DLF Wiki - User contributions [en]

NDSA:2014 National Agenda Outline

2013-02-21T15:42:28Z

Micah altman: /* Section topics */

Draft Outline

==Introduction==

a. Description of the National Agenda for Digital Stewardship

i. The document is inspiration for the planning of digital preservation work and observations of the joint leadership group. It is also an evaluation of the state of digital preservation activity and key emerging issues for the year

ii. The document is not intended to be prescriptive, a directive to working groups, and it is not intended to replace any organizational efforts, planning, goals or opinions.

iii. Hoped for impact

b. Description of the NDSA, NDSA goals and how the 2014 Agenda furthers those goals (i.e inform and inspire individual, working group, and organizational work plans)

c. Intended audience: NDSA members and the wider digital preservation community

d. Authored by the joint leadership group

==Section topics ==
a. Trends in Digital Content

i. Emerging content types, formats, or challenges that are of interest to the digital preservation community. Special focus on content themes as they address the interests and needs of the collecting organizations.

b. Research Priorities

. Applied Research (1-3 years) [''Jane'']
1. Robust and flexible models for cost estimation for ongoing storage [Michelle]
2. Approaches to systematic schematizing, monitoring & auditing for proliferating trustworthy repository and data management requirement
3. Approaches for (1) & (2) applied to cloud storage
4. Research in Curriculum Development [Helen]

ii.Theoretical Framework ( 3-6 Year horizon) ["helen"]
1. Information valuation/selection. Models for estimating future private & public value of information.
2. Models for estimating future risks

iii. Information Equivalence (3-6 year) [''Jefferson'']: Significant properties, fingerprints, authenticity

iv. preservation at scale (3-6 year): [''Jefferson'']
1. Preserving 'big data' -- storage scale
2. preserving high-velocity/dynamic
3. Scalable models for information provenance, equivalence, and quality
4. Information valuation and portfolio management
5. Privacy & confidentiality @ scale

iv. Policy Research (3-6 year): ["Micah"]
1.Trust engineering, trust frameworks

v. Education Workforce Development Research (3-6 year) [''Helen'']

vi. Evidence-Based for Preservation Methodologies & Policies (Cross-Cutting/10 years/Grand Challenge) ["Micah"]
1. experimental: labs/testbeds/field experiments
• Methodologies for digital preservation research that can provide useful results with simulation of long time periods.
• Methodologies for digital preservation research that provide reliable test plans.
• Methodologies that combine aspects of different research areas (e.g., computer science, materials science
2. observational: random sampling/systematic trend/coverage
3. computational: replicable theoretically grounded computer models
4. Research in a lab or test-bed environment, with a focus on methods to test research results and implement effective strategies from the research lab or test-bed. Frameworks that allow people to apply their specialized knowledge and skills to specific problems

i. Infrastructure can be generally defined as the set of interconnected structural elements that provide framework supporting an entire structure of development. This includes both physical and institutional elements.
--[[NDSA:User:Micah altman|Micah altman]] 18:31, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

ii.Examples:

• Trends in data protection standards

• Best practices for using cloud concepts within a digital preservation strategy

• Cost-benefit analysis techniques for infrastructure planning

c. Organizational Roles, Policies, and Practices
i. Preservation happens through the work of individuals and institutions. Just as it is critical to refine and develop infrastructure and basic research it is similarly critical to refine and develop workflows, practices, roles, and responsibilities both inside institutions and within networks of institutions to ensure long term access to digital content.

ii.Examples:

• Need for models for licensing old software for long term virtualization

• Need for creation of more dedicated FTEs to staff digital preservation initiatives

• Development for policies around crowdsourcing as part of digital preservation life cycle

• Expanded use of machine readable licensing for data under long term preservation

==Conclusion==
a. Possible ways to engage with the topics and issues detailed in the agenda

NDSA:2014 National Agenda Outline

2013-02-21T15:39:05Z

Micah altman: /* Section topics */

Draft Outline

==Introduction==

a. Description of the National Agenda for Digital Stewardship

i. The document is inspiration for the planning of digital preservation work and observations of the joint leadership group. It is also an evaluation of the state of digital preservation activity and key emerging issues for the year

ii. The document is not intended to be prescriptive, a directive to working groups, and it is not intended to replace any organizational efforts, planning, goals or opinions.

iii. Hoped for impact

b. Description of the NDSA, NDSA goals and how the 2014 Agenda furthers those goals (i.e inform and inspire individual, working group, and organizational work plans)

c. Intended audience: NDSA members and the wider digital preservation community

d. Authored by the joint leadership group

==Section topics ==
a. Trends in Digital Content

i. Emerging content types, formats, or challenges that are of interest to the digital preservation community. Special focus on content themes as they address the interests and needs of the collecting organizations.

b. Research Priorities

. Applied Research (1-3 years)
1. Robust and flexible models for cost estimation for ongoing storage [Michelle]
2. Approaches to systematic schematizing, monitoring & auditing for proliferating trustworthy repository and data management requirement
3. Approaches for (1) & (2) applied to cloud storage
4. Research in Curriculum Development [Helen]

ii.Theoretical Framework ( 3-6 Year horizon)
1. Information valuation/selection. Models for estimating future private & public value of information.
2. Models for estimating future risks

iii. Information Equivalence (3-6 year) [''Jefferson'']: Significant properties, fingerprints, authenticity

iv. preservation at scale (3-6 year): [''Jefferson'']
1. Preserving 'big data' -- storage scale
2. preserving high-velocity/dynamic
3. Scalable models for information provenance, equivalence, and quality
4. Information valuation and portfolio management
5. Privacy & confidentiality @ scale

iv. Policy Research (3-6 year):
1.Trust engineering, trust frameworks

v. Education Workforce Development Research (3-6 year) [Helen]

vi. Evidence-Based for Preservation Methodologies & Policies (Cross-Cutting/10 years/Grand Challenge)
1. experimental: labs/testbeds/field experiments
• Methodologies for digital preservation research that can provide useful results with simulation of long time periods.
• Methodologies for digital preservation research that provide reliable test plans.
• Methodologies that combine aspects of different research areas (e.g., computer science, materials science
2. observational: random sampling/systematic trend/coverage
3. computational: replicable theoretically grounded computer models
4. Research in a lab or test-bed environment, with a focus on methods to test research results and implement effective strategies from the research lab or test-bed. Frameworks that allow people to apply their specialized knowledge and skills to specific problems

i. Infrastructure can be generally defined as the set of interconnected structural elements that provide framework supporting an entire structure of development. This includes both physical and institutional elements.
--[[NDSA:User:Micah altman|Micah altman]] 18:31, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

ii.Examples:

• Trends in data protection standards

• Best practices for using cloud concepts within a digital preservation strategy

• Cost-benefit analysis techniques for infrastructure planning

c. Organizational Roles, Policies, and Practices
i. Preservation happens through the work of individuals and institutions. Just as it is critical to refine and develop infrastructure and basic research it is similarly critical to refine and develop workflows, practices, roles, and responsibilities both inside institutions and within networks of institutions to ensure long term access to digital content.

ii.Examples:

• Need for models for licensing old software for long term virtualization

• Need for creation of more dedicated FTEs to staff digital preservation initiatives

• Development for policies around crowdsourcing as part of digital preservation life cycle

• Expanded use of machine readable licensing for data under long term preservation

==Conclusion==
a. Possible ways to engage with the topics and issues detailed in the agenda

NDSA:2014 National Agenda Outline

2013-02-21T15:38:01Z

Micah altman: /* Section topics */

Draft Outline

==Introduction==

a. Description of the National Agenda for Digital Stewardship

i. The document is inspiration for the planning of digital preservation work and observations of the joint leadership group. It is also an evaluation of the state of digital preservation activity and key emerging issues for the year

ii. The document is not intended to be prescriptive, a directive to working groups, and it is not intended to replace any organizational efforts, planning, goals or opinions.

iii. Hoped for impact

b. Description of the NDSA, NDSA goals and how the 2014 Agenda furthers those goals (i.e inform and inspire individual, working group, and organizational work plans)

c. Intended audience: NDSA members and the wider digital preservation community

d. Authored by the joint leadership group

==Section topics ==
a. Trends in Digital Content

i. Emerging content types, formats, or challenges that are of interest to the digital preservation community. Special focus on content themes as they address the interests and needs of the collecting organizations.

b. Research Priorities

. Applied Research (1-3 years)
1. Robust and flexible models for cost estimation for ongoing storage [Michelle]
2. Approaches to systematic schematizing, monitoring & auditing for proliferating trustworthy repository and data management requirement
3. Approaches for (1) & (2) applied to cloud storage
4. Research in Curriculum Development [Helen]

ii.Theoretical Framework ( 3-6 Year horizon)
1. Information valuation/selection. Models for estimating future private & public value of information.
2. Models for estimating future risks

iii. Information Equivalence (3-6 year): Significant properties, fingerprints, authenticity [Jefferson]

iv. preservation at scale (3-6 year): [Jefferson]
1. Preserving 'big data' -- storage scale
2. preserving high-velocity/dynamic
3. Scalable models for information provenance, equivalence, and quality
4. Information valuation and portfolio management
5. Privacy & confidentiality @ scale

iv. Policy Research (3-6 year):
1.Trust engineering, trust frameworks

v. Education Workforce Development Research (3-6 year) [Helen]

vi. Evidence-Based for Preservation Methodologies & Policies (Cross-Cutting/10 years/Grand Challenge)
1. experimental: labs/testbeds/field experiments
• Methodologies for digital preservation research that can provide useful results with simulation of long time periods.
• Methodologies for digital preservation research that provide reliable test plans.
• Methodologies that combine aspects of different research areas (e.g., computer science, materials science
2. observational: random sampling/systematic trend/coverage
3. computational: replicable theoretically grounded computer models
4. Research in a lab or test-bed environment, with a focus on methods to test research results and implement effective strategies from the research lab or test-bed. Frameworks that allow people to apply their specialized knowledge and skills to specific problems

i. Infrastructure can be generally defined as the set of interconnected structural elements that provide framework supporting an entire structure of development. This includes both physical and institutional elements.
--[[NDSA:User:Micah altman|Micah altman]] 18:31, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

ii.Examples:

• Trends in data protection standards

• Best practices for using cloud concepts within a digital preservation strategy

• Cost-benefit analysis techniques for infrastructure planning

c. Organizational Roles, Policies, and Practices
i. Preservation happens through the work of individuals and institutions. Just as it is critical to refine and develop infrastructure and basic research it is similarly critical to refine and develop workflows, practices, roles, and responsibilities both inside institutions and within networks of institutions to ensure long term access to digital content.

ii.Examples:

• Need for models for licensing old software for long term virtualization

• Need for creation of more dedicated FTEs to staff digital preservation initiatives

• Development for policies around crowdsourcing as part of digital preservation life cycle

• Expanded use of machine readable licensing for data under long term preservation

==Conclusion==
a. Possible ways to engage with the topics and issues detailed in the agenda

NDSA:2014 National Agenda Outline

2013-02-21T15:37:00Z

Micah altman: /* Section topics */

Draft Outline

==Introduction==

a. Description of the National Agenda for Digital Stewardship

i. The document is inspiration for the planning of digital preservation work and observations of the joint leadership group. It is also an evaluation of the state of digital preservation activity and key emerging issues for the year

ii. The document is not intended to be prescriptive, a directive to working groups, and it is not intended to replace any organizational efforts, planning, goals or opinions.

iii. Hoped for impact

b. Description of the NDSA, NDSA goals and how the 2014 Agenda furthers those goals (i.e inform and inspire individual, working group, and organizational work plans)

c. Intended audience: NDSA members and the wider digital preservation community

d. Authored by the joint leadership group

==Section topics ==
a. Trends in Digital Content

i. Emerging content types, formats, or challenges that are of interest to the digital preservation community. Special focus on content themes as they address the interests and needs of the collecting organizations.

b. Research Priorities

. Applied Research (1-3 years)
1. Robust and flexible models for cost estimation for ongoing storage [Michelle]
2. Approaches to systematic schematizing, monitoring & auditing for proliferating trustworthy repository and data management requirement
3. Approaches for (1) & (2) applied to cloud storage
4. Research in Curriculum Development [Helen]

ii.Theoretical Framework ( 3-6 Year horizon)
1. Information valuation/selection. Models for estimating future private & public value of information.
2. Models for estimating future risks

iii. Information Equivalence (3-6 year): Significant properties, fingerprints, authenticity

iv. preservation at scale (3-6 year): [Jefferson]
1. Preserving 'big data' -- storage scale
2. preserving high-velocity/dynamic
3. Scalable models for information provenance, equivalence, and quality
4. Information valuation and portfolio management
5. Privacy & confidentiality @ scale

iv. Policy Research (3-6 year):
1.Trust engineering, trust frameworks

v. Education Workforce Development Research (3-6 year) [Helen]

vi. Evidence-Based for Preservation Methodologies & Policies (Cross-Cutting/10 years/Grand Challenge)
1. experimental: labs/testbeds/field experiments
• Methodologies for digital preservation research that can provide useful results with simulation of long time periods.
• Methodologies for digital preservation research that provide reliable test plans.
• Methodologies that combine aspects of different research areas (e.g., computer science, materials science
2. observational: random sampling/systematic trend/coverage
3. computational: replicable theoretically grounded computer models
4. Research in a lab or test-bed environment, with a focus on methods to test research results and implement effective strategies from the research lab or test-bed. Frameworks that allow people to apply their specialized knowledge and skills to specific problems

i. Infrastructure can be generally defined as the set of interconnected structural elements that provide framework supporting an entire structure of development. This includes both physical and institutional elements.
--[[NDSA:User:Micah altman|Micah altman]] 18:31, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

ii.Examples:

• Trends in data protection standards

• Best practices for using cloud concepts within a digital preservation strategy

• Cost-benefit analysis techniques for infrastructure planning

c. Organizational Roles, Policies, and Practices
i. Preservation happens through the work of individuals and institutions. Just as it is critical to refine and develop infrastructure and basic research it is similarly critical to refine and develop workflows, practices, roles, and responsibilities both inside institutions and within networks of institutions to ensure long term access to digital content.

ii.Examples:

• Need for models for licensing old software for long term virtualization

• Need for creation of more dedicated FTEs to staff digital preservation initiatives

• Development for policies around crowdsourcing as part of digital preservation life cycle

• Expanded use of machine readable licensing for data under long term preservation

==Conclusion==
a. Possible ways to engage with the topics and issues detailed in the agenda

NDSA:2014 National Agenda Outline

2013-02-21T15:36:33Z

Micah altman: /* Section topics */

Draft Outline

==Introduction==

a. Description of the National Agenda for Digital Stewardship

i. The document is inspiration for the planning of digital preservation work and observations of the joint leadership group. It is also an evaluation of the state of digital preservation activity and key emerging issues for the year

ii. The document is not intended to be prescriptive, a directive to working groups, and it is not intended to replace any organizational efforts, planning, goals or opinions.

iii. Hoped for impact

b. Description of the NDSA, NDSA goals and how the 2014 Agenda furthers those goals (i.e inform and inspire individual, working group, and organizational work plans)

c. Intended audience: NDSA members and the wider digital preservation community

d. Authored by the joint leadership group

==Section topics ==
a. Trends in Digital Content

i. Emerging content types, formats, or challenges that are of interest to the digital preservation community. Special focus on content themes as they address the interests and needs of the collecting organizations.

b. Research Priorities

. Applied Research (1-3 years)
1. Robust and flexible models for cost estimation for ongoing storage [Michelle]
2. Approaches to systematic schematizing, monitoring & auditing for proliferating trustworthy repository and data management requirement
3. Approaches for (1) & (2) applied to cloud storage
4. Research in Curriculum Development [Helen]

ii.Theoretical Framework ( 3-6 Year horizon)
1. Information valuation/selection. Models for estimating future private & public value of information.
2. Models for estimating future risks

iii. Information Equivalence (3-6 year): Significant properties, fingerprints, authenticity

iv. preservation at scale (3-6 year):
1. Preserving 'big data' -- storage scale
2. preserving high-velocity/dynamic
3. Scalable models for information provenance, equivalence, and quality
4. Information valuation and portfolio management
5. Privacy & confidentiality @ scale [Jefferson]

iv. Policy Research (3-6 year):
1.Trust engineering, trust frameworks

v. Education Workforce Development Research (3-6 year) [Helen]

vi. Evidence-Based for Preservation Methodologies & Policies (Cross-Cutting/10 years/Grand Challenge)
1. experimental: labs/testbeds/field experiments
• Methodologies for digital preservation research that can provide useful results with simulation of long time periods.
• Methodologies for digital preservation research that provide reliable test plans.
• Methodologies that combine aspects of different research areas (e.g., computer science, materials science
2. observational: random sampling/systematic trend/coverage
3. computational: replicable theoretically grounded computer models
4. Research in a lab or test-bed environment, with a focus on methods to test research results and implement effective strategies from the research lab or test-bed. Frameworks that allow people to apply their specialized knowledge and skills to specific problems

i. Infrastructure can be generally defined as the set of interconnected structural elements that provide framework supporting an entire structure of development. This includes both physical and institutional elements.
--[[NDSA:User:Micah altman|Micah altman]] 18:31, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

ii.Examples:

• Trends in data protection standards

• Best practices for using cloud concepts within a digital preservation strategy

• Cost-benefit analysis techniques for infrastructure planning

c. Organizational Roles, Policies, and Practices
i. Preservation happens through the work of individuals and institutions. Just as it is critical to refine and develop infrastructure and basic research it is similarly critical to refine and develop workflows, practices, roles, and responsibilities both inside institutions and within networks of institutions to ensure long term access to digital content.

ii.Examples:

• Need for models for licensing old software for long term virtualization

• Need for creation of more dedicated FTEs to staff digital preservation initiatives

• Development for policies around crowdsourcing as part of digital preservation life cycle

• Expanded use of machine readable licensing for data under long term preservation

==Conclusion==
a. Possible ways to engage with the topics and issues detailed in the agenda

NDSA:2014 National Agenda Outline

2013-02-21T15:35:49Z

Micah altman: /* Section topics */

Draft Outline

==Introduction==

a. Description of the National Agenda for Digital Stewardship

i. The document is inspiration for the planning of digital preservation work and observations of the joint leadership group. It is also an evaluation of the state of digital preservation activity and key emerging issues for the year

ii. The document is not intended to be prescriptive, a directive to working groups, and it is not intended to replace any organizational efforts, planning, goals or opinions.

iii. Hoped for impact

b. Description of the NDSA, NDSA goals and how the 2014 Agenda furthers those goals (i.e inform and inspire individual, working group, and organizational work plans)

c. Intended audience: NDSA members and the wider digital preservation community

d. Authored by the joint leadership group

==Section topics ==
a. Trends in Digital Content

i. Emerging content types, formats, or challenges that are of interest to the digital preservation community. Special focus on content themes as they address the interests and needs of the collecting organizations.

b. Research Priorities

. Applied Research (1-3 years)
1. Robust and flexible models for cost estimation for ongoing storage [Michelle]
2. Approaches to systematic schematizing, monitoring & auditing for proliferating trustworthy repository and data management requirement
3. Approaches for (1) & (2) applied to cloud storage
4. Research in Curriculum Development [Helen]

ii.Theoretical Framework ( 3-6 Year horizon)
1. Information valuation/selection. Models for estimating future private & public value of information.
2. Models for estimating future risks

iii. Information Equivalence (3-6 year): Significant properties, fingerprints, authenticity

iv. preservation at scale (3-6 year):
1. Preserving 'big data' -- storage scale
2. preserving high-velocity/dynamic
3. Scalable models for information provenance, equivalence, and quality
4. Information valuation and portfolio management
5. Privacy & confidentiality @ scale

iv. Policy Research (3-6 year):
1.Trust engineering, trust frameworks

v. Education Workforce Development Research (3-6 year) [Helen]

vi. Evidence-Based for Preservation Methodologies & Policies (Cross-Cutting/10 years/Grand Challenge)
1. experimental: labs/testbeds/field experiments
• Methodologies for digital preservation research that can provide useful results with simulation of long time periods.
• Methodologies for digital preservation research that provide reliable test plans.
• Methodologies that combine aspects of different research areas (e.g., computer science, materials science
2. observational: random sampling/systematic trend/coverage
3. computational: replicable theoretically grounded computer models
4. Research in a lab or test-bed environment, with a focus on methods to test research results and implement effective strategies from the research lab or test-bed. Frameworks that allow people to apply their specialized knowledge and skills to specific problems

i. Infrastructure can be generally defined as the set of interconnected structural elements that provide framework supporting an entire structure of development. This includes both physical and institutional elements.
--[[NDSA:User:Micah altman|Micah altman]] 18:31, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

ii.Examples:

• Trends in data protection standards

• Best practices for using cloud concepts within a digital preservation strategy

• Cost-benefit analysis techniques for infrastructure planning

c. Organizational Roles, Policies, and Practices
i. Preservation happens through the work of individuals and institutions. Just as it is critical to refine and develop infrastructure and basic research it is similarly critical to refine and develop workflows, practices, roles, and responsibilities both inside institutions and within networks of institutions to ensure long term access to digital content.

ii.Examples:

• Need for models for licensing old software for long term virtualization

• Need for creation of more dedicated FTEs to staff digital preservation initiatives

• Development for policies around crowdsourcing as part of digital preservation life cycle

• Expanded use of machine readable licensing for data under long term preservation

==Conclusion==
a. Possible ways to engage with the topics and issues detailed in the agenda

NDSA:2014 National Agenda Outline

2013-02-21T15:28:27Z

Micah altman: /* Section topics */

Draft Outline

==Introduction==

a. Description of the National Agenda for Digital Stewardship

i. The document is inspiration for the planning of digital preservation work and observations of the joint leadership group. It is also an evaluation of the state of digital preservation activity and key emerging issues for the year

ii. The document is not intended to be prescriptive, a directive to working groups, and it is not intended to replace any organizational efforts, planning, goals or opinions.

iii. Hoped for impact

b. Description of the NDSA, NDSA goals and how the 2014 Agenda furthers those goals (i.e inform and inspire individual, working group, and organizational work plans)

c. Intended audience: NDSA members and the wider digital preservation community

d. Authored by the joint leadership group

==Section topics ==
a. Trends in Digital Content

i. Emerging content types, formats, or challenges that are of interest to the digital preservation community. Special focus on content themes as they address the interests and needs of the collecting organizations.

b. Research Priorities

. Applied Research (1-3 years)
1. Robust and flexible models for cost estimation for ongoing storage
2. Approaches to systematic schematizing, monitoring & auditing for proliferating trustworthy repository and data management requirement
3. Approaches for (1) & (2) applied to cloud storage
4. Research in Curriculum Development [Helen]

ii.Theoretical Framework ( 3-6 Year horizon)
1. Information valuation/selection. Models for estimating future private & public value of information.
2. Models for estimating future risks

iii. Information Equivalence (3-6 year): Significant properties, fingerprints, authenticity

iv. preservation at scale (3-6 year):
1. Preserving 'big data' -- storage scale
2. preserving high-velocity/dynamic
3. Scalable models for information provenance, equivalence, and quality
4. Information valuation and portfolio management
5. Privacy & confidentiality @ scale

iv. Policy Research (3-6 year):
1.Trust engineering, trust frameworks

v. Education Workforce Development Research (3-6 year) [Helen]

vi. Evidence-Based for Preservation Methodologies & Policies (Cross-Cutting/10 years/Grand Challenge)
1. experimental: labs/testbeds/field experiments
• Methodologies for digital preservation research that can provide useful results with simulation of long time periods.
• Methodologies for digital preservation research that provide reliable test plans.
• Methodologies that combine aspects of different research areas (e.g., computer science, materials science
2. observational: random sampling/systematic trend/coverage
3. computational: replicable theoretically grounded computer models
4. Research in a lab or test-bed environment, with a focus on methods to test research results and implement effective strategies from the research lab or test-bed. Frameworks that allow people to apply their specialized knowledge and skills to specific problems

i. Infrastructure can be generally defined as the set of interconnected structural elements that provide framework supporting an entire structure of development. This includes both physical and institutional elements.
--[[NDSA:User:Micah altman|Micah altman]] 18:31, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

ii.Examples:

• Trends in data protection standards

• Best practices for using cloud concepts within a digital preservation strategy

• Cost-benefit analysis techniques for infrastructure planning

c. Organizational Roles, Policies, and Practices
i. Preservation happens through the work of individuals and institutions. Just as it is critical to refine and develop infrastructure and basic research it is similarly critical to refine and develop workflows, practices, roles, and responsibilities both inside institutions and within networks of institutions to ensure long term access to digital content.

ii.Examples:

• Need for models for licensing old software for long term virtualization

• Need for creation of more dedicated FTEs to staff digital preservation initiatives

• Development for policies around crowdsourcing as part of digital preservation life cycle

• Expanded use of machine readable licensing for data under long term preservation

==Conclusion==
a. Possible ways to engage with the topics and issues detailed in the agenda

NDSA:2014 National Agenda Outline

2013-02-21T15:27:31Z

Micah altman: /* Section topics */

Draft Outline

==Introduction==

a. Description of the National Agenda for Digital Stewardship

i. The document is inspiration for the planning of digital preservation work and observations of the joint leadership group. It is also an evaluation of the state of digital preservation activity and key emerging issues for the year

ii. The document is not intended to be prescriptive, a directive to working groups, and it is not intended to replace any organizational efforts, planning, goals or opinions.

iii. Hoped for impact

b. Description of the NDSA, NDSA goals and how the 2014 Agenda furthers those goals (i.e inform and inspire individual, working group, and organizational work plans)

c. Intended audience: NDSA members and the wider digital preservation community

d. Authored by the joint leadership group

==Section topics ==
a. Trends in Digital Content

i. Emerging content types, formats, or challenges that are of interest to the digital preservation community. Special focus on content themes as they address the interests and needs of the collecting organizations.

b. Research Priorities

. Applied Research (1-3 years)
1. Robust and flexible models for cost estimation for ongoing storage
2. Approaches to systematic schematizing, monitoring & auditing for proliferating trustworthy repository and data management requirement
3. Approaches for (1) & (2) applied to cloud storage

ii.Theoretical Framework ( 3-6 Year horizon)
1. Information valuation/selection. Models for estimating future private & public value of information.
2. Models for estimating future risks

iii. Information Equivalence (3-6 year): Significant properties, fingerprints, authenticity

iv. preservation at scale (3-6 year):
1. Preserving 'big data' -- storage scale
2. preserving high-velocity/dynamic
3. Scalable models for information provenance, equivalence, and quality
4. Information valuation and portfolio management
5. Privacy & confidentiality @ scale

iv. Policy Research (3-6 year):
1.Trust engineering, trust frameworks

v. Preservation Education Research (3-6 year)

vi. Evidence-Based for Preservation Methodologies & Policies (Cross-Cutting/10 years/Grand Challenge)
1. experimental: labs/testbeds/field experiments
• Methodologies for digital preservation research that can provide useful results with simulation of long time periods.
• Methodologies for digital preservation research that provide reliable test plans.
• Methodologies that combine aspects of different research areas (e.g., computer science, materials science
2. observational: random sampling/systematic trend/coverage
3. computational: replicable theoretically grounded computer models
4. Research in a lab or test-bed environment, with a focus on methods to test research results and implement effective strategies from the research lab or test-bed. Frameworks that allow people to apply their specialized knowledge and skills to specific problems

i. Infrastructure can be generally defined as the set of interconnected structural elements that provide framework supporting an entire structure of development. This includes both physical and institutional elements.
--[[NDSA:User:Micah altman|Micah altman]] 18:31, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

ii.Examples:

• Trends in data protection standards

• Best practices for using cloud concepts within a digital preservation strategy

• Cost-benefit analysis techniques for infrastructure planning

c. Organizational Roles, Policies, and Practices
i. Preservation happens through the work of individuals and institutions. Just as it is critical to refine and develop infrastructure and basic research it is similarly critical to refine and develop workflows, practices, roles, and responsibilities both inside institutions and within networks of institutions to ensure long term access to digital content.

ii.Examples:

• Need for models for licensing old software for long term virtualization

• Need for creation of more dedicated FTEs to staff digital preservation initiatives

• Development for policies around crowdsourcing as part of digital preservation life cycle

• Expanded use of machine readable licensing for data under long term preservation

==Conclusion==
a. Possible ways to engage with the topics and issues detailed in the agenda

NDSA:2014 National Agenda Outline

2013-02-13T18:31:43Z

Micah altman: /* Section topics */

Draft Outline

==Introduction==

a. Description of the National Agenda for Digital Stewardship

i. The document is inspiration for the planning of digital preservation work and observations of the joint leadership group. It is also an evaluation of the state of digital preservation activity and key emerging issues for the year

ii. The document is not intended to be prescriptive, a directive to working groups, and it is not intended to replace any organizational efforts, planning, goals or opinions.

iii. Hoped for impact

b. Description of the NDSA, NDSA goals and how the 2014 Agenda furthers those goals (i.e inform and inspire individual, working group, and organizational work plans)

c. Intended audience: NDSA members and the wider digital preservation community

d. Authored by the joint leadership group

==Section topics ==
a. Trends in Digital Content

i. Emerging content types, formats, or challenges that are of interest to the digital preservation community. Special focus on content themes as they address the interests and needs of the collecting organizations.

b. Research Priorities

. Applied Research (1-3 years)
1. Robust and flexible models for cost estimation for ongoing storage
2. Approaches to systematic schematizing, monitoring & auditing for proliferating trustworthy repository and data management requirement
3. Approaches for (1) & (2) applied to cloud storage

ii.Theoretical Framework ( 3-6 Year horizon)
1. Information valuation/selection. Models for estimating future private & public value of information.
2. Models for estimating future risks

iii. Information Equivalence (3-6 year): Significant properties, fingerprints, authenticity

iv. preservation at scale (3-6 year):
1. Preserving 'big data' -- storage scale
2. preserving high-velocity/dynamic
3. Scalable models for information provenance, equivalence, and quality
4. Information valuation and portfolio management
5. Privacy & confidentiality @ scale

iv. Policy Research (3-6 year):
1.Trust engineering, trust frameworks

vi. Evidence-Based for Preservation Methodologies & Policies (Cross-Cutting/10 years/Grand Challenge)
1. experimental: labs/testbeds/field experiments
• Methodologies for digital preservation research that can provide useful results with simulation of long time periods.
• Methodologies for digital preservation research that provide reliable test plans.
• Methodologies that combine aspects of different research areas (e.g., computer science, materials science
2. observational: random sampling/systematic trend/coverage
3. computational: replicable theoretically grounded computer models
4. Research in a lab or test-bed environment, with a focus on methods to test research results and implement effective strategies from the research lab or test-bed. Frameworks that allow people to apply their specialized knowledge and skills to specific problems

i. Infrastructure can be generally defined as the set of interconnected structural elements that provide framework supporting an entire structure of development. This includes both physical and institutional elements.
--[[NDSA:User:Micah altman|Micah altman]] 18:31, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

ii.Examples:

• Trends in data protection standards

• Best practices for using cloud concepts within a digital preservation strategy

• Cost-benefit analysis techniques for infrastructure planning

d. Organizational Roles, Policies, and Practices
i. Preservation happens through the work of individuals and institutions. Just as it is critical to refine and develop infrastructure and basic research it is similarly critical to refine and develop workflows, practices, roles, and responsibilities both inside institutions and within networks of institutions to ensure long term access to digital content.

ii.Examples:

• Need for models for licensing old software for long term virtualization

• Need for creation of more dedicated FTEs to staff digital preservation initiatives

• Development for policies around crowdsourcing as part of digital preservation life cycle

• Expanded use of machine readable licensing for data under long term preservation

==Conclusion==
a. Possible ways to engage with the topics and issues detailed in the agenda

NDSA:Discussions on Preservation Storage Topics

2012-02-28T19:35:40Z

Micah altman: /* Topic 1: Encryption */

==Statement of Purpose==
The Infrastructure Working Group, in February 2012, initiated a series of open conversations on detailed aspects of preservation storage. These conversations are conducted over the listserv and each topic is discussed over the course of 2-3 weeks. A list of future, potential discussion topics is maintained at bottom and can be augmented by group members. This page serves to capture the content of those conversations for further elaboration by group members.

==Topic 1: Encryption==
'''Do you have any opinions on it? What are your reasons for your opinions (gut feelings are OK)?'''

*The majority of the preservation data we deliver to our clients is stored on LTO data tapes - without encryption. We do use WORM capability if the client is OK with it. Our reasons are mainly based on the the assumption that we do not have any control over who can access the tape, now or in the future, and staffing changes might stifle the client's ability to recover the preservation files ("now where did the last person put the list of encryption keys?")
*Pros:
**Strong encryption eliminates worries associated with unauthorized access to preservation copies of materials (such as copyrighted data).
**Encryption doubles as an authenticity check, and in fact, some encryption methods involve the creation of a digital signature that can be used for provenance or bit rot detection.
*Cons:
**Encryption causes file size bloat to the tune of 20-30%.
**For light archives, encryption imparts a performance penalty for systems that need to extract the content from the preservation archive for access purposes.
*Duracloud's approach to encryption is in response to what consumers of cloud storage are requesting. The number one concern is over unauthorized access.
*There is a surfeit of advice promoting a natural wariness towards encryption, though no known studies have addressed it specifically. This conventional wisdom of avoidance is mostly likely driven by the security risk of losing keys (as mentioned above) and the challenge it poses to access, especially to those that may have a legitimate reason (or authorization) to access the data.

'''What kinds of problems do you think it might create in the future?'''

*See above. We're most concerned that staffing issues combined with object-based vault management infrastructures in place could lead to problems. Certainly not saying that is the best rationale, but it is based on current reality.
*As mentioned, preservation of the encryption keys is typically raised as a long-term concern (see below)
*Format obsolescence and the need for migration is of equal concern with encryption formats as it is with data storage formats themselves.
*Similar to the Tivoli Storage Manager example, many cloud storage consumers want to separate the responsibilities of data security from that of storage by uploading already encrypted content. However, the burden of client-side encryption poses a barrier to some.
*There is the potential for encryption requirements to force a revision of the architectural designs of preservation repositories. If ingesting and preserving content with potential HRCI (risk confidential information), PII (personally identifiable information), or other sensitive/private information, institutional policies or legal requirements may dictate security policies. This can determine encryption requirements which, in turn, can necessitiate the use of specific storage media and architecture (see note below on encrypting disk vs. encrypting tape).
*The aforementioned wariness is also likely caused by the uncertainty regarding its complication of format migrations, data mining, and other automated preservation functions. That added layer of complexity is itself an additional preservation risk.
*A key concern is that encryption will overcomplicate legitimate access to content.

'''Do you have any current requirements to do this (laws, policies)? What are the conditions under which you need to encrypt? Do you know of any upcoming requirements for you to do this?'''

*What started us having to consider encryption in our preservation repository was our email archiving project. We'll be preserving email with permanent scholarly value. Email is the first type of content we are preserving that could potentially have HRCI (high risk confidential information) or even just sensitive/private information. Because of its potential privacy issues and sheer quantity, we are treating all email that comes into the repository as potentially sensitive. Its range of potential sensitive/private information means that we are subject to the university security policy regarding HRCI/personal/private information as well as all relevant state and federal laws (HIPAA, FERPA, MA state encryption law, etc.) for this content.
*While the above requirements caused us to revise our policies & architectural design, it means that we will be able to accept sensitive content of any type (beyond email) when we are done.
*We received mixed advice regarding software vs. hardware encryption. We were told software encryption solutions were immature (performance problems and worse) and that hardware encryption was the way to go. Some of our system administrators looked at the encryption offerings and found some big drawbacks not even considering effect on preservation (expense mainly but also having to manage a couple of encryption key management devices).
*We have since come to the conclusion that we are not required to encrypt this content on storage disks, because we are taking other measures (private network address space, local firewalls, periodic penetration tests, encryption on transport, etc.). But, if we use tape as part of the storage solution we will have to encrypt the tapes. We are replacing the DRS storage system this year so, in part because of this encryption requirement, we are considering an all-disk solution (up-to-now we have always included 2 tape copies. along with disk storage).
*No (other respondents)

'''If you do it what technique(s)/strategies do you use? Do you isolate encrypted content from non-encrypted content?'''

*Duracloud, as a provider, is developing tools to accommodate a number of scenarios:
**client does all encryption and key management themselves
**client manages keys, but provides them to upload tooling to encrypt content prior to transit
**client wants persisted content to be encrypted, but would rather not deal with key management or the encryption process
**layered on top of these scenarios is the consideration of the contents' usability within the storage system; such as indexing or metadata extraction.
*We use Tivoli Storage Manager (TSM) client-side encryption for our tape backups. We do not operate the tape backup system we use, so we want to isolate our data security from the tape backup system environment.
*Encryption is done for security purposes - tracking is done w/ barcodes entered into the preservation metadata database, and vault system databases do not usually "refresh" with each other, so the 2 are not in sync. Again, not saying by any stretch this should/ could be considered "best practices" - it's just what typically happens. Refresh cycles (while another topic) are also a problem in this environment, as there is typically less interest in subsequent updates of the data tapes that have not "recouped" their initial cost of creation. I guess I'm trying to convey there is more interest in keeping the 10-20% of backups that have been profitable than a consistent policy that treats all digital preservation files equally.

'''On decryption keys'''

*Long-term secure preservation of the decryption keys themselves is typically raised as a concern, although personally I feel that solutions to this problem are straightforward, albeit complex. I view this as a compound problem that requires a combination of preservation storage principles and security principles to solve:
***Preservation storage - There have to be multiple copies of the keys (existing framework of geographic distribution should facilitate this)
**Security storage - The keys themselves obviously have to be secured in some way. This can be done with either additional encryption or physical security, ie a locking safe, or both. The key point is that this chain ultimately ends in human knowledge, i.e., people have to know secrets. The trick is ensuring that enough people know enough secrets to eventually lead to the encryption keys. Providing office staff at multiple sites with combinations to safes that contain the encrypted encryption keys that a more privileged group of repository administrators know the secret for is an example of adding multiple layers into the scheme.
**Geographic redundancy mitigates decryption key disaster planning
*Security risk can never be zero, but that the risk can be brought into an acceptable range with a scheme that is well-thought-out by existing digital preservation technology and policy frameworks.

'''Do you know of any relevant studies/papers, etc. about this topic?'''
*No (all respondents)... I think we've identified a real gap in the literature.

----

'''Attempt at Decision Analysis'''

1. Theoretically, maintenance of keys is straightforward although complex: e.g.
(a) use a distributed PKI -- either (i) hierarchical or (ii) PGP-style
(b) maintain physically protected copies off-line
(c) escrow keys (possibly divided) with multiple (partially) trusted third parties

2. In practice, few organizations have good enterprise key management, and its been unexpectedly difficult to maintain even over the course of normal business timescales. Some commonly encountered challenges include:
- managing key revocation and possible re-encryption of content using a revoked key
- enterprise scaling of key management (esp. a(ii) (b) and (c) )
- enterprise scaling of performance over encrypted content (e.g. barriers to deduplication of virtualized storage; overhead for computing on encrypted content; performance issues with encrypted filesystems; barriers to standard storage maintenance/recovery/integrity auditing )
- enabling collaboration with encrypted content (managing appropriate group access to content, while maintaining desired security properties)
- potential catastrophic single point security failures for PKI ( esp. certificate issuing, checking, revocation architecture)
- proprietary encryption algorithms (esp. hardware embedded)

3. A key issue for preservation is managing risks to long term access, use of encryption creates additional risks for catastrophic / correlated/ single-point long-term access failure, such as:
- undetected corruption of content due to defects in encryption hardware/software
- " " due to increased barriers to auditing
- increased risk of content corruption due to barriers to filesystem maintenance/recovery of encrypted content
- loss of access to content because of loss of proprietary encryption technology/knowledge (try reading a hardware encrypted tape from 10 years ago :-(
- " " because of unintentional loss of key
- " " because of unintentional/incorrect revocation/key destruction (e.g. "self destruct" mechanisms on encrypted hardware, such as IronKeys)
- Financial risks to access because of increased costs of maintaining encryption

None of these are necessarily show stoppers -- in a particular environment one could of possible ways to mitigate these risks, project costs, compare to the benefits of encryption, and make a decision either way... Unless security experts are involved, risks from misimplementation or defects in the security software/hardware/protocols (etc.) are usually not on the radar; and additional risks for long term access are generally not on the radar even where a trained security expert is engaged. So its important to make sure that we, as preservation experts, communicate these additional long-term access risks and costs ...

--[[NDSA:User:Micah altman|Micah altman]] 19:35, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

==Potential Future Discussion Topics==
Preservation Policies
* number of copies
* bit integrity check frequency
* storage hierarchy

Emerging Storage Technology
* data reduction/de-duplication
* device encryption
* cloud providers
* WORM devices
* federated clusters

Decision Factors
* collection size
* budget
* development resources

==Other Ideas==

NDSA:Open Source Member Questions

2012-02-28T15:33:25Z

Micah altman:

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.

#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?
#Do you see any inherent value in using open source platforms involved in the stewardship and preservation of digital materials? If yes, could you articulate what you see as the inherent value in this context?
#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?
#What role does different software licenses play in decisions to adopt Open Source software?
#How do you weigh the advantages of flexibility with open source against potential dependable sustainability with a vendor?
#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?
# What are the 5 key financial metrics that need to be accounted for in comparing costs across buy, build, borrow rubric?
---
From John Spencer (and I may be doing this wrong...).

Couple of more data points I'd like to see from the commercial side, but I think they may be able to be "blended" into your questions above. I'm thinking about things such as:

1. How much does "vendor lock-in' contribute to your ability (or lack of) to deploy open-source software?
2. Have you found any examples of open-source software that have improved your business practices (and did they lower your TCO?)?
3. Is open-source software a goal to deploy within your organization, or do you anticipate you will remain a user of vendor-based software?

These questions are really only valid if you are seeking input from the commercial community, and I think you should. Comments?
<I think these are great questions, I see no reason not to incorporate them and as we are mostly looking at open ended generative questions I see no reason to keep us from asking these questions to commercial groups too.>

---
From Micah Altman. One key distinction between OSS and commercial software is the types of risks to which one is exposed:

# If successfully deployed, what risks to long-term access of your content will the enterprise infrastructure help to mitigate?
## management of legal risks/licenses on content
## funding risks/costs of long-term storage and access
## physical risks (e.g. through content replication and auditing)
## access risks (e.g. format obsolescence; provenance failures; loss of documentation/context/institutional memory needed to understand content)

# What risks does infrastructure create in long term?
## Software implementation single point of failure (e.g. single implementations w/defects affecting entire enterprices)
## Hardware implementation single point of failure
## Closed/proprietary format -- loss of understandability
## Closed/proprietary protocol -- financial risk from vendor lock-in
## Closed/proprietary storage platform
## Risks around software IP -- loss of access to software platform
## Institutional knowledge/maintenance of infrastructure -- EOL of product, etc.

NDSA:Open Source Software

2012-02-28T15:16:02Z

Micah altman:

==Scoping the Project==
===Key Issues to Consider in Evaluation of Open Source Platforms for Digital Stewardship===
After talking about the description below over the list serve it seems like it might be more valuable to step back and simply say that the group is exploring key issues and points of consideration in use and practices for using or developing open source software for key components in digital preservation software systems and workflows.

====draft goal statement====
The NDSA infrastructure working group is engaged in a year-long project to identify key issues for consideration in making '''build, buy adopt decisions''' on open source software platforms used to provide and maintain long-term access to digital content. This project is scoped to focus specifically on issues in the following three areas:
#'''Significant enterprise software system decisions:''' We are focused on relatively large server-side or desktop systems - not little widgets or snippets of code.
#'''Systems directly involved in long term preservation and access:''' We are focused on software systems that play a significant role in either the workflow which supports preservation and access, or the infrastructure that enables preservation and access. This is not a consideration of all open source systems. (For example, while there are enterprise deployment considerations around things like Firefox and OpenOffice, they are out of scope on this criteria.)
#'''Focus on points of comparison and consideration between open source and other solutions''': We are focused on documenting the key decision points one would make in evaluating whether to build, buy, adopt, adapt open source solutions for enterprise preservation infrastructure. This is not an attempt to put together a broad decision tree about any and all enterprise level systems -- but to identify the key strengths, weaknesses, and decision points applying to use of open source for this purpose.

'''Goal:''' To produce some form of guidance ( such as key advantages and disadvantages of OSS) and basic decision support tool ( such as common use cases, decision trees, checklists, rating, etc.) to help guide decision-making in this area.

== Decision Making Use Cases ==
# Buy vs. adopt: There are existing viable commercial and OSS candidates for an off-the-shelf solution.
# Buy vs. adapt: There are existing viable commercial and OSS candidates, but OSS solution is incomplete.
# Build open vs. closed: No viable off-the-shelf choices, deciding between building (in house or outsourcing dev) OSS vs. local solution.

== Developing Questions For Ourselves to Respond To==

What kind's of questions do we want NDSA members to respond to that will help us in identifying key questions to ask when making decisions about each of the use cases? Please post question ideas on the [[NDSA:Open Source Member Questions]] page.

== Suggestions for who would be interesting to talk to ==
Please post ideas for [[NDSA:Who we Might Want to Invite to Comment]] on each of these cases. Ideally to invite them to comment on the key decision points. It would be great if they can comment on the doc.

== References ==
* Four use cases (Harvard): [[File:use_case.pdf]]
# We need to choose software solutions, potentially open source, for a project.
# We learn of an opportunity to participate in an existing project to collaboratively develop an open source software product.
# We see an opportunity to initiate the development of a collaborative open source software product.
# We have locally-developed software that could be made open source.

* Decision Support Tools. Open Source Software in Libraries. [http://foss4lib.org/content/decision-support-tools]
** Includes a survey tool, cost factors, etc. Some (all?) of this information is the same as on the code4lib wiki.
* Decision Support Tools. Code4Lib wiki. [http://wiki.code4lib.org/index.php/Decision_Support_Tools http://wiki.code4lib.org/index.php/Decision_Support_Tools]
** Includes advantages, disadvantages and costs of using OSS, and links to other relevant documents

* Reflections on open source software projects and digital stewardship
**Post about SIMILE Exhibit: [http://blogs.loc.gov/digitalpreservation/2011/09/lesson%E2%80%99s-learned-for-sustainable-open-source-software-for-libraries-archives-and-museums/ Lessons Learned for Sustainable Open Source Software for Libraries, Archives and Museums]
**Post about Omeka: [http://blogs.loc.gov/digitalpreservation/2011/09/lesson%E2%80%99s-learned-for-sustainable-open-source-software-for-libraries-archives-and-museums/ Growing Open Source Communities: Omeka, End Users, Designers and Developers]

* Articles on evaluating Open Source tools from various perspectives
**Evaluating Open Source Software: Corrado, Edward M. (2008) Evaluating Open Source Software. In: European Library Automation Group (ELAG) Conference, 22-24 April 2008, Bratislava, Slovakia. http://codabox.org/61/
**Rainer , A & Gale , S 2005 , ' Evaluating the Quality and Quantity of Data on Open Source Software Projects ' , Procs , vol 1 , pp. 29-36 . https://uhra.herts.ac.uk/dspace/bitstream/2299/2076/1/902200.pdf
**Goh, D., Chua, A., Khoo, D., Khoo, E., Mak, E., & Ng, M. (2006). A checklist for evaluating open source digital library software. Online Information Review, 30(4), 360-379. http://dr.ntu.edu.sg/bitstream/handle/10220/6183/2006-dl-checklist-oir.pdf?sequence=1
**Evaluating Open Source Software, M Kennedy; Defense AT&L http://www.dau.mil/pubscats/ATL%20Docs/Jul-Aug10/Kennedy_jul-aug10.pdf
**How to Evaluate Open Source Software / Free Software (OSS/FS) Programs http://www.oss-watch.ac.uk/resources/procurement-infopack.xml
**Decision factors for open source software procurement http://www.oss-watch.ac.uk/resources/procurement-infopack.xml

==Working Title==
25 Questions to ask when considering open source software for digital stewardship and preservation

==Goal==
Refine a set of questions or a decision tree that we provided to help guide decisions around open source software’s use in digital preservation and digital stewardship.

==Process==
We work off of Andrea’s set of questions, refine them and tweak them if we like. Then we set up a series of calls with people we identify as having some particular insight and or expertise. We send them the revised document before hand, and then give them a chance to comment on the initial set of questions. They can offer stories of times when a given issue was particularly important, make suggestions for how they would prioritize these issues, remark on what they think should also be included or if there are some things that don’t need to be included. We take significant notes on each of the calls and post those up on the wiki as we go. So, we would have monthly calls with one expert a month for, say five or six months. After each call we would tweak our document in light of the previous calls and organize our notes to keep track of things we will want to talk about in a final report that accompanies the final revised set of questions. At the end of this process we would have a set of organized questions that partners could use as a tool, we would then also produce a report that explained why these were particularly important questions based on our own experience and including commentary from those involved in the process.

==Schedule==
Here is a quick schedule I would suggest for working on this:
#January we identify, contact, and schedule our conference call speaker/commenters
#Feb through June we do monthly calls with speakers, taking notes and iteratively revising our set of questions.
#July we share the questions and something reflecting on their development at the NDIIPP/NDSA partners meeting.
#Aug-September, we draft the final report doc
#October-December we would disseminate the resulting products and start planning our next project.

NDSA:Open Source Software

2012-02-28T15:06:39Z

Micah altman: /* draft goal statement */

==Scoping the Project==
===Key Issues to Consider in Evaluation of Open Source Platforms for Digital Stewardship===
After talking about the description below over the list serve it seems like it might be more valuable to step back and simply say that the group is exploring key issues and points of consideration in use and practices for using or developing open source software for key components in digital preservation software systems and workflows.

====draft goal statement====
The NDSA infrastructure working group is engaged in a year-long project to identify key issues for consideration in making '''build, buy adopt decisions''' on open source software platforms used to provide and maintain long-term access to digital content. This project is scoped to focus specifically on issues in the following three areas:
#'''Significant enterprise software system decisions:''' We are focused on relatively large server-side or desktop systems - not little widgets or snippets of code.
#'''Systems directly involved in long term preservation and access:''' We are focused on software systems that play a significant role in either the workflow which supports preservation and access, or the infrastructure that enables preservation and access. This is not a consideration of all open source systems. (For example, while there are enterprise deployment considerations around things like Firefox and OpenOffice, they are out of scope on this criteria.)
#'''Focus on points of comparison and consideration between open source and other solutions''': We are focused on documenting the key decision points one would make in evaluating whether to build, buy, adopt, adapt open source solutions for enterprise preservation infrastructure. This is not an attempt to put together a broad decision tree about any and all enterprise level systems -- but to identify the key strengths, weaknesses, and decision points applying to use of open source for this purpose.

'''Goal:''' To produce some form of guidance ( such as key advantages and disadvantages of OSS) and basic decision support tool ( such as common use cases, decision trees, checklists, rating, etc.) to help guide decision-making in this area.

== Developing Questions For Ourselves to Respond To==

What kind's of questions do we want NDSA members to respond to that will help us in identifying key questions to ask when making decisions about each of the use cases? Please post question ideas on the [[NDSA:Open Source Member Questions]] page.

== Suggestions for who would be interesting to talk to ==
Please post ideas for [[NDSA:Who we Might Want to Invite to Comment]] on each of these cases. Ideally to invite them to comment on the key decision points. It would be great if they can comment on the doc.

== References ==
* Four use cases (Harvard): [[File:use_case.pdf]]
# We need to choose software solutions, potentially open source, for a project.
# We learn of an opportunity to participate in an existing project to collaboratively develop an open source software product.
# We see an opportunity to initiate the development of a collaborative open source software product.
# We have locally-developed software that could be made open source.

* Decision Support Tools. Open Source Software in Libraries. [http://foss4lib.org/content/decision-support-tools]
** Includes a survey tool, cost factors, etc. Some (all?) of this information is the same as on the code4lib wiki.
* Decision Support Tools. Code4Lib wiki. [http://wiki.code4lib.org/index.php/Decision_Support_Tools http://wiki.code4lib.org/index.php/Decision_Support_Tools]
** Includes advantages, disadvantages and costs of using OSS, and links to other relevant documents

* Reflections on open source software projects and digital stewardship
**Post about SIMILE Exhibit: [http://blogs.loc.gov/digitalpreservation/2011/09/lesson%E2%80%99s-learned-for-sustainable-open-source-software-for-libraries-archives-and-museums/ Lessons Learned for Sustainable Open Source Software for Libraries, Archives and Museums]
**Post about Omeka: [http://blogs.loc.gov/digitalpreservation/2011/09/lesson%E2%80%99s-learned-for-sustainable-open-source-software-for-libraries-archives-and-museums/ Growing Open Source Communities: Omeka, End Users, Designers and Developers]

* Articles on evaluating Open Source tools from various perspectives
**Evaluating Open Source Software: Corrado, Edward M. (2008) Evaluating Open Source Software. In: European Library Automation Group (ELAG) Conference, 22-24 April 2008, Bratislava, Slovakia. http://codabox.org/61/
**Rainer , A & Gale , S 2005 , ' Evaluating the Quality and Quantity of Data on Open Source Software Projects ' , Procs , vol 1 , pp. 29-36 . https://uhra.herts.ac.uk/dspace/bitstream/2299/2076/1/902200.pdf
**Goh, D., Chua, A., Khoo, D., Khoo, E., Mak, E., & Ng, M. (2006). A checklist for evaluating open source digital library software. Online Information Review, 30(4), 360-379. http://dr.ntu.edu.sg/bitstream/handle/10220/6183/2006-dl-checklist-oir.pdf?sequence=1
**Evaluating Open Source Software, M Kennedy; Defense AT&L http://www.dau.mil/pubscats/ATL%20Docs/Jul-Aug10/Kennedy_jul-aug10.pdf
**How to Evaluate Open Source Software / Free Software (OSS/FS) Programs http://www.oss-watch.ac.uk/resources/procurement-infopack.xml
**Decision factors for open source software procurement http://www.oss-watch.ac.uk/resources/procurement-infopack.xml

==Working Title==
25 Questions to ask when considering open source software for digital stewardship and preservation

==Goal==
Refine a set of questions or a decision tree that we provided to help guide decisions around open source software’s use in digital preservation and digital stewardship.

==Process==
We work off of Andrea’s set of questions, refine them and tweak them if we like. Then we set up a series of calls with people we identify as having some particular insight and or expertise. We send them the revised document before hand, and then give them a chance to comment on the initial set of questions. They can offer stories of times when a given issue was particularly important, make suggestions for how they would prioritize these issues, remark on what they think should also be included or if there are some things that don’t need to be included. We take significant notes on each of the calls and post those up on the wiki as we go. So, we would have monthly calls with one expert a month for, say five or six months. After each call we would tweak our document in light of the previous calls and organize our notes to keep track of things we will want to talk about in a final report that accompanies the final revised set of questions. At the end of this process we would have a set of organized questions that partners could use as a tool, we would then also produce a report that explained why these were particularly important questions based on our own experience and including commentary from those involved in the process.

==Schedule==
Here is a quick schedule I would suggest for working on this:
#January we identify, contact, and schedule our conference call speaker/commenters
#Feb through June we do monthly calls with speakers, taking notes and iteratively revising our set of questions.
#July we share the questions and something reflecting on their development at the NDIIPP/NDSA partners meeting.
#Aug-September, we draft the final report doc
#October-December we would disseminate the resulting products and start planning our next project.

NDSA:Open Source Software

2012-02-28T15:04:08Z

Micah altman: /* draft goal statement */

==Scoping the Project==
===Key Issues to Consider in Evaluation of Open Source Platforms for Digital Stewardship===
After talking about the description below over the list serve it seems like it might be more valuable to step back and simply say that the group is exploring key issues and points of consideration in use and practices for using or developing open source software for key components in digital preservation software systems and workflows.

====draft goal statement====
The NDSA infrastructure working group is engaged in a year-long project to identify key issues for consideration in making '''build, buy adopt decisions''' on open source software platforms used to provide and maintain long-term access to digital content. This project is scoped to focus specifically on issues in the following three areas:
#'''Significant enterprise software system decisions:''' We are focused on relatively large server-side or desktop systems - not little widgets or snippets of code.
#'''Systems directly involved in long term preservation and access:''' We are focused on software systems that play a significant role in either the workflow which supports preservation and access, or the infrastructure that enables preservation and access. This is not a consideration of all open source systems. (For example, while there are enterprise deployment considerations around things like Firefox and OpenOffice, they are out of scope on this criteria.)
#'''Focus on points of comparison and consideration between open source and other solutions''': We are focused on documenting the key decision points one would make in evaluating whether to build, buy, adopt, adapt open source solutions for enterprise preservation infrastructure. This is not an attempt to put together a broad decision tree about any and all enterprise level systems for preservation and access.

'''Goal:''' To produce some form of guidance and/or basic decision support tool (checklist, rating, etc.) to help guide decision-making in this area.

== Developing Questions For Ourselves to Respond To==

What kind's of questions do we want NDSA members to respond to that will help us in identifying key questions to ask when making decisions about each of the use cases? Please post question ideas on the [[NDSA:Open Source Member Questions]] page.

== Suggestions for who would be interesting to talk to ==
Please post ideas for [[NDSA:Who we Might Want to Invite to Comment]] on each of these cases. Ideally to invite them to comment on the key decision points. It would be great if they can comment on the doc.

== References ==
* Four use cases (Harvard): [[File:use_case.pdf]]
# We need to choose software solutions, potentially open source, for a project.
# We learn of an opportunity to participate in an existing project to collaboratively develop an open source software product.
# We see an opportunity to initiate the development of a collaborative open source software product.
# We have locally-developed software that could be made open source.

* Decision Support Tools. Open Source Software in Libraries. [http://foss4lib.org/content/decision-support-tools]
** Includes a survey tool, cost factors, etc. Some (all?) of this information is the same as on the code4lib wiki.
* Decision Support Tools. Code4Lib wiki. [http://wiki.code4lib.org/index.php/Decision_Support_Tools http://wiki.code4lib.org/index.php/Decision_Support_Tools]
** Includes advantages, disadvantages and costs of using OSS, and links to other relevant documents

* Reflections on open source software projects and digital stewardship
**Post about SIMILE Exhibit: [http://blogs.loc.gov/digitalpreservation/2011/09/lesson%E2%80%99s-learned-for-sustainable-open-source-software-for-libraries-archives-and-museums/ Lessons Learned for Sustainable Open Source Software for Libraries, Archives and Museums]
**Post about Omeka: [http://blogs.loc.gov/digitalpreservation/2011/09/lesson%E2%80%99s-learned-for-sustainable-open-source-software-for-libraries-archives-and-museums/ Growing Open Source Communities: Omeka, End Users, Designers and Developers]

* Articles on evaluating Open Source tools from various perspectives
**Evaluating Open Source Software: Corrado, Edward M. (2008) Evaluating Open Source Software. In: European Library Automation Group (ELAG) Conference, 22-24 April 2008, Bratislava, Slovakia. http://codabox.org/61/
**Rainer , A & Gale , S 2005 , ' Evaluating the Quality and Quantity of Data on Open Source Software Projects ' , Procs , vol 1 , pp. 29-36 . https://uhra.herts.ac.uk/dspace/bitstream/2299/2076/1/902200.pdf
**Goh, D., Chua, A., Khoo, D., Khoo, E., Mak, E., & Ng, M. (2006). A checklist for evaluating open source digital library software. Online Information Review, 30(4), 360-379. http://dr.ntu.edu.sg/bitstream/handle/10220/6183/2006-dl-checklist-oir.pdf?sequence=1
**Evaluating Open Source Software, M Kennedy; Defense AT&L http://www.dau.mil/pubscats/ATL%20Docs/Jul-Aug10/Kennedy_jul-aug10.pdf
**How to Evaluate Open Source Software / Free Software (OSS/FS) Programs http://www.oss-watch.ac.uk/resources/procurement-infopack.xml
**Decision factors for open source software procurement http://www.oss-watch.ac.uk/resources/procurement-infopack.xml

==Working Title==
25 Questions to ask when considering open source software for digital stewardship and preservation

==Goal==
Refine a set of questions or a decision tree that we provided to help guide decisions around open source software’s use in digital preservation and digital stewardship.

==Process==
We work off of Andrea’s set of questions, refine them and tweak them if we like. Then we set up a series of calls with people we identify as having some particular insight and or expertise. We send them the revised document before hand, and then give them a chance to comment on the initial set of questions. They can offer stories of times when a given issue was particularly important, make suggestions for how they would prioritize these issues, remark on what they think should also be included or if there are some things that don’t need to be included. We take significant notes on each of the calls and post those up on the wiki as we go. So, we would have monthly calls with one expert a month for, say five or six months. After each call we would tweak our document in light of the previous calls and organize our notes to keep track of things we will want to talk about in a final report that accompanies the final revised set of questions. At the end of this process we would have a set of organized questions that partners could use as a tool, we would then also produce a report that explained why these were particularly important questions based on our own experience and including commentary from those involved in the process.

==Schedule==
Here is a quick schedule I would suggest for working on this:
#January we identify, contact, and schedule our conference call speaker/commenters
#Feb through June we do monthly calls with speakers, taking notes and iteratively revising our set of questions.
#July we share the questions and something reflecting on their development at the NDIIPP/NDSA partners meeting.
#Aug-September, we draft the final report doc
#October-December we would disseminate the resulting products and start planning our next project.

NDSA:Tuesday, January 31, 2012

2012-02-28T14:59:15Z

Micah altman: Created page with 'On the content group item: I was looking through CC stuff, and found these CC plugins for wordpress, which may be of interest to the content group's initiative to enable easy o…'

On the content group item:

I was looking through CC stuff, and found these CC plugins for wordpress, which may be of interest to the content group's initiative to enable easy opt-in to preservation:

http://code.creativecommons.org/viewgit/wordpress-cc-plugin.git/

This was from a CC-lead GSOC effort in 2010.

Also, there seem to be a number of other plugins extant in that space:

http://www.g-loaded.eu/2006/01/14/creative-commons-configurator-wordpress-plugin/
http://wordpress.org/extend/plugins/creative-commons-license-widget/
http://wordpress.org/extend/plugins/wplicense/
http://wordpress.org/extend/plugins/creative-commons-suite/

NDSA:Cloud Presentations

2011-07-20T14:21:12Z

Micah altman: /* Solution Models and Environments */

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 and Slides==
# Feb 1, Tues, 1:00 EST call with iRods Reagan Moore ([[NDSA:Media:NIAID.ppt|presentation]])
# Feb 14, Monday, 11:00 EST call with Duracloud ([[NDSA:Media:DuracloudNDSA.ppt|presentation]])
# Feb 17, Thurs, 11:00 EST call with MetaArchive/GDDP Katherine Skinner, Matt Schultz and Martin Halbert MetaArchive NDSA ([[NDSA:Media:MetaArchive NDSA Infrastructure.ppt|presentation]])

==People/Projects to Contact==
*Chronopolis (Mike Smorul will contact)
*Open questions from the Educopia Guide to Distributed Digital Preservation
*Commercial providers? (Who specifically would we want here? Please add them.)
**Azure (Leslie to contact)
**Amazon (Who will contact?)

==General Questions for Cloud Service 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 standards would your system support?
# What resources are required to support a solution implemented in your environment?
# What infrastructure do you rely on?
# How can your system 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 10 years from now? (Take for granted a sophisticated audience that knows about multiple copies etc.)
# What types of materials does your system handle? (documents, audio files, video file, stills, data sets, etc) And give examples of those types in practice

===Responses to questions===
====[[NDSA:iRODS]] direct responses====

Other general notes:

* [Snavely] The need for each storage target to support a specific set of operations, and consistently with other storage targets, seems like a risk that comes along with the elegant abstraction that iRODS provides. Clear specifications help mitigate this risk.

====[[NDSA:DuraCloud]] direct responses====
Other general notes:

* [Snavely] Treatment of cloud provider is generally as a black box, without a strong sense of actual reliability of underlying storage systems. Cloud providers tend to promise checksum validation of contents, but recourse if validation fails was unknown (right?). Additional checksum validation has been augmented on top of cloud storage service by Duracloud.

====[[NDSA:MetaArchive/GDDP]] direct responses====
Other general notes:

* [Snavely] Built on LOCKSS, so data integrity assurances are provided by robust networked software model augmented to commodity hardware and storage. Federated nature provides integrity assurance but also a lack of central control in that the accidental loss of multiple caches is unlikely but e.g. scheduled maintenance or upgrades could coincidentally collide.

====Chronopolis====
# ...
====MicroSoft Azure====
# ...
====Amazon S3/EC2====
# ...

==Questions for Member Institution Implementations of Large Scale Storage Architectures==
#What is the particular preservation goal or challenge you need to accomplish? (for example, re-use, public access, internal access, legal mandate, etc.)
#What large scale storage or cloud technologies are you using to meet that challenge? Further, why did you choose these particular technologies?
#Specifically, what kind of materials are you preserving (text, data sets, images, moving images, web pages, etc.)
#How big is your collection? (In terms of number of objects and storage space required)
#What are your performance requirements? Further, why are these your particular requirements?
#What storage media have you elected to use? (Disk, Tape, etc) Further, why did you choose these particular media?
#What do you think the key advantages of the system you use?
#What do you think are the key problems or disadvantages your system present?
#What important principles informed your decision about the particular tool or service you chose to use?
#How frequently do you migrate from one system to another? Further, what is it that prompts you to make these migrations?
# What characteristics of the storage system(s) you use do you feel are particularly well-suited to long-term digital preservation? (High levels of redundancy/resiliency, internal checksumming capabilities, automated tape refresh, etc)
# What functionality or processes have you developed to augment your storage systems in order to meet preservation goals? (Periodic checksum validation, limited human access or novel use of permissions schemes)
# Are there tough requirements for digital preservation, e.g. TRAC certification, that you wish were more readily handled by your storage system?

===Responses to questions===

====[[NDSA:Florida Center for Library Automation]]====

====[[NDSA:Harvard Library]]====

====[[NDSA:Harvard IQSS - DVN/Murray Archive]]====

====[[NDSA:HathiTrust]]====

====[[NDSA:National Library of Medicine Responses]]====

====[[NDSA:Penn State]]====

====[[NDSA:WGBH Responses]]====

====[[NDSA:NYU Response]]====

====[[NDSA:Library of Congress]]====

====[[NDSA:Columbia University]]====

====[[NDSA:Your Institution Here]]====

==General Concerns==
# confidential data
# encrypted data
# auditing
# preservation risks
# legal compliance
# ...

==Solution Models and Environments==
{| border="1"
!Name
!Offered as Service
!Deployed Locally
!Opensource
!Authentication Scheme
!Ingest Mechanism
!Export Mechanism
!Integrity/Validation Mechanism
!Replication Mechanism
!Administration Model (Federated, etc.)
!Tiering Support
|-
|iRODS
|Offered as Service
|Deployed Locally
|Opensource
|Authentication Scheme
|Ingest Mechanism
|Export Mechanism
|Integrity/Validation Mechanism
|Replication Mechanism
|Content Administration Model (Federated, etc.)
|Tiering Support
|Certifications
|-
|DuraCloud
|yes
|yes
|yes (Apache2)
|Basic Auth
|1:web-ui, 2:client-side utility, 3:REST-API
|1:web-ui, 2:client-side utility, 3:REST-API
|Checksum verified on ingest. On-demand checksum verification service.
|Built-in support for cross-cloud replication.
|Local
|No
|-
|MetaArchive/GDDP
|Mixed - PLN service layer on top of local LOCKSS nodes
|Mixed - PLN service layer on top of local LOCKSS nodes
|No
|IP-based
|LOCKSS harvesting plugins
|LOCKSS web proxy
|LOCKSS distributed integrity checking
|LOCKSS P2P
|Single superuser across all nodes
|No
|-
|Chronopolis
|Yes
|No
|No
|SRB/Irods based
|SRB/Irods based
|SRB/Irods based
|Local checksums
|SRB/Irods
|Single superuser
|No
|-
|Microsoft Azure
|Yes
|No
|No
|Multiple
| .Net/WIF
| Multiple APIs, .Net
|Not known/propietary
|Not known/propietary
|Single super user
|Not known/propietary
|-
|Amazon S3/EC2
|Yes
|No
|Opensource
|Multiple, including certs; proprietary / limited delegation model
|Restful API's
|Restful API's
|Proprietary
|Proprietary
|Single superuser
|Yes
|-
|DVN/Safearchive
|Yes
|Yes
|Opensource
|Basic Auth/IP
|Proprietary UI/Batch UI/LOCKSS harvesting plugins
|OAI/Lockss harvesting/proprietary
|LOCKS distributed integrity checks with additional TRAC auditing layer
|LOCKS with additional TRAC-based provisioning layer
|Federated & distributed
|No
|-
|}

NDSA:Cloud Presentations

2011-07-20T14:07:19Z

Micah altman: /* Solution Models and Environments */

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 and Slides==
# Feb 1, Tues, 1:00 EST call with iRods Reagan Moore ([[NDSA:Media:NIAID.ppt|presentation]])
# Feb 14, Monday, 11:00 EST call with Duracloud ([[NDSA:Media:DuracloudNDSA.ppt|presentation]])
# Feb 17, Thurs, 11:00 EST call with MetaArchive/GDDP Katherine Skinner, Matt Schultz and Martin Halbert MetaArchive NDSA ([[NDSA:Media:MetaArchive NDSA Infrastructure.ppt|presentation]])

==People/Projects to Contact==
*Chronopolis (Mike Smorul will contact)
*Open questions from the Educopia Guide to Distributed Digital Preservation
*Commercial providers? (Who specifically would we want here? Please add them.)
**Azure (Leslie to contact)
**Amazon (Who will contact?)

==General Questions for Cloud Service 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 standards would your system support?
# What resources are required to support a solution implemented in your environment?
# What infrastructure do you rely on?
# How can your system 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 10 years from now? (Take for granted a sophisticated audience that knows about multiple copies etc.)
# What types of materials does your system handle? (documents, audio files, video file, stills, data sets, etc) And give examples of those types in practice

===Responses to questions===
====[[NDSA:iRODS]] direct responses====

Other general notes:

* [Snavely] The need for each storage target to support a specific set of operations, and consistently with other storage targets, seems like a risk that comes along with the elegant abstraction that iRODS provides. Clear specifications help mitigate this risk.

====[[NDSA:DuraCloud]] direct responses====
Other general notes:

* [Snavely] Treatment of cloud provider is generally as a black box, without a strong sense of actual reliability of underlying storage systems. Cloud providers tend to promise checksum validation of contents, but recourse if validation fails was unknown (right?). Additional checksum validation has been augmented on top of cloud storage service by Duracloud.

====[[NDSA:MetaArchive/GDDP]] direct responses====
Other general notes:

* [Snavely] Built on LOCKSS, so data integrity assurances are provided by robust networked software model augmented to commodity hardware and storage. Federated nature provides integrity assurance but also a lack of central control in that the accidental loss of multiple caches is unlikely but e.g. scheduled maintenance or upgrades could coincidentally collide.

====Chronopolis====
# ...
====MicroSoft Azure====
# ...
====Amazon S3/EC2====
# ...

==Questions for Member Institution Implementations of Large Scale Storage Architectures==
#What is the particular preservation goal or challenge you need to accomplish? (for example, re-use, public access, internal access, legal mandate, etc.)
#What large scale storage or cloud technologies are you using to meet that challenge? Further, why did you choose these particular technologies?
#Specifically, what kind of materials are you preserving (text, data sets, images, moving images, web pages, etc.)
#How big is your collection? (In terms of number of objects and storage space required)
#What are your performance requirements? Further, why are these your particular requirements?
#What storage media have you elected to use? (Disk, Tape, etc) Further, why did you choose these particular media?
#What do you think the key advantages of the system you use?
#What do you think are the key problems or disadvantages your system present?
#What important principles informed your decision about the particular tool or service you chose to use?
#How frequently do you migrate from one system to another? Further, what is it that prompts you to make these migrations?
# What characteristics of the storage system(s) you use do you feel are particularly well-suited to long-term digital preservation? (High levels of redundancy/resiliency, internal checksumming capabilities, automated tape refresh, etc)
# What functionality or processes have you developed to augment your storage systems in order to meet preservation goals? (Periodic checksum validation, limited human access or novel use of permissions schemes)
# Are there tough requirements for digital preservation, e.g. TRAC certification, that you wish were more readily handled by your storage system?

===Responses to questions===

====[[NDSA:Florida Center for Library Automation]]====

====[[NDSA:Harvard Library]]====

====[[NDSA:Harvard IQSS - DVN/Murray Archive]]====

====[[NDSA:HathiTrust]]====

====[[NDSA:National Library of Medicine Responses]]====

====[[NDSA:Penn State]]====

====[[NDSA:WGBH Responses]]====

====[[NDSA:NYU Response]]====

====[[NDSA:Library of Congress]]====

====[[NDSA:Columbia University]]====

====[[NDSA:Your Institution Here]]====

==General Concerns==
# confidential data
# encrypted data
# auditing
# preservation risks
# legal compliance
# ...

==Solution Models and Environments==
{| border="1"
!Name
!Offered as Service
!Deployed Locally
!Opensource
!Authentication Scheme
!Ingest Mechanism
!Export Mechanism
!Integrity/Validation Mechanism
!Replication Mechanism
!Administration Model (Federated, etc.)
!Tiering Support
|-
|iRODS
|Offered as Service
|Deployed Locally
|Opensource
|Authentication Scheme
|Ingest Mechanism
|Export Mechanism
|Integrity/Validation Mechanism
|Replication Mechanism
|Administration Model (Federated, etc.)
|Tiering Support
|-
|DuraCloud
|yes
|yes
|yes (Apache2)
|Basic Auth
|1:web-ui, 2:client-side utility, 3:REST-API
|1:web-ui, 2:client-side utility, 3:REST-API
|Checksum verified on ingest. On-demand checksum verification service.
|Built-in support for cross-cloud replication.
|
|
|-
|MetaArchive/GDDP
|Offered as Service
|Deployed Locally
|Opensource
|Authentication Scheme
|Ingest Mechanism
|Export Mechanism
|Integrity/Validation Mechanism
|Replication Mechanism
|Administration Model (Federated, etc.)
|Tiering Support
|-
|Chronopolis
|Offered as Service
|Deployed Locally
|Opensource
|Authentication Scheme
|Ingest Mechanism
|Export Mechanism
|Integrity/Validation Mechanism
|Replication Mechanism
|Administration Model (Federated, etc.)
|Tiering Support
|-
|Microsoft Azure
|Offered as Service
|Deployed Locally
|Opensource
|Authentication Scheme
|Ingest Mechanism
|Export Mechanism
|Integrity/Validation Mechanism
|Replication Mechanism
|Administration Model (Federated, etc.)
|Tiering Support
|-
|Amazon S3/EC2
|Offered as Service
|Deployed Locally
|Opensource
|Authentication Scheme
|Ingest Mechanism
|Export Mechanism
|Integrity/Validation Mechanism
|Replication Mechanism
|Administration Model (Federated, etc.)
|Tiering Support
|-
|Dataverse Network|
|Offered as Service
|Deployed Locally
|Opensource
|Authentication Scheme
|Ingest Mechanism
|Export Mechanism
|Integrity/Validation Mechanism
|Replication Mechanism
|Administration Model (Federated, etc.)
|Tiering Support
|-
|LOCKSS Public Network
|Offered as Service
|Deployed Locally
|Opensource
|Authentication Scheme
|Ingest Mechanism
|Export Mechanism
|Integrity/Validation Mechanism
|Replication Mechanism
|Administration Model (Federated, etc.)
|Tiering Support
|-
|}

NDSA:Cloud Presentations

2011-07-20T14:05:47Z

Micah altman: /* Solution Models and Environments */

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 and Slides==
# Feb 1, Tues, 1:00 EST call with iRods Reagan Moore ([[NDSA:Media:NIAID.ppt|presentation]])
# Feb 14, Monday, 11:00 EST call with Duracloud ([[NDSA:Media:DuracloudNDSA.ppt|presentation]])
# Feb 17, Thurs, 11:00 EST call with MetaArchive/GDDP Katherine Skinner, Matt Schultz and Martin Halbert MetaArchive NDSA ([[NDSA:Media:MetaArchive NDSA Infrastructure.ppt|presentation]])

==People/Projects to Contact==
*Chronopolis (Mike Smorul will contact)
*Open questions from the Educopia Guide to Distributed Digital Preservation
*Commercial providers? (Who specifically would we want here? Please add them.)
**Azure (Leslie to contact)
**Amazon (Who will contact?)

==General Questions for Cloud Service 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 standards would your system support?
# What resources are required to support a solution implemented in your environment?
# What infrastructure do you rely on?
# How can your system 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 10 years from now? (Take for granted a sophisticated audience that knows about multiple copies etc.)
# What types of materials does your system handle? (documents, audio files, video file, stills, data sets, etc) And give examples of those types in practice

===Responses to questions===
====[[NDSA:iRODS]] direct responses====

Other general notes:

* [Snavely] The need for each storage target to support a specific set of operations, and consistently with other storage targets, seems like a risk that comes along with the elegant abstraction that iRODS provides. Clear specifications help mitigate this risk.

====[[NDSA:DuraCloud]] direct responses====
Other general notes:

* [Snavely] Treatment of cloud provider is generally as a black box, without a strong sense of actual reliability of underlying storage systems. Cloud providers tend to promise checksum validation of contents, but recourse if validation fails was unknown (right?). Additional checksum validation has been augmented on top of cloud storage service by Duracloud.

====[[NDSA:MetaArchive/GDDP]] direct responses====
Other general notes:

* [Snavely] Built on LOCKSS, so data integrity assurances are provided by robust networked software model augmented to commodity hardware and storage. Federated nature provides integrity assurance but also a lack of central control in that the accidental loss of multiple caches is unlikely but e.g. scheduled maintenance or upgrades could coincidentally collide.

====Chronopolis====
# ...
====MicroSoft Azure====
# ...
====Amazon S3/EC2====
# ...

==Questions for Member Institution Implementations of Large Scale Storage Architectures==
#What is the particular preservation goal or challenge you need to accomplish? (for example, re-use, public access, internal access, legal mandate, etc.)
#What large scale storage or cloud technologies are you using to meet that challenge? Further, why did you choose these particular technologies?
#Specifically, what kind of materials are you preserving (text, data sets, images, moving images, web pages, etc.)
#How big is your collection? (In terms of number of objects and storage space required)
#What are your performance requirements? Further, why are these your particular requirements?
#What storage media have you elected to use? (Disk, Tape, etc) Further, why did you choose these particular media?
#What do you think the key advantages of the system you use?
#What do you think are the key problems or disadvantages your system present?
#What important principles informed your decision about the particular tool or service you chose to use?
#How frequently do you migrate from one system to another? Further, what is it that prompts you to make these migrations?
# What characteristics of the storage system(s) you use do you feel are particularly well-suited to long-term digital preservation? (High levels of redundancy/resiliency, internal checksumming capabilities, automated tape refresh, etc)
# What functionality or processes have you developed to augment your storage systems in order to meet preservation goals? (Periodic checksum validation, limited human access or novel use of permissions schemes)
# Are there tough requirements for digital preservation, e.g. TRAC certification, that you wish were more readily handled by your storage system?

===Responses to questions===

====[[NDSA:Florida Center for Library Automation]]====

====[[NDSA:Harvard Library]]====

====[[NDSA:Harvard IQSS - DVN/Murray Archive]]====

====[[NDSA:HathiTrust]]====

====[[NDSA:National Library of Medicine Responses]]====

====[[NDSA:Penn State]]====

====[[NDSA:WGBH Responses]]====

====[[NDSA:NYU Response]]====

====[[NDSA:Library of Congress]]====

====[[NDSA:Columbia University]]====

====[[NDSA:Your Institution Here]]====

==General Concerns==
# confidential data
# encrypted data
# auditing
# preservation risks
# legal compliance
# ...

==Solution Models and Environments==
{| border="1"
!Name
!Offered as Service
!Deployed Locally
!Opensource
!Authentication Scheme
!Ingest Mechanism
!Export Mechanism
!Integrity/Validation Mechanism
!Replication Mechanism
!Administration Model (Federated, etc.)
!Tiering Support
|-
|iRODS
|Offered as Service
|Deployed Locally
|Opensource
|Authentication Scheme
|Ingest Mechanism
|Export Mechanism
|Integrity/Validation Mechanism
|Replication Mechanism
|Administration Model (Federated, etc.)
|Tiering Support
|-
|DuraCloud
|yes
|yes
|yes (Apache2)
|Basic Auth
|1:web-ui, 2:client-side utility, 3:REST-API
|1:web-ui, 2:client-side utility, 3:REST-API
|Checksum verified on ingest. On-demand checksum verification service.
|Built-in support for cross-cloud replication.
|
|
|-
|MetaArchive/GDDP
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|-
|Chronopolis
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|-
|Microsoft Azure
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|-
|Amazon S3/EC2
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|-
|Dataverse Network|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|-
|LOCKSS
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|-
|}

NDSA:Harvard IQSS - DVN/Murray Archive

2011-07-20T14:02:20Z

Micah altman: Created page with 'These responses pertain to Harvard's Digital Repository Service (DRS). See [http://hul.harvard.edu/ois/systems/drs/]. '''1. What is the particular preservation goal or challenge…'

These responses pertain to Harvard's Digital Repository Service (DRS). See [http://hul.harvard.edu/ois/systems/drs/].

'''1. What is the particular preservation goal or challenge you need to accomplish? (for example, re-use, public access, internal access, legal mandate, etc.)'''

The DVN provides virtual archiving service for Harvard affiliates and for a wider research community. Both long-term access and preservation and short term dissemination needs are addressed. Much of the content is curated by others -- so a big challenge is to provide rich preservation and access services on content deposited in a diverse set of formats and with potentially minimal metadata.

'''2. What large scale storage or cloud technologies are you using to meet that challenge? Further, why did you choose these particular technologies?'''

Internally we use Netapp NAS for storage. We also deploy applications for access to collection via AWS (as a prototype), and we are using the SafeArchive system with LOCKSS to
replicate content across the Data-PASS partner storage network.

'''3. Specifically, what kind of materials are you preserving (text, data sets, images, moving images, web pages, etc.)'''

Numeric data sets, qualitative text-data collections, audio and video (qualitative data/interviews).

'''4. How big is your collection? (In terms of number of objects and storage space required)'''

Approximately 500K files, 80 TB. Most of the TB come from a few large video collections, most of the files are numeric data.

'''5. What are your performance requirements? Further, why are these your particular requirements?'''

All content needs to be online for delivery without delay. On-line analysis is offered on numeric data, so need low latency requirements.

'''6. What storage media have you elected to use? (Disk, Tape, etc) Further, why did you choose these particular media?'''

A combination of disk & tape.

'''7. What do you think the key advantages of the system you use?'''

The Dataverse system automates much of the deposit workflow of diverse contributors, and provides metadata extraction, format conversion and identifier assignment. This leads to a much more
preservable collection at minimal effort. LOCKSS is a robust system for automatic replication of the content. SafeArchive provides a policy based auditing layer that automatically reports when freshness, number of copies, distribution, and integrity checks are met. Universal Numeric Fingerprints guarantee integrity across format migrations.

'''8. What do you think are the key problems or disadvantages your system present?'''

Scaling up to PetaScale science. Automatic provisioning of replication network. Semantic fingerprints/UNF's not available for audio/video.

'''9. What important principles informed your decision about the particular tool or service you chose to use?'''

Transparency, maintainability, workflow support for contributors.

'''10. How frequently do you migrate from one system to another? Further, what is it that prompts you to make these migrations?'''

Storage back ends evolve over time, but this rests on institute enterprise storage and is essentially transparent from the archivist/curator point of view.

'''11. What characteristics of the storage system(s) you use do you feel are particularly well-suited to long-term digital preservation? (High levels of redundancy/resiliency, internal checksumming capabilities, automated tape refresh, etc)'''

Non-proprietary storage formats, semantic digital fingerprints, distributed replication, trac-based auditing.

'''12. What functionality or processes have you developed to augment your storage systems in order to meet preservation goals? (Periodic checksum validation, limited human access or novel use of permissions schemes)'''

Continuous integrity checking, digital fingerprints, auditing, workflow.

'''13. Are there tough requirements for digital preservation, e.g. TRAC certification, that you wish were more readily handled by your storage system?'''

Integration with data management plan policies. Confidential data management.

NDSA:Cloud Presentations

2011-07-20T13:49:30Z

Micah altman: /* ==Harvard IQSS - DVN/Murray Archive */

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 and Slides==
# Feb 1, Tues, 1:00 EST call with iRods Reagan Moore ([[NDSA:Media:NIAID.ppt|presentation]])
# Feb 14, Monday, 11:00 EST call with Duracloud ([[NDSA:Media:DuracloudNDSA.ppt|presentation]])
# Feb 17, Thurs, 11:00 EST call with MetaArchive/GDDP Katherine Skinner, Matt Schultz and Martin Halbert MetaArchive NDSA ([[NDSA:Media:MetaArchive NDSA Infrastructure.ppt|presentation]])

==People/Projects to Contact==
*Chronopolis (Mike Smorul will contact)
*Open questions from the Educopia Guide to Distributed Digital Preservation
*Commercial providers? (Who specifically would we want here? Please add them.)
**Azure (Leslie to contact)
**Amazon (Who will contact?)

==General Questions for Cloud Service 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 standards would your system support?
# What resources are required to support a solution implemented in your environment?
# What infrastructure do you rely on?
# How can your system 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 10 years from now? (Take for granted a sophisticated audience that knows about multiple copies etc.)
# What types of materials does your system handle? (documents, audio files, video file, stills, data sets, etc) And give examples of those types in practice

===Responses to questions===
====[[NDSA:iRODS]] direct responses====

Other general notes:

* [Snavely] The need for each storage target to support a specific set of operations, and consistently with other storage targets, seems like a risk that comes along with the elegant abstraction that iRODS provides. Clear specifications help mitigate this risk.

====[[NDSA:DuraCloud]] direct responses====
Other general notes:

* [Snavely] Treatment of cloud provider is generally as a black box, without a strong sense of actual reliability of underlying storage systems. Cloud providers tend to promise checksum validation of contents, but recourse if validation fails was unknown (right?). Additional checksum validation has been augmented on top of cloud storage service by Duracloud.

====[[NDSA:MetaArchive/GDDP]] direct responses====
Other general notes:

* [Snavely] Built on LOCKSS, so data integrity assurances are provided by robust networked software model augmented to commodity hardware and storage. Federated nature provides integrity assurance but also a lack of central control in that the accidental loss of multiple caches is unlikely but e.g. scheduled maintenance or upgrades could coincidentally collide.

====Chronopolis====
# ...
====MicroSoft Azure====
# ...
====Amazon S3/EC2====
# ...

==Questions for Member Institution Implementations of Large Scale Storage Architectures==
#What is the particular preservation goal or challenge you need to accomplish? (for example, re-use, public access, internal access, legal mandate, etc.)
#What large scale storage or cloud technologies are you using to meet that challenge? Further, why did you choose these particular technologies?
#Specifically, what kind of materials are you preserving (text, data sets, images, moving images, web pages, etc.)
#How big is your collection? (In terms of number of objects and storage space required)
#What are your performance requirements? Further, why are these your particular requirements?
#What storage media have you elected to use? (Disk, Tape, etc) Further, why did you choose these particular media?
#What do you think the key advantages of the system you use?
#What do you think are the key problems or disadvantages your system present?
#What important principles informed your decision about the particular tool or service you chose to use?
#How frequently do you migrate from one system to another? Further, what is it that prompts you to make these migrations?
# What characteristics of the storage system(s) you use do you feel are particularly well-suited to long-term digital preservation? (High levels of redundancy/resiliency, internal checksumming capabilities, automated tape refresh, etc)
# What functionality or processes have you developed to augment your storage systems in order to meet preservation goals? (Periodic checksum validation, limited human access or novel use of permissions schemes)
# Are there tough requirements for digital preservation, e.g. TRAC certification, that you wish were more readily handled by your storage system?

===Responses to questions===

====[[NDSA:Florida Center for Library Automation]]====

====[[NDSA:Harvard Library]]====

====[[NDSA:Harvard IQSS - DVN/Murray Archive]]====

====[[NDSA:HathiTrust]]====

====[[NDSA:National Library of Medicine Responses]]====

====[[NDSA:Penn State]]====

====[[NDSA:WGBH Responses]]====

====[[NDSA:NYU Response]]====

====[[NDSA:Library of Congress]]====

====[[NDSA:Columbia University]]====

====[[NDSA:Your Institution Here]]====

==General Concerns==
# confidential data
# encrypted data
# auditing
# preservation risks
# legal compliance
# ...

==Solution Models and Environments==
{| border="1"
!Name
!Offered as Service
!Deployed Locally
!Opensource
!Authentication Scheme
!Ingest Mechanism
!Export Mechanism
!Integrity/Validation Mechanism
!Replication Mechanism
!Administration Model (Federated, etc.)
!Tiering Support
|-
|iRODS
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|-
|DuraCloud
|yes
|yes
|yes (Apache2)
|Basic Auth
|1:web-ui, 2:client-side utility, 3:REST-API
|1:web-ui, 2:client-side utility, 3:REST-API
|Checksum verified on ingest. On-demand checksum verification service.
|Built-in support for cross-cloud replication.
|
|
|-
|MetaArchive/GDDP
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|-
|Chronopolis
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|-
|Microsoft Azure
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|-
|Amazon S3/EC2
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|-
|}

NDSA:Cloud Presentations

2011-07-20T13:48:33Z

Micah altman: /* Responses to questions */

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 and Slides==
# Feb 1, Tues, 1:00 EST call with iRods Reagan Moore ([[NDSA:Media:NIAID.ppt|presentation]])
# Feb 14, Monday, 11:00 EST call with Duracloud ([[NDSA:Media:DuracloudNDSA.ppt|presentation]])
# Feb 17, Thurs, 11:00 EST call with MetaArchive/GDDP Katherine Skinner, Matt Schultz and Martin Halbert MetaArchive NDSA ([[NDSA:Media:MetaArchive NDSA Infrastructure.ppt|presentation]])

==People/Projects to Contact==
*Chronopolis (Mike Smorul will contact)
*Open questions from the Educopia Guide to Distributed Digital Preservation
*Commercial providers? (Who specifically would we want here? Please add them.)
**Azure (Leslie to contact)
**Amazon (Who will contact?)

==General Questions for Cloud Service 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 standards would your system support?
# What resources are required to support a solution implemented in your environment?
# What infrastructure do you rely on?
# How can your system 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 10 years from now? (Take for granted a sophisticated audience that knows about multiple copies etc.)
# What types of materials does your system handle? (documents, audio files, video file, stills, data sets, etc) And give examples of those types in practice

===Responses to questions===
====[[NDSA:iRODS]] direct responses====

Other general notes:

* [Snavely] The need for each storage target to support a specific set of operations, and consistently with other storage targets, seems like a risk that comes along with the elegant abstraction that iRODS provides. Clear specifications help mitigate this risk.

====[[NDSA:DuraCloud]] direct responses====
Other general notes:

* [Snavely] Treatment of cloud provider is generally as a black box, without a strong sense of actual reliability of underlying storage systems. Cloud providers tend to promise checksum validation of contents, but recourse if validation fails was unknown (right?). Additional checksum validation has been augmented on top of cloud storage service by Duracloud.

====[[NDSA:MetaArchive/GDDP]] direct responses====
Other general notes:

* [Snavely] Built on LOCKSS, so data integrity assurances are provided by robust networked software model augmented to commodity hardware and storage. Federated nature provides integrity assurance but also a lack of central control in that the accidental loss of multiple caches is unlikely but e.g. scheduled maintenance or upgrades could coincidentally collide.

====Chronopolis====
# ...
====MicroSoft Azure====
# ...
====Amazon S3/EC2====
# ...

==Questions for Member Institution Implementations of Large Scale Storage Architectures==
#What is the particular preservation goal or challenge you need to accomplish? (for example, re-use, public access, internal access, legal mandate, etc.)
#What large scale storage or cloud technologies are you using to meet that challenge? Further, why did you choose these particular technologies?
#Specifically, what kind of materials are you preserving (text, data sets, images, moving images, web pages, etc.)
#How big is your collection? (In terms of number of objects and storage space required)
#What are your performance requirements? Further, why are these your particular requirements?
#What storage media have you elected to use? (Disk, Tape, etc) Further, why did you choose these particular media?
#What do you think the key advantages of the system you use?
#What do you think are the key problems or disadvantages your system present?
#What important principles informed your decision about the particular tool or service you chose to use?
#How frequently do you migrate from one system to another? Further, what is it that prompts you to make these migrations?
# What characteristics of the storage system(s) you use do you feel are particularly well-suited to long-term digital preservation? (High levels of redundancy/resiliency, internal checksumming capabilities, automated tape refresh, etc)
# What functionality or processes have you developed to augment your storage systems in order to meet preservation goals? (Periodic checksum validation, limited human access or novel use of permissions schemes)
# Are there tough requirements for digital preservation, e.g. TRAC certification, that you wish were more readily handled by your storage system?

===Responses to questions===

====[[NDSA:Florida Center for Library Automation]]====

====[[NDSA:Harvard Library]]====

====[[NDSA:Harvard IQSS - DVN/Murray Archive]]==

====[[NDSA:HathiTrust]]====

====[[NDSA:National Library of Medicine Responses]]====

====[[NDSA:Penn State]]====

====[[NDSA:WGBH Responses]]====

====[[NDSA:NYU Response]]====

====[[NDSA:Library of Congress]]====

====[[NDSA:Columbia University]]====

====[[NDSA:Your Institution Here]]====

==General Concerns==
# confidential data
# encrypted data
# auditing
# preservation risks
# legal compliance
# ...

==Solution Models and Environments==
{| border="1"
!Name
!Offered as Service
!Deployed Locally
!Opensource
!Authentication Scheme
!Ingest Mechanism
!Export Mechanism
!Integrity/Validation Mechanism
!Replication Mechanism
!Administration Model (Federated, etc.)
!Tiering Support
|-
|iRODS
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|-
|DuraCloud
|yes
|yes
|yes (Apache2)
|Basic Auth
|1:web-ui, 2:client-side utility, 3:REST-API
|1:web-ui, 2:client-side utility, 3:REST-API
|Checksum verified on ingest. On-demand checksum verification service.
|Built-in support for cross-cloud replication.
|
|
|-
|MetaArchive/GDDP
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|-
|Chronopolis
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|-
|Microsoft Azure
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|-
|Amazon S3/EC2
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|-
|}

NDSA:Cloud Presentations

2011-03-15T15:29:07Z

Micah altman: /* Solution Models and Environments */

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.
# Feb 1, Tues, 1:00 EST call with iRods Reagan Moore ([[NDSA:Media:NIAID.ppt|presentation]])
# Feb 14, Monday, 11:00 EST call with Duracloud
# Feb 17, Thurs, 11:00 EST call with MetaArchive/GDDP Katherine Skinner, Matt Schultz and Martin Halbert

==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 would your system support?
# What preservation standards would your system support?
# What resources are required to support a solution implemented in your environment
# What infrastructure do you rely on?
# 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.)

===Responses to questions===
====iRODS====
# ...
====DuraCloud====
# ...
====MetaArchive/GDDP====
# ...
====Chronopolis====
# ...
====MicroSoft Azure====
# ...
====Amazon S3/EC2====
# ...

==General Concerns==
# confidential data
# encrypted data
# auditing
# preservation risks
# legal compliance
# ...

==Solution Models and Environments==
{| border="1"
!Name
!Offered as Service
!Deployed Locally
!Opensource
!Authentication Scheme
!Ingest Mechanism
!Export Mechanism
!Integrity/Validation Mechanism
!Administration Model (Federated, etc.)
|-
|iRODS
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|-
|DuraCloud
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|-
|MetaArchive/GDDP
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|-
|Chronopolis
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|-
|Microsoft Azure
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
|-
|Amazon S3/EC2
|
|
|
|
|
|
|-
|}

NDSA:Cloud Presentations

2011-03-15T15:28:18Z

Micah altman: /* Solution Models and Environments */

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.
# Feb 1, Tues, 1:00 EST call with iRods Reagan Moore ([[NDSA:Media:NIAID.ppt|presentation]])
# Feb 14, Monday, 11:00 EST call with Duracloud
# Feb 17, Thurs, 11:00 EST call with MetaArchive/GDDP Katherine Skinner, Matt Schultz and Martin Halbert

==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 would your system support?
# What preservation standards would your system support?
# What resources are required to support a solution implemented in your environment
# What infrastructure do you rely on?
# 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.)

===Responses to questions===
====iRODS====
# ...
====DuraCloud====
# ...
====MetaArchive/GDDP====
# ...
====Chronopolis====
# ...
====MicroSoft Azure====
# ...
====Amazon S3/EC2====
# ...

==General Concerns==
# confidential data
# encrypted data
# auditing
# preservation risks
# legal compliance
# ...

==Solution Models and Environments==
{| border="1"
!Name
!Offered as Service
!Deployed Locally
!Opensource
!Authentication Scheme
!Ingest Mechanism
!Export Mechanism
!Integrity/Validation Mechanism
!Administration Model (Federated, etc.)
|-
|iRODS
|
|
|
|
|
|
|-
|DuraCloud
|
|
|
|
|
|
|-
|MetaArchive/GDDP
|
|
|
|
|
|
|-
|Chronopolis
|
|
|
|
|
|
|-
|Microsoft Azure
|
|
|
|
|
|
|-
|Amazon S3/EC2
|
|
|
|
|
|
|-
|}

NDSA:Innovation Working Group

2011-03-08T18:39:55Z

Micah altman: Created page with 'Possible speakers for "Broadening.."?: - David Rosenthal - Peter Buneman - Luiz André Barroso --~~~~'

Possible speakers for "Broadening.."?:
- David Rosenthal
- Peter Buneman
- Luiz André Barroso
--[[NDSA:User:Micah altman|Micah altman]] 18:39, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

NDSA:Membership

2011-01-22T13:28:22Z

Micah altman: /* Rights and Privileges */

'''NDSA MEMBERSHIP MODEL - revised 1/6/11'''

This version of the Membership Model was crafted after reviewing minutes of the meeting and trying to consolidate all of the concerns and wishes expressed at the December workshop.

We propose what we believe is a workable model that will address the desires of many to be open, inclusive and diverse. We have looked to the membership information that DPC provides for inspiration about how to be inclusive of commercial/IT vendors and international affiliates (see DPC Prospectus linked from here: http://www.dpconline.org/about/join), and have borrowed some of their language with their permission.

We heard at the workshop some of the positives of going with this approach:

*“NDSA is not a club” – speaks to the inclusiveness we encourage in our values statement.
*Open, broad membership is a benefit: offers a variety of experiences, knowledge. Access to high-tech and international members benefits us all. Brings in stakeholders that could inspire innovation.
*Institutions of any size may participate.
*Without need to have CC or a membership committee review and vote on new members, members could join at any time (LC would process applications as they come in).
*Encourages members to recruit new members, to think broadly about who might be encouraged to join.
*This model allows for us to develop clearly stated “we share common values across boundaries” with international organizations and high tech companies and others who may not meet full eligibility requirements.
*Brings in subject matter experts and specialists that would otherwise not be able to participate “officially.”
*No perception of favoritism because we aren’t inviting or sponsoring others to join. Membership information on the NDSA site will clearly define what is “a demonstrated commitment to digital preservation.”
*Clearly defines what the eligibility for international and commercial vendors memberships and expectations for membership.

Although there was some discussion at the December meeting about a formal application review and a process for that, we are at this point recommending that we keep it lightweight and have the Secretariat review and process applications, particularly with this more open model where we would allow all to apply. This model will also allow us to move forward now and we can review it in 3 years.

=Membership=

As an initiative of the Library of Congress National Digital Information Infrastructure and Preservation Program (NDIIPP), the Alliance is open to United States government agencies, educational institutions, non-profit organizations and business with commitments and activities in the areas of collecting, preserving, or ensuring long-term access to digital content. International organizations are also welcome to join as affiliate members.

==Term of Membership==
The first term of membership expires December 31, 2013. The term of Membership will be for three (3) years thereafter.

==Recommendations for Membership==
*Membership will be at the institutional level, but participation on Working Groups is open to one or more individual participants at the institution.
*Applications are welcome from consortia, given that there is a clear representative identified to participate from the consortia.
*Applications are welcome from commercial companies and IT vendors, given that these members agree to the values of the NDSA and understand that the NDSA requires all members to follow rules of neutrality. ''[NOTE: We recommend using language modeled after the DPC's information for Commercial and IT vendors in our membership materials, and to have language that encourages technically-oriented rather than sales staff serve as NDSA participants.]''
*International Organizations will have Affiliate status rather than full membership. (See below for different rights and privileges)
*Membership should be open and the process by which new members can join is though:
**Application process via online form (see current form: http://www.digitalpreservation.gov/ndsaform/index.php)
**Review and Processing by Secretariat
**Transparency both in the review and processing of membership applications and in the operation of the organization

==Eligibility==

*Members should have demonstrated a commitment to the Alliance mission.
*Members should share the stated values of the Alliance.
*Members should agree to maintain vendor neutrality.
*Members should agree to participate in one or more working groups.

==Rights and Privileges==

'''Full Members'''
*Members will have one vote on organizational and governance matters affecting the Alliance, e.g. voting for coordinating committee nominees, regardless of how many participants they contribute to the NDSA.
*Individual participants will have effective decision-making power at the Working Group level, e.g. deciding on work plans and work products. However, for transparency, all draft work plans, work products (etc.) will be available to the entire membership for examination and comment on-line.
* Working Groups may also recruit non-member participants to aid in the development of work products
*Members may send representatives to participate in NDSA annual meetings.

'''Affiliate Members'''
*Member organizations may send representatives to participate in the annual meetings of the NDSA, but do not have voting rights.
*Members may participate in the work of the Working Groups at the Action Team level.

NDSA:Principles of Collaboration

2011-01-22T13:26:23Z

Micah altman: /* Meetings */

==Scope==
The name of this organization is the National Digital Stewardship Alliance (NDSA), also referred to as the Alliance. The [[NDSA:Mission Statement|mission]] of the NDSA is to establish, maintain, and promote the capacity to preserve our nation's digital resources for the benefit of present and future generations.

The Library of Congress (LOC), as an outgrowth of the December 2000 congressional charge that established the National Digital Information Infrastructure and Preservation Program (NDIIPP), shall support the Alliance by serving as the Secretariat.

Established on July 15, 2010, the Alliance is an organization of government agencies, educational institutions, non-profit organizations, and businesses committed to serving as digital stewards of America's national digital collection and employing standards, systems, and cooperative relationships that advance digital stewardship. 

==[[NDSA:Membership Model|Membership]]==

==Coordinating Committee==
The [[NDSA:Terms#Coordinating_Committee|Coordinating Committee]] is dedicated to the advancement of Alliance activities and furthering communication within the Alliance.

The Coordinating Committee works with the Working Groups to articulate a long-term, strategic vision for the Alliance. The Committee assists the Alliance [[NDSA:Terms#Member|Members]] in evaluating the effectiveness of the Working Groups and eliminating unnecessary duplication of effort between the Working Groups. Participants in the Coordinating Committee will act as liaison with one or more of the Working Groups.

The Coordinating Committee is responsible for updating eligibility standards for membership in the Alliance as necessary.

Coordinating Committee members may be nominated by [[NDSA:Terms#Participant|Participants]] in the Alliance or may self nominate. Coordinating Committee members are elected by a simple majority of all votes cast over an open voting period, typically two weeks.

The number of Coordinating Committee members shall be an odd number, not less than nine (9) and no more than thirteen (13).

Coordinating Committee members shall serve for through December 31, 2013, or their resignation. Any member may resign at any time by notification in writing to the Alliance through the office of the Secretariat. Vacancies on the Coordinating Committee shall be filled by special election. 

==Officers==
The Coordinating Committee shall designate the facilitator of the next meeting at the end of every session. There will be no officers. 

==Secretariat==
The Secretariat shall (a) act as secretary of all meetings of the Alliance and of such other committees and working groups as the Alliance shall specify, (b) keep the minutes thereof, and (c) coordinate the planning of annual meetings and other events (with a program committee). All minutes, reports, and other documents of the Alliance will be filed and maintained at the Library of Congress.

The role of Secretariat is fulfilled by staff of the Library of Congress, Office of Strategic Initiatives, National Digital Information and Infrastructure Preservation Program (NDIIPP). 

==Committees and Working Groups==
Alliance Members designate [[NDSA:Terms#Participant|Participants]] to serve on committees and [[NDSA:Terms#Working_Group|Working Groups]]. Each committee shall have, and may exercise, such powers as authorized by the Alliance.

Committee and Working Group members shall serve for a term ending on December 31, 2013, or their resignation. Any member may resign from a Working Group at any time by notification in writing to the Co-chair of a particular Working Group. 

==Meetings==
All meetings of the Alliance, and any committee or working group, may be held in person, or by means of telephone or video conference. The Secretariat will coordinate the planning of the Annual meeting of the Alliance.

Regular meetings of the Alliance committees and working groups may be held at such time and place as shall be determined by consensus of committee and working group members, in coordination with the Secretariat.

To maintain transparency, notes from all meetings will be available to all members online.

==Voting==
The Alliance will vote to elect members of the Coordinating Committee, ratify and alter the principles of collaboration, or upon any other issue deemed necessary by the Membership. Members will be given a two-week period to vote electronically. A simple majority of the voting Member representatives shall constitute a quorum for the transaction of business. Votes shall be cast by the designated Program Representative of any Member organization.

==Amendments==
These bylaws may be amended by a simple majority vote provided all members have been offered a reasonable opportunity to vote.

NDSA:Principles of Collaboration

2011-01-22T13:23:28Z

Micah altman: /* Coordinating Committee */

==Scope==
The name of this organization is the National Digital Stewardship Alliance (NDSA), also referred to as the Alliance. The [[NDSA:Mission Statement|mission]] of the NDSA is to establish, maintain, and promote the capacity to preserve our nation's digital resources for the benefit of present and future generations.

The Library of Congress (LOC), as an outgrowth of the December 2000 congressional charge that established the National Digital Information Infrastructure and Preservation Program (NDIIPP), shall support the Alliance by serving as the Secretariat.

Established on July 15, 2010, the Alliance is an organization of government agencies, educational institutions, non-profit organizations, and businesses committed to serving as digital stewards of America's national digital collection and employing standards, systems, and cooperative relationships that advance digital stewardship. 

==[[NDSA:Membership Model|Membership]]==

==Coordinating Committee==
The [[NDSA:Terms#Coordinating_Committee|Coordinating Committee]] is dedicated to the advancement of Alliance activities and furthering communication within the Alliance.

The Coordinating Committee works with the Working Groups to articulate a long-term, strategic vision for the Alliance. The Committee assists the Alliance [[NDSA:Terms#Member|Members]] in evaluating the effectiveness of the Working Groups and eliminating unnecessary duplication of effort between the Working Groups. Participants in the Coordinating Committee will act as liaison with one or more of the Working Groups.

The Coordinating Committee is responsible for updating eligibility standards for membership in the Alliance as necessary.

Coordinating Committee members may be nominated by [[NDSA:Terms#Participant|Participants]] in the Alliance or may self nominate. Coordinating Committee members are elected by a simple majority of all votes cast over an open voting period, typically two weeks.

The number of Coordinating Committee members shall be an odd number, not less than nine (9) and no more than thirteen (13).

Coordinating Committee members shall serve for through December 31, 2013, or their resignation. Any member may resign at any time by notification in writing to the Alliance through the office of the Secretariat. Vacancies on the Coordinating Committee shall be filled by special election. 

==Officers==
The Coordinating Committee shall designate the facilitator of the next meeting at the end of every session. There will be no officers. 

==Secretariat==
The Secretariat shall (a) act as secretary of all meetings of the Alliance and of such other committees and working groups as the Alliance shall specify, (b) keep the minutes thereof, and (c) coordinate the planning of annual meetings and other events (with a program committee). All minutes, reports, and other documents of the Alliance will be filed and maintained at the Library of Congress.

The role of Secretariat is fulfilled by staff of the Library of Congress, Office of Strategic Initiatives, National Digital Information and Infrastructure Preservation Program (NDIIPP). 

==Committees and Working Groups==
Alliance Members designate [[NDSA:Terms#Participant|Participants]] to serve on committees and [[NDSA:Terms#Working_Group|Working Groups]]. Each committee shall have, and may exercise, such powers as authorized by the Alliance.

Committee and Working Group members shall serve for a term ending on December 31, 2013, or their resignation. Any member may resign from a Working Group at any time by notification in writing to the Co-chair of a particular Working Group. 

==Meetings==
All meetings of the Alliance, and any committee or working group, may be held in person, or by means of telephone or video conference. The Secretariat will coordinate the planning of the Annual meeting of the Alliance.

Regular meetings of the Alliance committees and working groups may be held at such time and place as shall be determined by consensus of committee and working group members, in coordination with the Secretariat.

==Voting==
The Alliance will vote to elect members of the Coordinating Committee, ratify and alter the principles of collaboration, or upon any other issue deemed necessary by the Membership. Members will be given a two-week period to vote electronically. A simple majority of the voting Member representatives shall constitute a quorum for the transaction of business. Votes shall be cast by the designated Program Representative of any Member organization.

==Amendments==
These bylaws may be amended by a simple majority vote provided all members have been offered a reasonable opportunity to vote.

NDSA:Principles of Collaboration

2011-01-22T13:21:39Z

Micah altman:

'''Organizational Structure Notes'''

The subcommittee reported on their draft document. The goal of the Principles of Collaboration is to act as a bylaws-lite that will spell out how the member organizations of the Alliance work together in the first three-year period. Attempts were made to acknowledge the importance of virtual meetings, a guiding group called the Coordinating Committee, and voting.

'''Small Group Discussion Topic:''' 
Review and comment on the Principles of Collaboration document.

The groups reported back about the following topics with a great deal of consensus: 
* Coordinating Committee 
** Provide the NDSA strategic vision 
** Maintain any membership eligibility standards 
** Assist in reducing duplication of efforts between working groups 
** Have a strong connections with the working groups 
** Add or disband working groups as necessary 
* Secretariat role should be administrative and logistical in character 
* Votes are for identifying Coordinating Committee members, changing/ratifying the Principles of Collaboration, or other such tasks. 
** A vote should happen online rather than at a convention 
** Clarity on how a favorable vote is determine is needed. 
* Robert's Rules of Order is too formal for this organization 
 
There was no consensus on the following topics, the groups expressed differing view points: 
* Officers on the Coordinating Committee 
** There was general agreement that the person running the next Coordinating Committee should be identified in advance of the next meeting. 
** Beyond that, there was a group or two that wanted more structure than others and would like to see officers
* There was no consensus on what should replace Robert's Rules of Order. 
 
'''Coordinating Committee '''
The group agreed that the Coordinating Committee was a valuable entity to have in the NDSA. There was consensus that the Coordinating Committee should: 
* Should probably start off with 9 members but should be flexible enough to grow or shrink as needed by the NDSA 
* Provide the NDSA strategic vision 
* Maintain any membership eligibility standards 
* Assist in reducing duplication of efforts between working groups 
* Each member of the Coordinating Committee should be responsible for acting as liaison with one or more of the working groups 
* Add or disband working groups as necessary 
* Members of the Coordinating Committee should be voted in by the NDSA members Program Representative 
* Members of the Coordinating Committee could be nominated by others or volunteer to serve 
 
Some individuals made the following recommendations but there was no clear group consensus about these recommendations: 
* Members of the Coordinating Committee should serve staggered terms (there should be some turn over every year and some stability at all times) 
* The Coordinating Committee should make recommendations about working group products that should be circulated more widely, especially items that should be submitted as articles or disseminated to the larger digital preservation community as reports
 

----

There were two additional points that were uncontroversial, but haven't made it into this draft.
- For legal reasons (where votes are necessary), having an odd number of coordinating committee members
- Committing to transparency in working groups and coordinating committee operations -- minutes, meeting notes, circulation of drafts, use of public mailing lists

And our discussion group had made a strong recommendation that the coordinating committee should have a rotating membership where a portion (e.g. 1/3rd) of new members were selected each year to ensure
a broader base of participation, avoid entrenchment, and still maintain continuity.
--[[NDSA:User:Micah altman|Micah altman]] 13:21, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

NDSA:Membership

2011-01-22T13:14:54Z

Micah altman:

'''NDSA MEMBERSHIP MODEL - revised 1/6/11'''

This version of the Membership Model was crafted after reviewing minutes of the meeting and trying to consolidate all of the concerns and wishes expressed at the December workshop.

We propose what we believe is a workable model that will address the desires of many to be open, inclusive and diverse. We have looked to the membership information that DPC provides for inspiration about how to be inclusive of commercial/IT vendors and international affiliates (see DPC Prospectus linked from here: http://www.dpconline.org/about/join), and have borrowed some of their language with their permission.

We heard at the workshop some of the positives of going with this approach:

*“NDSA is not a club” – speaks to the inclusiveness we encourage in our values statement.
*Open, broad membership is a benefit: offers a variety of experiences, knowledge. Access to high-tech and international members benefits us all. Brings in stakeholders that could inspire innovation.
*Institutions of any size may participate.
*Without need to have CC or a membership committee review and vote on new members, members could join at any time (LC would process applications as they come in).
*Encourages members to recruit new members, to think broadly about who might be encouraged to join.
*This model allows for us to develop clearly stated “we share common values across boundaries” with international organizations and high tech companies and others who may not meet full eligibility requirements.
*Brings in subject matter experts and specialists that would otherwise not be able to participate “officially.”
*No perception of favoritism because we aren’t inviting or sponsoring others to join. Membership information on the NDSA site will clearly define what is “a demonstrated commitment to digital preservation.”
*Clearly defines what the eligibility for international and commercial vendors memberships and expectations for membership.

Although there was some discussion at the December meeting about a formal application review and a process for that, we are at this point recommending that we keep it lightweight and have the Secretariat review and process applications, particularly with this more open model where we would allow all to apply. This model will also allow us to move forward now and we can review it in 3 years.

=Membership=

As an initiative of the Library of Congress National Digital Information Infrastructure and Preservation Program (NDIIPP), the Alliance is open to United States government agencies, educational institutions, non-profit organizations and business with commitments and activities in the areas of collecting, preserving, or ensuring long-term access to digital content. International organizations are also welcome to join as affiliate members.

==Term of Membership==
The first term of membership expires December 31, 2013. The term of Membership will be for three (3) years thereafter.

==Recommendations for Membership==
*Membership will be at the institutional level, but participation on Working Groups is open to one or more individual participants at the institution.
*Applications are welcome from consortia, given that there is a clear representative identified to participate from the consortia.
*Applications are welcome from commercial companies and IT vendors, given that these members agree to the values of the NDSA and understand that the NDSA requires all members to follow rules of neutrality. ''[NOTE: We recommend using language modeled after the DPC's information for Commercial and IT vendors in our membership materials, and to have language that encourages technically-oriented rather than sales staff serve as NDSA participants.]''
*International Organizations will have Affiliate status rather than full membership. (See below for different rights and privileges)
*Membership should be open and the process by which new members can join is though:
**Application process via online form (see current form: http://www.digitalpreservation.gov/ndsaform/index.php)
**Review and Processing by Secretariat
**Transparency both in the review and processing of membership applications and in the operation of the organization

==Eligibility==

*Members should have demonstrated a commitment to the Alliance mission.
*Members should share the stated values of the Alliance.
*Members should agree to maintain vendor neutrality.
*Members should agree to participate in one or more working groups.

==Rights and Privileges==

'''Full Members'''
*Members will have one vote on organizational and governance matters affecting the Alliance, e.g. voting for coordinating committee nominees, regardless of how many participants they contribute to the NDSA.
*Individual participants will have effective decision-making power at the Working Group level, e.g. deciding on work plans and work products.
* Working Groups may also recruit non-member participants to aid in the development of work products
*Members may send representatives to participate in NDSA annual meetings.

'''Affiliate Members'''
*Member organizations may send representatives to participate in the annual meetings of the NDSA, but do not have voting rights.
*Members may participate in the work of the Working Groups at the Action Team level.

NDSA:Membership

2011-01-22T13:12:53Z

Micah altman:

Given the extensive discussion over membership at the meeting, the lack of wiki talk, or public e-mail exchange on this issue is surprising. I wonder if we

At the last meeting, although discussion groups didn't come to consensus, there were a number of specific suggestions that weren't fully captured in the notes, and aspects of the original proposal that did did not result in any objection:

- allowing action groups to recruit participants from non-members
- committing to transparency

--[[NDSA:User:Micah altman|Micah altman]] 13:12, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

NDSA:Membership

2011-01-22T13:12:40Z

Micah altman: Created page with 'Given the extensive discussion over membership at the meeting, the lack of wiki talk, or public e-mail exchange on this issue is surprising. I wonder if we At the last meetin…'

NDSA:Values Statement

2011-01-22T12:53:02Z

Micah altman: /* Exchange */

The National Digital Stewardship Alliance and all member organizations are bound as a community by the following values. 

==Stewardship==
Members of the NDSA are committed to managing digital content for current and long-term use. The members of the NDSA are actively committed to ensuring sustained access to the digital content that comprises our national history and empowers us as leaders in the global knowledge economy. Individually, these organizations support the management of digital resources; as an Alliance, we commit to protecting our nation's cultural, scientific, scholarly, and business heritage. 

==Collaboration==
Collaborative work is the centering value of the Alliance, it is a value shared by all members and a priority in work with all organizations and associations. Approaching digital stewardship collaboratively allows the NDSA to coordinate effort, avoid duplicate work, build a community of practice, develop new preservation strategies, flexibly respond to a changing economic landscape, and build relationships to increase capacity to manage content beyond institutional boundaries. 

==Inclusiveness==
The NDSA is a collaborative effort to preserve a distributed national digital collection for the benefit of current and future generations. We value the range of experience, the potential for innovation, and the fault-tolerance that heterogeneity brings. We believe the preservation of digital information is a pervasive challenge and that engaging across different communities strengthens the nation’s digital preservation practices and increases the likelihood of preserving data now and into the future. 

==Exchange==
Members of the Alliance encourage the open exchange of ideas, services, and software. We commit to being transparent in our operations and decisions, and to releasing works produced by the organization (such as software, standards, and publications) under open licenses. This leverages the commitments of each member to increase the capacity of the entire stewardship network. In this way the act of participation and engagement result in innovations and benefits that can be shared by all.

NDSA:Mission Statement

2011-01-17T19:49:10Z

Micah altman:

'''Notes on discussions about Mission Statement from Organizing Committee'''

Mission Statement Discussion about this draft statement (see Appendix B) indicated that "citizen" was too restrictive for the group. While the NDSA is a national alliance, the benefit of digital material and preservation practices cannot be restricted by boundaries of a nation. The discussion resulted in a second draft of the statement:

Mission Statement Draft #2
There was some interest in exploring whether publicize or sustain might be a better word choice than promote but there was no clear consensus from the group regarding a preference.

----

It was pointed out that "promote" can mean either "expand" or "publicize" and it was not clear which was meant. Suggest substitute "expand and publicize" unless objections. --[[NDSA:User:Micah altman|Micah altman]] 19:39, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

NDSA:Values Statement

2011-01-17T19:48:11Z

Micah altman:

'''Notes from Organizing Workshop, Review of Day One: Changes Recommended for Framing Documents''' 

The Mission and Values subcommittee presented the values statement and the rationale that went into creating it. Particular attention was given to crafting a statement that clearly did not exclude any organizations for participating in the Alliance in at least some capacity.
The entire group reviewed the draft values statement (see Appendix B). "Stewardship" was identified as the central, defining value and it was proposed that "Stewardship" become the first value listed. There was some conversation about the term "Diversity," specifically that it could be misunderstood out of context. This conclusion was reinforced by the small group conversations. It was determined that perhaps "Inclusiveness" was a better term for this value.
Ultimately, the group concluded that the power of the values was in relation to one another, no one value alone could represent the shared understanding of the Alliance.

'''Small Group Discussion Topic:'''
How can the alliance demonstrate these values?
* In working groups
* In NDSA communication
* In alliance meetings

The group agreed about he basic values of the Alliance. Discussion indicated consensus around the importance of:
* Align the NDSA work with the missions and interests of the members
* Raising public awareness
* Identify and reach out to marginalized and underserved digital preservation communities, specifically small and local communities
* Clarify the idea of “exchange;” not just sharing and reuse of resources among the NDSA but reaching out beyond this group to the broader community we're trying to serve
* Sustainability needs to be built into the values statement in a more prominent way
* “Diversity” includes inclusion of organizations and heterogeneity and diversity of approaches
* Stewardship as THE mission; collaboration, exchange and inclusion support the mission of stewardship; perhaps stewardship includes matching orphan collections with institutions willing to steward them
* Articulate the distinction of NDSA from other initiatives and the benefits of participating in the NDSA

Comments were also made from some individuals about the value of the following activities as well:
* Work with researchers (scientific) to raise awareness of the reproducibility of scientific results
* Conduct gap analysis of current capacity to develop a research agenda
* Leverage Web 2.0 communication channels to disseminate knowledge about existing capacities
* Pair with high tech companies that are doing innovative things in data management and figure out how to motivate them to work with us, but also make sure that it's a mutually-beneficial relationship, perhaps an advisory group (possible models: FACA/NGAC?)

'''Specific changes to the draft included:'''
* Changed order to place “Stewardship” at the top.
* Changed “citizens” to “generations”.
* Under “Stewardship” in second sentence, changed “entrusted keepers of digital content” to “actively committed to ensuring sustained access to the digital content”.
* Under “Stewardship” in last sentence, changed “actively oversee the administration of digital resources” to “support the management of digital resources”.
* Changed “Diversity” to “Inclusiveness”.
* Under “Diversity (Inclusiveness)” in last sentence, changed “challenge that extends beyond the boundaries of domain” to “pervasive challenge&rdquo, and the structure of the last part of that sentence. 

----

With respect to exchange, there was substantial commentary during the meeting on the need for transparency of operations and open source/open (in the sense of CC-Atribution) documents. A commitment to both should be put in the exchange section to make it more meaningful. E.g.:

"As an organization, we commit to being transparent in our operations and decisions, and to releasing works produced by the organization (such as software, standards, and publications) under open licenses."
--[[NDSA:User:Micah altman|Micah altman]] 19:48, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

NDSA:Mission Statement

2011-01-17T19:39:09Z

Micah altman:

'''Notes on discussions about Mission Statement from Organizing Committee'''

Mission Statement Discussion about this draft statement (see Appendix B) indicated that "citizen" was too restrictive for the group. While the NDSA is a national alliance, the benefit of digital material and preservation practices cannot be restricted by boundaries of a nation. The discussion resulted in a second draft of the statement:

Mission Statement Draft #2
There was some interest in exploring whether publicize or sustain might be a better word choice than promote but there was no clear consensus from the group regarding a preference.

It was pointed out that "promote" can mean either "expand" or "publicize" and it was not clear which was meant. Suggest substitute "expand and publicize" unless objections. --[[NDSA:User:Micah altman|Micah altman]] 19:39, 17 January 2011 (UTC)