DLF Wiki - User contributions [en]

NDSA:Tuesday, Mar 25, 2014

2014-03-26T18:24:04Z

Nicho147:

Return to [[NDSA:Infrastructure Working Group#Meeting Schedules, Minutes and Agendas | Meeting Schedules, Minutes and Agendas]]

==Roster==
*Trevor Owens, Library of Congress
*Karen Cariani, WGBH
*Barrie Howard, Library of Congress
*Dave MacCarn, WGBH
*Jim Harper, Property Records Industry Association (PRIA)
*Joe Pawletko, New York University
*Martin Jacobson, U.S. National Archives and Records Administration
*Shawn Nicholson, Michigan State University
*Kevin McCarthy, U.S. National Archives and Records Administration
*Martin Kong, Chicago State University
*Chelcie Rowell, Wake Forest University
*Kat Bell, Dance Heritage Coalition
*Leah Prescott, Georgetown University Law Center
*Ernest Bryant, U.S. National Archives and Records Administration

==Agenda==
#Update on 2015 National Agenda for Digital Stewardship
#Fixity check factsheet
#Update on NDSA Storage Survey report
#Ideas for potential speakers - ArchivesSpace was well attended, and awaiting interview responses
#Digital Preservation 2014 meeting
#Open source software in digital preservation projects (interview series)
#Future directions

==Action Items==
*Draft a lightning talk proposal on the fixity check factsheet - Trevor
*Pull out thematic topics from blog posts, and share the ideas with the group - Trevor

==Discussion==
''Update on 2015 National Agenda for Digital Stewardship'' 
Please read the [http://www.digitalpreservation.gov/ndsa/nationalagenda/ 2014 National Agenda], if you haven't. This group had a call, and put together some ideas and passed them along to the Coordinating Committee. If you have anything to add, email you ideas back to the list, or pass them along to Trevor or Karen. 
''Fixity check factsheet'' 
There hasn't been a lot of feedback from [http://blogs.loc.gov/digitalpreservation/2014/02/check-yourself-how-and-when-to-check-fixity/ blog post about the fixity check document]. This document was developed on a previous call where the group worked up a [http://blogs.loc.gov/digitalpreservation/files/2014/02/NDSA-Checking-your-digital-content-Draft-2-5-14.pdf draft factsheet]. There's been a lot of positive response from people, so we're in a position to call it done and release a first version. A general announcement should go out to NDSA-All providing another week or two for responses, and then we'll call it a day. 
''Update on NDSA Storage Survey report'' 
It's taking a little time to get the data into shape and the analysis done. Once it comes together, someone needs to lead writing the actual report. The previous report provides a foundation, so the writing will involve updating from last time. It will still be awhile to get the charting stuff finished, so maybe in about 2 - 3 months. Leah Prescott will help lead the writing. The next storage survey will be done again in 2015. 
''Ideas for potential speakers'' 
The [http://www.archivesspace.org/ ArchivesSpace] webinar was well attended, and Trevor is awaiting interview responses from Brad. What topics are of interest to infrastructure people, and the NDSA as a whole? There has been a presentation on [http://www.dpn.org/ DPN], but maybe someone who is an implementer can speak. Mark Leggott spoke recently about [http://islandora.ca/ Islandora]. One potential topic is the Olive Library Project from Carnegie-Mellon, which is providing emulation and virtualization as a service. A service to LTO tape from 4 to 6. Open source Swift nodes could be an interesting topic. Amazon is built on top of object stores, and there are a number of projects, e.g., [https://swiftstack.com/openstack-swift/architecture/ SwiftStack], CEPH [http://ceph.com/] that like that model of interfacing with your storage. If anyone has any ideas, please share things over the list 
''Digital Preservation 2014 meeting'' 
The call for proposals yielded over 80 proposals. The meeting takes place in the DC Metro Area from July 22-24, so mark your calendars. If it would be interesting to have a face to face, that can be arranged. The group can ask for meeting space, or just meet up for happy hour. A lot of special interest groups meet for breakfast before the program starts. There was consensus that it would be good to meet face to face for those who will be attending. 
''Open source software in digital preservation projects (interview series)'' 
Trevor will pull out some thematic things on from the blog posts, and share the ideas with the group. 
''Future directions 
An open discussion followed where the caller's discussed their local set up:
*PRIA works with local governments in backing up their records, and is interested in learning about best practices in the preservation electronic records. There are industry and technology changes, and new talent wants to do things differently, so they need to keep up and figure out how to monitor these changes and figure out how to be sustainable. PRIA does a variety of things, but their core business is to help preserve the documentation of the exchange of property.
*Georgetown Law is at the beginning implementing a new server to store bagged files and METS records for metadata, and document the workflow process for digital content. They basically have virtual storage in a server farm. It's not something the Law Library has done before. They are also working on developing procedures for born-digital content with the [http://www.wrlc.org/ Washington Research Library Consortium (WRLC)], and the Georgetown main campus to acquire a DAMS.
*NYU doing a lot of in-house digitization, and has a lot of images, audio, and video. They are using [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BagIt BagIt], and Git at upload, plus Amazon storage, and a micro services approach to fixity checks. They are currently re-engineering their message architecture to include an event logger to log things as they happen. Joe could talk about this in a couple of months.
*NARA is re-architecting its electronic records archive (ERA), but can't disclose any details at the moment. They will be looking at their digital processing environment, and pre-processing materials that come in prior to putting into a repository. The ERA may include a cloud-based staging area with some tools. Kevin will find out what he can share, and get back to the group.
*Dance Heritage Coalition does a lot of digitization for their partners, and is looking into implementing LTO-6 tape drives and can't yet share details publicly. Digitizing happens through hubs that are in DC, NY, and SF. There is a lot of unique moving image materials, and they are creating preservation copies and access nodes. [https://www.bavc.org/dave-rice Dave Rice, BAVC,] is main technical consultant, and the best person to talk to. He has developed some quality control tools through an NEH grant, and they're getting into the final stage of the project. A development bootcamp is being held in San Francisco on March 26. BAVC received the [https://www.bavc.org/BAVC-awarded-NEH-preservation-grant grant from NEH].
*WGBH, received an NEH digital preservation grant to build a Hydra stack on fedora, and are wrapping it up. They wanted to see if they could build something to handle large files, and have it replicated. It was modeled off a thing at Penn State, but needed to accommodate WGBH's specific needs. They have run into some challenges managing large files, and moving things around. Prior to this project they were using a proprietary tape robot for years, but then tested the Hydra implementation. Managing the expectations of users has been a big lesson learned because you're not going to get a 100GB file back immediately. They are re-working their workflow. Instead of relying on the robot system, they moving back to using a vault. People will have to go pull LTO tape drives from the archive so that a particular file can be pulled back to the user's computer. They have found it's very difficult to put a lot of money on infrastructure. The Hydra system works, and they have total control over their code. fedora 4 has come out, and they're thinking about how you migrate from 3 to 4, and what does 4 offer? They can give a talk on down the road.
*The Library of Congress has been working on best editions statements regarding the deposit of software, and may be putting out some format guidance in the near future. It'll be broadly distributed.
*Michigan State University just sent Media Preserve 40 VHS tapes to reformat and receive preservation masters and mezzanine formats. They have a fedora repository, and store on a SAN. They tried [https://www.archivematica.org/wiki/Main_Page Archivematica] with fedora underneath and Drupal on top for access. They are now pretty much an Islandora shop. They hold 12 TB of data with mezzanine files. They lost a key staff member, which derailed things for awhile.
*Chicago State University has been working on the [http://digitalpowrr.niu.edu/ Digital POWRR project], funded by IMLS. They, and other small- to medium-sized institutions, have issues for access and preservation, especially funding. They looked at tools that are available either as open source, or for purchase. Five different institutions, of different sizes and constituencies participated in the project. They have tested DuraCloud, MetaArchive, Archivematica, and [http://preservica.com/ Preservica]. They are building capacity and knowledge, and will use what they learned going forward. They are not sure if any next steps will be consortially addressed. A State of Illinois legal mandate to provide open access to research articles, [http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/publicacts/fulltext.asp?Name=098-0295 Open Access to Research Articles Act (Public Act 098-0295)], is one driver for the work of the Digital POWRR project.

==Documents==
[[File:NDSA Fixity Check Project Concept Draft v6 5.pdf]]

NDSA:Content Case Studies

2012-10-04T18:27:58Z

Nicho147:

'''Title of Activity or Project''' 

Content Case Studies

'''One Sentence Description:''' 

The Content Teams of the Content Working Group will develop case studies around a variety of types of content to share compelling stories that demonstrate the value of digital preservation in our communities.

'''Statement of the Problem and Goals for Addressing the Problem:''' 

Content teams decide categories of content that are important in their groups at whatever granularity works best for the exercise (ie. Blogs of NGOs, legal blogs, citizen science, local newspaper websites, digital art, local government information).

Case studies will:

*Establish the value of the content and provide the rationale for selecting it for preservation. What value does the content have? Is anyone collecting it? What factors affect its risk of disappearance?
*Document recognized opportunities for preserving this content. Are there workflows in the creation or distribution of content that present opportunities for preservation?
*Describe target audiences/stakeholders. Who would find value in this content and how might they be engaged in the process of preservation?
*Outline a plan for educating stakeholders. How might NDSA or another organization raise the awareness of stakeholders including content creators, publishers, educators, libraries, researchers, or donors?
*Describe potential obstacles or risk factors. What barriers for users/creators/preservationists might be faced and what options are there for overcoming them?
*Develop actionable next steps. What can we do next, as a community or as individual institutions to ensure that important content is preserved?
*Actionable items – what can we do next, as a community (or individual institution)?

'''Strategic Value of Activity:''' 

*Case studies focus digital preservation efforts on the content that is most valuable, so that material of historic or research importance is not lost
*Case studies focus digital preservation efforts on the content that is most at risk, so that material in danger of disappearing for any reason is not lost
*Case studies provide persuasive arguments for devoting scarce institutional resources to digital preservation activities
*Case studies provide justification and background information for grant proposals and other fund raising efforts

'''Required Resources:''' 

* Time of working group members

'''Roadmap:''' 

Content Teams will meet separately to develop case studies, then share more broadly for feedback from other NDSA members in Content Working Group and NDSA-All. Approaches taken will be:
# Hold conference calls
# Draft case studies and review by Content Team members
# Invite broader member feedback
# Revise document
# Publish case studies

'''Dissemination of Knowledge:''' 

* Publish case studies on digitalpreservation.gov and/or other NDSA member websites
* Write a blog post
* Send announcements to listservs
* Present at conferences that members are attending

'''Signifiers of Success and Outcomes:''' 

Case studies from each Content Team will be developed and shared broadly with all stakeholders, from content producers to cultural heritage organizations. Additional activities for the Content Working Group will emerge from the case studies and dialog about them will bring more awareness to the issues surrounding the featured content types.

NDSA:Tuesday, March 27, 2012

2012-04-09T14:12:25Z

Nicho147: /* Attending */

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

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

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

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

NDSA:Tuesday, January 31, 2012

2012-02-02T21:21:28Z

Nicho147: /* Attending */

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

==Attending==

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

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

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

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

==Other NDSA news==

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

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

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

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

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

NDSA:Open Source Member Questions

2012-01-31T19:42:01Z

Nicho147:

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.>

NDSA:Open Source Member Questions

2012-01-31T19:37:55Z

Nicho147:

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 range?
---
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.>

NDSA:Open Source Software

2012-01-31T19:28:48Z

Nicho147: /* References */

== 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:Content teams

2012-01-20T20:32:27Z

Nicho147:

NDSA:Content Working Group Members

2011-09-12T12:34:47Z

Nicho147: /* By Last Name */