recognition, and we will upgrade to the version of EPrints (v3.2) which these tools require, before the end of the summer of 2010.

In addition to implementing the tools developed within the KeepIt project, based on the KeepIt course modules of the various preservation tools available, I have chosen to work through the online preservation tool DRAMBORA, as it best suits the needs of UAL Research Online at this point in its evolution.

I chose this tool from among the many we discussed during the KeepIt course for the following reasons:

it is designed for repositories rather than all digital assets of an organisation;
it can be applied to very new repositories;
it is a self-assessment exercise;
it does not require advanced technical knowledge

DRAMBORA stands for “Digital Repository Audit Method Based on Risk Assessment”. It is sponsored by JISC and managed by the DCC, the Digital Curation Centre in the UK.

DRAMBORA defines digital curation as the management of risk. The repository manager establishes the objectives, activities, and assets of the repository, and then assesses the areas of risk – identifying weaknesses and strengths, and then managing the areas of risk.

Essential to DRAMBORA’s approach is the belief that “the job of digital curator is to rationalise the uncertainties and threats that inhibit efforts to maintain digital object authenticity and understandability, transforming them into manageable risks.” DPE Newsletter, Issue 2: September 2007, p.9

DRAMBORA includes the following steps:

• Defining the mandate and scope of functions of the repository
• Identifying the activities and assets of the repository
• Identifying the risks and vulnerabilities associated with the mandate, activities and assets
• Assessing and calculating the risks
• Defining risk management measures
• Reporting on the self-audit

After the DRAMBORA exercise is completed, UAL Research Online should have:

- a ‘comprehensive and documented awareness of mission, aims, objectives, activities and assets.’

- a ‘catalogue of pertinent risks, categorised according to type and relationships, which have been described in terms of ownership, probability and impact’

- ‘internal understanding of shortcomings of the organisation – so that resources can be allocated or redistributed to pressing areas’

We should also be prepared for an external audit, if needed. Compatible external audits are said to include:

- Trustworthy Repositories Audit & Certification (TRAC) – an accreditation of the US National Archives and Records Administration,

- Nestor Catalogue of Criteria for Trusted Repositories, or

- Consultative Committee for Space Data Systems (CCSDS) digital repository audit assessment criteria

One of the objectives of UAL’s participation in the KeepIt project  (as defined by my predecessor as manager of UAL Research Online) was to write a series of guides for digital preservation, meant to advise staff about it and to impress the need for it to our senior management. I hope that the DRAMBORA results will feed into this document as well.

So I explored the DRAMBORA site and signed up for the process. I have completed the first stage, in which I defined the functions and scope of the repository. Already I found much food for thought and have several questions I need to ask the senior managers about the specifics of my repository mandate – I can see that DRAMBORA will require me to think through more than just preservation risks, and will be helpful in specifically defining other aspects of our repository.

After I’d done this, we were fortunate to have a visit from Martin Donnelly of the Digital Curation Centre at the fifth module of the KeepIt course, which was held on 30 March at the University of Northampton. Martin gave us a thorough grounding in DRAMBORA and we were able to complete some practice exercises. Interestingly, at the end of the course we were polled for our reactions, and all 15 respondents indicated that DRAMBORA either could be useful, they intended to use it, or they have used it; no one was unlikely to use it.

Martin advised us that our audit scope and purpose must be decided ahead of time, and we must make it clear at which stage of repository development the audit is being performed. It’s important to realise that no repository exists in a vacuum – we are embedded in our institutional management structures and policies, as well as the limitations and possibilities of our IT support provision, the climate of research we function in, and the wider world of UK higher education and funding.  We need to be clear on the repository’s goals: What do we do/What will we do?

Another of the important preliminary steps Martin highlighted was the need to ascribe selected “functional classes” to the repository – for example, metadata management.

We had a workshop session in which we filled out a sample section of the assessment (for reference, this was Stages 4-5-6 on Form T8/T9/T10). Our group looked specifically at T10, entitled Manage Risks. The form asked us to name and describe a possible risk, and then explain its manifestation. Then we classified the nature of the risk, identified the risk owner and stakeholders, listed the risk relationships, probability, potential impact, and from these we calculated its severity. Then we devised a risk management strategy, a risk management activity, and identified the owners of these two. This was a lot of work! and much group discussion ensued. It was a bit difficult to do as a group, because we found our repositories were all quite different, even in terms of the sorts of risks we each thought we’d be likely to face. But it’s clearly a very thorough process.

After trying T10, I  was apprehensive about my ability to think up all the possible risks that the repository faces, but was glad to learn that the DRAMBORA pdf guide includes lots of examples of risks repositories may face. The DRAMBORA website claims: “DRAMBORA Interactive provides a host of real-world risk exemplars which you can use or modify for your own repository’s circumstances.” I think this is a crucial part of the process, and I’ll certainly need to refer to these examples.

A minor concern the emerged during the hands-on experience with T10 is that filling out a lot of these forms will be tedious – I envision that there will be a lot of repetition, e.g., stakeholders will be the same for many risks.  Also, although the fact that DRAMBORA is a self-assessment is one of its good points, I do wonder if I am qualified to assess all these areas.  I don’t see how to independently test my decisions, so how will I know the probability of x happening? DRAMBORA is meant to ‘provide peace of mind’ but if it is based only on my judgement, I wonder how reassuring it will be.

Martin advised that we should allot 5 full working days to the self-audit, and I am not sure where I will find this much time to devote to this, despite my best intentions and awareness of my responsibility as a KeepIt project partner and exemplar.  I will have to put it together in bits and pieces, rather than get immersed in the task for a block of time; the latter would be far preferable. It was suggested that there might be a possibility of a ‘DRAMBORA Light’, that I could put together for myself and report on, for the use of other repository managers that are as busy as I seem to be. There are lots of exciting things going on for UAL Research Online in the next months, including our EPrints software upgrade, the complete restructuring of the university’s research office, adopting the repository to be used for all research reporting functions in the university, and my involvement in three additional projects with their own sets of deadlines, meetings and papers to write. It’s easy to keep putting off getting properly stuck into DRAMBORA, and it’s not just about my own time management – I think this illustrates a common problem for digital preservation generally. We all know that we very much need to assess, manage and minimise risk, but preservation tasks tend to fall into the ‘Important’ category, not the ‘Urgent’ one. It’s easy to spend six months attending to ‘Urgent’ work, and never get to any of the ‘Important’ bits.

Over the last few months the need for a good risk management has been very dramatically demonstrated in the news – I wonder if it would help to post this photo in a prominent place in my workspace?

Deepwater Horizon oil rig fire
Photo courtesy of the U.S. Coast Guard Eighth District External Affairs http://www.flickr.com/photos/uscgd8/4542934710/
Licensed under Creative Commons Attribution/Share Alike 2.0.

Stephanie Meece
Institutional Repository Manager, UAL Research Online
University of the Arts London