DLF Wiki - User contributions [en]

NDSA:February 24, 2014 Standards and Practices Working Group Notes

2014-02-25T18:32:04Z

Amy.Kirchhoff: Created page with ' Attendees: * Barrie Howard * Amy Kirchhoff * Andrea Goethals * Butch Lazorchak * Carol Kussmann * Carolyn Campbell * David Lake * Deborah Kempe * Dina Sokolova * Felicity Dyka…'

Attendees:
* Barrie Howard
* Amy Kirchhoff
* Andrea Goethals
* Butch Lazorchak
* Carol Kussmann
* Carolyn Campbell
* David Lake
* Deborah Kempe
* Dina Sokolova
* Felicity Dykas
* Kate Murray
* Mariella Soprano
* Mary Vardigan
* Michelle Paolillo
* Midge Coates
* Rosie Storey
* Winston Atkins

Rosie Storey is new attendee. She was sent by Kate Zwaard who is out on maternity leave. She is a s/w developer.

Project 1 Review: Digital Video conversation a couple of week's ago. Went well. Page on Wiki. Going to put together plans on next steps. Doodle poll for scheduling of next call to look at suggestions on Wiki and think about next steps. Infrastructure working group also interested and opened it up for their participants. WebEx will be posted to whole group, whether you opt to answer the poll or not.

Project 2 Review: PDF A/3 document published last week. Butch Lazorchak led the effort. http://blogs.loc.gov/digitalpreservation/2014/02/new-ndsa-report-the-benefits-and-risks-of-the-pdfa-3-file-format-for-archival-institutions/. Also on by-line were Sheila Morrissey and Caroline Arms. Lots of good feedback on Twitter. Recommend we all read it and comment to Butch or on blog. Kudos to all authors.

Project 3 Review: Fixity document. An informal document at this point. Posted by Trevor Owens to Signal Blog on 2/7. http://blogs.loc.gov/digitalpreservation/2014/02/check-yourself-how-and-when-to-check-fixity/ Next steps are to encourage folks to share the document, get comments, refine, and post as a more formal document to NDSA website.

As a follow-up to fixity document, will be posting a blog about different roles and placement of fixity data in media files. A little different than with "documents". Love to hear comments.

Last update: The Signal Blog post about the Wikipedia project. Andrea talks about it a little. http://blogs.loc.gov/digitalpreservation/2014/01/wikipedia-the-go-to-source-for-information-about-digital-preservation/. Discuss project, challenges, achievements and folks who contributed a lot of effort, especially our colleauges at Columbia. Asking in blog post if anyone wants to take over heading the porject. If interested, contact Steven Paul Davis.

Last Last Update: Self assessment project. Archivematica hosting a Drupal based app that institutions can download. It helps institutions work through a TRAC self-assessment. https://www.archivematica.org/wiki/Internal_audit_tool Next focus of project will be getting back to guidance and examples of how to go through the process. Want to have something to share by July meeting.

Another Update: Agenda for NDSA. This year an opportunity to tap into wealth of info in working groups. A concerted effort to get feedback from working group members and working groups. Read through 2014 document and provide feedback by mid-March on different sections addressed. Standards is a bit buried (infrastructure, on the other hand, has its own section within the document). Contact Andrea, Barrie, Kate, or coordinating committee or working group chairs with comments. Input would be useful, including examplars.

A couple of calls ago, discussed interests of attendees on the group. Looked for overlap. First was video and led to those discussions. Next up was metadata packaging.

Rosie from LC: Using BagIt. Where possible, try and get content providers to use BagIt. Usually providers are happy to do so. In it BagIt spec, there is a baginfo.txt file where you can put MD. There is a manifest with fixity info. When bag received at LC, have an inventory DB. The baginfo.txt file feeds into the inventory DB. Users can browse in that DB via a web application to find and get to the files. Keep that baginfo.txt file on the system in case the DB get's lost. Keeping it in sync is one of the problems. Working on a related project to address BagIt spec version 2 ("baguette"). Enhanced ability to keep MD at root level of bag and across the entirety of bag. Also trying to come up with a less intrusive way to keep the content on disk to keep fixities and MD embedded. Maybe over next 6 months to a year. Will be posting to Google Digital Curation Group. Amy K. asked if it would be possible to get into BagIt redesign during the design phase.

Andrea from Harvard: In past have mixture of some content modeled using METS (mainily page turn objects) and lots of other content they don't use METS for. Putting second generation DB in place and thinking about how to treat MD. Making it a first citizen of repository. Migrating all MD this year. Serializing MD to METS files. No standards around the first time they built their DB. Changing all schemas, now, and changed data model to be more consistent with PREMIS data model (objects that have files, rather than just files). MD coming in from lots of data sources. Old files, catalog records, running FITS tool against all files and that is providing technical and format MD. Challenge is to figure out where to draw the line of what to do now and what to put off to the future. Can't do everything right now.

David Lake from NARA and much of what Andrea discussed resonates with him. Currently in the process of developing a new SIP specification for the ERA project. The original SIP created was from back in 2005/6. Quite limitted in functionality, but it did much of the basics (capture fixity, created manifest, etc.). Homegrown. Limitted in ability to provide MD at various levels. An opportunity to re-examine what they are doing in this area. Doing a lot of work to take processing capabilities out of the DRA system and put them in a more flexible environment. Need a multitude of tools to process different datasets as they come in. Doing some refactoring. Repository has an XML file of MD for every object in the repository. It is based on PREMIS. Limitations with that. Thinking about SIP spec right now. Using METS, heavily, in construction of SIPs. In SIP, assuming they'll be making changes on the backend with the repository schema. Biggest challenges are accomodating massive collections that are expecting to come in -- volume will be a challenge. Especially, being able to take in MD across the different types of formats they receive, especially records in hierarchical format. How to model those complex types of records in SIP in a way that repository will be able to parse out and manage MD and relationships between the files once they get into the repository. Planning to have a draft produced for a pilot project later this year. May take it to wider community for constructive review.

Carolyn Campbell -- use METS, now. Want to use METS in a DSpace repository. Current project. Trying to get METS integrated into DSpace repository and not sure how to do it.

Amy -- Portico takes in content packaged in many different ways and normalizes everything to its content model, which was informed by PREMIS, DIDL and METS. The Portico MD closely follows the 6 part content model: content type, content set, archival unit, content unit, functional unit, and storage unit. Portico prefers to export content in BagIt, using rsync where possible (to leverage its built in fixity check functionality). Portico imposes a specific directory structure on the payload of the bags. Amy will send round some pictures of the Portico content model.

A question was asked on whether in Portico's experience it was possible to put all the DMD into the baginfo.txt file. Amy explained that at Portico we do not try to. Portico expects its content recipients to read the NLM/JATS XML files and/or the PMD file for DMD and article structural information. We do impose a structure on the payload and provide an XML file with each journal directory that includes some business information such as journal title, that does not always come in the NLM/JATS files.

Question: Do we want to blog post about this, Andrea asks? Or just keep it as an internal discussion? Or discuss further. Folks who spoke will write up a paragraph.

Wrap Up: Moving from lists.digitalpreservation.gov to lists.gov. They will send out reminders, in case we've set up rules in our email services. This WebEx will be changing, too. Not sure what it'll be yet, evaluating choices.

Action Items:
* Amy from ITHAKA will send round a picture of the Portico content model
* Working group members who spoke about their experiences with MD and packaging will write up a paragraph

NDSA:Standards and Best Practices Working Group

2014-02-25T18:30:06Z

Amy.Kirchhoff: /* Meeting Schedules, Minutes and Agendas */

= Standards and Practices Working Group =

[[NDSA:Standards and Practices Working Group Charter ]] (December 10, 2010)

= Current Members =
A list of current members is posted here: [[NDSA:Standards and Practices Working Group Members]].

= Statement of Purpose =

The Standards and Practices Working Group will work to facilitate a community-wide understanding of the role and benefit of standards in digital preservation and how to use them effectively to ensure durable and usable collections. The Group will also develop, recommend, promote, and disseminate information about effective methods for selecting, organizing, describing, managing, preserving and serving digital content, in collaboration with other individuals and organizations where appropriate.

= Current Scope of Work =

Working group members may initiate and engage in new work at any time by forming Action Teams focused on specific projects or tasks.

== Survey and document the digital preservation standards landscape ==
This is an ambitious and on-going project using Wikipedia to promote the use of digital preservation standards and best practices. The objectives are to:
* identify and describe '''existing''' digital preservation standards and best practices
* identify '''gaps''' in digital preservation standards and best practices coverage that could be addressed by this working group in collaboration with others
* sustain this activity by building a community of Wikipedians to join us in this activity

The categories of digital preservation standards and best practices we will focus on include: Content models, Content packaging, Content transfer, Digital preservation strategies and techniques, Digital preservation terms and concepts, File formats, Encodings, Metadata exchange, Metadata schemas, Repository architecture, Repository certification and trustworthiness, Repository operations, Repository policies

Status of activities and deliverables:

* creation of Digital Preservation "WikiProject" within Wikipedia as an umbrella for collaborating with others on this project -- '''COMPLETE 6/2012'''
* redevelop the current Wikipedia "Digital Preservation" page so that it can serve as an appropriate launch page to more detailed information about standards and best practices -- '''IN PROGRESS, 11/2012-'''

* create / update pages describing current standards and best practices in the field of digital preservation
* consult with others involved in digital preservation to encourage their input and contributions to the effort
* report back to the NDSA steering committee with updates and proposals as to how to continue this effort into the future

Links related to this project:
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Digital_Preservation Digital Preservation WikiProject Page]
* [[NDSA:Existing DP-Related Wikipedia Pages]]
* [[NDSA:Survey Template]]
* [[NDSA:Sources of Information about DP Standards and Best Practices]]
* [[NDSA:Categories and Action Teams]] (sign up for an action team here)
* [[NDSA:Parking Spot for other DP-related Standards and Best Practices]]

== Survey of digital preservation staffing ==

* [[NDSA:Staffing survey planning page]]

== Survey on adoption of digital preservation standards and best practices ==

* [[NDSA:Standards survey planning page]]

== Related action team on distributed digital preservation ==

* [[NDSA:DDP_OAIS_Frameworks | Describing a Framework for Applying OAIS to Distributed Digital Preservation]]

== Items related to the exploration of the challenges of preserving PDFs, especially PDF/A documents, including PDF/A-3 ==

* [[NDSA:PDF Exploration]]

One of the great strengths of PDF, including the recent PDF/A-3 standard, is its ability to contain a variety of sometimes complex digital objects within a single file. Long term preservation of these files, however, can be problematic because current digital preservation tools are not able to consistently identify the existence of the embedded content nor identify its format. The NDSA Standards sub group is interested in exploring the boundaries of applicability for PDF in preservation environments, especially as a carrier of complex formats such as audio, video and geospatial information.

The interest in this project grew out of a Signal blog post on PDF/A-3 by Butch Lazorchak (LOC) about embedded files in PDF/A (http://blogs.loc.gov/digitalpreservation/2012/11/all-in-embedded-files-in-pdfa/) as well as discussions between NARA and depositing agencies who are starting to use PDF/A-3 as a de facto normalization wrapper format to contain many media types including audio and video. Caroline Arms (LOC) has already produced a helpful background document to kick start this work.

== TDR Self-assessment and Audit: Understanding options for addressing standards and requirements ==


* [[NDSA:TDR Self-assessment and Audit: Understanding Options for Addressing Standards and Requirements| Project Charter]]

With the release of ISO 16363 that specifies the requirements for the audit and certification of trustworthy digital repositories, the digital community would benefit from a review of current options for organizations to demonstrate comformance and from ongoing monitoring as options emerge and evolve.

== Digital video exploration ==

* [[NDSA:Digital video exploration]]

= Brainstorming =

* [[NDSA:New_Work | Brainstorming new project ideas (Nov, 2012)]]
* [[NDSA:National_Agenda_Standards_Brainstorm | Ideas for the 2014 National Agenda]]

= Resources =

* [[NDSA:Activity_Charter_Template | Template for describing new projects]]
* NDSA Standards Working Group Listserv Archives (login required): http://list.digitalpreservation.gov/SCRIPTS/WA-DIGITAL.EXE?A0=NDSA-STANDARDS&X=25F57E4CACD543490D&Y

= Meeting Schedules, Minutes and Agendas =
* [[NDSA:February 24, 2014 Standards & Practices Working Group Notes]]
* [[NDSA:January 27, 2014 Standards & Practices Working Group Notes]]
* [[NDSA:December 16, 2013 Standards & Practices Working Group Notes]]
* [[NDSA:November 18, 2013 Standards & Practices Working Group Notes]]
* [[NDSA:September 16, 2013 Standards & Practices Working Group Notes]]
* [[NDSA:August 19, 2013 Standards & Practices Working Group Notes]]
* [[NDSA:June 17, 2013 Standards & Practices Working Group Notes]]
* [[NDSA:May 20, 2013 Standards & Practices Working Group Notes]]
* (April 2013 - no call)
* [[NDSA:March 18, 2013 Standards Working Group Notes]]
* [[NDSA:February 25, 2013 Standards Working Group Notes]]
* [[NDSA:January 28, 2013 Standards Working Group Notes]]
* [[NDSA:December 17, 2012 Standards Working Group Notes]]
* [[NDSA:November 26, 2012 Standards Working Group Notes]]
* [[NDSA:October 24, 2012 Standards Working Group Notes|October 24, 2012 Standards & Practices Working Group Notes]]
* [[NDSA:August 20, 2012 Standards Working Group Notes]]
* [[NDSA:June 18, 2012 Standards Working Group Notes]]
* [[NDSA:May 16, 2012 Standards Working Group Notes]]
* [[NDSA:April 18, 2012 Standards Working Group Notes]]
* [[NDSA:March 13, 2012 Standards Working Group Notes]]
* [[NDSA:February 22, 2012 Standards Working Group Notes]]
* [[NDSA:January 17, 2012 Standards Working Group Notes]]
* [[NDSA:November 7, 2011 Standards Working Group Notes and Agenda]]
* [[NDSA:June 6, 2011 Standards Working Group Notes and Agenda]]
* [[NDSA:May 2, 2011 Standards Working Group Notes and Agenda]]
* [[NDSA:April 4, 2011 Standards Working Group Notes and Agenda]]
* [[NDSA:Digital Preservation Metadata Action Team -- March 15, 2011]]
* [[NDSA:March 7, 2011 Standards Working Group Notes and Agenda]]
* [[NDSA:February 7, 2011 Standards Working Group Notes and Agenda]]
* [[NDSA:January 12, 2011 Standards Working Group Notes and Agenda]]
* [[NDSA:December 6, 2010 Standards Working Group Notes]]
* [[NDSA:November 17, 2010 Standards Working Group Notes]]

= Workshops =
* I can haz standards workshop, NDIPP 2011 [[NDSA:I can haz standards workshop notes]]

NDSA:February 25, 2013 Standards Working Group Notes

2013-02-27T15:16:36Z

Amy.Kirchhoff:

'''1. New member introduction'''

* No new members on the call.

'''2. Contributions to the NDSA National Agenda report [1] (35 minutes)'''
''' We are going to try working together on a document in real-time. Please check that you're able to edit the doc at the following link:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1SF3q1OpKaHL5Ylbzwd2T1O83TU8igrtvqOitB3ftqjc/edit'''

''Organizational Section''

* We have been asked to describe why the topic matters at this time, plus make recommendations about next steps.
* Can/should we put in something about staffing survey from last year? Perhaps mention of FTEs in one of the bullets. The survey also talked about characteristics of people being looking for.
* Would it be useful to do an environmental scan/inventory of positions in digital preservation that people could use as models?
* It was mentioned that many first need to simplp get management to understand that digital preservation needs to happen.
* Audit and certification project ... should we integrate that into this document?
* Any regional or local efforts we should focus on? Partnerships?
* What about international efforts?
* Estonia -- Aligning National Approaches to Digital Preservation document ... maybe it can be helpful in helping us decide on what to focus?
* How does digital preservation fit into bigger things, like data management?
* This is about scoping what we are responsible for at different scales.
* Role of disciplinary repositories and what LC is going to take responsibility for and what others will do.
* Network of repositories.
* White House mandate for open access.
* Compliance coming from different places ... funded research, etc.

''Digital Content Section''

* Q about Compound, complex document section ... scope is not specific. Maybe change "document" to something less format specific. Maybe "objects". All agree this is better.
* We want to consider dynamic content that changes over time
* Digital art & new media.
* Connecting preserved publications to preserved data (connections between repositories)
* Accessibility of digital content
* Discoverability of digital content
* Big data?
* Computational consumption of archives
* Annotations
* What to do when you need to limit access due to restrictions of one reason or another (copyright, human studies, etc.)
* Leveraging tools and practices in digital forensics community.
* Tools available to package and annotate content.

''Research Section''

* Integration of large scale emulation into delivery.
* Testing of migration.
* Integration of emulation and migration.

''Infrastructure Section''

* Storage at scale
* Tools to aid in risk assessment and archive management (preservation planning).

'''3. New projects (15 minutes)
b. Certifications'''

* Nancy didn't make the call. New charter on the NDSA page. We might want to wait for Nancy.
* Main idea is to review options for different archives and repositories.
* For instance, in Europe, there is a framework for data ... data seal of approval, then self-assessment, and then full certification is self assessment and full audit. An org has to decide what makes the most sense for themselves. How do you understand your organization's investment in doing any of these activities and the gain you might get from doing any of them.

'''4. Update on projects
a. PDF/A-3 (5 minutes)'''

* Pros/cons and use cases.
* Set up a GoogleDoc.
* Going to try and get pieces in by 3rd week in March in time for next meeting of the PDF/A-3 group the next week.
* DPC is sponsoring a session on PDF/A-3 and Sheila will be there.
* Probably nothing for this bigger Standards group until April.

''' b. WikiProject (5 minutes)'''

* Working on best practices and email.
* Section for long-term email preservation has been written off-line. Chris and Dina. Email archiving will be drafted for next week.

'''5. Next call, March 18th'''

NDSA:February 25, 2013 Standards Working Group Notes

2013-02-27T15:14:57Z

Amy.Kirchhoff:

'''1. New member introduction'''

No new members on the call.

'''2. Contributions to the NDSA National Agenda report [1] (35 minutes)'''
''' We are going to try working together on a document in real-time. Please check that you're able to edit the doc at the following link:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1SF3q1OpKaHL5Ylbzwd2T1O83TU8igrtvqOitB3ftqjc/edit'''

''Organizational Section''

* We have been asked to describe why the topic matters at this time, plus make recommendations about next steps.
* Can/should we put in something about staffing survey from last year? Perhaps mention of FTEs in one of the bullets. The survey also talked about characteristics of people being looking for.
* Would it be useful to do an environmental scan/inventory of positions in digital preservation that people could use as models?
* It was mentioned that many first need to simplp get management to understand that digital preservation needs to happen.
* Audit and certification project ... should we integrate that into this document?
* Any regional or local efforts we should focus on? Partnerships?
* What about international efforts?
* Estonia -- Aligning National Approaches to Digital Preservation document ... maybe it can be helpful in helping us decide on what to focus?
* How does digital preservation fit into bigger things, like data management?
* This is about scoping what we are responsible for at different scales.
* Role of disciplinary repositories and what LC is going to take responsibility for and what others will do.
* Network of repositories.
* White House mandate for open access.
* Compliance coming from different places ... funded research, etc.

''Digital Content Section''

Q about Compound, complex document section ... scope is not specific. Maybe change "document" to something less format specific. Maybe "objects". All agree this is better.

We want to consider dynamic content that changes over time

Digital art & new media.

Connecting preserved publications to preserved data (connections between repositories)

Accessibility of digital content

Discoverability of digital content

Big data?

Computational consumption of archives

Annotations

What to do when you need to limit access due to restrictions of one reason or another (copyright, human studies, etc.)

Leveraging tools and practices in digital forensics community.

Tools available to package and annotate content.

''Research Section''

Integration of large scale emulation into delivery.

Testing of migration.

Integration of emulation and migration.

''Infrastructure Section''

Storage at scale

Tools to aid in risk assessment and archive management (preservation planning).

'''3. New projects (15 minutes)
b. Certifications'''

Nancy didn't make the call. New charter on the NDSA page. We might want to wait for Nancy.

Main idea is to review options for different archives and repositories.

For instance, in Europe, there is a framework for data ... data seal of approval, then self-assessment, and then full certification is self assessment and full audit. An org has to decide what makes the most sense for themselves. How do you understand your organization's investment in doing any of these activities and the gain you might get from doing any of them.

'''4. Update on projects
a. PDF/A-3 (5 minutes)'''

Pros/cons and use cases.

Set up a GoogleDoc.

Going to try and get pieces in by 3rd week in March in time for next meeting of the PDF/A-3 group the next week.

DPC is sponsoring a session on PDF/A-3 and Sheila will be there.

Probably nothing for this bigger Standards group until April.

''' b. WikiProject (5 minutes)'''

Working on best practices and email.

Section for long-term email preservation has been written off-line. Chris and Dina. Email archiving will be drafted for next week.

'''5. Next call, March 18th'''

NDSA:February 25, 2013 Standards Working Group Notes

2013-02-27T15:13:19Z

Amy.Kirchhoff:

'''1. New member introduction'''

No new members on the call.

'''2. Contributions to the NDSA National Agenda report [1] (35 minutes)'''
''' We are going to try working together on a document in real-time. Please check that you're able to edit the doc at the following link:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1SF3q1OpKaHL5Ylbzwd2T1O83TU8igrtvqOitB3ftqjc/edit'''

''Organizational Section''

We have been asked to describe why the topic matters at this time, plus make recommendations about next steps.

Can/should we put in something about staffing survey from last year? Perhaps mention of FTEs in one of the bullets. The survey also talked about characteristics of people being looking for.

Would it be useful to do an environmental scan/inventory of positions in digital preservation that people could use as models?

It was mentioned that many first need to simplp get management to understand that digital preservation needs to happen.

Audit and certification project ... should we integrate that into this document?

Any regional or local efforts we should focus on? Partnerships?

What about international efforts?

Estonia -- Aligning National Approaches to Digital Preservation document ... maybe it can be helpful in helping us decide on what to focus?

How does digital preservation fit into bigger things, like data management?

This is about scoping what we are responsible for at different scales.

Role of disciplinary repositories and what LC is going to take responsibility for and what others will do.

Network of repositories.

White House mandate for open access.

Compliance coming from different places ... funded research, etc.

''Digital Content Section''

Q about Compound, complex document section ... scope is not specific. Maybe change "document" to something less format specific. Maybe "objects". All agree this is better.

We want to consider dynamic content that changes over time

Digital art & new media.

Connecting preserved publications to preserved data (connections between repositories)

Accessibility of digital content

Discoverability of digital content

Big data?

Computational consumption of archives

Annotations

What to do when you need to limit access due to restrictions of one reason or another (copyright, human studies, etc.)

Leveraging tools and practices in digital forensics community.

Tools available to package and annotate content.

''Research Section''

Integration of large scale emulation into delivery.

Testing of migration.

Integration of emulation and migration.

''Infrastructure Section''

Storage at scale

Tools to aid in risk assessment and archive management (preservation planning).

'''3. New projects (15 minutes)
b. Certifications'''

Nancy didn't make the call. New charter on the NDSA page. We might want to wait for Nancy.

Main idea is to review options for different archives and repositories.

For instance, in Europe, there is a framework for data ... data seal of approval, then self-assessment, and then full certification is self assessment and full audit. An org has to decide what makes the most sense for themselves. How do you understand your organization's investment in doing any of these activities and the gain you might get from doing any of them.

'''4. Update on projects
a. PDF/A-3 (5 minutes)'''

Pros/cons and use cases.

Set up a GoogleDoc.

Going to try and get pieces in by 3rd week in March in time for next meeting of the PDF/A-3 group the next week.

DPC is sponsoring a session on PDF/A-3 and Sheila will be there.

Probably nothing for this bigger Standards group until April.

''' b. WikiProject (5 minutes)'''

Working on best practices and email.

Section for long-term email preservation has been written off-line. Chris and Dina. Email archiving will be drafted for next week.

'''5. Next call, March 18th'''

NDSA:February 25, 2013 Standards Working Group Notes

2013-02-27T15:09:31Z

Amy.Kirchhoff: Created page with ''''1. New member introduction''' No new members on the call. '''2. Contributions to the NDSA National Agenda report [1] (35 minutes)''' ''' We are going to try working toge…'

'''1. New member introduction'''

No new members on the call.

'''2. Contributions to the NDSA National Agenda report [1] (35 minutes)'''
''' We are going to try working together on a document in real-time. Please check that you're able to edit the doc at the following link:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1SF3q1OpKaHL5Ylbzwd2T1O83TU8igrtvqOitB3ftqjc/edit'''

''Organizational Section''

We have been asked to describe why the topic matters at this time, plus make recommendations about next steps.

Can/should we put in something about staffing survey from last year? Perhaps mention of FTEs in one of the bullets. The survey also talked about characteristics of people being looking for.

Would it be useful to do an environmental scan/inventory of positions in digital preservation that people could use as models?

It was mentioned that many first need to simplp get management to understand that digital preservation needs to happen.

Audit and certification project ... should we integrate that into this document?

Any regional or local efforts we should focus on? Partnerships?

What about international efforts?

Estonia -- Aligning National Approaches to Digital Preservation document ... maybe it can be helpful in helping us decide on what to focus?

How does digital preservation fit into bigger things, like data management?

This is about scoping what we are responsible for at different scales.

Role of disciplinary repositories and what LC is going to take responsibility for and what others will do.

Network of repositories.

White House mandate for open access.

Compliance coming from different places ... funded research, etc.

''Digital Content Section''

Q about Compound, complex document section ... scope is not specific. Maybe change "document" to something less format specific. Maybe "objects". All agree this is better.

Sheila: dynamic content that changes over time

Digital art & new mediac

Connecting preserved publications to preserved data (connections between repositories)

Accessibility of digital content

Discoverability of digital content

Big data?

computational consumption of archives

Annotations

What to do when you need to limit access due to restrictions of one reason or another (copyright, human studies, etc.)

Leveraging tools and practices in digital forensics community.

Tools available to package and annotate content.

Research

Sheila: integration of large scale emulation into delivery.

Testing of migration.

Integration of emulation and migration.

Infrastructure

Storage at scale

Tools to aid in risk assessment and archive management (preservation planning).

3. New projects (15 minutes)
b. Certifications

Nancy didn't make the call. New charter on the NDSA page. We might want to wait for Nancy.

Main idea is to review options for different archives and repositoires.

For instance, in Europe, there is a framework for data ... data seal of approval, then self-assessment, and then full certification is self assessment and full audit. An org has to decide what makes the most sense for themselves. How do you understand your organizations investment in doing any of these activities and the gain you might get from doing any of them.

4. Update on projects
a. PDF/A-3 (5 minutes)

Pros/cons and use cases.

Set up a GoogleDoc.

Going to try and get pieces in by 3rd week in March in time for next meeting the next week.

DPC is sponsoring a session on PDF/A-3 and Sheila will be there.

Probably nothing for this group until April.

b. WikiProject (5 minutes)

Working on best practices and email.

Section for long-term email preservation has been written off-line. Chris and Dina. Email archiving will be drafted for next week.

5. Next call, March 18th

NDSA:Standards and Best Practices Working Group

2013-02-27T15:05:14Z

Amy.Kirchhoff: /* Meeting Schedules, Minutes and Agendas */

= Standards and Practices Working Group =

[[NDSA:Standards and Practices Working Group Charter ]] (December 10, 2010)

= Current Members =
A list of current members is posted here: [[NDSA:Standards and Practices Working Group Members]].

= Statement of Purpose =

The Standards and Practices Working Group will work to facilitate a community-wide understanding of the role and benefit of standards in digital preservation and how to use them effectively to ensure durable and usable collections. The Group will also develop, recommend, promote, and disseminate information about effective methods for selecting, organizing, describing, managing, preserving and serving digital content, in collaboration with other individuals and organizations where appropriate.

= Current Scope of Work =

Working group members may initiate and engage in new work at any time by forming Action Teams focused on specific projects or tasks.

== Survey and document the digital preservation standards landscape ==
This is an ambitious and on-going project using Wikipedia to promote the use of digital preservation standards and best practices. The objectives are to:
* identify and describe '''existing''' digital preservation standards and best practices
* identify '''gaps''' in digital preservation standards and best practices coverage that could be addressed by this working group in collaboration with others
* sustain this activity by building a community of Wikipedians to join us in this activity

The categories of digital preservation standards and best practices we will focus on include: Content models, Content packaging, Content transfer, Digital preservation strategies and techniques, Digital preservation terms and concepts, File formats, Encodings, Metadata exchange, Metadata schemas, Repository architecture, Repository certification and trustworthiness, Repository operations, Repository policies

Status of activities and deliverables:

* creation of Digital Preservation "WikiProject" within Wikipedia as an umbrella for collaborating with others on this project -- '''COMPLETE 6/2012'''
* redevelop the current Wikipedia "Digital Preservation" page so that it can serve as an appropriate launch page to more detailed information about standards and best practices -- '''IN PROGRESS, 11/2012-'''

* create / update pages describing current standards and best practices in the field of digital preservation
* consult with others involved in digital preservation to encourage their input and contributions to the effort
* report back to the NDSA steering committee with updates and proposals as to how to continue this effort into the future

Links related to this project:
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Digital_Preservation Digital Preservation WikiProject Page]
* [[NDSA:Existing DP-Related Wikipedia Pages]]
* [[NDSA:Survey Template]]
* [[NDSA:Sources of Information about DP Standards and Best Practices]]
* [[NDSA:Categories and Action Teams]] (sign up for an action team here)
* [[NDSA:Parking Spot for other DP-related Standards and Best Practices]]

== Survey of digital preservation staffing ==

* [[NDSA:Staffing survey planning page]]

== Survey on adoption of digital preservation standards and best practices ==

* [[NDSA:Standards survey planning page]]

== Related action team on distributed digital preservation ==

* [[NDSA:DDP_OAIS_Frameworks | Describing a Framework for Applying OAIS to Distributed Digital Preservation]]

== Items related to the exploration of the challenges of preserving PDFs, especially PDF/A documents, including PDF/A-3 ==

* [[NDSA:PDF Exploration]]

One of the great strengths of PDF, including the recent PDF/A-3 standard, is its ability to contain a variety of sometimes complex digital objects within a single file. Long term preservation of these files, however, can be problematic because current digital preservation tools are not able to consistently identify the existence of the embedded content nor identify its format. The NDSA Standards sub group is interested in exploring the boundaries of applicability for PDF in preservation environments, especially as a carrier of complex formats such as audio, video and geospatial information.

The interest in this project grew out of a Signal blog post on PDF/A-3 by Butch Lazorchak (LOC) about embedded files in PDF/A (http://blogs.loc.gov/digitalpreservation/2012/11/all-in-embedded-files-in-pdfa/) as well as discussions between NARA and depositing agencies who are starting to use PDF/A-3 as a de facto normalization wrapper format to contain many media types including audio and video. Caroline Arms (LOC) has already produced a helpful background document to kick start this work.

== Audit and Certification: Understanding options for addressing standards and requirements ==

* [[NDSA:Audit and Certification: Understanding Options for Addressing Standards and Requirements| Project Charter]]

With the release of ISO 16363 that specifies the requirements for the audit and certification of trustworthy digital repositories, the digital community would benefits from a review of current options for organizations to demonstrate comformance and from ongoing monitoring as options emerge and evolve.

= Brainstorming =

* [[NDSA:New_Work | Brainstorming new project ideas (Nov, 2012)]]
* [[NDSA:National_Agenda_Standards_Brainstorm | Ideas for the 2014 National Agenda]]

= Resources =

* [[NDSA:Activity_Charter_Template | Template for describing new projects]]
* NDSA Standards Working Group Listserv Archives (login required): http://list.digitalpreservation.gov/SCRIPTS/WA-DIGITAL.EXE?A0=NDSA-STANDARDS&X=25F57E4CACD543490D&Y

= Meeting Schedules, Minutes and Agendas =

* [[NDSA:February 25, 2013 Standards Working Group Notes]]
* [[NDSA:January 28, 2013 Standards Working Group Notes]]
* [[NDSA:December 17, 2012 Standards Working Group Notes]]
* [[NDSA:November 26, 2012 Standards Working Group Notes]]
* [[NDSA:October 24, 2012 Standards Working Group Notes|October 24, 2012 Standards & Practices Working Group Notes]]
* [[NDSA:August 20, 2012 Standards Working Group Notes]]
* [[NDSA:June 18, 2012 Standards Working Group Notes]]
* [[NDSA:May 16, 2012 Standards Working Group Notes]]
* [[NDSA:April 18, 2012 Standards Working Group Notes]]
* [[NDSA:March 13, 2012 Standards Working Group Notes]]
* [[NDSA:February 22, 2012 Standards Working Group Notes]]
* [[NDSA:January 17, 2012 Standards Working Group Notes]]
* [[NDSA:November 7, 2011 Standards Working Group Notes and Agenda]]
* [[NDSA:June 6, 2011 Standards Working Group Notes and Agenda]]
* [[NDSA:May 2, 2011 Standards Working Group Notes and Agenda]]
* [[NDSA:April 4, 2011 Standards Working Group Notes and Agenda]]
* [[NDSA:Digital Preservation Metadata Action Team -- March 15, 2011]]
* [[NDSA:March 7, 2011 Standards Working Group Notes and Agenda]]
* [[NDSA:February 7, 2011 Standards Working Group Notes and Agenda]]
* [[NDSA:January 12, 2011 Standards Working Group Notes and Agenda]]
* [[NDSA:December 6, 2010 Standards Working Group Notes]]
* [[NDSA:November 17, 2010 Standards Working Group Notes]]

= Workshops =
* I can haz standards workshop, NDIPP 2011 [[NDSA:I can haz standards workshop notes]]

NDSA:List of places/people we want to receive the survey

2012-07-20T14:27:38Z

Amy.Kirchhoff:

'''Add the name of an institution or person who should receive the preservation staffing survey'''

Please write your name after it if you will send it to this list/group, etc.

DONE - NDSA-ALL - Andrea

DONE - digipres@ala.org - Andrea

DONE - International Association of Social Science Information Services and Technology (IASSIST) List -- Mary

Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research (ICPSR) Web Site Announcement -- Mary

archives@forums.archivists.org -- Jennifer Gunter King (Hampshire)

DONE - Digital Curation google group - Andrea

DONE - International Internet Preservation Consortium (IIPC) preservation working group list - Andrea

DONE - Association of Moving Image Archivists (AMIA)-- Jimi

AMIA-L@LSV.UKY.EDU

DONE - Association of Recorded Sound Collections (ARSC) -- Jimi

ARSCLIST@LISTSERV.LOC.GOV

Museum Computer Network (MCN) list: mcn-l@mcn.edu <mcn-l@mcn.edu> -- Linda

DONE - Digital Preservation Coalition -- Amy

NDSA:June 18, 2012 Standards Working Group Notes

2012-06-18T19:02:45Z

Amy.Kirchhoff:

Action Items

* People are encouraged to send brief updates on conference attendance and summaries to the email list.
* Add suggestions on where and how to circulate the staffing survey to the spot on the Wiki that Jimi will create.
* If you are interested, add your name to the list of people interested in working on the staffing survey data analysis in the spot on the Wiki that Jimi will create.
* Andrea will update the survey and letter with mention of archiving the data, the data being publicly available, and that institutions can request their own data back again.

Workshop/Conferences/Cool Stuff to Share

* Linda attended Screening the Future Conference in CA which dealt with audio/visual content. It was organized by the PrestoCentre Foundation, in collaboration with the University of Southern California Shoah Foundation Institute and Digital Repository. Some of the Master Classes were good and others not so much. One take-away is that a number of universities are setting up digital preservation services not just for themselves, but opening them up to external organizations. These appear to be robust back-up services. For example, if you are a UCS faculty, you can pay per TB for 20 years. For an external party it is $4200 for 1 TB for 5 years. The tapes are loaded onto a robotic system and they run fixity checks every 6 months. They will migrate the media every 2 years. The backup includes 2 copies on campus at USC. A party could pay for a 3rd copy to be stored at Clemson University. CDL PPT is on-line (https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CFMQFjAB&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwiki.ucop.edu%2Fdownload%2Fattachments%2F163610649%2FScreening-the-future-UC3-cost-model.pptx%3Fversion%3D1%26modificationDate%3D1337056116485&ei=WnLfT-zRHoLa6gHI0ayhCw&usg=AFQjCNH_7sqLGB2Na3LxsG9MG-B1oYEywg&sig2=Ec91h9vj7_bQyLxN8rEJnA). CDL was $1400 per TB per year for internal folks.
* Mat Shultz and his colleagues from MetaArchive where in Boston recently to attend several conferences. One was Digital Directions (where Katherine talked about community sourcing). He was at another that focussed on the lifecycle and preservation needs of e-thesis and dissertations. MetaArchive.org/imls can check out the Wiki. Conferences were really interesting.
* MetaArchive is also looking into new grant project to look at preservation of digital newspapers.

MetaArchive, Distributed Preservation, and OAIS:

* Matt Shultz spoke about the framework MetaArchive is working on to help apply OAIS to distributed digital preservation environments.
* This work was started on the tail of MetaArchive's TRAC self audit from 2010.
* MetaArchive has spoken with other distributed preservation organizations such as LOCKSS based groups and Chronopolis, and also the Library of Congress and everyone encouraged them to put together a working group and action team within this standards group, lead by MetaArchive and Educopia (MA parent institution), to poropose a framework for applying OAIS to a distributed environment.
* They began in early 2011 and have posted work to the NDSA Wiki (http://www.loc.gov/extranet/wiki/osi/ndiip/ndsa/index.php?title=DDP_OAIS_Frameworks), including:
** statement of purposes
** white paper porposal as a starter document for advancing this set of work
** Started use case and gap analysis
* They are working closely with Els at the KB (who is leading Danish National Bit Repository).
* Work on the white paper has ramped up in past couple of months and they will have it finished ahead of the July NDSA meeting where time has been set aside to pull together interested parties to wrangle over the white paper.

Status of Preservation Staffing Survey

* Andrea, Meg and Jimi are working on a poster proposal for iPres meeting. They have not heard back yet.
* The survey is just about ready to go. May want to tweak some language at the front about preserving the data in the survey.
* The proposed schedule for circulating the survey and analyzing the data is as follows:

{|-
| July 18-August || Staffing survey goes out
|-
| Week of August 20 || Close out survey, collated data, generate graphs
|-
| Week of September 4 || 1st draft of text for poster (action team works off-line)
|-
| September 13 || WebEx for 2nd draft of poster
|-
| Week of September 17 || Polish up final draft of poster text, copy edit, finalize graphs/images
|-
| September 24-26 || Poster is printed
|-
| September 27 || Poster is done and ready to transport to iPres
|-
| October 1-5 || iPres conferenc
|}

* We do not have a predetermined list of to whom to circulate the survey. Jimi will make a spot on the Wiki for brainstorming and we should all add suggestions.
* Folks thought the letter looked good. We want to add something about archiving the results to the top of the survey and to the letter. We also want to add a line about the fact that the data will be publicly available and individuals can request we specifically send them their institution's data.
* If you resend the letter, be sure to replace [YOUR NAME] with, um, your name. :-)
* We'll build an action team to spearhead analysis of the data.

NDSA:June 18, 2012 Standards Working Group Notes

2012-06-18T19:02:20Z

Amy.Kirchhoff:

Action Items

* People are encouraged to send brief updates on conference attendance and summaries to the email list.
* Add suggestions on where and how to circulate the staffing survey to the spot on the Wiki that Jimi will create.
* If you are interested, add your name to the list of people interested in working on the staffing survey data analysis in the spot on the Wiki that Jimi will create.
* Andrea will update the survey and letter with mention of archiving the data, the data being publicly available, and that institutions can request their own data back again.

Workshop/Conferences/Cool Stuff to Share

* Linda attended Screening the Future Conference in CA which dealt with audio/visual content. It was organized by the PrestoCentre Foundation, in collaboration with the University of Southern California Shoah Foundation Institute and Digital Repository. Some of the Master Classes were good and others not so much. One take-away is that a number of university's are setting up digital preservation services not just for themselves, but opening them up to external organizations. These appear to be robust back-up services. For example, if you are a UCS faculty, you can pay per TB for 20 years. For an external party it is $4200 for 1 TB for 5 years. The tapes are loaded onto a robotic system and they run fixity checks every 6 months. They will migrate the media every 2 years. The backup includes 2 copies on campus at USC. A party could pay for a 3rd copy to be stored at Clemson University. CDL PPT is on-line (https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CFMQFjAB&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwiki.ucop.edu%2Fdownload%2Fattachments%2F163610649%2FScreening-the-future-UC3-cost-model.pptx%3Fversion%3D1%26modificationDate%3D1337056116485&ei=WnLfT-zRHoLa6gHI0ayhCw&usg=AFQjCNH_7sqLGB2Na3LxsG9MG-B1oYEywg&sig2=Ec91h9vj7_bQyLxN8rEJnA). CDL was $1400 per TB per year for internal folks.
* Mat Shultz and his colleagues from MetaArchive where in Boston recently to attend several conferences. One was Digital Directions (where Katherine talked about community sourcing). He was at another that focussed on the lifecycle and preservation needs of e-thesis and dissertations. MetaArchive.org/imls can check out the Wiki. Conferences were really interesting.
* MetaArchive is also looking into new grant project to look at preservation of digital newspapers.

MetaArchive, Distributed Preservation, and OAIS:

* Matt Shultz spoke about the framework MetaArchive is working on to help apply OAIS to distributed digital preservation environments.
* This work was started on the tail of MetaArchive's TRAC self audit from 2010.
* MetaArchive has spoken with other distributed preservation organizations such as LOCKSS based groups and Chronopolis, and also the Library of Congress and everyone encouraged them to put together a working group and action team within this standards group, lead by MetaArchive and Educopia (MA parent institution), to poropose a framework for applying OAIS to a distributed environment.
* They began in early 2011 and have posted work to the NDSA Wiki (http://www.loc.gov/extranet/wiki/osi/ndiip/ndsa/index.php?title=DDP_OAIS_Frameworks), including:
** statement of purposes
** white paper porposal as a starter document for advancing this set of work
** Started use case and gap analysis
* They are working closely with Els at the KB (who is leading Danish National Bit Repository).
* Work on the white paper has ramped up in past couple of months and they will have it finished ahead of the July NDSA meeting where time has been set aside to pull together interested parties to wrangle over the white paper.

Status of Preservation Staffing Survey

* Andrea, Meg and Jimi are working on a poster proposal for iPres meeting. They have not heard back yet.
* The survey is just about ready to go. May want to tweak some language at the front about preserving the data in the survey.
* The proposed schedule for circulating the survey and analyzing the data is as follows:

{|-
| July 18-August || Staffing survey goes out
|-
| Week of August 20 || Close out survey, collated data, generate graphs
|-
| Week of September 4 || 1st draft of text for poster (action team works off-line)
|-
| September 13 || WebEx for 2nd draft of poster
|-
| Week of September 17 || Polish up final draft of poster text, copy edit, finalize graphs/images
|-
| September 24-26 || Poster is printed
|-
| September 27 || Poster is done and ready to transport to iPres
|-
| October 1-5 || iPres conferenc
|}

* We do not have a predetermined list of to whom to circulate the survey. Jimi will make a spot on the Wiki for brainstorming and we should all add suggestions.
* Folks thought the letter looked good. We want to add something about archiving the results to the top of the survey and to the letter. We also want to add a line about the fact that the data will be publicly available and individuals can request we specifically send them their institution's data.
* If you resend the letter, be sure to replace [YOUR NAME] with, um, your name. :-)
* We'll build an action team to spearhead analysis of the data.

NDSA:June 18, 2012 Standards Working Group Notes

2012-06-18T19:00:19Z

Amy.Kirchhoff:

Action Items

* People are encouraged to send brief updates on conference attendance and summaries to the email list.
* Add suggestions on where and how to circulate the staffing survey to the spot on the Wiki that Jimi will create.
* Add your name to the list of people interested in working on the staffing survey data analysis in the spot on the Wiki that Jimi will create.
* Andrea will update the survey and letter with mention of archiving the data, the data being publicly available, and that institutions can request their own data back again.

Workshop/Conferences/Cool Stuff to Share

* Linda attended Screening the Future Conference in CA which dealt with audio/visual content. It was organized by the PrestoCentre Foundation, in collaboration with the University of Southern California Shoah Foundation Institute and Digital Repository. Some of the Master Classes were good and others not so much. One take-away is that a number of university's are setting up digital preservation services not just for themselves, but opening them up to external organizations. These appear to be robust back-up services. For example, if you are a UCS faculty, you can pay per TB for 20 years. For an external party it is $4200 for 1 TB for 5 years. The tapes are loaded onto a robotic system and they run fixity checks every 6 months. They will migrate the media every 2 years. The backup includes 2 copies on campus at USC. A party could pay for a 3rd copy to be stored at Clemson University. CDL PPT is on-line (https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CFMQFjAB&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwiki.ucop.edu%2Fdownload%2Fattachments%2F163610649%2FScreening-the-future-UC3-cost-model.pptx%3Fversion%3D1%26modificationDate%3D1337056116485&ei=WnLfT-zRHoLa6gHI0ayhCw&usg=AFQjCNH_7sqLGB2Na3LxsG9MG-B1oYEywg&sig2=Ec91h9vj7_bQyLxN8rEJnA). CDL was $1400 per TB per year for internal folks.
* Mat Shultz and his colleagues from MetaArchive where in Boston recently to attend several conferences. One was Digital Directions (where Katherine talked about community sourcing). He was at another that focussed on the lifecycle and preservation needs of e-thesis and dissertations. MetaArchive.org/imls can check out the Wiki. Conferences were really interesting.
* MetaArchive is also looking into new grant project to look at preservation of digital newspapers.

MetaArchive, Distributed Preservation, and OAIS:

* Matt Shultz spoke about the framework MetaArchive is working on to help apply OAIS to distributed digital preservation environments.
* This work was started on the tail of MetaArchive's TRAC self audit from 2010.
* MetaArchive has spoken with other distributed preservation organizations such as LOCKSS based groups and Chronopolis, and also the Library of Congress and everyone encouraged them to put together a working group and action team within this standards group, lead by MetaArchive and Educopia (MA parent institution), to poropose a framework for applying OAIS to a distributed environment.
* They began in early 2011 and have posted work to the NDSA Wiki (http://www.loc.gov/extranet/wiki/osi/ndiip/ndsa/index.php?title=DDP_OAIS_Frameworks), including:
** statement of purposes
** white paper porposal as a starter document for advancing this set of work
** Started use case and gap analysis
* They are working closely with Els at the KB (who is leading Danish National Bit Repository).
* Work on the white paper has ramped up in past couple of months and they will have it finished ahead of the July NDSA meeting where time has been set aside to pull together interested parties to wrangle over the white paper.

Status of Preservation Staffing Survey

* Andrea, Meg and Jimi are working on a poster proposal for iPres meeting. They have not heard back yet.
* The survey is just about ready to go. May want to tweak some language at the front about preserving the data in the survey.
* The proposed schedule for circulating the survey and analyzing the data is as follows:

{|-
| July 18-August || Staffing survey goes out
|-
| Week of August 20 || Close out survey, collated data, generate graphs
|-
| Week of September 4 || 1st draft of text for poster (action team works off-line)
|-
| September 13 || WebEx for 2nd draft of poster
|-
| Week of September 17 || Polish up final draft of poster text, copy edit, finalize graphs/images
|-
| September 24-26 || Poster is printed
|-
| September 27 || Poster is done and ready to transport to iPres
|-
| October 1-5 || iPres conferenc
|}

* We do not have a predetermined list of to whom to circulate the survey. Jimi will make a spot on the Wiki for brainstorming and we should all add suggestions.
* Folks thought the letter looked good. We want to add something about archiving the results to the top of the survey and to the letter. We also want to add a line about the fact that the data will be publicly available and individuals can request we specifically send them their institution's data.
* If you resend the letter, be sure to replace [YOUR NAME] with, um, your name. :-)
* We'll build an action team to spearhead analysis of the data.

NDSA:June 18, 2012 Standards Working Group Notes

2012-06-18T18:51:46Z

Amy.Kirchhoff:

Action Items

* People are encouraged to send brief updates on conference attendance and summaries to the email list.

Workshop/Conferences/Cool Stuff to Share

* Linda attended Screening the Future Conference in CA which dealt with audio/visual content. It was organized by the PrestoCentre Foundation, in collaboration with the University of Southern California Shoah Foundation Institute and Digital Repository. Some of the Master Classes were good and others not so much. One take-away is that a number of university's are setting up digital preservation services not just for themselves, but opening them up to external organizations. These appear to be robust back-up services. For example, if you are a UCS faculty, you can pay per TB for 20 years. For an external party it is $4200 for 1 TB for 5 years. The tapes are loaded onto a robotic system and they run fixity checks every 6 months. They will migrate the media every 2 years. The backup includes 2 copies on campus at USC. A party could pay for a 3rd copy to be stored at Clemson University. CDL PPT is on-line (https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CFMQFjAB&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwiki.ucop.edu%2Fdownload%2Fattachments%2F163610649%2FScreening-the-future-UC3-cost-model.pptx%3Fversion%3D1%26modificationDate%3D1337056116485&ei=WnLfT-zRHoLa6gHI0ayhCw&usg=AFQjCNH_7sqLGB2Na3LxsG9MG-B1oYEywg&sig2=Ec91h9vj7_bQyLxN8rEJnA). CDL was $1400 per TB per year for internal folks.
* Mat Shultz and his colleagues from MetaArchive where in Boston recently to attend several conferences. One was Digital Directions (where Katherine talked about community sourcing). He was at another that focussed on the lifecycle and preservation needs of e-thesis and dissertations. MetaArchive.org/imls can check out the Wiki. Conferences were really interesting.
* MetaArchive is also looking into new grant project to look at preservation of digital newspapers.

MetaArchive, Distributed Preservation, and OAIS:

* Matt Shultz spoke about the framework MetaArchive is working on to help apply OAIS to distributed digital preservation environments.
* This work was started on the tail of MetaArchive's TRAC self audit from 2010.
* MetaArchive has spoken with other distributed preservation organizations such as LOCKSS based groups and Chronopolis, and also the Library of Congress and everyone encouraged them to put together a working group and action team within this standards group, lead by MetaArchive and Educopia (MA parent institution), to poropose a framework for applying OAIS to a distributed environment.
* They began in early 2011 and have posted work to the NDSA Wiki (http://www.loc.gov/extranet/wiki/osi/ndiip/ndsa/index.php?title=DDP_OAIS_Frameworks), including:
** statement of purposes
** white paper porposal as a starter document for advancing this set of work
** Started use case and gap analysis
* They are working closely with Els at the KB (who is leading Danish National Bit Repository).
* Work on the white paper has ramped up in past couple of months and they will have it finished ahead of the July NDSA meeting where time has been set aside to pull together interested parties to wrangle over the white paper.

Status of Preservation Staffing Survey

* Andrea, Meg and Jimi are working on a poster proposal for iPres meeting. They have not heard back yet.
* The survey is just about ready to go. May want to tweak some language at the front about preserving the data in the survey.
* The proposed schedule for circulating the survey and analyzing the data is as follows:

{|-
| July 18-August || Staffing survey goes out
|-
| Week of August 20 || Close out survey, collated data, generate graphs
|-
| Week of September 4 || 1st draft of text for poster (action team works off-line)
|-
| September 13 || WebEx for 2nd draft of poster
|-
| Week of September 17: Polish up final draft of poster text, copy edit, finalize graphs/images
|-
| September 24-26 || Poster is printed
|-
| September 27 || Poster is done and ready to transport to iPres
|-
| October 1-5 || iPres conferenc
|}

* Thinking about circulating it around July 18th , to accomodate vacations.
* Gives us a month to put it out -- till mid-August.
* A month or so to analyze it.
* Put together poster by 1st week of October.
* We'll need to think about how to do the analysis, once we get the results back?
* Do we have a predetermined list of whom to distribute it too? No.
*
* NDSA list and probably others.
* We want it to go to anyone who does digital preservation.
* All records labels meeting in Helsinki in a month and trying to transfer NDIIPP stuff to ddex.net.
* Everyone add to a list of places to send over the next months (list will be on the Wiki)

* Looking at letter ... we think it looks good.
*
* We probably want to add something about archiving the survey results.
* We'll also need to change the language at the top of the survey.
* We were not intending to share the data back to the institutions, though it will be publicly available -- we should reinforce that in the email.
* Could also add that on request, we will send you a copy of your institution's data. Its possible to print out your results at the very end, but "it's awful".
* Andrea will add some text in.

* Who will adjuticate responses?
*
* Some done for us.
* What more analysis do we want to do on it? Perhaps we need an action group to do more detailed analysis?

* Will send it out to our list and then the rest of us can send to appropriate places (be sure to replace the "[YOUR NAME]" text.

NDSA:June 18, 2012 Standards Working Group Notes

2012-06-18T18:49:07Z

Amy.Kirchhoff:

Action Items

* People are encouraged to send brief updates on conference attendance and summaries to the email list.

Workshop/Conferences/Cool Stuff to Share

* Linda attended Screening the Future Conference in CA which dealt with audio/visual content. It was organized by the PrestoCentre Foundation, in collaboration with the University of Southern California Shoah Foundation Institute and Digital Repository. Some of the Master Classes were good and others not so much. One take-away is that a number of university's are setting up digital preservation services not just for themselves, but opening them up to external organizations. These appear to be robust back-up services. For example, if you are a UCS faculty, you can pay per TB for 20 years. For an external party it is $4200 for 1 TB for 5 years. The tapes are loaded onto a robotic system and they run fixity checks every 6 months. They will migrate the media every 2 years. The backup includes 2 copies on campus at USC. A party could pay for a 3rd copy to be stored at Clemson University. CDL PPT is on-line (https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CFMQFjAB&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwiki.ucop.edu%2Fdownload%2Fattachments%2F163610649%2FScreening-the-future-UC3-cost-model.pptx%3Fversion%3D1%26modificationDate%3D1337056116485&ei=WnLfT-zRHoLa6gHI0ayhCw&usg=AFQjCNH_7sqLGB2Na3LxsG9MG-B1oYEywg&sig2=Ec91h9vj7_bQyLxN8rEJnA). CDL was $1400 per TB per year for internal folks.
* Mat Shultz and his colleagues from MetaArchive where in Boston recently to attend several conferences. One was Digital Directions (where Katherine talked about community sourcing). He was at another that focussed on the lifecycle and preservation needs of e-thesis and dissertations. MetaArchive.org/imls can check out the Wiki. Conferences were really interesting.
* MetaArchive is also looking into new grant project to look at preservation of digital newspapers.

MetaArchive, Distributed Preservation, and OAIS:

* Matt Shultz spoke about the framework MetaArchive is working on to help apply OAIS to distributed digital preservation environments.
* This work was started on the tail of MetaArchive's TRAC self audit from 2010.
* MetaArchive has spoken with other distributed preservation organizations such as LOCKSS based groups and Chronopolis, and also the Library of Congress and everyone encouraged them to put together a working group and action team within this standards group, lead by MetaArchive and Educopia (MA parent institution), to poropose a framework for applying OAIS to a distributed environment.
* They began in early 2011 and have posted work to the NDSA Wiki (http://www.loc.gov/extranet/wiki/osi/ndiip/ndsa/index.php?title=DDP_OAIS_Frameworks), including:
** statement of purposes
** white paper porposal as a starter document for advancing this set of work
** Started use case and gap analysis
* They are working closely with Els at the KB (who is leading Danish National Bit Repository).
* Work on the white paper has ramped up in past couple of months and they will have it finished ahead of the July NDSA meeting where time has been set aside to pull together interested parties to wrangle over the white paper.

Status of Preservation Staffing Survey

* Andrea, Meg and Jimi are working on a poster proposal for iPres meeting. They have not heard back yet.
* The survey is just about ready to go. May want to tweak some language at the front about preserving the data in the survey.
* The proposed schedule for circulating the survey and analyzing the data is as follows:

{|-
| July 18-August || Staffing survey goes out
|}

* Thinking about circulating it around July 18th , to accomodate vacations.
* Gives us a month to put it out -- till mid-August.
* A month or so to analyze it.
* Put together poster by 1st week of October.
* We'll need to think about how to do the analysis, once we get the results back?
* Do we have a predetermined list of whom to distribute it too? No.
*
* NDSA list and probably others.
* We want it to go to anyone who does digital preservation.
* All records labels meeting in Helsinki in a month and trying to transfer NDIIPP stuff to ddex.net.
* Everyone add to a list of places to send over the next months (list will be on the Wiki)

* Looking at letter ... we think it looks good.
*
* We probably want to add something about archiving the survey results.
* We'll also need to change the language at the top of the survey.
* We were not intending to share the data back to the institutions, though it will be publicly available -- we should reinforce that in the email.
* Could also add that on request, we will send you a copy of your institution's data. Its possible to print out your results at the very end, but "it's awful".
* Andrea will add some text in.

* Who will adjuticate responses?
*
* Some done for us.
* What more analysis do we want to do on it? Perhaps we need an action group to do more detailed analysis?

* Will send it out to our list and then the rest of us can send to appropriate places (be sure to replace the "[YOUR NAME]" text.

NDSA:June 18, 2012 Standards Working Group Notes

2012-06-18T18:44:17Z

Amy.Kirchhoff:

NDSA:June 18, 2012 Standards Working Group Notes

2012-06-18T18:34:00Z

Amy.Kirchhoff: Created page with 'Action Items * People are encouraged to send brief updates on conference attendance and summaries to the email list. Workshop/Conferences/Cool Stuff to Share * Linda attended …'

NDSA:Standards and Best Practices Working Group

2012-06-18T18:18:56Z

Amy.Kirchhoff: /* Meeting Schedules, Minutes and Agendas */

== Standards and Practices Working Group ==

[[NDSA:Standards and Practices Working Group Charter ]] (December 10, 2010)

== Current Members ==
A list of current members is posted here: [[NDSA:Standards and Practices Working Group Members]].

== Statement of Purpose ==

The Standards and Practices Working Group will work to facilitate a community-wide understanding of the role and benefit of standards in digital preservation and how to use them effectively to ensure durable and usable collections. The Group will also develop, recommend, promote, and disseminate information about effective methods for selecting, organizing, describing, managing, preserving and serving digital content, in collaboration with other individuals and organizations where appropriate.

== Current Scope of Work ==

Working group members may initiate and engage in new work at any time by forming Action Teams focused on specific projects or tasks.

===1. Survey and document the digital preservation standards landscape===
This is an ambitious and on-going project using Wikipedia to promote the use of digital preservation standards and best practices. The objectives are to:
* identify and describe '''existing''' digital preservation standards and best practices
* identify '''gaps''' in digital preservation standards and best practices coverage that could be addressed by this working group in collaboration with others
* sustain this activity by building a community of Wikipedians to join us in this activity

The categories of digital preservation standards and best practices we will focus on include:
* Content models
* Content packaging
* Content transfer
* Digital preservation strategies and techniques
* Digital preservation terms and concepts
* File formats
* Encodings
* Metadata exchange
* Metadata schemas
* Repository architecture
* Repository certification and trustworthiness
* Repository operations
* Repository policies

Specific activities and deliverables of this project include:
* creation and maintenance of a Digital Preservation "WikiProject" within Wikipedia as an umbrella for collaborating with others on this project
* redevelop the current Wikipedia "Digital Preservation" page so that it can serve as an appropriate launch page to more detailed information about standards and best practices
* create / update pages describing current standards and best practices in the field of digital preservation
* consult with others involved in digital preservation to encourage their input and contributions to the effort
* report back to the NDSA steering committee with updates and proposals as to how to continue this effort into the future

Links related to this project:
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Digital_Preservation Digital Preservation WikiProject Page]
* [[NDSA:Digital Preservation Page -- draft outline]]
* [[NDSA:Existing DP-Related Wikipedia Pages]]
* [[NDSA:Survey Template]]
* [[NDSA:Sources of Information about DP Standards and Best Practices]]
* [[NDSA:Categories and Action Teams]] (sign up for an action team here)
* [[NDSA:Parking Spot for other DP-related Standards and Best Practices]]

----

===2. Survey of digital preservation staffing===

* [[NDSA:Staffing survey planning page]]

----

===3. Survey on adoption of digital preservation standards and best practices===

* [[NDSA:Standards survey planning page]]

----

===4. Related action team on distributed digital preservation===

* [[NDSA:DDP_OAIS_Frameworks | Describing a Framework for Applying OAIS to Distributed Digital Preservation]]

----

== Meeting Schedules, Minutes and Agendas==

* [[NDSA:June 18, 2012 Standards Working Group Notes]]
* [[NDSA:May 16, 2012 Standards Working Group Notes]]
* [[NDSA:April 18, 2012 Standards Working Group Notes]]
* [[NDSA:March 13, 2012 Standards Working Group Notes]]
* [[NDSA:February 22, 2012 Standards Working Group Notes]]
* [[NDSA:January 17, 2012 Standards Working Group Notes]]
* [[NDSA:November 7, 2011 Standards Working Group Notes and Agenda]]
* [[NDSA:June 6, 2011 Standards Working Group Notes and Agenda]]
* [[NDSA:May 2, 2011 Standards Working Group Notes and Agenda]]
* [[NDSA:April 4, 2011 Standards Working Group Notes and Agenda]]
* [[NDSA:Digital Preservation Metadata Action Team -- March 15, 2011]]
* [[NDSA:March 7, 2011 Standards Working Group Notes and Agenda]]
* [[NDSA:February 7, 2011 Standards Working Group Notes and Agenda]]
* [[NDSA:January 12, 2011 Standards Working Group Notes and Agenda]]
* [[NDSA:December 6, 2010 Standards Working Group Notes]]
* [[NDSA:November 17, 2010 Standards Working Group Notes]]

== NDSA Standards Working Group Listserv Archives==

The archives of the Standards Working Group Listserv can be found here (login will be required): http://list.digitalpreservation.gov/SCRIPTS/WA-DIGITAL.EXE?A0=NDSA-STANDARDS&X=25F57E4CACD543490D&Y

== Workshops ==
* I can haz standards workshop, NDIPP 2011 [[NDSA:I can haz standards workshop notes]]

== Deprecated pages kept for historical reasons ==
* [[NDSA:2011 NDIIPP Partners' Meeting Attendees]]
* NDSA Standards Working Group Google Group Space (we never ended up using this): http://groups.google.com/group/ndsa-standards-working-group?hl=en

NDSA:February 22, 2012 Standards Working Group Notes

2012-03-13T16:40:52Z

Amy.Kirchhoff:

NDSA Standards Working Group Meeting Notes, 2/22/2012, 3 pm Eastern

Meeting will be recorded. No objections noted.

== Topic 1: Google Document and Wikipedia Entry on Preservation ==

Andrea Goethals walked the group through the work being done.

The article is being drafted in GoogleDocs (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1efjrPtREvTdz8TN2KfuZ4GlarqEEfImFC7wGQYm4PNo/edit). We would like to use Wikipedia as a tool for documenting standards and best practices in Digital Preservation. The group is looking at the topic of “digital preservation” broadly. Andrea has created a WikiProject for Digital Preservation and we are using Digital Preservation Wikipedia article as a portal onto which to hook other pages. Stephen Davis and Priscilla Caplan are reworking the page with a new outline.
The current thought is that there will be a scope section, a definition, and then the page will break off into digital preservation communities. From bullet 4 down will discuss digital preservation from library and archives perspective, with the intention that other communities could come along and add sections to address their perspective. A lot of this information will be blown out into separate article pages.

For next steps, Stephen is starting from bottom and Priscilla from the top to flesh out the document. Stephen will pull in pieces from the existing article that are good to use.

The thought is we will keep the top article general and link to more specific articles.

Anyone who wants to join in the work should ask for permission to edit the document from Stephen, he’d be happy to give access.

== Topic 2: Staffing Survey ==

The staffing survey planning page was in NDSA standards Wiki. If you don’t have access, ping Jimi Jones. (It has since moved to Google Docs at https://docs.google.com/document/d/1QoNiJkoZuFjGPijnC7KPjk1ry9IDKyPWF_qCRZzo3wg/edit -- contact Andrea for editing priveleges).
This is a project relating to staffing for digital preservation and digital preservation project. We want to circulate the survey in the next couple of months. It’d be nice to get it out by the beginning of April so we could get results back by June and have something to show at NDIIPP meeting in July.

Use Cases should clarify what we are trying to do with it.

We took a look at the use cases. The people on this call agreed they had looked at them and felt they aligned with what Meg had in mind, originally. There were no concerns or additions at this time.

We took a look at the questions and it was agreed that they align well with the use cases.

* Folks felt there were a lot of free-text type questions that we should turn into multiple choice questions.
* People agreed that Linda Tadic’s email circulate version of the survey is more recent than what is on the Wiki and folsk like that verison. It addresses commercial staffing issues. Linda also had a few broader strokes and we like where she is coming from. She made clear that certain questions are branching (only answer 13 if you answer 12)
* A call participant wondered if we should try to address a consortial model of preservation, as many folks are going this route to try and do digital preservation cheaper. Megan is going to come up with some questions to specifically address this.
* We had a discussion about how there were too many questions and we might need to trim to make the survey shorter and less burdensome. Perhaps we could offer less branching?
** We took a closer look at questions 4 to 7 in Linda’s version and decided these were more about infrastructure and were not core to the purpose of this survey.
** We have not seen the infrastructure group survey, so Andrea will forward it to us.
** We definitely want to keep the first couple of demographic questions, so we can place the rest of the answers in context.
** There is still a lot of free-text in Linda’s version, though a few are more quantitative.
* Should we include questions about outsourcing? For example, outsource the whole of digital preservation to the IT department or maybe just outsourcing storage to the cloud
** The original intention was a survey about people who want to do digital preservation themselves, however we are not sure this is for the best, because outsourcing is so pervasive.
** We want the people who answer the survey to consider themselves responsible for digital preservation and outsourcing some of that work is a valid approach and it can affect the staffing model in place. It would help us understand their staffing numbers if we knew what functions were outsourced.
** In some ways, this is pretty similar to the consortial model.
* We decided to add use cases to the Wiki about consortial models and outsourcing (Megan will give it a go).
* Do we want a question about whether organization has a specific line item in the budget for dig preservation and if so, what is the amoun? This is a way to try and get at organizational commitment and investment.
** For some organizations (such as ICPSR) a question like #9 is tricky because it is spread out across the entire organization and they’d have to put their entire budget in to cover this.
** We think this may be a really, really hard question to answer. Many times there are activities that are completed for multiple purposes, rather than a straight line item for digital preservation. While this is interesting information, it could be very hard to tease out.
* We felt that all questions should be optional.
* We had a decision about the exact number of questions to which we should limit the survey, but did not come to a consensus.
* Some questions we think we discussed deleting:
** #15 is really hard to answer, so may be a good one to delete.
** On the original survey, the question about type of organization we should excise.
** Do we need to ask about both skills and educational background? We’d prefer just skills and don’t need both questions.
** Mixed feelings about number of free text boxes. Answers are hard to manipulate.
** #22 and 23 are really similar.
** Many folks are concerned about asking about titles. An organization devoted solely to preservation could end up needing to list title of everyone in the organization, especially for a preservation based organization.
*** Perhaps we could turn into a multiple choice list with classes of titles or specializations
*** Nice if not just yes/no, but could insert a number to indicate number of staff
*** Could we relate question #9 with the question about what does what?
*** Do we want to ask people both what they have and what the ideal is? Can we combine it into one question? Arguments both ways. Think about what happens if you are trying to use this to argue for more staff? Maybe for each question we ask the tangential … has this been adequate for you? There was some worry that it’ll be hard to get useful data on the ideal.
*** Instead we could ask a matrix type of question, Is this working well for your organization: strongly agree or strongly disagree.
*** One goal is to ask questions that allow us to ferret out if you’ve got plenty of people to do planning, but no one to do the actual technical implementation (for example).
** # 16 asking what is necessary, but no alternate asking what you have. If only going to include 1, should ask what you have.

We agreed that it seemed a good moment to “scrub” the survey. It might make sense to reimplement as a grid model where we ask each question once, but have columns of answers:

* Now
* Happy with this
* What would you like to have

We agreed to move Linda’s version of the survey over to Google docs scrub it over next 30 days. Folks can add questions to the document directly or via email. We will also update the use cases on the Wiki.

NDSA:February 22, 2012 Standards Working Group Notes

2012-03-13T16:40:13Z

Amy.Kirchhoff:

NDSA Standards Working Group Meeting Notes, 2/22/2012, 3 pm Eastern

Meeting will be recorded. No objections noted.

== Topic 1: Google Document and Wikipedia Entry on Preservation ==

Andrea Goethals walked the group through the work being done.

The article is being drafted in GoogleDocs (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1efjrPtREvTdz8TN2KfuZ4GlarqEEfImFC7wGQYm4PNo/edit). We would like to use Wikipedia as a tool for documenting standards and best practices in Digital Preservation. The group is looking at the topic of “digital preservation” broadly. Andrea has created a WikiProject for Digital Preservation and we are using Digital Preservation Wikipedia article as a portal onto which to hook other pages. Stephen Davis and Priscilla Caplan are reworking the page with a new outline.
The current thought is that there will be a scope section, a definition, and then the page will break off into digital preservation communities. From bullet 4 down will discuss digital preservation from library and archives perspective, with the intention that other communities could come along and add sections to address their perspective. A lot of this information will be blown out into separate article pages.

For next steps, Stephen is starting from bottom and Priscilla from the top to flesh out the document. Stephen will pull in pieces from the existing article that are good to use.

The thought is we will keep the top article general and link to more specific articles.

Anyone who wants to join in the work should ask for permission to edit the document from Stephen, he’d be happy to give access.

== Topic 2: Staffing Survey ==

The staffing survey planning page was in NDSA standards Wiki. If you don’t have access, ping Jimi Jones. (It has since moved to Google Docs at https://docs.google.com/document/d/1QoNiJkoZuFjGPijnC7KPjk1ry9IDKyPWF_qCRZzo3wg/edit -- contact Andrea for editing priveleges).
This is a project relating to staffing for digital preservation and digital preservation project. We want to circulate the survey in the next couple of months. It’d be nice to get it out by the beginning of April so we could get results back by June and have something to show at NDIIPP meeting in July.

Use Cases should clarify what we are trying to do with it.

We took a look at the use cases. The people on this call agreed they had looked at them and felt they aligned with what Meg had in mind, originally. There were no concerns or additions at this time.

We took a look at the questions and it was agreed that they align well with the use cases.

* Folks felt there were a lot of free-text type questions that we should turn into multiple choice questions.
* People agreed that Linda Tadic’s email circulate version of the survey is more recent than what is on the Wiki and folsk like that verison. It addresses commercial staffing issues. Linda also had a few broader strokes and we like where she is coming from. She made clear that certain questions are branching (only answer 13 if you answer 12)
* A call participant wondered if we should try to address a consortial model of preservation, as many folks are going this route to try and do digital preservation cheaper. Megan is going to come up with some questions to specifically address this.
* We had a discussion about how there were too many questions and we might need to trim to make the survey shorter and less burdensome. Perhaps we could offer less branching?
** We took a closer look at questions 4 to 7 in Linda’s version and decided these were more about infrastructure and were not core to the purpose of this survey.
** We have not seen the infrastructure group survey, so Andrea will forward it to us.
** We definitely want to keep the first couple of demographic questions, so we can place the rest of the answers in context.
** There is still a lot of free-text in Linda’s version, though a few are more quantitative.
* Should we include questions about outsourcing? For example, outsource the whole of digital preservation to the IT department or maybe just outsourcing storage to the cloud
** The original intention was a survey about people who want to do digital preservation themselves, however we are not sure this is for the best, because outsourcing is so pervasive.
** We want the people who answer the survey to consider themselves responsible for digital preservation and outsourcing some of that work is a valid approach and it can affect the staffing model in place. It would help us understand their staffing numbers if we knew what functions were outsourced.
** In some ways, this is pretty similar to the consortial model.
* We decided to add use cases to the Wiki about consortial models and outsourcing (Megan will give it a go).
* Do we want a question about whether organization has a specific line item in the budget for dig preservation and if so, what is the amoun? This is a way to try and get at organizational commitment and investment.
** For some organizations (such as ICPSR) a question like #9 is tricky because it is spread out across the entire organization and they’d have to put their entire budget in to cover this.
** We think this may be a really, really hard question to answer. Many times there are activities that are completed for multiple purposes, rather than a straight line item for digital preservation. While this is interesting information, it could be very hard to tease out.
* We felt that all questions should be optional.
* We had a decision about the exact number of questions to which we should limit the survey, but did not come to a consensus.
* Some questions we think we discussed deleting:
** #15 is really hard to answer, so may be a good one to delete.
** On the original survey, the question about type of organization we should excise.
** Do we need to ask about both skills and educational background? We’d prefer just skills and don’t need both questions.
** Mixed feelings about number of free text boxes. Answers are hard to manipulate.
** #22 and 23 are really similar.
** Many folks are concerned about asking about titles. An organization devoted solely to preservation could end up needing to list title of everyone in the organization, especially for a preservation based organization.
*** Perhaps we could turn into a multiple choice list with classes of titles or specializations
*** Nice if not just yes/no, but could insert a number to indicate number of staff
*** Could we relate question #9 with the question about what does what?
*** Do we want to ask people both what they have and what the ideal is? Can we combine it into one question? Arguments both ways. Think about what happens if you are trying to use this to argue for more staff? Maybe for each question we ask the tangential … has this been adequate for you? There was some worry that it’ll be hard to get useful data on the ideal.
*** Instead we could ask a matrix type of question, Is this working well for your organization: strongly agree or strongly disagree.
*** One goal is to ask questions that allow us to ferret out if you’ve got plenty of people to do planning, but no one to do the actual technical implementation (for example).
** # 16 asking what is necessary, but no alternate asking what you have. If only going to include 1, should ask what you have.

We agreed that it seemed a good moment to “scrub” the survey. It might make sense to reimplement as a grid model where we ask each question once, but have columns of answers:

** Now
** Happy with this
** What would you like to have

We agreed to move Linda’s version of the survey over to Google docs scrub it over next 30 days. Folks can add questions to the document directly or via email. We will also update the use cases on the Wiki.

NDSA:February 22, 2012 Standards Working Group Notes

2012-03-13T16:38:16Z

Amy.Kirchhoff:

NDSA Standards Working Group Meeting Notes, 2/22/2012, 3 pm Eastern

Meeting will be recorded. No objections noted.

== Topic 1: Google Document and Wikipedia Entry on Preservation ==

Andrea Goethals walked the group through the work being done.

The article is being drafted in GoogleDocs (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1efjrPtREvTdz8TN2KfuZ4GlarqEEfImFC7wGQYm4PNo/edit). We would like to use Wikipedia as a tool for documenting standards and best practices in Digital Preservation. The group is looking at the topic of “digital preservation” broadly. Andrea has created a WikiProject for Digital Preservation and we are using Digital Preservation Wikipedia article as a portal onto which to hook other pages. Stephen Davis and Priscilla Caplan are reworking the page with a new outline.
The current thought is that there will be a scope section, a definition, and then the page will break off into digital preservation communities. From bullet 4 down will discuss digital preservation from library and archives perspective, with the intention that other communities could come along and add sections to address their perspective. A lot of this information will be blown out into separate article pages.

For next steps, Stephen is starting from bottom and Priscilla from the top to flesh out the document. Stephen will pull in pieces from the existing article that are good to use.

The thought is we will keep the top article general and link to more specific articles.

Anyone who wants to join in the work should ask for permission to edit the document from Stephen, he’d be happy to give access.

== Topic 2: Staffing Survey ==

The staffing survey planning page was in NDSA standards Wiki. If you don’t have access, ping Jimi Jones. (It has since moved to Google Docs at https://docs.google.com/document/d/1QoNiJkoZuFjGPijnC7KPjk1ry9IDKyPWF_qCRZzo3wg/edit -- contact Andrea for editing priveleges).
This is a project relating to staffing for digital preservation and digital preservation project. We want to circulate the survey in the next couple of months. It’d be nice to get it out by the beginning of April so we could get results back by June and have something to show at NDIIPP meeting in July.

Use Cases should clarify what we are trying to do with it.

We took a look at the use cases. The people on this call agreed they had looked at them and felt they aligned with what Meg had in mind, originally. There were no concerns or additions at this time.

We took a look at the questions and it was agreed that they align well with the use cases.

* Folks felt there were a lot of free-text type questions that we should turn into multiple choice questions.
* People agreed that Linda Tadic’s email circulate version of the survey is more recent than what is on the Wiki and folsk like that verison. It addresses commercial staffing issues. Linda also had a few broader strokes and we like where she is coming from. She made clear that certain questions are branching (only answer 13 if you answer 12)
* A call participant wondered if we should try to address a consortial model of preservation, as many folks are going this route to try and do digital preservation cheaper. Megan is going to come up with some questions to specifically address this.
* We had a discussion about how there were too many questions and we might need to trim to make the survey shorter and less burdensome. Perhaps we could offer less branching?
** We took a closer look at questions 4 to 7 in Linda’s version and decided these were more about infrastructure and were not core to the purpose of this survey.
o We have not seen the infrastructure group survey, so Andrea will forward it to us.
o We definitely want to keep the first couple of demographic questions, so we can place the rest of the answers in context.
o There is still a lot of free-text in Linda’s version, though a few are more quantitative.
• Should we include questions about outsourcing? For example, outsource the whole of digital preservation to the IT department or maybe just outsourcing storage to the cloud
o The original intention was a survey about people who want to do digital preservation themselves, however we are not sure this is for the best, because outsourcing is so pervasive.
o We want the people who answer the survey to consider themselves responsible for digital preservation and outsourcing some of that work is a valid approach and it can affect the staffing model in place. It would help us understand their staffing numbers if we knew what functions were outsourced.
o In some ways, this is pretty similar to the consortial model.
• We decided to add use cases to the Wiki about consortial models and outsourcing (Megan will give it a go).
• Do we want a question about whether organization has a specific line item in the budget for dig preservation and if so, what is the amoun? This is a way to try and get at organizational commitment and investment.
o For some organizations (such as ICPSR) a question like #9 is tricky because it is spread out across the entire organization and they’d have to put their entire budget in to cover this.
o We think this may be a really, really hard question to answer. Many times there are activities that are completed for multiple purposes, rather than a straight line item for digital preservation. While this is interesting information, it could be very hard to tease out.
• We felt that all questions should be optional.
• We had a decision about the exact number of questions to which we should limit the survey, but did not come to a consensus.
• Some questions we think we discussed deleting:
o #15 is really hard to answer, so may be a good one to delete.
o On the original survey, the question about type of organization we should excise.
o Do we need to ask about both skills and educational background? We’d prefer just skills and don’t need both questions.
o Mixed feelings about number of free text boxes. Answers are hard to manipulate.
o #22 and 23 are really similar.
o Many folks are concerned about asking about titles. An organization devoted solely to preservation could end up needing to list title of everyone in the organization, especially for a preservation based organization.
 Perhaps we could turn into a multiple choice list with classes of titles or specializations
 Nice if not just yes/no, but could insert a number to indicate number of staff
 Could we relate question #9 with the question about what does what?
 Do we want to ask people both what they have and what the ideal is? Can we combine it into one question? Arguments both ways. Think about what happens if you are trying to use this to argue for more staff? Maybe for each question we ask the tangential … has this been adequate for you? There was some worry that it’ll be hard to get useful data on the ideal.
 Instead we could ask a matrix type of question, Is this working well for your organization: strongly agree or strongly disagree.
 One goal is to ask questions that allow us to ferret out if you’ve got plenty of people to do planning, but no one to do the actual technical implementation (for example).
o # 16 asking what is necessary, but no alternate asking what you have. If only going to include 1, should ask what you have.
We agreed that it seemed a good moment to “scrub” the survey. It might make sense to reimplement as a grid model where we ask each question once, but have columns of answers:
o Now
o Happy with this
o What would you like to have
We agreed to move Linda’s version of the survey over to Google docs scrub it over next 30 days. Folks can add questions to the document directly or via email. We will also update the use cases on the Wiki.

NDSA:February 22, 2012 Standards Working Group Notes

2012-03-13T16:37:52Z

Amy.Kirchhoff:

NDSA Standards Working Group Meeting Notes, 2/22/2012, 3 pm Eastern

Meeting will be recorded. No objections noted.

== Topic 1: Google Document and Wikipedia Entry on Preservation ==

Andrea Goethals walked the group through the work being done.

The article is being drafted in GoogleDocs (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1efjrPtREvTdz8TN2KfuZ4GlarqEEfImFC7wGQYm4PNo/edit). We would like to use Wikipedia as a tool for documenting standards and best practices in Digital Preservation. The group is looking at the topic of “digital preservation” broadly. Andrea has created a WikiProject for Digital Preservation and we are using Digital Preservation Wikipedia article as a portal onto which to hook other pages. Stephen Davis and Priscilla Caplan are reworking the page with a new outline.
The current thought is that there will be a scope section, a definition, and then the page will break off into digital preservation communities. From bullet 4 down will discuss digital preservation from library and archives perspective, with the intention that other communities could come along and add sections to address their perspective. A lot of this information will be blown out into separate article pages.

For next steps, Stephen is starting from bottom and Priscilla from the top to flesh out the document. Stephen will pull in pieces from the existing article that are good to use.

The thought is we will keep the top article general and link to more specific articles.

Anyone who wants to join in the work should ask for permission to edit the document from Stephen, he’d be happy to give access.

== Topic 2: Staffing Survey ==

The staffing survey planning page was in NDSA standards Wiki. If you don’t have access, ping Jimi Jones. (It has since moved to Google Docs at https://docs.google.com/document/d/1QoNiJkoZuFjGPijnC7KPjk1ry9IDKyPWF_qCRZzo3wg/edit -- contact Andrea for editing priveleges).
This is a project relating to staffing for digital preservation and digital preservation project. We want to circulate the survey in the next couple of months. It’d be nice to get it out by the beginning of April so we could get results back by June and have something to show at NDIIPP meeting in July.

Use Cases should clarify what we are trying to do with it.

We took a look at the use cases. The people on this call agreed they had looked at them and felt they aligned with what Meg had in mind, originally. There were no concerns or additions at this time.

We took a look at the questions and it was agreed that they align well with the use cases.

* Folks felt there were a lot of free-text type questions that we should turn into multiple choice questions.
* People agreed that Linda Tadic’s email circulate version of the survey is more recent than what is on the Wiki and folsk like that verison. It addresses commercial staffing issues. Linda also had a few broader strokes and we like where she is coming from. She made clear that certain questions are branching (only answer 13 if you answer 12)
* A call participant wondered if we should try to address a consortial model of preservation, as many folks are going this route to try and do digital preservation cheaper. Megan is going to come up with some questions to specifically address this.
• We had a discussion about how there were too many questions and we might need to trim to make the survey shorter and less burdensome. Perhaps we could offer less branching?
o We took a closer look at questions 4 to 7 in Linda’s version and decided these were more about infrastructure and were not core to the purpose of this survey.
o We have not seen the infrastructure group survey, so Andrea will forward it to us.
o We definitely want to keep the first couple of demographic questions, so we can place the rest of the answers in context.
o There is still a lot of free-text in Linda’s version, though a few are more quantitative.
• Should we include questions about outsourcing? For example, outsource the whole of digital preservation to the IT department or maybe just outsourcing storage to the cloud
o The original intention was a survey about people who want to do digital preservation themselves, however we are not sure this is for the best, because outsourcing is so pervasive.
o We want the people who answer the survey to consider themselves responsible for digital preservation and outsourcing some of that work is a valid approach and it can affect the staffing model in place. It would help us understand their staffing numbers if we knew what functions were outsourced.
o In some ways, this is pretty similar to the consortial model.
• We decided to add use cases to the Wiki about consortial models and outsourcing (Megan will give it a go).
• Do we want a question about whether organization has a specific line item in the budget for dig preservation and if so, what is the amoun? This is a way to try and get at organizational commitment and investment.
o For some organizations (such as ICPSR) a question like #9 is tricky because it is spread out across the entire organization and they’d have to put their entire budget in to cover this.
o We think this may be a really, really hard question to answer. Many times there are activities that are completed for multiple purposes, rather than a straight line item for digital preservation. While this is interesting information, it could be very hard to tease out.
• We felt that all questions should be optional.
• We had a decision about the exact number of questions to which we should limit the survey, but did not come to a consensus.
• Some questions we think we discussed deleting:
o #15 is really hard to answer, so may be a good one to delete.
o On the original survey, the question about type of organization we should excise.
o Do we need to ask about both skills and educational background? We’d prefer just skills and don’t need both questions.
o Mixed feelings about number of free text boxes. Answers are hard to manipulate.
o #22 and 23 are really similar.
o Many folks are concerned about asking about titles. An organization devoted solely to preservation could end up needing to list title of everyone in the organization, especially for a preservation based organization.
 Perhaps we could turn into a multiple choice list with classes of titles or specializations
 Nice if not just yes/no, but could insert a number to indicate number of staff
 Could we relate question #9 with the question about what does what?
 Do we want to ask people both what they have and what the ideal is? Can we combine it into one question? Arguments both ways. Think about what happens if you are trying to use this to argue for more staff? Maybe for each question we ask the tangential … has this been adequate for you? There was some worry that it’ll be hard to get useful data on the ideal.
 Instead we could ask a matrix type of question, Is this working well for your organization: strongly agree or strongly disagree.
 One goal is to ask questions that allow us to ferret out if you’ve got plenty of people to do planning, but no one to do the actual technical implementation (for example).
o # 16 asking what is necessary, but no alternate asking what you have. If only going to include 1, should ask what you have.
We agreed that it seemed a good moment to “scrub” the survey. It might make sense to reimplement as a grid model where we ask each question once, but have columns of answers:
o Now
o Happy with this
o What would you like to have
We agreed to move Linda’s version of the survey over to Google docs scrub it over next 30 days. Folks can add questions to the document directly or via email. We will also update the use cases on the Wiki.

NDSA:February 22, 2012 Standards Working Group Notes

2012-03-13T16:36:37Z

Amy.Kirchhoff:

NDSA Standards Working Group Meeting Notes, 2/22/2012, 3 pm Eastern

Meeting will be recorded. No objections noted.

== Topic 1: Google Document and Wikipedia Entry on Preservation ==

Andrea Goethals walked the group through the work being done.

The article is being drafted in GoogleDocs (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1efjrPtREvTdz8TN2KfuZ4GlarqEEfImFC7wGQYm4PNo/edit). We would like to use Wikipedia as a tool for documenting standards and best practices in Digital Preservation. The group is looking at the topic of “digital preservation” broadly. Andrea has created a WikiProject for Digital Preservation and we are using Digital Preservation Wikipedia article as a portal onto which to hook other pages. Stephen Davis and Priscilla Caplan are reworking the page with a new outline.
The current thought is that there will be a scope section, a definition, and then the page will break off into digital preservation communities. From bullet 4 down will discuss digital preservation from library and archives perspective, with the intention that other communities could come along and add sections to address their perspective. A lot of this information will be blown out into separate article pages.

For next steps, Stephen is starting from bottom and Priscilla from the top to flesh out the document. Stephen will pull in pieces from the existing article that are good to use.

The thought is we will keep the top article general and link to more specific articles.

Anyone who wants to join in the work should ask for permission to edit the document from Stephen, he’d be happy to give access.

== Topic 2: Staffing Survey ==

The staffing survey planning page was in NDSA standards Wiki. If you don’t have access, ping Jimi Jones. (It has since moved to Google Docs at https://docs.google.com/document/d/1QoNiJkoZuFjGPijnC7KPjk1ry9IDKyPWF_qCRZzo3wg/edit -- contact Andrea for editing priveleges).
This is a project relating to staffing for digital preservation and digital preservation project. We want to circulate the survey in the next couple of months. It’d be nice to get it out by the beginning of April so we could get results back by June and have something to show at NDIIPP meeting in July.
Use Cases should clarify what we are trying to do with it.
We took a look at the use cases. The people on this call agreed they had looked at them and felt they aligned with what Meg had in mind, originally. There were no concerns or additions at this time.
We took a look at the questions and it was agreed that they align well with the use cases.
• Folks felt there were a lot of free-text type questions that we should turn into multiple choice questions.
• People agreed that Linda Tadic’s email circulate version of the survey is more recent than what is on the Wiki and folsk like that verison. It addresses commercial staffing issues. Linda also had a few broader strokes and we like where she is coming from. She made clear that certain questions are branching (only answer 13 if you answer 12)
• A call participant wondered if we should try to address a consortial model of preservation, as many folks are going this route to try and do digital preservation cheaper. Megan is going to come up with some questions to specifically address this.
• We had a discussion about how there were too many questions and we might need to trim to make the survey shorter and less burdensome. Perhaps we could offer less branching?
o We took a closer look at questions 4 to 7 in Linda’s version and decided these were more about infrastructure and were not core to the purpose of this survey.
o We have not seen the infrastructure group survey, so Andrea will forward it to us.
o We definitely want to keep the first couple of demographic questions, so we can place the rest of the answers in context.
o There is still a lot of free-text in Linda’s version, though a few are more quantitative.
• Should we include questions about outsourcing? For example, outsource the whole of digital preservation to the IT department or maybe just outsourcing storage to the cloud
o The original intention was a survey about people who want to do digital preservation themselves, however we are not sure this is for the best, because outsourcing is so pervasive.
o We want the people who answer the survey to consider themselves responsible for digital preservation and outsourcing some of that work is a valid approach and it can affect the staffing model in place. It would help us understand their staffing numbers if we knew what functions were outsourced.
o In some ways, this is pretty similar to the consortial model.
• We decided to add use cases to the Wiki about consortial models and outsourcing (Megan will give it a go).
• Do we want a question about whether organization has a specific line item in the budget for dig preservation and if so, what is the amoun? This is a way to try and get at organizational commitment and investment.
o For some organizations (such as ICPSR) a question like #9 is tricky because it is spread out across the entire organization and they’d have to put their entire budget in to cover this.
o We think this may be a really, really hard question to answer. Many times there are activities that are completed for multiple purposes, rather than a straight line item for digital preservation. While this is interesting information, it could be very hard to tease out.
• We felt that all questions should be optional.
• We had a decision about the exact number of questions to which we should limit the survey, but did not come to a consensus.
• Some questions we think we discussed deleting:
o #15 is really hard to answer, so may be a good one to delete.
o On the original survey, the question about type of organization we should excise.
o Do we need to ask about both skills and educational background? We’d prefer just skills and don’t need both questions.
o Mixed feelings about number of free text boxes. Answers are hard to manipulate.
o #22 and 23 are really similar.
o Many folks are concerned about asking about titles. An organization devoted solely to preservation could end up needing to list title of everyone in the organization, especially for a preservation based organization.
 Perhaps we could turn into a multiple choice list with classes of titles or specializations
 Nice if not just yes/no, but could insert a number to indicate number of staff
 Could we relate question #9 with the question about what does what?
 Do we want to ask people both what they have and what the ideal is? Can we combine it into one question? Arguments both ways. Think about what happens if you are trying to use this to argue for more staff? Maybe for each question we ask the tangential … has this been adequate for you? There was some worry that it’ll be hard to get useful data on the ideal.
 Instead we could ask a matrix type of question, Is this working well for your organization: strongly agree or strongly disagree.
 One goal is to ask questions that allow us to ferret out if you’ve got plenty of people to do planning, but no one to do the actual technical implementation (for example).
o # 16 asking what is necessary, but no alternate asking what you have. If only going to include 1, should ask what you have.
We agreed that it seemed a good moment to “scrub” the survey. It might make sense to reimplement as a grid model where we ask each question once, but have columns of answers:
o Now
o Happy with this
o What would you like to have
We agreed to move Linda’s version of the survey over to Google docs scrub it over next 30 days. Folks can add questions to the document directly or via email. We will also update the use cases on the Wiki.

NDSA:February 22, 2012 Standards Working Group Notes

2012-03-13T16:34:02Z

Amy.Kirchhoff: Created page with 'NDSA Standards Meeting 2/22/2012, 3 pm Eastern Meeting will be recorded. No objections noted. Topic 1: Google Document and Wikipedia Entry on Preservation Andrea Goethals walked…'

NDSA Standards Meeting
2/22/2012, 3 pm Eastern
Meeting will be recorded. No objections noted.
Topic 1: Google Document and Wikipedia Entry on Preservation
Andrea Goethals walked the group through the work being done.
The article is being drafted in GoogleDocs (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1efjrPtREvTdz8TN2KfuZ4GlarqEEfImFC7wGQYm4PNo/edit). We would like to use Wikipedia as a tool for documenting standards and best practices in Digital Preservation. The group is looking at the topic of “digital preservation” broadly. Andrea has created a WikiProject for Digital Preservation and we are using Digital Preservation Wikipedia article as a portal onto which to hook other pages. Stephen Davis and Priscilla Caplan are reworking the page with a new outline.
The current thought is that there will be a scope section, a definition, and then the page will break off into digital preservation communities. From bullet 4 down will discuss digital preservation from library and archives perspective, with the intention that other communities could come along and add sections to address their perspective. A lot of this information will be blown out into separate article pages.
For next steps, Stephen is starting from bottom and Priscilla from the top to flesh out the document. Stephen will pull in pieces from the existing article that are good to use.
The thought is we will keep the top article general and link to more specific articles.
Anyone who wants to join in the work should ask for permission to edit the document from Stephen, he’d be happy to give access.
Topic 2: Staffing Survey
The staffing survey planning page was in NDSA standards Wiki. If you don’t have access, ping Jimi Jones. (It has since moved to Google Docs at https://docs.google.com/document/d/1QoNiJkoZuFjGPijnC7KPjk1ry9IDKyPWF_qCRZzo3wg/edit -- contact Andrea for editing priveleges).
This is a project relating to staffing for digital preservation and digital preservation project. We want to circulate the survey in the next couple of months. It’d be nice to get it out by the beginning of April so we could get results back by June and have something to show at NDIIPP meeting in July.
Use Cases should clarify what we are trying to do with it.
We took a look at the use cases. The people on this call agreed they had looked at them and felt they aligned with what Meg had in mind, originally. There were no concerns or additions at this time.
We took a look at the questions and it was agreed that they align well with the use cases.
• Folks felt there were a lot of free-text type questions that we should turn into multiple choice questions.
• People agreed that Linda Tadic’s email circulate version of the survey is more recent than what is on the Wiki and folsk like that verison. It addresses commercial staffing issues. Linda also had a few broader strokes and we like where she is coming from. She made clear that certain questions are branching (only answer 13 if you answer 12)
• A call participant wondered if we should try to address a consortial model of preservation, as many folks are going this route to try and do digital preservation cheaper. Megan is going to come up with some questions to specifically address this.
• We had a discussion about how there were too many questions and we might need to trim to make the survey shorter and less burdensome. Perhaps we could offer less branching?
o We took a closer look at questions 4 to 7 in Linda’s version and decided these were more about infrastructure and were not core to the purpose of this survey.
o We have not seen the infrastructure group survey, so Andrea will forward it to us.
o We definitely want to keep the first couple of demographic questions, so we can place the rest of the answers in context.
o There is still a lot of free-text in Linda’s version, though a few are more quantitative.
• Should we include questions about outsourcing? For example, outsource the whole of digital preservation to the IT department or maybe just outsourcing storage to the cloud
o The original intention was a survey about people who want to do digital preservation themselves, however we are not sure this is for the best, because outsourcing is so pervasive.
o We want the people who answer the survey to consider themselves responsible for digital preservation and outsourcing some of that work is a valid approach and it can affect the staffing model in place. It would help us understand their staffing numbers if we knew what functions were outsourced.
o In some ways, this is pretty similar to the consortial model.
• We decided to add use cases to the Wiki about consortial models and outsourcing (Megan will give it a go).
• Do we want a question about whether organization has a specific line item in the budget for dig preservation and if so, what is the amoun? This is a way to try and get at organizational commitment and investment.
o For some organizations (such as ICPSR) a question like #9 is tricky because it is spread out across the entire organization and they’d have to put their entire budget in to cover this.
o We think this may be a really, really hard question to answer. Many times there are activities that are completed for multiple purposes, rather than a straight line item for digital preservation. While this is interesting information, it could be very hard to tease out.
• We felt that all questions should be optional.
• We had a decision about the exact number of questions to which we should limit the survey, but did not come to a consensus.
• Some questions we think we discussed deleting:
o #15 is really hard to answer, so may be a good one to delete.
o On the original survey, the question about type of organization we should excise.
o Do we need to ask about both skills and educational background? We’d prefer just skills and don’t need both questions.
o Mixed feelings about number of free text boxes. Answers are hard to manipulate.
o #22 and 23 are really similar.
o Many folks are concerned about asking about titles. An organization devoted solely to preservation could end up needing to list title of everyone in the organization, especially for a preservation based organization.
 Perhaps we could turn into a multiple choice list with classes of titles or specializations
 Nice if not just yes/no, but could insert a number to indicate number of staff
 Could we relate question #9 with the question about what does what?
 Do we want to ask people both what they have and what the ideal is? Can we combine it into one question? Arguments both ways. Think about what happens if you are trying to use this to argue for more staff? Maybe for each question we ask the tangential … has this been adequate for you? There was some worry that it’ll be hard to get useful data on the ideal.
 Instead we could ask a matrix type of question, Is this working well for your organization: strongly agree or strongly disagree.
 One goal is to ask questions that allow us to ferret out if you’ve got plenty of people to do planning, but no one to do the actual technical implementation (for example).
o # 16 asking what is necessary, but no alternate asking what you have. If only going to include 1, should ask what you have.
We agreed that it seemed a good moment to “scrub” the survey. It might make sense to reimplement as a grid model where we ask each question once, but have columns of answers:
o Now
o Happy with this
o What would you like to have
We agreed to move Linda’s version of the survey over to Google docs scrub it over next 30 days. Folks can add questions to the document directly or via email. We will also update the use cases on the Wiki.

NDSA:Standards and Best Practices Working Group

2012-03-13T16:32:46Z

Amy.Kirchhoff: /* Meeting Schedules, Minutes and Agendas */

== Standards and Practices Working Group ==

[[NDSA:Standards and Practices Working Group Charter ]] (December 10, 2010)

== Current Members ==
A list of current members is posted here: [[NDSA:Standards and Practices Working Group Members]].

== Statement of Purpose ==

The Standards and Practices Working Group will work to facilitate a community-wide understanding of the role and benefit of standards in digital preservation and how to use them effectively to ensure durable and usable collections. The Group will also develop, recommend, promote, and disseminate information about effective methods for selecting, organizing, describing, managing, preserving and serving digital content, in collaboration with other individuals and organizations where appropriate.

== Current Scope of Work ==

Working group members may initiate and engage in new work at any time by forming Action Teams focused on specific projects or tasks.

===1. Survey and document the digital preservation standards landscape===
This is an ambitious and on-going project using Wikipedia to promote the use of digital preservation standards and best practices. The objectives are to:
* identify and describe '''existing''' digital preservation standards and best practices
* identify '''gaps''' in digital preservation standards and best practices coverage that could be addressed by this working group in collaboration with others
* sustain this activity by building a community of Wikipedians to join us in this activity

The categories of digital preservation standards and best practices we will focus on include:
* Content models
* Content packaging
* Content transfer
* Digital preservation strategies and techniques
* Digital preservation terms and concepts
* File formats
* Encodings
* Metadata exchange
* Metadata schemas
* Repository architecture
* Repository certification and trustworthiness
* Repository operations
* Repository policies

Specific activities and deliverables of this project include:
* creation and maintenance of a Digital Preservation "WikiProject" within Wikipedia as an umbrella for collaborating with others on this project
* redevelop the current Wikipedia "Digital Preservation" page so that it can serve as an appropriate launch page to more detailed information about standards and best practices
* create / update pages describing current standards and best practices in the field of digital preservation
* consult with others involved in digital preservation to encourage their input and contributions to the effort
* report back to the NDSA steering committee with updates and proposals as to how to continue this effort into the future

Links related to this project:
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Digital_Preservation Digital Preservation WikiProject Page]
* [[NDSA:Digital Preservation Page -- draft outline]]
* [[NDSA:Existing DP-Related Wikipedia Pages]]
* [[NDSA:Survey Template]]
* [[NDSA:Sources of Information about DP Standards and Best Practices]]
* [[NDSA:Categories and Action Teams]] (sign up for an action team here)
* [[NDSA:Parking Spot for other DP-related Standards and Best Practices]]

----

===2. Survey of digital preservation staffing===

* [[NDSA:Staffing survey planning page]]

----

===3. Survey on adoption of digital preservation standards and best practices===

* [[NDSA:Standards survey planning page]]

----

===4. Related action team on distributed digital preservation===

* [[NDSA:DDP_OAIS_Frameworks | Describing a Framework for Applying OAIS to Distributed Digital Preservation]]

----

== Meeting Schedules, Minutes and Agendas==

* [[NDSA:February 22, 2012 Standards Working Group Notes]]
* [[NDSA:January 17, 2012 Standards Working Group Notes]]
* [[NDSA:November 7, 2011 Standards Working Group Notes and Agenda]]
* [[NDSA:June 6, 2011 Standards Working Group Notes and Agenda]]
* [[NDSA:May 2, 2011 Standards Working Group Notes and Agenda]]
* [[NDSA:April 4, 2011 Standards Working Group Notes and Agenda]]
* [[NDSA:Digital Preservation Metadata Action Team -- March 15, 2011]]
* [[NDSA:March 7, 2011 Standards Working Group Notes and Agenda]]
* [[NDSA:February 7, 2011 Standards Working Group Notes and Agenda]]
* [[NDSA:January 12, 2011 Standards Working Group Notes and Agenda]]
* [[NDSA:December 6, 2010 Standards Working Group Notes]]
* [[NDSA:November 17, 2010 Standards Working Group Notes]]

== NDSA Standards Working Group Listserv Archives==

The archives of the Standards Working Group Listserv can be found here (login will be required): http://list.digitalpreservation.gov/SCRIPTS/WA-DIGITAL.EXE?A0=NDSA-STANDARDS&X=25F57E4CACD543490D&Y

== Workshops ==
* I can haz standards workshop, NDIPP 2011 [[NDSA:I can haz standards workshop notes]]

== Deprecated pages kept for historical reasons ==
* [[NDSA:2011 NDIIPP Partners' Meeting Attendees]]
* NDSA Standards Working Group Google Group Space (we never ended up using this): http://groups.google.com/group/ndsa-standards-working-group?hl=en

NDSA:Standards and Practices Working Group Members

2011-09-28T20:04:27Z

Amy.Kirchhoff:

Co-chairs:

* Co-chair: Jimi Jones, Library of Congress
** I am Digital Audiovisual Formats Specialist for LC's Office of Strategic Initiatives. I am primarily interested in audiovisual formats and encodings and will probably focus on those in this survey work.
* Co-chair: Andrea Goethals, Harvard University
** I manage Harvard Library's digital preservation program and repository. I am interested in better exposing standards and best practices that can help manage preservation repositories on a practical level. I will probably focus on best practice and guidance documents related to preservation policies and practices.

Members (In order of first names):

* Aaron Trehub, Auburn University
* Allison Munsell, Munsell Studio
* Amy Kirchhoff, ITHAKA
** I am the Portico and JSTOR Archive Service Product Manager. I have a particular interest in standards related to content packaging, metadata, and file formats.
* Amy Rudersdorf, North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
** I am the director of the Digital Information Management Program at the State Library of North Carolina. We work to provide permanent public access to publications created by or on behalf of North Carolina State Government agencies. Initiative activities include research and testing of technologies and tools to acquire, manage, preserve, and provide access to both born-digital and digitized information produced by the state agencies of North Carolina.
* Andy Maltz, the Academy of Motion Picture Arts & Sciences
* Ben Fino-Radin, Rhizome
* Brian E. C. Schottlaender, University of California San Diego
* Charles Kolb, National Endowment for the Humanities
* Claire W. White, Stock Artists Alliance
* Courtney Michael, WGBH Educational Foundation
* Daniel R. Dodge, Thomson Reuters
* Daphne DeLeon, Nevada State Library and Archives
* Robert R. Downs, CIESIN, Columbia University
* Eileen Fenton, Portico
* Elizabeth Falk, Idaho State Archives
* Eugene Mopsik, American Society of Media Photographers
* Gary Wright, Corporation of the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
* Glenn Clatworthy, Public Broadcasting Service
* Gregory Sanford, Vermont State Archives and Records Administration
* Herbert Van de Sompel, Los Alamos National Laboratory Research Library
* Jennifer Waxman, New York University
* Joe Weisenbach, MAM-A Inc.
* John McCoskey, Public Broadcasting Service (PBS)
* John Spencer, BMS/Chace
* Josh Sternfeld, National Endowment for the Humanities
* Karen Cariani, WGBH Educational Foundation
* Kate Murray, National Archives and Records Administration
* Margaret Maes, Legal Information Preservation Alliance
* Mark Abrahamson, Roper Center for Public Opinion Research
* Mark Evans, Tessella Inc.
* Martin Halbert, University of North Texas
* Mary Vardigan, Inter-University Consortium for Political and Social Research (ICPSR)
* Matt Peters, Utah Automated Geographic Reference Center
* Matt Schultz, Educopia Institute, MetaArchive Cooperative
* Meg Philips, National Archives and Records Administration
* Michael Levy, United States Holocaust Memorial Museum
* Michael L. Nelson, Old Dominion University
* Michele Kimpton, DuraSpace
* Michele Timmons, Minnesota Office of the Revisor of Statutes
* Nancy North, University of Michigan
* Paula De Stefano, New York University (NYU)
* Priscilla Caplan, Florida Center for Library Automation
* Rachel L. Frick, Council on Library and Information Resources: Digital Library Federation
* Robert R. Downs, Center for International Earth Science Information Network (CIESIN), Columbia University
* Shane Beers, University of Michigan
* Shawn Nicholson, Michigan State University Libraries
* Stephen P Davis, Columbia
* Steve Morris, North Carolina State University Libraries
* Tracy Popp, Texas Tech University Libraries
* Victoria Walch, Council of State Archives
* Wayne Shoaf, University of Southern California

[http://www.loc.gov/extranet/wiki/osi/ndiip/ndsa/index.php?title=Standards_and_Best_Practices_Working_Group NDSA Standards Group Home]