DLF Wiki - User contributions [en]

NDSA:Thursday, Oct 28, 2014

2014-10-28T19:13:21Z

Karen cariani: /* Discussion */

12 members in attendance.

==Roster==
*Trevor, Library of Congress
*Karen, WGBH
*Max, Grand Valley State
*Nicole, Library Company of Philadelphia
*Carol, University of Minnesota
*Martin, Chicago State University
*Jane, LC
*Mitch, NY Philharmonic
*Sybibl, RAC
*Gail, Truman Tech
*Sara, Minnesota Historical
*Euan, Yale

==Agenda==
#Presentation Calls
#Migration/moving data document discussion
#Update on Ongoing Projects
#Next Call: POWRR Project, Skip December Call

==Discussion==
===Potential Future Presentations===
Group briefly recapped the last presentation, in September Bob Horton from the IMLS presented and hosted a discussion about the National Leadership Grants program. The event was well attended and illustrates continued interested in these kinds of calls. Several suggestions were offered for potential future presentations. Karen, mentioned the Presto Center, Euan suggested bwfla's emulation platform, it was also suggested that it would be useful to have Jane provide an overview of the recent NDIIPP storage architecture meeting presentations. Along with this, there was interest in learning about AP Trust, from an organization working as a DPN node and about the role and function of private LOCKSS networks. The group will follow up to identify points of contact for these projects and find times on future calls to host these presentations/discussions.
===Migrations Document===
There was good discussion of tweaks and revisions to the document. The two most substantive points involve changing the language from "migration" to "moving" to further clarify that this is not about format migration. The other suggestion was to include a "Further resources" section to the document, something that could link out to the fixity document and other relevant resources and places to look for tools. Trevor volunteered to take a pass at drafting and adding that in advance of circulating the document one more time before moving it forward as a draft for public comment.
===Working Group Wiki Page edit===
Karen and Trevor will take a look at the Working Group's wiki and do some clean up and evaluation on updating. Any suggestions about how to make it more useful are welcome.

NDSA:Tuesday, May 28, 2013

2013-06-03T20:37:39Z

Karen cariani: Created page with 'Overview of the COPTR project by Paul Wheatley (http://wiki.opf-labs.org/display/coptr/Home) University of Leeds, running SPRUCE http://blogs.loc.gov/digitalpreservation/2012/11…'

Overview of the COPTR project by Paul Wheatley (http://wiki.opf-labs.org/display/coptr/Home)
University of Leeds, running SPRUCE http://blogs.loc.gov/digitalpreservation/2012/11/spruce-up-for-digital-preservation-community-engagement-an-interview-with-paul-wheatley/ which is a grass roots digital preservation project in the UK. It focuses on collaborative and community based approaches and connecting practitioners with developers.

For many different organizations starting dp projects a key challenge is finding the right preservation software tools. This is an area where we can work together better.

Many people have created lists, there are a lot of them, probably too many with new ones appearing all the time. It is difficult to know where to start. In some tools registries there are varying levels of detail, some data is out of date, coverage is not great. When tools can be found there are not ways to learn how effective a tool is, like for example how easy is it to install? Each registry seems to have core tools listed and it’s own unique entries. These should be brought together. This will be particularly useful for those who are new the field.

Too many registries, DCC, LC, Open Planets, large funded projects pretty much everyone has one. While the registries are created, they are not maintained, PADI closing is an example, same is happening with a lot of them out there.

Need to work together rather than compete, pull together information, get rid of existing ones. COPTR is wiki based with neutral ownership, anyone can contribute. Tagging the entries will create organization and browsable list of tools. Need a good balance of detail and brevity. This registry won’t contain user feedback but will link to it so people can learn. It will also provide a dump of data to allow others to use/explore/reuse.

How to realize?
Wiki approach allows something to get done quickly and for open contribution.
Demonstrator is up now @ http:// bit.ly/coptr
Now gathering feedback from those who have registries
Working with orgs to get them on board, will only be a success if many orgs work together on it
THIS IS THE ASK: merge tool registry data, link to it, delete registry, transfer effort
Goal is one central and more effective registry
Support from ANADAP
-next meeting will have a session on coptr

Any feedback? Suggestions? Questions?
Q: You want a central registry but don’t want individuals to maintain their own? Is that really going to happen?
A: In some cases yes, in some cases no. In some cases it is too interlinked, in some they don’t have the resources to do it. If a good core can buy into it

Q: About data entry, I have some detailed data, who can move the data to COPTR?
A: There may be limited resources for this

Q: What is the scope, will it include all aspects of digital preservation, web archiving and image archiving, for example?
A: The scope is broad, as broad as possible, need to be experimental, IIPC web archive could be a good fit.

Q: Where is the Institutional home?
A: Some conflicting requirements here, we want a home as neutral as possible so as many can buy into it, want someone to maintain and look after. OPF hosting at the moment, managing user accounts, keep it up and running, it is at an OPF url, but would like it to have it owned by community, could have a set of logos from the different organizations.
See tools grid, digital power project, as an example of what could be done with the data.

Q: Who have you talked to? What is the level of enthusiasm?
A: Small core so far, 4 to 5 orgs to test the water to get some of the best tool registries out there, DCC, LC, UNC, OPF. People are general supportive

Q: Who is the audience?
A: The professional who is about to embark on a new DP project. For example, they need to characterize digital audio files. Finding tools is a problem—most technical challenges have been solved somewhere but finding the tools is done by word of mouth. Not all labeled “digital preservation”. There is a tendency to see a digital preservation problem and then to write all new software to solve it. Don’t have resources to waste.

Q: Timeframe for prototype with more data?
A: Up and running with data by November.

Will send a list of questions/answer to post a blog interview.

Next call and meeting on June 25, will send a notice and agenda

NDSA:Infrastructure Working Group

2013-06-03T20:36:29Z

Karen cariani: /* Meeting Schedule and Minutes */

== Statement of Purpose ==
The Infrastructure Working Group works to build a community of sharing information and best practices about the development and maintenance of tools and systems for the curation, preservation, storage, hosting, migration, and similar activities for the long term preservation of digital content.

== Call Information ==
For our monthly calls here is the call in information:
* Call-in number: 866-469-3239
* Participant Access Code: 21408589

==Current Work Objectives==
*[[NDSA:Open Source Software]] Investigate, share, and recognize emerging practices for use and development and sharing of open source tools and other software that enable digital preservation.
*[[NDSA:Discussions on Preservation Storage Topics]]: Summaries and salient points from the WG's bi-weekly open conversation on detailed aspects of preservation storage. Topics discussed: encryption, (others forthcoming).
* Storage Survey: For the first year the group's primary project was an exploration of member's approaches to storage. We began with an exploration of cloud providers, see [[NDSA:Cloud Presentations]]. From there we developed a set of [[NDSA:Qualitative Storage Questions]] which 10 members responded to. From there we developed and implemented a survey of the members: [[NDSA:Media:Draft_storage_survey_v3.pdf|Draft Storage Survey]]. The final report and a series of blog posts on this project are still being finalized.

==Potential Future Projects==
*Investigate, share, and recognize emerging practices for use and development of computer forensic tools that enable digital preservation.
*Encourage communities with highly specialized needs (e.g., geospatial, datasets, observational data) to develop storage networks or access services that can serve the entire community.

== Meeting Schedule and Minutes ==
*[[NDSA:Tuesday, May 28, 2013]]
*[[NDSA:Tuesday, Jan 29, 2013]]
*[[NDSA:Tuesday, Aug 28, 2012]]
*[[NDSA:Tuesday, July 31, 2012]]
*[[NDSA:Tuesday, May 29, 2012]]
*[[NDSA:Tuesday, April 24, 2012]]
*[[NDSA:Tuesday, March 27, 2012]]
*[[NDSA:Tuesday, February 28, 2012]]
*[[NDSA:Tuesday, January 31, 2012]]
*[[NDSA:Tuesday, December 20, 2011]]
*[[NDSA:Tuesday, November 22, 2011]]
*[[NDSA:Wednesday, October 19, 2011]]
*[[NDSA:Wednesday, September 21, 2011]]
*[[NDSA:Wednesday, August 24, 2011]]
*[[NDSA:Thursday, July 28, 2011]]
*[[NDSA:Wednesday, June 8, 2011]]
*[[NDSA:Tuesday, May 17, 2011]]
*[[NDSA:Wednesday, April 14, 2011]]
*[[NDSA:Tuesday, March 15, 2011]]
*[[NDSA:Thursday, Feb 17, 2011]]
*[[NDSA:Monday, Feb 14, 2011]]
*[[NDSA:Tuesday, Feb 1, 2011]]
*[[NDSA:Tuesday, Jan 18, 2011]]
*[[NDSA:Friday, Dec 10, 2010]]
*[[NDSA:Monday, November 22, 2010]]

==Participation==
Participation in the Infrastructure [[NDSA:Terms#Working_Group|Working Group]] is restricted to NDSA member organizations. Contact co-chairs Karen Cariani and [mailto:trow@loc.gov Trevor Owens] to join the working group.

Participants in the working group will participate in working group phone calls, undertake tasks to help the working group accomplish goals, and be active in helping accomplish the goals of the working group.

[[NDSA:Terms#Action_Team|Action Teams]] may be created around specific tasks. These Action Teams may be self organized by members of the working group and may include non-NDSA members as the work requires. Non-NDSA members will not be participants in the Working Group but may contribute to the activities of any Action Team. Action Teams will update the Working Group about their accomplishments and progress.

NDSA:Tuesday, March 27, 2012

2012-04-25T14:53:03Z

Karen cariani: /* Action Items */

Infrastructure Working Group Call, March 27, 2012, 2pm-3pm

==Attending==
*Andrea Goethels, Harvard University
*Dean Farrell, UNC
*Elizabeth Perks, Utah State Archives
*Jefferson Bailey, Library of Congress
*John Nicholes, University of Minnisota
*John Spenser, BMS Chase
*Mark Evans, Tessalla
*Martin Halbert UNT
*Micah Altman, MIT
*Priscilla Caplan, FCLA
*Shawn Nicholson, MSU
*Trevor Owens, Library of Congress

==Action Items==
#'''Compression Discussion:''' '''Mark, Micah, and Jefferson''' each volunteered to continue the discussion on the email list. We will continue this line of conversation on the list for another two weeks.
#'''Next Discussion List topic:''' '''Mark and Micah''' volunteered to kick off a conversation on the list about making decisions on what number of copies to keep and bit integrity check frequency.
#'''Open Source project:''' '''Linda, Aaron, and Karen''' each contacted me or responded over the list to express their interest. '''Trevor''' will contact them to see about working on shaping up this project idea into a one page project charter/plan that spells out the goal, approach and a timeline.
#'''New Project Ideas:''' '''Trevor''' volunteered to post these ideas to the ideascale page in the next week. '''Everyone''' is explicitly encouraged to propose ideas on ideascale for additional projects.
#'''NDSA summer mtg Infrastructure WG presentation:''' A sub group will meet to discuss what this presentation might look like. Karen to set up doodle poll for a separate call.

==Discussion Notes==
#'''Compression Discussion:''' We started by continuing our discussion of compression. It was clear from our conversation that we haven’t exhausted the compression discussion. One of the key points of discussion was how much should one worry about the proprietary nature of various approaches to disk compression. In particular, the group was interested in how much one needs to worry about proprietary disk compression approaches if the storage is online and accessible. The group is interested in thinking of ways to surface some of the points of consideration and issues in these discussions. It was suggested that the NDSA summer meeting might be a good target to try and hit for having brief reports on the discussions to invite further input.
#'''Last Change for the Open Source Project:''' Linda, Aaron, and Karen each expressed interest in the project on the list before the call. Trevor will contact them to see about working on shaping up this project idea into a one page project charter/plan that spells out the goal, approach and a timeline.
#'''Next project? Back to the Ideascale drawing board?''' We briefly revisited our original brainstorming on the NDSA IdeaScale page. We have actually touched on most of these original ideas. Now is a great time to seed this page with new ideas for projects that we think could benefit our organizations. It would be ideal if everyone, particularly those who have not yet been particularly active in the work of the group could make suggestions or comment on suggestions. The group suggested a few ideas on the call, including an interest in tools that support automatic classification of content that could serve to support appraisal roles, and an interest in inviting speakers to present on new technologies which the group would write up short pieces about and potentially share though the Library of Congress Digital Preservation Blog. Trevor volunteered to post these ideas to the ideascale page in the next week but the group wants to encourage others to share ideas as well. http://ndsa.ideascale.com/a/ideafactory.do?id=4760&mode=recent&discussionFilter=byids&discussionID=11334
#'''Input for the NDSA Joint Leadership Meeting''' The NDSA Coordinating Committee and the Working group chairs are meeting at the end of this week. Are there any things that we would like to hear from the coordinating committee on? We spent a bit of time discussing which of our projects the group found the most useful.
##One member noted that they thought the presentations and briefings on various cloud projects we initially engaged in were particularly useful.
##One member found the recent encryption discussion to be useful. In particular, that this kind of discussion and knowledge sharing fit a time frame and scope that worked particularly well.
##Several members felt that the survey project was particularly useful. It is noteworthy that the standards group is using the storage survey to model their own survey project.

NDSA:Tuesday, January 31, 2012

2012-02-01T14:09:37Z

Karen cariani:

Infrastructure Working Group Call, January 31, 2012, 2pm-3pm

==Attending==

*Trevor Owens, Library of Congress
*Karen Cariani, WGBH
*Dave MacCarn, WGBH
*Jefferson Bailey, Library of Congress
*Aaron Trehub, Auburn University
*Mitch Brodsky, NY Philharmonic
*John Spenser, BMS Chase
*Martin Jacobson, NARA
*Michael Sterling, Academy of Motion Pictures
*Corey Snavely, University of Michigan
*Micah Altman, Harvard University (soon to be MIT)
*Nicole Scalessa, Library Company of Philadelphia
*Dean Farrell, UNC
*Elizabeth Perkes, Utah State Archives
*Bob Downs, Columbia University
*Joe Pawletko, NYU
*Dan Dodge, Thompson Reuters
*Priscilla Caplan, FCLA
*Andrea Goethels, Harvard University
*Linda Tadic, Audiovisual Archive Network
*Shaun Nicholson, Michigan State
*Martin Halbert, UNT

==Agenda==
*Update on Storage Report activities
*Discussion of our OSS project
*Update on other NDSA WG activities

==Storage Report==
*Two posts have been published on the NDIIPP blog highlighting and analyzing results from the NDSA storage survey.
*Access: http://blogs.loc.gov/digitalpreservation/2011/12/diversity-of-access-to-digital-preservation-collections-first-results-from-the-ndsa-storage-survey/
*Cloud: http://blogs.loc.gov/digitalpreservation/2012/01/partly-cloudy-trends-in-distributed-and-remote-preservation-storage-more-results-from-the-ndsa-storage-survey/
*Three more are planned: one (in draft form now) on fixity, one on administrative/managerial complexities, and one summary post that can also included any stats/results that didn’t fall into the previous four posts.
*We are still tossing around ideas for the form of a final product from this project, so ping the list if you have ideas or would like to be involved in that effort.

==OSS Project==
Discussion:
*We are continuing to brainstorm on potential questions and who exactly to pose them to as far as decision-making around open-source software use for digital preservation.
*There is still a lack of clarity on who we want to invite to comment and how we proceed developing question.
*One idea is to develop questions for ourselves first (meaning the working group), then refine the question, then post to the NDSA membership (much like the storage survey).
*Would also be useful to talk to folks who are experts or have experience in this area to tease out issues before writing questions.
*Are our questions around decision-making for using, or for participating in and contributing to projects?
*One potential approach is to look at thinks like Lyasis’ FLOSS project and other the other resources on the wiki. Then we can comment on what features or formats we like from those materials materials.
*We need to figure out the scope of the questions -- should we make distinctions between types of software (there’s a difference between file-renaming software and a full repository) – what’s our focus?
*One use-case: enterprise tools for long-term access/preservation. That is a decision that involves a different time horizon (for long-term preservation in memory institutions) than a commercial, enterprise-wide solution.
*Also the case of OSS on top of commercial piece (combination of build, buy, and adopt).
*Also the case of “commercial open source” which is increasingly prevalent, underlying OSS but with pay-for features or support or implementation on top of it.
*It would work best to hone the focus before we begin thinking of questions and/or communities/institutions to query.

==Other NDSA news==

==Innovation news==
* Innovation members are planning on participating in the Google Summer of Code project. If any Infrastructure members would like to take part (which involves mentoring a student developer/programmer who will write code for an open-source software project), contact Jefferson or Trevor and we will provide more info on the project & requirements.
*Innovation Awards: the annual awards program will be announced soon and more information will be disseminated NDSA-wide. Please make, and encourage others to make, nominations for people, projects, institutions, or students/educators demonstrating innovation in the field of digital preservation and stewardship.

==Standards==
*There is a “wiki project” in development to document digital preservation standards and guidelines on Wikipedia
*Another project is to conduct a staffing survey to see how institutions have staffed themselves for digital preservation: numbers of employees, organizational structure, skills expected of employees/job applications, their ideal staffing levels, their projected staffing levels, etc. The survey will be of both the NDSA community and external institutions
*Another project is to conduct a survey of what standards are currently in use around digital preservation tasks at NDSA institution and then track this information over time to determine trends, etc.

==Outreach==
*Creating “digital preservation in a box” a collection of resources for digital preservation
*Storytellers series, which collects unique or evocative stories about digital preservation

==Content==
*Working with WordPress to develop an “opt-in” plug-in which blog creators can activate to note their content is available/allowable for harvesting.

==Action items==
*Trevor/Micah will write a short, one paragraph statement scoping out a baseline description for considering OSS when building digital preservation infrastructure for long-term access & preservation.
*The group will review text posted to the wiki and comment over the listserv.
*The group will continue reviewing, commenting on, and adding to the OSS resources currently posted to the wiki, especially anything that provides a good example or model of what we hope to provide.
*Related: The Digital Dilemma 2 paper is now available for download
*Next call will be Tuesday, February 28, 2012 at 2pm EST

NDSA:Staffing survey planning page

2012-01-17T17:34:06Z

Karen cariani:

Excerpt from Meg's email that started this project:

"Recently I've had several interesting conversations with people at other institutions about how the work of digital preservation is and should be organized and staffed within organizations. We've touched on issues like: what different roles are necessary to do digital preservation, what is the division of labor, what kinds of skills are needed, are developers within a digital preservation unit or outside it, would people be willing to share org charts and position descriptions, and on and on.

Information like this could be useful for many reasons, including simply finding out how many different ways of doing this there are, benchmarking, identifying effective practices, and maybe making a case to strengthen staffing at our own institutions.

This topic clearly isn't related to "standards", but it probably is related to "practices." I was wondering if other members of this group would have any interest in conducting a survey of institutions to find out how they organize and staff the digital preservation function, and how they would like to organize and staff it. We could do something relatively simple, on the model of the storage survey recently conducted by another NDSA working group."

----
'''Notes:'''

Section 3.2 of the latest version of the TRAC successor is about Organizational Structure and Staffing. Specifically it requires the following:
* 3.2.1 The repository shall have identified and established the duties that it needs to perform and shall have appointed staff with adequate skills and experience to fulfill these duties.
** 3.2.1.1 The repository shall have identified and established the duties that it needs to perform.
** 3.2.1.2 The repository shall have the appropriate number of staff to support all functions and services.
** 3.2.1.3 The repository shall have in place an active professional development program that provides staff with skills and expertise development opportunities.

----
Please start a draft of questions we could ask in this survey here:

* What are the titles of the people who do digital preservation work in your organization?
* What department(s) are they in?
* How many people are there?
* What are the major functions you include in your organization's digital preservation work?
* What skills do you think are necessary in the people who perform those functions?
* Do you have org charts, mission statements, position descriptions that you'd be willing to share?

* Approximately, how many terabytes of storage space do you require for all copies of your content that you manage?
* Do you think that the number of people you have working in digital preservation is sufficient?
* In what areas are you missing expertise that you need for digital preservation?
* How many people and in what areas do you think you need for digital preservation?
* What do you think the *ideal* functions, structure, and staffing of a digital preservation function would be (setting aside anything you actually have or are likely to have)?

* Did you hire digital preservation specialists or "grow your own" (or both)?
* Where do you turn for professional development opportunities for your digital preservation staff? What types of professional development opportunities have you used?
* How big is your institution?
* How much work experience, in years, do most of your digital preservation staff have?

NDSA:Who we Might Want to Invite to Comment

2011-12-20T20:28:58Z

Karen cariani:

Who do we want to invite to comment on our key factor's and questions once we have them. Ideally identify who they are, why you think they are interesting, and your name if you are willing to contact them.

#Someone From DuraSpace: They have been going at this for a good while, they are in our community and I think it would benifit us all to have them well represented in this project. -Trevor KC: might want to have this talk about Fedora/DSpace and how the two got off the ground and then eventually decided to merge.
#Someone From CHNM (Sharon Leon, Tom Scheinfeldt: Omeka and Zotero are both rather robust open source projects, they also run a fair amount of OSS to support a range of projects, (Drupal, WordPress) -Trevor
#Someone from WordPress (I know a few core devs), very successful project with a large community. -Trevor
#Collective Access Seth ? - Karen - I can track down his last name His company Whirlagig gets paid to develop software but then releases it as open source as part of his paid agreement. He feels he can support himself with services around the tools he builds and releases it as open will increase users.
#Someone from Blacklight or Hydra project at Stanford (Tom Cramer) or Variations on Video at Indiana Univ (John Dunn) or both - Karen They are building large enterprise preservation systems for university libraries....I want to know why not buy something off the shelf?

NDSA:Open Source Member Questions

2011-12-20T19:29:38Z

Karen cariani:

List out your ideas for questions for us each to respond to here. Ideally, we would like to have a relatively short set of questions that get at the heart of the key decision factors.

#What role does different software licenses play in decisions to adopt Open Source software?
#Can you describe a time when you adopted an open source software tool for a particular project? Describe the situation and the key factors in the decision and then evaluate how successful or unsuccessful the tool served your goals. Going forward what do you see as the key implications of this case?
# Can you describe a time when you decided not to adopt an open source software tool for a particular project? What were the key reasons for your decision?
#Can you describe your decision process for software? What are the key questions you ask about any given software?
#If you have been using a open source system (for digital preservation) (KC: thought we might want to focus it) for several years what parts of managing that application take up most of your time?
#How do you decide if the community around the software is strong and sustainable? or if it matters?
#How do you decide how much of your own time to put into documentation to make it easier for others to use? Does this effect the decision of whether to release as open source?
#How do you weigh the advantages of flexibility with open source against potential dependable sustainability with a vendor?

NDSA:Open Source Member Questions

2011-12-20T19:28:18Z

Karen cariani:

NDSA:Infrastructure Working Group

2011-11-03T20:43:21Z

Karen cariani: /* Meeting Schedule and Minutes */

== Statement of Purpose ==
The Infrastructure Working Group works to build a community of sharing information and best practices about the development and maintenance of tools and systems for the curation, preservation, storage, hosting, migration, and similar activities for the long term preservation of digital content.

== Meeting Schedule and Minutes ==
*[[NDSA:Tuesday, November 22, 2011]]
*[[NDSA:Wednesday, October 19, 2011]]
*[[NDSA:Wednesday, September 21, 2011]]
*[[NDSA:Wednesday, August 24, 2011]]
*[[NDSA:Thursday, July 28, 2011]]
*[[NDSA:Wednesday, June 8, 2011]]
*[[NDSA:Tuesday, May 17, 2011]]
*[[NDSA:Wednesday, April 14, 2011]]
*[[NDSA:Tuesday, March 15, 2011]]
*[[NDSA:Thursday, Feb 17, 2011]]
*[[NDSA:Monday, Feb 14, 2011]]
*[[NDSA:Tuesday, Feb 1, 2011]]
*[[NDSA:Tuesday, Jan 18, 2011]]
*[[NDSA:Friday, Dec 10, 2010]]
*[[NDSA:Monday, November 22, 2010]]

== Current Scope of Work ==
Survey and document best practices in the digital preservation infrastructure landscape, focusing on the topics below

===Work objective===
*Investigate, share, and recognize emerging practices for use and development and sharing of open source tools and other software that enable digital preservation.
** [[NDSA:Open Source Software]]
*Investigate, share, and recognize emerging practices for use and development of computer forensic tools that enable digital preservation.
*Investigate, recognize, and document potential preservation emerging practices in the use of large-scale storage and cloud infrastructures.
** [[NDSA:Cloud Presentations]]
*Encourage communities with highly specialized needs (e.g., geospatial, datasets, observational data) to develop storage networks or access services that can serve the entire community.

===Deliverables===
*Report on the phone calls and discussions to be shared
*Develop on-line resource of findings using a wiki page or something similar
*Write a working group report
*Publish white papers, articles about specific topics

===Schedule===
*Whole working group call once a month for 1 year
*Write up findings on a rolling basis after each month’s call
*June/July gather report together
*Aug/Sept survey and draft report, share preliminary findings at Storage Meeting
*Oct/Nov finish report, decide on dissemination,
*Dec decide on next working group project or projects

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

==Practices==
*Listserv: contact Leslie to be added or removed. The [http://list.digitalpreservation.gov/SCRIPTS/WA-DIGITAL.EXE?A0=NDSA-INFRASTRUCTURE&X=07521961E829716D52&Y=eengle%40loc.gov list archives] are available to members (requires login).
*Phone calls
*Wiki
*Social Media – potentially for dissemination of information
*Annual conference: face to face mtgs, if possible, not mandatory
*WebEx
*Google docs
*Ideascale

==Participation==
Participation in the Infrastructure Working Group is restricted to NDSA member organizations. Contact co-chairs Karen Cariani and Trevor Owens to join the working group.

Participants in the working group will participate in working group phone calls, undertake tasks to help the working group accomplish goals, and be active in helping accomplish the goals of the working group.

Action Teams may be created around specific tasks. These Action Teams may be self organized by members of the working group and may include non-NDSA members as the work requires. Non-NDSA members will not be participants in the Working Group but may contribute to the activities of any Action Team. Action Teams will update the Working Group about their accomplishments and progress.

NDSA:Infrastructure Working Group

2011-09-16T19:51:47Z

Karen cariani: /* Meeting Schedule and Minutes */

== Statement of Purpose ==
The Infrastructure Working Group works to build a community of sharing information and best practices about the development and maintenance of tools and systems for the curation, preservation, storage, hosting, migration, and similar activities for the long term preservation of digital content.

== Meeting Schedule and Minutes ==
*[[NDSA:Wednesday, September 21, 2011]]
*[[NDSA:Wednesday, August 24, 2011]]
*[[NDSA:Thursday, July 28, 2011]]
*[[NDSA:Wednesday, June 8, 2011]]
*[[NDSA:Tuesday, May 17, 2011]]
*[[NDSA:Wednesday, April 14, 2011]]
*[[NDSA:Tuesday, March 15, 2011]]
*[[NDSA:Thursday, Feb 17, 2011]]
*[[NDSA:Monday, Feb 14, 2011]]
*[[NDSA:Tuesday, Feb 1, 2011]]
*[[NDSA:Tuesday, Jan 18, 2011]]
*[[NDSA:Friday, Dec 10, 2010]]
*[[NDSA:Monday, November 22, 2010]]

== Current Scope of Work ==
Survey and document best practices in the digital preservation infrastructure landscape, focusing on the topics below

===Work objective===
*Investigate, share, and recognize emerging practices for use and development and sharing of open source tools and other software that enable digital preservation.
[[NDSA:Cloud Presentations]].
*Investigate, share, and recognize emerging practices for use and development of computer forensic tools that enable digital preservation.
*Investigate, recognize, and document potential preservation emerging practices in the use of large-scale storage and cloud infrastructures.
*Encourage communities with highly specialized needs (e.g., geospatial, datasets, observational data) to develop storage networks or access services that can serve the entire community.

===Deliverables===
*Report on the phone calls and discussions to be shared
*Develop on-line resource of findings using a wiki page or something similar
*Write a working group report
*Publish white papers, articles about specific topics

===Schedule===
*Whole working group call once a month for 1 year
*Write up findings on a rolling basis after each month’s call
*June/July gather report together
*Aug/Sept survey and draft report, share preliminary findings at Storage Meeting
*Oct/Nov finish report, decide on dissemination,
*Dec decide on next working group project or projects

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

==Practices==
*Listserv: contact Leslie to be added or removed. The [http://list.digitalpreservation.gov/SCRIPTS/WA-DIGITAL.EXE?A0=NDSA-INFRASTRUCTURE&X=07521961E829716D52&Y=eengle%40loc.gov list archives] are available to members (requires login).
*Phone calls
*Wiki
*Social Media – potentially for dissemination of information
*Annual conference: face to face mtgs, if possible, not mandatory
*WebEx
*Google docs
*Ideascale

==Participation==
Participation in the Infrastructure Working Group is restricted to NDSA member organizations. Contact co-chairs Karen Cariani and Trevor Owens to join the working group.

Participants in the working group will participate in working group phone calls, undertake tasks to help the working group accomplish goals, and be active in helping accomplish the goals of the working group.

Action Teams may be created around specific tasks. These Action Teams may be self organized by members of the working group and may include non-NDSA members as the work requires. Non-NDSA members will not be participants in the Working Group but may contribute to the activities of any Action Team. Action Teams will update the Working Group about their accomplishments and progress.

NDSA:Infrastructure Working Group

2011-06-23T19:48:50Z

Karen cariani: /* Meeting Schedule and Minutes */

== Statement of Purpose ==
The Infrastructure Working Group works to build a community of sharing information and best practices about the development and maintenance of tools and systems for the curation, preservation, storage, hosting, migration, and similar activities for the long term preservation of digital content.

== Meeting Schedule and Minutes ==
*[[NDSA:Thursday, July 28, 2011]]
*[[NDSA:Wednesday, June 8, 2011]]
*[[NDSA:Tuesday, May 17, 2011]]
*[[NDSA:Wednesday, April 14, 2011]]
*[[NDSA:Tuesday, March 15, 2011]]
*[[NDSA:Thursday, Feb 17, 2011]]
*[[NDSA:Monday, Feb 14, 2011]]
*[[NDSA:Tuesday, Feb 1, 2011]]
*[[NDSA:Tuesday, Jan 18, 2011]]
*[[NDSA:Friday, Dec 10, 2010]]
*[[NDSA:Monday, November 22, 2010]]

== Current Scope of Work ==
Survey and document best practices in the digital preservation infrastructure landscape, focusing on the topics below

===Work objective===
*Investigate, share, and recognize emerging practices for use and development and sharing of open source tools and other software that enable digital preservation.
[[NDSA:Cloud Presentations]].
*Investigate, share, and recognize emerging practices for use and development of computer forensic tools that enable digital preservation.
*Investigate, recognize, and document potential preservation emerging practices in the use of large-scale storage and cloud infrastructures.
*Encourage communities with highly specialized needs (e.g., geospatial, datasets, observational data) to develop storage networks or access services that can serve the entire community.

===Work scope (actions we actually do)===
*Identify 5 or 6 topics relevant and discuss one topic in depth per monthly phone call- such as identify the necessary components/characteristics of creating an open source tools.
**Invite an expert speaker to discuss topics
**Record the discussion and share
**Periodically report to the Infrastructure group about what’s going on in the arena of highly specialized needs
*Report to the group about other activities in this area
*Post reports for sharing
*Compile information about 5-6 topics, including but not limited to:
**Authoring individuals and organizations
**Status of standard or best practice
**Description of standard or best practice
**Characterization of the standard or best practice (need to define categories)
**Examples of where and how they are used
**Related documents and Web site
**Analysis and synthesis
**Identify gaps, areas of potential collaboration, etc
*Share compilation of information as an online resource

===Deliverables===
*Report on the phone calls and discussions to be shared
*Develop on-line resource of findings using a wiki page or something similar
*Write a working group report
*Publish white papers, articles about specific topics

===Schedule===
*Whole working group call once a month for 1 year
*Action group calls more frequent?
*By February call have topics identified
*March – June hold calls with experts
*write up findings on a rolling basis after each month’s call
*June/July gather report together
*Aug- Sept continue to build out resources and post on-line

===Reporting===
Once a month for 1 year

===Action Groups===
(Will be filled in from Doodle Poll)
*Action Group A:
*Action Group B:
*Action Group C:
*Action Group D:

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

==Practices==
*Listserv: contact Leslie to be added or removed. The [http://list.digitalpreservation.gov/SCRIPTS/WA-DIGITAL.EXE?A0=NDSA-INFRASTRUCTURE&X=07521961E829716D52&Y=eengle%40loc.gov list archives] are available to members (requires login).
*Phone calls
*Wiki
*Social Media – potentially for dissemination of information
*Annual conference: face to face mtgs, if possible, not mandatory
*WebEx
*Google docs
*Ideascale

==Participation==
Participation in the Infrastructure Working Group is restricted to NDSA member organizations. Contact co-chairs Karen Cariani and Leslie Johntson to join the working group.

Participants in the working group will participate in working group phone calls, undertake tasks to help the working group accomplish goals, and be active in helping accomplish the goals of the working group.

Action Teams may be created around specific tasks. These Action Teams may be self organized by members of the working group and may include non-NDSA members as the work requires. Non-NDSA members will not be participants in the Working Group but may contribute to the activities of any Action Team. Action Teams will update the Working Group about their accomplishments and progress.

NDSA:Wednesday, June 8, 2011

2011-06-11T21:45:09Z

Karen cariani: /* Next steps: Action items */

We had a rather lively discussion of the three documents members worked up to describe some of the themes, trends, and tensions that come out of the responses to the storage implementation questionnaire which several members responded to. As a next step, Karen will bring these documents together into a single document that she will share as a Google doc for members to literally highlight key points and add any additional comments. We can workshop the document together in this shared environment. We will also workshop this document at the meeting next month.

==Call Participants==
*Karen Cariani
*Dan Dodge
*Trevor Owens
*Gene Mopsik
*Gene Hurr
*Cory Snavely
*Micah Altman
*Dean Farrell
*John Unsworth
*Robert Cartolano
*Andrea Goethals
*Cal Lee
*Elizabeth Joffrion

==What is it we have and what can we say?==
We started by discussing what exactly it is that we have here and what we could say based on what we have. Importantly, these responses do not provide any kind of numerical information about a representative sample of members’ approaches to large scale storage systems. That would require a more targeted and fully formed survey. With that said, the open ended questions have brought back some very interesting stories from different partners working on different problems and there seem to be some clear common trials, and some clear common values within this very diverse set of respondents from the membership which are suggesting some similar approaches and perspectives across different institutions.

There seemed to be general consensus that putting the three drafted documents together to try and further tease out these themes, values, and approaches was valuable.

==Audience: Who do we think would want to hear what we have here?==
We then discussed what audience this document might be of interest to. Several members suggested that this kind of document, when fully formed, could be valuable to other organizations looking for guidance about what our collective experience suggests are some of the key things to consider when trying to plan for implementing and maintaining these systems. A second audience was identified as storage providers, in this case the presumed value of the document would be to clearly explain how the values of digital stewardship organizations explain our decisions about which technologies to buy, use, and when to migrate to and from them. Lastly, it can serve as a valuable activity for ourselves to explore and share the challenges we are each facing around storage and attempt to articulate some of the principles that are guiding our individual approaches.

==Formats for the final product from this==
First and foremost, the document we are working on can be refined and revised to the point where it could stand as its own report. One idea was to highlight common key points where development is needed and identify key issues and problems that need to be addressed.

There was also some discussion about developing suggested requirements that should be considered when choosing or developing a digital preservation storage system. There would not be a single list but several, dependent upon the scope and needs. We would try to suggest as much coverage as possible, but will need to clearly state the scope of each. Some initial suggestions: some of the requirements came out in the questions – simple, self managed, fixity check – what are the core things we need to document for a digital repository.

Some others:
Ingest – got to be able to ingest quickly
Need to have public users access quicker
See thumbnail and uncompressed file that may take a little longer

Bring out themes that different responses indicate, group them together in what seems logical – access and latency. Common themes – need to develop additional data integrity practices above storage system as a software layer, check sum validation – to do this well, need these things. We agree about it how to implement? David Rosenthal at Stanford could step in and say this is the best way to do check sum validation. Let’s all solve together.

Others: Trade offs around simple file systems. Easy to move around. Un-rigorous access to data. But all went that route. Keep it simple principle. Encryptions – we could distill themes from it all – technology choice for preservation (risk averse technology trend)

Develop a decision tree for people… Along with this, Micah Altmen volunteered that once the draft document is put together he would be willing to work up an accompanying decision tree that tries to distill what the needs for a system suggest for the kinds of decisions and technologies we are using.

==Workshop Session on Large Scale Storage for Meeting==
The group briefly discussed what we want to do at the meeting. There is general consensus that we will plan to use the session to further discuss and vet the document we are working on. To this extent, we could present a short deck of slides that describes some of the values, tensions, and challenges that come out of this work and then use the rest of the time to break into groups and further solicit stories and feedback from additional participants. We could use this as an opportunity to identify much more targeted radio button like questions for a short quantitative survey that we could then put out to the broader membership, or we could use this as an opportunity to break into groups and workshop the text we are drafting.

==Next steps: Action items==
• Boil 3 docs to one - Karen will do that.

• Put that up as shared google doc for everyone to comment on, edit.

• Identify from q 10-13 common themes commonality of approaches that organizations have taken. Highlight common themes.

• From common themes, design a less open ended survey to back up data from others in NDSA.

• Discuss at meeting n Washington and engage others in NDSA.

NDSA:Wednesday, June 8, 2011

2011-06-11T21:44:37Z

Karen cariani: /* Next steps: Action items */

We had a rather lively discussion of the three documents members worked up to describe some of the themes, trends, and tensions that come out of the responses to the storage implementation questionnaire which several members responded to. As a next step, Karen will bring these documents together into a single document that she will share as a Google doc for members to literally highlight key points and add any additional comments. We can workshop the document together in this shared environment. We will also workshop this document at the meeting next month.

==Call Participants==
*Karen Cariani
*Dan Dodge
*Trevor Owens
*Gene Mopsik
*Gene Hurr
*Cory Snavely
*Micah Altman
*Dean Farrell
*John Unsworth
*Robert Cartolano
*Andrea Goethals
*Cal Lee
*Elizabeth Joffrion

==What is it we have and what can we say?==
We started by discussing what exactly it is that we have here and what we could say based on what we have. Importantly, these responses do not provide any kind of numerical information about a representative sample of members’ approaches to large scale storage systems. That would require a more targeted and fully formed survey. With that said, the open ended questions have brought back some very interesting stories from different partners working on different problems and there seem to be some clear common trials, and some clear common values within this very diverse set of respondents from the membership which are suggesting some similar approaches and perspectives across different institutions.

There seemed to be general consensus that putting the three drafted documents together to try and further tease out these themes, values, and approaches was valuable.

==Audience: Who do we think would want to hear what we have here?==
We then discussed what audience this document might be of interest to. Several members suggested that this kind of document, when fully formed, could be valuable to other organizations looking for guidance about what our collective experience suggests are some of the key things to consider when trying to plan for implementing and maintaining these systems. A second audience was identified as storage providers, in this case the presumed value of the document would be to clearly explain how the values of digital stewardship organizations explain our decisions about which technologies to buy, use, and when to migrate to and from them. Lastly, it can serve as a valuable activity for ourselves to explore and share the challenges we are each facing around storage and attempt to articulate some of the principles that are guiding our individual approaches.

==Formats for the final product from this==
First and foremost, the document we are working on can be refined and revised to the point where it could stand as its own report. One idea was to highlight common key points where development is needed and identify key issues and problems that need to be addressed.

There was also some discussion about developing suggested requirements that should be considered when choosing or developing a digital preservation storage system. There would not be a single list but several, dependent upon the scope and needs. We would try to suggest as much coverage as possible, but will need to clearly state the scope of each. Some initial suggestions: some of the requirements came out in the questions – simple, self managed, fixity check – what are the core things we need to document for a digital repository.

Some others:
Ingest – got to be able to ingest quickly
Need to have public users access quicker
See thumbnail and uncompressed file that may take a little longer

Bring out themes that different responses indicate, group them together in what seems logical – access and latency. Common themes – need to develop additional data integrity practices above storage system as a software layer, check sum validation – to do this well, need these things. We agree about it how to implement? David Rosenthal at Stanford could step in and say this is the best way to do check sum validation. Let’s all solve together.

Others: Trade offs around simple file systems. Easy to move around. Un-rigorous access to data. But all went that route. Keep it simple principle. Encryptions – we could distill themes from it all – technology choice for preservation (risk averse technology trend)

Develop a decision tree for people… Along with this, Micah Altmen volunteered that once the draft document is put together he would be willing to work up an accompanying decision tree that tries to distill what the needs for a system suggest for the kinds of decisions and technologies we are using.

==Workshop Session on Large Scale Storage for Meeting==
The group briefly discussed what we want to do at the meeting. There is general consensus that we will plan to use the session to further discuss and vet the document we are working on. To this extent, we could present a short deck of slides that describes some of the values, tensions, and challenges that come out of this work and then use the rest of the time to break into groups and further solicit stories and feedback from additional participants. We could use this as an opportunity to identify much more targeted radio button like questions for a short quantitative survey that we could then put out to the broader membership, or we could use this as an opportunity to break into groups and workshop the text we are drafting.

==Next steps: Action items==
• Boil 3 docs to one - Karen will do that.
• Put that up as shared google doc for everyone to comment on, edit.
• Identify from q 10-13 common themes commonality of approaches that organizations have taken. Highlight common themes.
• From common themes, design a less open ended survey to back up data from others in NDSA.
• Discuss at meeting n Washington and engage others in NDSA.

NDSA:Wednesday, June 8, 2011

2011-06-11T21:44:12Z

Karen cariani:

We had a rather lively discussion of the three documents members worked up to describe some of the themes, trends, and tensions that come out of the responses to the storage implementation questionnaire which several members responded to. As a next step, Karen will bring these documents together into a single document that she will share as a Google doc for members to literally highlight key points and add any additional comments. We can workshop the document together in this shared environment. We will also workshop this document at the meeting next month.

==Call Participants==
*Karen Cariani
*Dan Dodge
*Trevor Owens
*Gene Mopsik
*Gene Hurr
*Cory Snavely
*Micah Altman
*Dean Farrell
*John Unsworth
*Robert Cartolano
*Andrea Goethals
*Cal Lee
*Elizabeth Joffrion

==What is it we have and what can we say?==
We started by discussing what exactly it is that we have here and what we could say based on what we have. Importantly, these responses do not provide any kind of numerical information about a representative sample of members’ approaches to large scale storage systems. That would require a more targeted and fully formed survey. With that said, the open ended questions have brought back some very interesting stories from different partners working on different problems and there seem to be some clear common trials, and some clear common values within this very diverse set of respondents from the membership which are suggesting some similar approaches and perspectives across different institutions.

There seemed to be general consensus that putting the three drafted documents together to try and further tease out these themes, values, and approaches was valuable.

==Audience: Who do we think would want to hear what we have here?==
We then discussed what audience this document might be of interest to. Several members suggested that this kind of document, when fully formed, could be valuable to other organizations looking for guidance about what our collective experience suggests are some of the key things to consider when trying to plan for implementing and maintaining these systems. A second audience was identified as storage providers, in this case the presumed value of the document would be to clearly explain how the values of digital stewardship organizations explain our decisions about which technologies to buy, use, and when to migrate to and from them. Lastly, it can serve as a valuable activity for ourselves to explore and share the challenges we are each facing around storage and attempt to articulate some of the principles that are guiding our individual approaches.

==Formats for the final product from this==
First and foremost, the document we are working on can be refined and revised to the point where it could stand as its own report. One idea was to highlight common key points where development is needed and identify key issues and problems that need to be addressed.

There was also some discussion about developing suggested requirements that should be considered when choosing or developing a digital preservation storage system. There would not be a single list but several, dependent upon the scope and needs. We would try to suggest as much coverage as possible, but will need to clearly state the scope of each. Some initial suggestions: some of the requirements came out in the questions – simple, self managed, fixity check – what are the core things we need to document for a digital repository.

Some others:
Ingest – got to be able to ingest quickly
Need to have public users access quicker
See thumbnail and uncompressed file that may take a little longer

Bring out themes that different responses indicate, group them together in what seems logical – access and latency. Common themes – need to develop additional data integrity practices above storage system as a software layer, check sum validation – to do this well, need these things. We agree about it how to implement? David Rosenthal at Stanford could step in and say this is the best way to do check sum validation. Let’s all solve together.

Others: Trade offs around simple file systems. Easy to move around. Un-rigorous access to data. But all went that route. Keep it simple principle. Encryptions – we could distill themes from it all – technology choice for preservation (risk averse technology trend)

Develop a decision tree for people… Along with this, Micah Altmen volunteered that once the draft document is put together he would be willing to work up an accompanying decision tree that tries to distill what the needs for a system suggest for the kinds of decisions and technologies we are using.

==Workshop Session on Large Scale Storage for Meeting==
The group briefly discussed what we want to do at the meeting. There is general consensus that we will plan to use the session to further discuss and vet the document we are working on. To this extent, we could present a short deck of slides that describes some of the values, tensions, and challenges that come out of this work and then use the rest of the time to break into groups and further solicit stories and feedback from additional participants. We could use this as an opportunity to identify much more targeted radio button like questions for a short quantitative survey that we could then put out to the broader membership, or we could use this as an opportunity to break into groups and workshop the text we are drafting.

==Next steps: Action items==
Boil 3 docs to one - Karen will do that.
Put that up as shared google doc for everyone to comment on, edit.
Identify from q 10-13 common themes commonality of approaches that organizations have taken. Highlight common themes.
From common themes, design a less open ended survey to back up data from others in NDSA.
Discuss at meeting n Washington and engage others in NDSA.

NDSA:Wednesday, June 8, 2011

2011-06-11T21:43:41Z

Karen cariani:

We had a rather lively discussion of the three documents members worked up to describe some of the themes, trends, and tensions that come out of the responses to the storage implementation questionnaire which several members responded to. As a next step, Karen will bring these documents together into a single document that she will share as a Google doc for members to literally highlight key points and add any additional comments. We can workshop the document together in this shared environment. We will also workshop this document at the meeting next month.

==Call Participants==
*Karen Cariani
*Dan Dodge
*Trevor Owens
*Gene Mopsik
*Gene Hurr
*Cory Snavely
*Micah Altman
*Dean Farrell
*John Unsworth
*Robert Cartolano
*Andrea Goethals
*Cal Lee
*Elizabeth Joffrion

==What is it we have and what can we say?==
We started by discussing what exactly it is that we have here and what we could say based on what we have. Importantly, these responses do not provide any kind of numerical information about a representative sample of members’ approaches to large scale storage systems. That would require a more targeted and fully formed survey. With that said, the open ended questions have brought back some very interesting stories from different partners working on different problems and there seem to be some clear common trials, and some clear common values within this very diverse set of respondents from the membership which are suggesting some similar approaches and perspectives across different institutions.

There seemed to be general consensus that putting the three drafted documents together to try and further tease out these themes, values, and approaches was valuable.

==Audience: Who do we think would want to hear what we have here?==
We then discussed what audience this document might be of interest to. Several members suggested that this kind of document, when fully formed, could be valuable to other organizations looking for guidance about what our collective experience suggests are some of the key things to consider when trying to plan for implementing and maintaining these systems. A second audience was identified as storage providers, in this case the presumed value of the document would be to clearly explain how the values of digital stewardship organizations explain our decisions about which technologies to buy, use, and when to migrate to and from them. Lastly, it can serve as a valuable activity for ourselves to explore and share the challenges we are each facing around storage and attempt to articulate some of the principles that are guiding our individual approaches.

==Formats for the final product from this==
First and foremost, the document we are working on can be refined and revised to the point where it could stand as its own report. One idea was to highlight common key points where development is needed and identify key issues and problems that need to be addressed.

There was also some discussion about developing suggested requirements that should be considered when choosing or developing a digital preservation storage system. There would not be a single list but several, dependent upon the scope and needs. We would try to suggest as much coverage as possible, but will need to clearly state the scope of each. Some initial suggestions: some of the requirements came out in the questions – simple, self managed, fixity check – what are the core things we need to document for a digital repository.

Some others:
Ingest – got to be able to ingest quickly
Need to have public users access quicker
See thumbnail and uncompressed file that may take a little longer

Bring out themes that different responses indicate, group them together in what seems logical – access and latency. Common themes – need to develop additional data integrity practices above storage system as a software layer, check sum validation – to do this well, need these things. We agree about it how to implement? David Rosenthal at Stanford could step in and say this is the best way to do check sum validation. Let’s all solve together.

Others: Trade offs around simple file systems. Easy to move around. Un-rigorous access to data. But all went that route. Keep it simple principle. Encryptions – we could distill themes from it all – technology choice for preservation (risk averse technology trend)

Develop a decision tree for people… Along with this, Micah Altmen volunteered that once the draft document is put together he would be willing to work up an accompanying decision tree that tries to distill what the needs for a system suggest for the kinds of decisions and technologies we are using.

==Workshop Session on Large Scale Storage for Meeting==
The group briefly discussed what we want to do at the meeting. There is general consensus that we will plan to use the session to further discuss and vet the document we are working on. To this extent, we could present a short deck of slides that describes some of the values, tensions, and challenges that come out of this work and then use the rest of the time to break into groups and further solicit stories and feedback from additional participants. We could use this as an opportunity to identify much more targeted radio button like questions for a short quantitative survey that we could then put out to the broader membership, or we could use this as an opportunity to break into groups and workshop the text we are drafting.

==Next steps: Action items==
Boil 3 docs to one - Karen will do that.
Put that up as shared google doc for everyone to comment on, edit.
Identify from q 10-13 common themes commonality of approaches that organizations have taken. Highlight common themes.
From common themes, design a less open ended survey to back up data from others in NDSA.
Discuss at meeting n Washington and engage others in NDSA.

NDSA:Wednesday, June 8, 2011

2011-06-11T21:40:31Z

Karen cariani: /* Formats for the final product from this */

NDSA:Wednesday, June 8, 2011

2011-06-11T21:38:06Z

Karen cariani: /* Formats for the final product from this */

We had a rather lively discussion of the three documents members worked up to describe some of the themes, trends, and tensions that come out of the responses to the storage implementation questionnaire which several members responded to. As a next step, Karen will bring these documents together into a single document that she will share as a Google doc for members to literally highlight key points and add any additional comments. We can workshop the document together in this shared environment. We will also workshop this document at the meeting next month.

==Call Participants==
*Karen Cariani
*Dan Dodge
*Trevor Owens
*Gene Mopsik
*Gene Hurr
*Cory Snavely
*Micah Altman
*Dean Farrell
*John Unsworth
*Robert Cartolano
*Andrea Goethals
*Cal Lee
*Elizabeth Joffrion

==What is it we have and what can we say?==
We started by discussing what exactly it is that we have here and what we could say based on what we have. Importantly, these responses do not provide any kind of numerical information about a representative sample of members’ approaches to large scale storage systems. That would require a more targeted and fully formed survey. With that said, the open ended questions have brought back some very interesting stories from different partners working on different problems and there seem to be some clear common trials, and some clear common values within this very diverse set of respondents from the membership which are suggesting some similar approaches and perspectives across different institutions.

There seemed to be general consensus that putting the three drafted documents together to try and further tease out these themes, values, and approaches was valuable.

==Audience: Who do we think would want to hear what we have here?==
We then discussed what audience this document might be of interest to. Several members suggested that this kind of document, when fully formed, could be valuable to other organizations looking for guidance about what our collective experience suggests are some of the key things to consider when trying to plan for implementing and maintaining these systems. A second audience was identified as storage providers, in this case the presumed value of the document would be to clearly explain how the values of digital stewardship organizations explain our decisions about which technologies to buy, use, and when to migrate to and from them. Lastly, it can serve as a valuable activity for ourselves to explore and share the challenges we are each facing around storage and attempt to articulate some of the principles that are guiding our individual approaches.

==Formats for the final product from this==
First and foremost, the document we are working on can be refined and revised to the point where it could stand as its own report. One idea was to highlight common key points where development is needed and identify key issues and problems that need to be addressed.

There was also some discussion about developing suggested requirements that should be considered when choosing or developing a digital preservation storage system. There would not be a single list but several, dependent upon the scope and needs. We would try to suggest as much coverage as possible, but will need to clearly state the scope of each. Some initial suggestions: some of the requirements came out in the questions – simple, self managed, fixity check – what are the core things we need to document for a digital repository.

Ingest – got to be able to ingest quickly
Need to have public users access quicker
See thumbnail and uncompressed file that may take a little longer

Along with this, Micah Altmen volunteered that once the draft document is put together he would be willing to work up an accompanying decision tree that tries to distill what the needs for a system suggest for the kinds of decisions and technologies we are using.

==Workshop Session on Large Scale Storage for Meeting==
The group briefly discussed what we want to do at the meeting. There is general consensus that we will plan to use the session to further discuss and vet the document we are working on. To this extent, we could present a short deck of slides that describes some of the values, tensions, and challenges that come out of this work and then use the rest of the time to break into groups and further solicit stories and feedback from additional participants. We could use this as an opportunity to identify much more targeted radio button like questions for a short quantitative survey that we could then put out to the broader membership, or we could use this as an opportunity to break into groups and workshop the text we are drafting.

NDSA:Wednesday, June 8, 2011

2011-06-11T21:34:43Z

Karen cariani: /* Formats for the final product from this */

We had a rather lively discussion of the three documents members worked up to describe some of the themes, trends, and tensions that come out of the responses to the storage implementation questionnaire which several members responded to. As a next step, Karen will bring these documents together into a single document that she will share as a Google doc for members to literally highlight key points and add any additional comments. We can workshop the document together in this shared environment. We will also workshop this document at the meeting next month.

==Call Participants==
*Karen Cariani
*Dan Dodge
*Trevor Owens
*Gene Mopsik
*Gene Hurr
*Cory Snavely
*Micah Altman
*Dean Farrell
*John Unsworth
*Robert Cartolano
*Andrea Goethals
*Cal Lee
*Elizabeth Joffrion

==What is it we have and what can we say?==
We started by discussing what exactly it is that we have here and what we could say based on what we have. Importantly, these responses do not provide any kind of numerical information about a representative sample of members’ approaches to large scale storage systems. That would require a more targeted and fully formed survey. With that said, the open ended questions have brought back some very interesting stories from different partners working on different problems and there seem to be some clear common trials, and some clear common values within this very diverse set of respondents from the membership which are suggesting some similar approaches and perspectives across different institutions.

There seemed to be general consensus that putting the three drafted documents together to try and further tease out these themes, values, and approaches was valuable.

==Audience: Who do we think would want to hear what we have here?==
We then discussed what audience this document might be of interest to. Several members suggested that this kind of document, when fully formed, could be valuable to other organizations looking for guidance about what our collective experience suggests are some of the key things to consider when trying to plan for implementing and maintaining these systems. A second audience was identified as storage providers, in this case the presumed value of the document would be to clearly explain how the values of digital stewardship organizations explain our decisions about which technologies to buy, use, and when to migrate to and from them. Lastly, it can serve as a valuable activity for ourselves to explore and share the challenges we are each facing around storage and attempt to articulate some of the principles that are guiding our individual approaches.

==Formats for the final product from this==
First and foremost, the document we are working on can be refined and revised to the point where it could stand as its own report. One idea was to highlight common key points where development is needed and identify key issues and problems that need to be addressed

There was also some discussion about developing suggested requirements that should be considered when choosing or developing a digital preservation storage system. There would not be a single list but several, dependent upon the scope and needs. We would try to suggest as much coverage as possible, but will need to clearly state the scope of each.

Along with this, Micah Altmen volunteered that once the draft document is put together he would be willing to work up an accompanying decision tree that tries to distill what the needs for a system suggest for the kinds of decisions and technologies we are using.

==Workshop Session on Large Scale Storage for Meeting==
The group briefly discussed what we want to do at the meeting. There is general consensus that we will plan to use the session to further discuss and vet the document we are working on. To this extent, we could present a short deck of slides that describes some of the values, tensions, and challenges that come out of this work and then use the rest of the time to break into groups and further solicit stories and feedback from additional participants. We could use this as an opportunity to identify much more targeted radio button like questions for a short quantitative survey that we could then put out to the broader membership, or we could use this as an opportunity to break into groups and workshop the text we are drafting.

NDSA:Wednesday, June 8, 2011

2011-06-11T21:32:17Z

Karen cariani: /* Formats for the final product from this */

We had a rather lively discussion of the three documents members worked up to describe some of the themes, trends, and tensions that come out of the responses to the storage implementation questionnaire which several members responded to. As a next step, Karen will bring these documents together into a single document that she will share as a Google doc for members to literally highlight key points and add any additional comments. We can workshop the document together in this shared environment. We will also workshop this document at the meeting next month.

==Call Participants==
*Karen Cariani
*Dan Dodge
*Trevor Owens
*Gene Mopsik
*Gene Hurr
*Cory Snavely
*Micah Altman
*Dean Farrell
*John Unsworth
*Robert Cartolano
*Andrea Goethals
*Cal Lee
*Elizabeth Joffrion

==What is it we have and what can we say?==
We started by discussing what exactly it is that we have here and what we could say based on what we have. Importantly, these responses do not provide any kind of numerical information about a representative sample of members’ approaches to large scale storage systems. That would require a more targeted and fully formed survey. With that said, the open ended questions have brought back some very interesting stories from different partners working on different problems and there seem to be some clear common trials, and some clear common values within this very diverse set of respondents from the membership which are suggesting some similar approaches and perspectives across different institutions.

There seemed to be general consensus that putting the three drafted documents together to try and further tease out these themes, values, and approaches was valuable.

==Audience: Who do we think would want to hear what we have here?==
We then discussed what audience this document might be of interest to. Several members suggested that this kind of document, when fully formed, could be valuable to other organizations looking for guidance about what our collective experience suggests are some of the key things to consider when trying to plan for implementing and maintaining these systems. A second audience was identified as storage providers, in this case the presumed value of the document would be to clearly explain how the values of digital stewardship organizations explain our decisions about which technologies to buy, use, and when to migrate to and from them. Lastly, it can serve as a valuable activity for ourselves to explore and share the challenges we are each facing around storage and attempt to articulate some of the principles that are guiding our individual approaches.

==Formats for the final product from this==
First and foremost, the document we are working on can be refined and revised to the point where it could stand as its own report.

There was also some discussion about developing suggested requirements that should be considered when choosing or developing a digital preservation storage system. There would not be a single list but several, dependent upon the scope and needs. We would try to suggest as much coverage as possible, but will need to clearly state the scope of each.

Along with this, Micah Altmen volunteered that once the draft document is put together he would be willing to work up an accompanying decision tree that tries to distill what the needs for a system suggest for the kinds of decisions and technologies we are using.

==Workshop Session on Large Scale Storage for Meeting==
The group briefly discussed what we want to do at the meeting. There is general consensus that we will plan to use the session to further discuss and vet the document we are working on. To this extent, we could present a short deck of slides that describes some of the values, tensions, and challenges that come out of this work and then use the rest of the time to break into groups and further solicit stories and feedback from additional participants. We could use this as an opportunity to identify much more targeted radio button like questions for a short quantitative survey that we could then put out to the broader membership, or we could use this as an opportunity to break into groups and workshop the text we are drafting.

NDSA:Infrastructure Working Group

2011-05-17T20:17:45Z

Karen cariani: /* Meeting Schedule and Minutes */

== Statement of Purpose ==
The Infrastructure Working Group works to build a community of sharing information and best practices about the development and maintenance of tools and systems for the curation, preservation, storage, hosting, migration, and similar activities for the long term preservation of digital content.

== Meeting Schedule and Minutes ==
*[[NDSA:Wednesday, June 8, 2011]]
*[[NDSA:Tuesday, May 17, 2011]]
*[[NDSA:Wednesday, April 14, 2011]]
*[[NDSA:Tuesday, March 15, 2011]]
*[[NDSA:Thursday, Feb 17, 2011]]
*[[NDSA:Monday, Feb 14, 2011]]
*[[NDSA:Tuesday, Feb 1, 2011]]
*[[NDSA:Tuesday, Jan 18, 2011]]
*[[NDSA:Friday, Dec 10, 2010]]
*[[NDSA:Monday, November 22, 2010]]

== Current Scope of Work ==
Survey and document best practices in the digital preservation infrastructure landscape, focusing on the topics below

===Work objective===
*Investigate, share, and recognize emerging practices for use and development and sharing of open source tools and other software that enable digital preservation.
[[NDSA:Cloud Presentations]].
*Investigate, share, and recognize emerging practices for use and development of computer forensic tools that enable digital preservation.
*Investigate, recognize, and document potential preservation emerging practices in the use of large-scale storage and cloud infrastructures.
*Encourage communities with highly specialized needs (e.g., geospatial, datasets, observational data) to develop storage networks or access services that can serve the entire community.

===Work scope (actions we actually do)===
*Identify 5 or 6 topics relevant and discuss one topic in depth per monthly phone call- such as identify the necessary components/characteristics of creating an open source tools.
**Invite an expert speaker to discuss topics
**Record the discussion and share
**Periodically report to the Infrastructure group about what’s going on in the arena of highly specialized needs
*Report to the group about other activities in this area
*Post reports for sharing
*Compile information about 5-6 topics, including but not limited to:
**Authoring individuals and organizations
**Status of standard or best practice
**Description of standard or best practice
**Characterization of the standard or best practice (need to define categories)
**Examples of where and how they are used
**Related documents and Web site
**Analysis and synthesis
**Identify gaps, areas of potential collaboration, etc
*Share compilation of information as an online resource

===Deliverables===
*Report on the phone calls and discussions to be shared
*Develop on-line resource of findings using a wiki page or something similar
*Write a working group report
*Publish white papers, articles about specific topics

===Schedule===
*Whole working group call once a month for 1 year
*Action group calls more frequent?
*By February call have topics identified
*March – June hold calls with experts
*write up findings on a rolling basis after each month’s call
*June/July gather report together
*Aug- Sept continue to build out resources and post on-line

===Reporting===
Once a month for 1 year

===Action Groups===
(Will be filled in from Doodle Poll)
*Action Group A:
*Action Group B:
*Action Group C:
*Action Group D:

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

==Practices==
*Listserv: contact Leslie to be added or removed. The [http://list.digitalpreservation.gov/SCRIPTS/WA-DIGITAL.EXE?A0=NDSA-INFRASTRUCTURE&X=07521961E829716D52&Y=eengle%40loc.gov list archives] are available to members (requires login).
*Phone calls
*Wiki
*Social Media – potentially for dissemination of information
*Annual conference: face to face mtgs, if possible, not mandatory
*WebEx
*Google docs
*Ideascale

==Participation==
Participation in the Infrastructure Working Group is restricted to NDSA member organizations. Contact co-chairs Karen Cariani and Leslie Johntson to join the working group.

Participants in the working group will participate in working group phone calls, undertake tasks to help the working group accomplish goals, and be active in helping accomplish the goals of the working group.

Action Teams may be created around specific tasks. These Action Teams may be self organized by members of the working group and may include non-NDSA members as the work requires. Non-NDSA members will not be participants in the Working Group but may contribute to the activities of any Action Team. Action Teams will update the Working Group about their accomplishments and progress.

NDSA:Infrastructure Working Group

2011-02-23T20:01:50Z

Karen cariani: /* Meeting Schedule and Minutes */

== Statement of Purpose ==
The Infrastructure Working Group will work to build a community of sharing information and best practices about the development and maintenance of tools and systems for the curation, preservation, storage, hosting, migration, or similar activities for the long term preservation of digital content.

== Meeting Schedule and Minutes ==
*[[NDSA:Tuesday, March 15, 2011]]
*[[NDSA:Thursday, Feb 17, 2011]]
*[[NDSA:Monday, Feb 14, 2011]]
*[[NDSA:Tuesday, Feb 1, 2011]]
*[[NDSA:Tuesday, Jan 18, 2011]]
*[[NDSA:Friday, Dec 10, 2010]]
*[[NDSA:Monday, November 22, 2010]]

== Current Scope of Work ==
Survey and document best practices in the digital preservation infrastructure landscape, focusing on the topics below

===Work objective===
*Investigate, share, and recognize emerging practices for use and development and sharing of open source tools and other software that enable digital preservation.
[[NDSA:Cloud Presentations]].
*Investigate, share, and recognize emerging practices for use and development of computer forensic tools that enable digital preservation.
*Investigate, recognize, and document potential preservation emerging practices in the use of large-scale storage and cloud infrastructures.
*Encourage communities with highly specialized needs (e.g., geospatial, datasets, observational data) to develop storage networks or access services that can serve the entire community.

===Work scope (actions we actually do)===
*Identify 5 or 6 topics relevant and discuss one topic in depth per monthly phone call- such as identify the necessary components/characteristics of creating an open source tools.
**Invite an expert speaker to discuss topics
**Record the discussion and share
**Periodically report to the Infrastructure group about what’s going on in the arena of highly specialized needs
*Report to the group about other activities in this area
*Post reports for sharing
*Compile information about 5-6 topics, including but not limited to:
**Authoring individuals and organizations
**Status of standard or best practice
**Description of standard or best practice
**Characterization of the standard or best practice (need to define categories)
**Examples of where and how they are used
**Related documents and Web site
**Analysis and synthesis
**Identify gaps, areas of potential collaboration, etc
*Share compilation of information as an online resource

===Deliverables===
*Report on the phone calls and discussions to be shared
*Develop on-line resource of findings using a wiki page or something similar
*Write a working group report
*Publish white papers, articles about specific topics

===Schedule===
*Whole working group call once a month for 1 year
*Action group calls more frequent?
*By February call have topics identified
*March – June hold calls with experts
*write up findings on a rolling basis after each month’s call
*June/July gather report together
*Aug- Sept continue to build out resources and post on-line

===Reporting===
Once a month for 1 year

===Action Groups===
(Will be filled in from Doodle Poll)
*Action Group A:
*Action Group B:
*Action Group C:
*Action Group D:

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

==Practices==
*Listserv: contact Leslie to be added or removed. The [http://list.digitalpreservation.gov/SCRIPTS/WA-DIGITAL.EXE?A0=NDSA-INFRASTRUCTURE&X=07521961E829716D52&Y=eengle%40loc.gov list archives] are available to members (requires login).
*Phone calls
*Wiki
*Social Media – potentially for dissemination of information
*Annual conference: face to face mtgs, if possible, not mandatory
*WebEx
*Google docs
*Ideascale

==Participation==
Participation in the Infrastructure Working Group is restricted to NDSA member organizations. Contact co-chairs Karen Cariani and Leslie Johntson to join the working group.

Participants in the working group will participate in working group phone calls, undertake tasks to help the working group accomplish goals, and be active in helping accomplish the goals of the working group.

Action Teams may be created around specific tasks. These Action Teams may be self organized by members of the working group and may include non-NDSA members as the work requires. Non-NDSA members will not be participants in the Working Group but may contribute to the activities of any Action Team. Action Teams will update the Working Group about their accomplishments and progress.

NDSA:Cloud Presentations

2011-02-03T21:35:01Z

Karen cariani: /* People/Projects to Contact */

In each case we would want to identify who would present, who will contact them. Then when they will present.

From there we can include specific questions we would like them to respond to.

==Presentation Schedule==
Once we start scheduling presenters we will keep a list of the talks here.

==People/Projects to Contact==
*DuraCloud/Duraspace (Leslie to contact)
*Chronopolis (Mike Smorul will contact)
*Open questions from the Educopia Guide to Distributed Digital Preservation http://www.metaarchive.org/GDDP (Martin will contact)
*Irods: Reagan Moore, 2/1/2011 see slides: NIAID.ppt
*Commercial providers? (Who specifically would we want here? Please add them.)
**Azure (Leslie to contact)
**Amazon (Who will contact?)

==General Guiding Questions for Presenters==
Here we are working on a set of general questions for presenters to develop talks around.

*What sort of use cases is your system designed to support? What doesn't this support?
*What preservation strategies or standards would your system support?
*What resources are required to support a solution implemented in your environment
*How can the cloud environment impact digital preservation activities?
*If we put data in your system today what systems and processes are in place so that we can get it back 50 years from now? (Take for granted a sophisticated audience that knows about multiple copies etc.)
*What infrastructure do you rely on?

NDSA:Cloud Presentations

2011-02-03T21:34:10Z

Karen cariani: /* People/Projects to Contact */

In each case we would want to identify who would present, who will contact them. Then when they will present.

From there we can include specific questions we would like them to respond to.

==Presentation Schedule==
Once we start scheduling presenters we will keep a list of the talks here.

==People/Projects to Contact==
*DuraCloud/Duraspace (Leslie to contact)
*Chronopolis (Mike Smorul will contact)
*Open questions from the Educopia Guide to Distributed Digital Preservation http://www.metaarchive.org/GDDP (Martin will contact)
*Irods: Reagan Moore, 2/1/2011 see slides:NIAID.ppt (file)
*Commercial providers? (Who specifically would we want here? Please add them.)
**Azure (Leslie to contact)
**Amazon (Who will contact?)

==General Guiding Questions for Presenters==
Here we are working on a set of general questions for presenters to develop talks around.

*What sort of use cases is your system designed to support? What doesn't this support?
*What preservation strategies or standards would your system support?
*What resources are required to support a solution implemented in your environment
*How can the cloud environment impact digital preservation activities?
*If we put data in your system today what systems and processes are in place so that we can get it back 50 years from now? (Take for granted a sophisticated audience that knows about multiple copies etc.)
*What infrastructure do you rely on?

NDSA:NIAID.ppt

2011-02-03T21:28:58Z

Karen cariani: Reagan Moore's iRODS presentation

Reagan Moore's iRODS presentation

NDSA:Cloud Presentations

2011-02-03T21:27:53Z

Karen cariani: /* People/Projects to Contact */

In each case we would want to identify who would present, who will contact them. Then when they will present.

From there we can include specific questions we would like them to respond to.

==Presentation Schedule==
Once we start scheduling presenters we will keep a list of the talks here.

==People/Projects to Contact==
*DuraCloud/Duraspace (Leslie to contact)
*Chronopolis (Mike Smorul will contact)
*Open questions from the Educopia Guide to Distributed Digital Preservation http://www.metaarchive.org/GDDP (Martin will contact)
*Irods: Reagan Moore, 2/1/2011 see slides:
*Commercial providers? (Who specifically would we want here? Please add them.)
**Azure (Leslie to contact)
**Amazon (Who will contact?)

==General Guiding Questions for Presenters==
Here we are working on a set of general questions for presenters to develop talks around.

*What sort of use cases is your system designed to support? What doesn't this support?
*What preservation strategies or standards would your system support?
*What resources are required to support a solution implemented in your environment
*How can the cloud environment impact digital preservation activities?
*If we put data in your system today what systems and processes are in place so that we can get it back 50 years from now? (Take for granted a sophisticated audience that knows about multiple copies etc.)
*What infrastructure do you rely on?

NDSA:Cloud Presentations

2011-02-03T21:27:22Z

Karen cariani: /* People/Projects to Contact */

In each case we would want to identify who would present, who will contact them. Then when they will present.

From there we can include specific questions we would like them to respond to.

==Presentation Schedule==
Once we start scheduling presenters we will keep a list of the talks here.

==People/Projects to Contact==
*DuraCloud/Duraspace (Leslie to contact)
*Chronopolis (Mike Smorul will contact)
*Open questions from the Educopia Guide to Distributed Digital Preservation http://www.metaarchive.org/GDDP (Martin will contact)
*Irods: Reagan Moore, 2/1/2011 see slides
*Commercial providers? (Who specifically would we want here? Please add them.)
**Azure (Leslie to contact)
**Amazon (Who will contact?)

==General Guiding Questions for Presenters==
Here we are working on a set of general questions for presenters to develop talks around.

*What sort of use cases is your system designed to support? What doesn't this support?
*What preservation strategies or standards would your system support?
*What resources are required to support a solution implemented in your environment
*How can the cloud environment impact digital preservation activities?
*If we put data in your system today what systems and processes are in place so that we can get it back 50 years from now? (Take for granted a sophisticated audience that knows about multiple copies etc.)
*What infrastructure do you rely on?

NDSA:Infrastructure Working Group

2011-02-03T21:26:09Z

Karen cariani: /* Meeting Schedule and Minutes */

== Statement of Purpose ==
The Infrastructure Working Group will work to build a community of sharing information and best practices about the development and maintenance of tools and systems for the curation, preservation, storage, hosting, migration, or similar activities for the long term preservation of digital content.

== Meeting Schedule and Minutes ==
*[[NDSA:Thursday, Feb 17, 2011]]
*[[NDSA:Monday, Feb 14, 2011]]
*[[NDSA:Tuesday, Feb 1, 2011]]
*[[NDSA:Tuesday, Jan 18, 2011]]
*[[NDSA:Friday, Dec 10, 2010]]
*[[NDSA:Monday, November 22, 2010]]

== Current Scope of Work ==
Survey and document best practices in the digital preservation infrastructure landscape, focusing on the topics below

===Work objective===
*Investigate, share, and recognize emerging practices for use and development and sharing of open source tools and other software that enable digital preservation.
[[NDSA:Cloud Presentations]].
*Investigate, share, and recognize emerging practices for use and development of computer forensic tools that enable digital preservation.
*Investigate, recognize, and document potential preservation emerging practices in the use of large-scale storage and cloud infrastructures.
*Encourage communities with highly specialized needs (e.g., geospatial, datasets, observational data) to develop storage networks or access services that can serve the entire community.

===Work scope (actions we actually do)===
*Identify 5 or 6 topics relevant and discuss one topic in depth per monthly phone call- such as identify the necessary components/characteristics of creating an open source tools.
**Invite an expert speaker to discuss topics
**Record the discussion and share
**Periodically report to the Infrastructure group about what’s going on in the arena of highly specialized needs
*Report to the group about other activities in this area
*Post reports for sharing
*Compile information about 5-6 topics, including but not limited to:
**Authoring individuals and organizations
**Status of standard or best practice
**Description of standard or best practice
**Characterization of the standard or best practice (need to define categories)
**Examples of where and how they are used
**Related documents and Web site
**Analysis and synthesis
**Identify gaps, areas of potential collaboration, etc
*Share compilation of information as an online resource

===Deliverables===
*Report on the phone calls and discussions to be shared
*Develop on-line resource of findings using a wiki page or something similar
*Write a working group report
*Publish white papers, articles about specific topics

===Schedule===
*Whole working group call once a month for 1 year
*Action group calls more frequent?
*By February call have topics identified
*March – June hold calls with experts
*write up findings on a rolling basis after each month’s call
*June/July gather report together
*Aug- Sept continue to build out resources and post on-line

===Reporting===
Once a month for 1 year

===Action Groups===
(Will be filled in from Doodle Poll)
*Action Group A:
*Action Group B:
*Action Group C:
*Action Group D:

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

==Practices==
*Listserv: contact Leslie to be added or removed. The [http://list.digitalpreservation.gov/SCRIPTS/WA-DIGITAL.EXE?A0=NDSA-INFRASTRUCTURE&X=07521961E829716D52&Y=eengle%40loc.gov list archives] are available to members (requires login).
*Phone calls
*Wiki
*Social Media – potentially for dissemination of information
*Annual conference: face to face mtgs, if possible, not mandatory
*WebEx
*Google docs
*Ideascale

==Participation==
Participation in the Infrastructure Working Group is restricted to NDSA member organizations. Contact co-chairs Karen Cariani and Leslie Johntson to join the working group.

Participants in the working group will participate in working group phone calls, undertake tasks to help the working group accomplish goals, and be active in helping accomplish the goals of the working group.

Action Teams may be created around specific tasks. These Action Teams may be self organized by members of the working group and may include non-NDSA members as the work requires. Non-NDSA members will not be participants in the Working Group but may contribute to the activities of any Action Team. Action Teams will update the Working Group about their accomplishments and progress.

NDSA:Infrastructure Working Group

2011-01-20T20:58:14Z

Karen cariani:

== Statement of Purpose ==
The Infrastructure Working Group will work to build a community of sharing information and best practices about the development and maintenance of tools and systems for the curation, preservation, storage, hosting, migration, or similar activities for the long term preservation of digital content.

== Meeting Schedule and Minutes ==
*[[NDSA:Tuesday, Feb 15, 2011]]
*[[NDSA:Tuesday, Jan 18, 2011]]
*[[NDSA:Friday, Dec 10, 2010]]
*[[NDSA:Monday, November 22, 2010]]

== Current Scope of Work ==
Survey and document best practices in the digital preservation infrastructure landscape, focusing on the topics below

===Work objective===
*Investigate, share, and recognize emerging practices for use and development and sharing of open source tools and other software that enable digital preservation.
[[NDSA:Cloud Presentations]].
*Investigate, share, and recognize emerging practices for use and development of computer forensic tools that enable digital preservation.
*Investigate, recognize, and document potential preservation emerging practices in the use of large-scale storage and cloud infrastructures.
*Encourage communities with highly specialized needs (e.g., geospatial, datasets, observational data) to develop storage networks or access services that can serve the entire community.

===Work scope (actions we actually do)===
*Identify 5 or 6 topics relevant and discuss one topic in depth per monthly phone call- such as identify the necessary components/characteristics of creating an open source tools.
**Invite an expert speaker to discuss topics
**Record the discussion and share
**Periodically report to the Infrastructure group about what’s going on in the arena of highly specialized needs
*Report to the group about other activities in this area
*Post reports for sharing
*Compile information about 5-6 topics, including but not limited to:
**Authoring individuals and organizations
**Status of standard or best practice
**Description of standard or best practice
**Characterization of the standard or best practice (need to define categories)
**Examples of where and how they are used
**Related documents and Web site
**Analysis and synthesis
**Identify gaps, areas of potential collaboration, etc
*Share compilation of information as an online resource

===Deliverables===
*Report on the phone calls and discussions to be shared
*Develop on-line resource of findings using a wiki page or something similar
*Write a working group report
*Publish white papers, articles about specific topics

===Schedule===
*Whole working group call once a month for 1 year
*Action group calls more frequent?
*By February call have topics identified
*March – June hold calls with experts
*write up findings on a rolling basis after each month’s call
*June/July gather report together
*Aug- Sept continue to build out resources and post on-line

===Reporting===
Once a month for 1 year

===Action Groups===
(Will be filled in from Doodle Poll)
*Action Group A:
*Action Group B:
*Action Group C:
*Action Group D:

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

==Practices==
*Listserv: contact Leslie to be added or removed. The [http://list.digitalpreservation.gov/SCRIPTS/WA-DIGITAL.EXE?A0=NDSA-INFRASTRUCTURE&X=07521961E829716D52&Y=eengle%40loc.gov list archives] are available to members (requires login).
*Phone calls
*Wiki
*Social Media – potentially for dissemination of information
*Annual conference: face to face mtgs, if possible, not mandatory
*WebEx
*Google docs
*Ideascale

==Participation==
Participation in the Infrastructure Working Group is restricted to NDSA member organizations. Contact co-chairs Karen Cariani and Leslie Johntson to join the working group.

Participants in the working group will participate in working group phone calls, undertake tasks to help the working group accomplish goals, and be active in helping accomplish the goals of the working group.

Action Teams may be created around specific tasks. These Action Teams may be self organized by members of the working group and may include non-NDSA members as the work requires. Non-NDSA members will not be participants in the Working Group but may contribute to the activities of any Action Team. Action Teams will update the Working Group about their accomplishments and progress.

NDSA:Infrastructure Working Group

2011-01-05T14:32:28Z

Karen cariani:

== Statement of Purpose ==
The Infrastructure Working Group will work to build a community of sharing information and best practices about the development and maintenance of tools and systems for the curation, preservation, storage, hosting, migration, or similar activities for the long term preservation of digital content.

== Meeting Schedule and Minutes ==
*[[NDSA:Tuesday, Jan 18, 2011]]
*[[NDSA:Friday, Dec 10, 2010]]
*[[NDSA:Monday, November 22, 2010]]

== Current Scope of Work ==
Survey and document best practices in the digital preservation infrastructure landscape, focusing on the topics below

===Work objective===
*Investigate, share, and recognize emerging practices for use and development and sharing of open source tools and other software that enable digital preservation.
*Investigate, share, and recognize emerging practices for use and development of computer forensic tools that enable digital preservation.
*Investigate, recognize, and document potential preservation emerging practices in the use of large-scale storage and cloud infrastructures.
*Encourage communities with highly specialized needs (e.g., geospatial, datasets, observational data) to develop storage networks or access services that can serve the entire community.

===Work scope (actions we actually do)===
*Identify 5 or 6 topics relevant and discuss one topic in depth per monthly phone call- such as identify the necessary components/characteristics of creating an open source tools.
**Invite an expert speaker to discuss topics
**Record the discussion and share
**Periodically report to the Infrastructure group about what’s going on in the arena of highly specialized needs
*Report to the group about other activities in this area
*Post reports for sharing
*Compile information about 5-6 topics, including but not limited to:
**Authoring individuals and organizations
**Status of standard or best practice
**Description of standard or best practice
**Characterization of the standard or best practice (need to define categories)
**Examples of where and how they are used
**Related documents and Web site
**Analysis and synthesis
**Identify gaps, areas of potential collaboration, etc
*Share compilation of information as an online resource

===Deliverables===
*Report on the phone calls and discussions to be shared
*Develop on-line resource of findings using a wiki page or something similar
*Write a working group report
*Publish white papers, articles about specific topics

===Schedule===
*Whole working group call once a month for 1 year
*Action group calls more frequent?
*By February call have topics identified
*March – June hold calls with experts
*write up findings on a rolling basis after each month’s call
*June/July gather report together
*Aug- Sept continue to build out resources and post on-line

===Reporting===
Once a month for 1 year

===Action Groups===
(Will be filled in from Doodle Poll)
*Action Group A:
*Action Group B:
*Action Group C:
*Action Group D:

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

==Practices==
*E-mail / Listservs
*Phone calls
*Wiki
*Social Media – potentially for dissemination of information
*Annual conference: face to face mtgs, if possible, not mandatory
*WebEx
*Google docs
*Ideascale

==Participation==
Participation in the Infrastructure Working Group is restricted to NDSA member organizations. Contact co-chairs Karen Cariani and Leslie Johntson to join the working group.

Participants in the working group will participate in working group phone calls, undertake tasks to help the working group accomplish goals, and be active in helping accomplish the goals of the working group.

Action Teams may be created around specific tasks. These Action Teams may be self organized by members of the working group and may include non-NDSA members as the work requires. Non-NDSA members will not be participants in the Working Group but may contribute to the activities of any Action Team. Action Teams will update the Working Group about their accomplishments and progress.