Inaugural #bdaccess Bootcamp: A Success Story

By Margaret Peachy

This post is the nineteenth in a bloggERS series about access to born-digital materials.

____

At this year’s New England Archivists Spring Meeting, archivists who work with born-digital materials had the opportunity to attend the inaugural Born-Digital Access Bootcamp. The bootcamp was an idea generated at the born-digital hackfest, part of a session at SAA 2015, where a group of about 50 archivists came together to tackle the problem facing most archival repositories: How do we provide access to born-digital records, which can have different technical and ethical requirements than digitized materials?  Since 2015, a team has come together to form a bootcamp curriculum, reach out to organizations outside of SAA, and organize bootcamps at various conferences.

Excerpt of results from a survey administered in advance of the Bootcamp.

Alison Clemens and Jessica Farrell facilitated the day-long camp, which had about 30 people in attendance from institutions of all sizes and types, though the majority were academic. The attendees also brought a broad range of experience to the camp, from those just starting out thinking about this issue, to those who have implemented access solutions.

Continue reading

A Case Study in Failure (and Triumph!) from the Records Management Perspective

By Sarah Dushkin

____

This is the sixth post in the bloggERS series #digitalarchivesfail: A Celebration of Failure.

I’m the Records Coordinator for a global energy engineering, procurement, and construction  contractor, herein referred to as the “Company.” The Company does design, fabrication, installation, and commissioning of upstream and downstream technologies for operators. I manage the program for our hard copy and electronic records produced from our Houston office.

A few years ago our Records Management team was asked by the IT department to help create a process to archive digital records of closed projects created out of the Houston office. I saw the effort as an opportunity to expand the scope and authority of our records program to include digital records. Up to this point, our practice only covered paper records, and we asked employees to apply the paper record policies to their own electronic records.

The Records Management team’s role was limited to providing IT with advice on how to deploy a software tool where files could be stored for a long-term period. We were not included in the discussions on which software tool to use. It took us over a year to develop the new process with IT and standardize it into a published procedure. We had many areas of triumph and failure throughout the process. Here is a synopsis of the project.

Objective:
IT was told that retaining closed projects files on the local server was an unnecessary cost and was tasked with removing them. IT reached out to Records Management to develop a process to maintain the project files for the long-term in a more cost-effective solution that was nearline or offline, where records management policies could be applied.

Vault:
The software chosen was a proprietary cloud-based file storage center or “vault.” It has search, tagging, and records disposition capabilities. It is more cost-effective than storing files on the local server.

Process:
At 80% project completion, Records Management reaches out to active projects to discover their methods for storing files and the project completion schedule. 80% engineering completion is an important timeline for projects because most of the project team is still involved and the bulk of the work is complete. Records Management also gains knowledge of the project schedule so we can accurately apply the two-year timespan to when the files will be migrated off the local server and to the vault.  The two-year time span was created to ensure that all project files would be available to the project team during the typical warranty period. Two years after a project is closed, all technical files and data are exported from the current management system and ingested into the vault, and access groups are created so employees can view and download the files for reference as needed.

Deployment:
Last year, we began to apply the process to large active projects that had passed 80% engineering completion. Large projects are those that have greater than 5 million in revenue.

Observations:
Recently we have begun to audit the whole project with IT, and are just now identifying our areas of failure and triumph. We will conduct an analysis of these areas and assess where we can make improvements.

Our big areas of failure were related to stakeholder involvement in the development, deployment, and utilization of the vault.

Stakeholders, including the Records Management team, were not involved in the selection or development of the vault software tool. As a result, the vault development project lacked the resources required to make it as successful as possible.

In the deployment of the vault, we did not create an outreach campaign with training courses that would introduce the tool across our very large company. Due to this, many employees are still unaware of the vault. When we talk with departments and projects about methods to save old files for less money they are reluctant to try the solution because it seems like another way for IT to save money from their budget without thinking about the greater needs of the company. IT is still viewed as a support function that is inessential to the Company’s philosophy.

Lastly, we did not have methods to export project files from all systems for ingest into the vault; nor did we, in North America, have the authority to develop that solution. To be effective, that type of decision and process can only be developed by our corporate office in another country. The Company also does not make information about project closure available to most employees. A project end date can be determined by several factors, including when the final invoice was received or the end of the warranty period. This type of information is essential to the information lifecycle of a project, and since we had no involvement from upper level management, we were not able to devise a solution for easily discovering this information.

We had some triumphs throughout the process, though. Our biggest triumph is that this project gave Records Management an opportunity to showcase our knowledge of records retention and its value as a method to save money and maintain business continuity. We were able to collaborate with IT and promulgate a process. It gave us a great opportunity to grow by harnessing better relationships with the business lines. Although some departments and teams are still skeptical about the value of the vault, when we advertise it to other project teams, they see the vault as evidence that the Company cares about preserving their work. We earned our seat at the table with these players, but we still have to work on winning over more projects and departments. We’ve also preserved more than 30 TB of records and saved the Company several thousands of dollars by ingesting inactive project files into the vault.

I am optimistic that when we have support from upper management, we will be able to improve the vault process and infrastructure, and create an effective solution for utilizing records management policies to ensure legal compliance, maintain business continuity, and save money.

____

Sarah Dushkin earned her MSIS from the University of Texas at Austin School of Information with a focus in Archival Enterprise and Records Management. Afterwards, she sought to diversify her expertise by working outside of the traditional archival setting and moved to Houston to work in oil and gas. She has collaborated with management from across her company to refine their records management program and develop a process that includes the retention of electronic records and data. She lives in Sugar Land, Texas with her husband.

Call for Contributors – Digital Archives Pathways Series

Archivists by their very nature are jacks of all trades, and the same goes for those who work with digital collection materials. Archives programs and iSchools are increasingly offering coursework in digital archives theory and practice, but not all digital archivists got their chops through academic channels, and for many archivists, digital only describes part of their responsibilities.

While all archivists must determine their own path for professional growth, the field of digital archives is also uniquely challenging. Preparation and training for this work require dedication, creativity, and engagement. Processing, preserving, and providing access to digital materials, and expertise in specialized content such as legacy media and web archiving are ever-expanding challenges.

In the Digital Archives Pathways series, we are looking for stories about the non-traditional, accidental, idiosyncratic, or unique path you took to become a digital archivist, however you define that in your work. What do you consider essential to your training, and what do you wish had been a larger part of it? How might your journey towards digital archives work be characterized as non-traditional? How do you plan on continuing your education in digital archives?

Writing for bloggERS! Digital Archives Pathways Series:

  • We encourage visual representations: Posts can include or consist of comics, flowcharts, a series of memes, etc!
  • Written content should be 200-600 words in length
  • Write posts for a wide audience: anyone who stewards, studies, or has an interest in digital archives and electronic records, both within and beyond SAA
  • Align with other editorial guidelines as outlined in the bloggERS! guidelines for writers.

Posts for this series will start in July, so let us know ASAP if you are interested in contributing by sending an email to ers.mailer.blog@gmail.com!

Fail4Lib: Acknowledging and Embracing Professional Failure

By Andreas Orphanides

____

This is the fifth post in the bloggERS series #digitalarchivesfail: A Celebration of Failure.

trainwreck
It could be worse.
Image title: Train wreck at Montparnasse
Credit: Studio Lévy et Fils, 1895
Copyright: Public domain

When was the last time you totally, completely, utterly loused up a project or a report or some other task in your professional life? When was the last time you dissected that failure, in meticulous detail, in front of a room full of colleagues? Let’s face it: we’ve all had the first experience, and I’d wager that most of us would pay good money to avoid the second.

It’s a given that we’ll all encounter failure professionally, but there’s a strong cultural disincentive to talk about it. Failure is bad. It is to be avoided at all costs. And should one fail, that failure should be buried away in a dark closet with one’s other skeletons. At the same time, it’s well acknowledged that failure is a critical step on the path to success. It’s only through failing and learning from that experience that we can make the necessary course corrections. In that sense, refusing to acknowledge or unpack failure is a disservice: failure is more valuable when well-understood than when ignored.

This philosophy — that we can gain value from failure by acknowledging and understanding it openly — is the underlying principle behind Fail4Lib, the perennial preconference workshop that takes place at the annual Code4Lib conference, and which completed its fifth iteration (Fail5Lib!) at Code4Lib 2017 in Los Angeles. Jason Casden (now of UNC Libraries) originally conceived of the Fail4Lib idea, and together he and I developed the concept into a workshop about understanding, analyzing, and coming to terms with professional failure in a safe, collegial environment.

Participants in a Fail4Lib workshop engage in a number of activities to foster a healthier relationship with failure: case study discussions to analyze high-profile failures such as the Challenger disaster and the Volkswagen diesel emissions scandal; lightning talks where brave souls share their own professional failures and talk about the lessons they learned; and an open bull session about risk, failure, and organizational culture, to brainstorm on how we can identify and manage failure, and how to encourage our organizations to become more failure-tolerant.

Fail4Lib’s goal is to help its participants to get better at failing. By practicing talking about and thinking about failure, we position ourselves to learn more from the failures of others as well as our own future failures. By sharing and talking through our failures we maximize the value of our experiences, we normalize the practice of openly acknowledging and discussing failure, and we reinforce the message to participants that it happens to all of us. And by brainstorming approaches to allow our institutions to be more failure-tolerant, we can begin making meaningful organizational change towards accepting failure as part of the development process.

The principles I’ve outlined here not only form the framework for the Fail4Lib workshop, they also represent a philosophy for engaging with professional failure in a constructive and blameless way. It’s only by normalizing the experience of failure that we can gain the most from it; in so doing, we make failure more productive, we accelerate our successes, and we make ourselves more resilient.

____

Andreas Orphanides is Associate Head, User Experience at the NCSU Libraries, where he develops user-focused solutions to support teaching, learning, and information discovery. He has facilitated Fail4Lib workshops at the annual Code4Lib conference since 2013. He holds a BA from Oberlin College and an MSLS from UNC-Chapel Hill.

Modeling archival problems in Computational Archival Science (CAS)

By Dr. Maria Esteva

____

It was Richard Marciano who almost two years ago convened a small multi-disciplinary group of researchers and professionals with experience using computational methods to solve archival problems, and encouraged us to define the work that we do under the label of Computational Archival Science (CAS.) The exercise proved very useful to communicate the concept to others, but also, for us to articulate how we think when we go about using computational methods to conduct our work. We introduced and refined the definition amongst a broader group of colleagues at the Finding New Knowledge: Archival Records in the Age of Big Data Symposium in April of 2016.

I would like to bring more archivists into the conversation by explaining how I combine archival and computational thinking.  But first, three notes to frame my approach to CAS: a) I learned to do this progressively over the course of many projects, b) I took graduate data analysis courses, and c) It takes a village. I started using data mining methods out of necessity and curiosity, frustrated with the practical limitations of manual methods to address electronic records. I had entered the field of archives because its theories, and the problems that they address are attractive to me, and when I started taking data analysis courses and developing my work, I saw how computational methods could help hypothesize and test archival theories. Coursework in data mining was key to learn methods that initially I understood as “statistics on steroids.” Now I can systematize the process, map it to different problems and inquiries, and suggest the methods that can be used to address them. Finally, my role as a CAS archivist is shaped through my ongoing collaboration with computer scientists and with domain scientists.

In a nutshell, the CAS process goes like this: we first define the problem at hand and identify key archival issues within. On this basis we develop a model, which is an abstraction  of the system that we are concerned with. The model can be a methodology or a workflow, and it may include policies, benchmarks, and deliverables. Then, an algorithm, which is a set of steps that are accomplished within a software and hardware environment, is designed to automate the model and solve the problem.

A project in which I collaborate with Dr. Weijia Xu, a computer scientist at the Texas Advanced Computing Center, and Dr. Scott Brandenberg, an engineering professor at UCLA illustrates a CAS case. To publish and archive large amounts of complex data from natural hazards engineering experiments, researchers would need to manually enter significant amounts of metadata, which has proven impractical and inconsistent. Instead, they need automated methods to organize and describe their data which may consist of reports, plans and drawings, data files and images among other document types. The archival challenge is to design such a method in a way that the scientific record of the experiments is accurately represented. For this, the model has to convey the dataset’s provenance and capture the right type of metadata. To build the model we asked the domain scientist to draw out a typical experiment steps, and to provide terms that characterize its conditions, tools, materials, and resultant data. Using this information we created a data model, which is a network of classes that represent the experiment process, and of metadata terms describing the process. The figures below are the workflow and corresponding data model for centrifuge experiments.

Figure 1. Workflow of a centrifuge experiment by Dr. Scott Brandenberg

 

Figure 2. Networked data model of the centrifuge experiment process by the archivist

Following, Dr. Weijia Xu created an algorithm that combines text mining methods to: a) identify the terms from the model that are present in data belonging to an experiment, b) extend the terms in the model to related ones present in the data, and c) based on the presence of all the terms, predict the classes to which data belongs to. Using this method, a dataset can be organized around classes/processes and steps, and corresponding metadata terms describe those classes.

In a CAS project, the archivist defines the problem and gathers the requirements that will shape the deliverables. He or she collaborates with the domain scientists to model the “problem” system, and with the computer scientist to design the algorithm. An interesting aspect is how the method is evaluated by all team members using data-driven and qualitative methods. Using the data model as the ground truth we assess if data gets correctly assigned to classes, and if the metadata terms correctly describe the content of the data files. At the same time, as new terms are found in the dataset and the data model gets refined, the domain scientist and the archivist review the accuracy of the resulting representation and the generalizability of the solution.

I look forward to hearing reactions to this work and about research perspectives and experiences from others in this space.

____
Dr. Maria Esteva is a researcher and data archivist/curator at the Texas Advanced Computing Center, at the University of Texas at Austin. She conducts research on, and implements large-scale archival processing and data curation systems using as a backdrop High Performance Computing infrastructure resources. Her email is: maria@tacc.utexas.edu

 

OSS4Pres 2.0: Developing functional requirements/features for digital preservation tools

By Heidi Elaine Kelly

____

This is the final post in the bloggERS series describing outcomes of the #OSS4Pres 2.0 workshop at iPRES 2016, addressing open source tool and software development for digital preservation. This post outlines the work of the group tasked with “ developing functional requirements/features for OSS tools the community would like to see built/developed (e.g. tools that could be used during ‘pre-ingest’ stage).” 

The Functional Requirements for New Tools and Features Group of the OSS4Pres workshop aimed to write user stories focused on new features that developers can build out to better support digital preservation and archives work. The group was largely comprised of practitioners who work with digital curation tools regularly, and was facilitated by Carl Wilson of the Open Preservation Foundation. While their work largely involved writing user stories for development, the group also came up with requirement lists for specific areas of tool development, outlined below. We hope that these lists help continue to bridge the gap between digital preservation professionals and open source developers by providing a deeper perspective of user needs.

Basic Requirements for Tools:

  • Mostly needed for Mac environment
  • No software installation on donor computer
  • No software dependencies requiring installation (e.g., Java)
  • Must be GUI-based, as most archivists are not skilled with the command line
  • Graceful failure

Descriptive Metadata Extraction Needs (using Apache Tika):

  • Archival date
  • Author
  • Authorship location
  • Subject location
  • Subject
  • Document type
  • Removal of spelling errors to improve extracted text

Technical Metadata Extraction Needs:

  • All datetime information available should be retained (minimum of LastModified Date)
  • Technical manifest report
  • File permissions and file ownership permissions
  • Information about the tool that generated the technical manifest report:
    • tool – name of the tool used to gather the disk image
    • tool version – the version of the tool
    • signature version – if the tool uses ‘signatures’ or other add-ons, e.g. which virus scanner software signature – such as signature release July 2014 or v84
    • datetime process run – the datetime information of when the process ran (usually tools will give you when the process was completed) – for each tool that you use

Data Transfer Tool Requirements:

  • Run from portable external device
  • Bag-It standard compliant (build into a “bag”)
  • Able to select a subset of data – not disk image the whole computer
  • GUI-based tool
  • Original file name (also retained in tech manifest)
  • Original file path (also retained in tech manifest)
  • Directory structure (also retained in tech manifest)
  • Address these issues in filenames (record the actual filename in the tech manifest): Diacritics (e.g. naïve ), Illegal characters ( \ / : * ? “ < > | ), Spaces, M-dashes, n-dashes, Missing file extensions, Excessively long file and folder names, etc
  • Possibly able to connect to “your” FTP site/cloud thingy and send the data there when ready for transfer

Checksum Verification Requirements:

  • File-by-file checksum hash generation
  • Ability to validate the contents of the transfer

Reporting Requirements:

  • Ability to highlight/report on possibly problematic files/folders in a separate file

Testing Requirements:

  • Access to a test corpora, with known issues, to test tool

Smart Selection & Appraisal Tool Requirements:

  • DRM/TPMs detection
  • Regular expressions/fuzzy logic for finding certain terms – e.g. phone numbers, security numbers, other predefined personal data
  • Blacklisting of files – configurable list of blacklist terms
  • Shortlisting a set of “questionable” files based on parameters that could then be flagged for a human to do further QA/QC

Specific Features Needed by the Community:

  • Gathering/generating quantitative metrics for web harvests
  • Mitigation strategies for FFMPEG obsolescence
  • TESSERACT language functionality

____

heidi-elaine-kellyHeidi Elaine Kelly is the Digital Preservation Librarian at Indiana University, where she is responsible for building out the infrastructure to support long-term sustainability of digital content. Previously she was a DiXiT fellow at Huygens ING and an NDSR fellow at the Library of Congress.

OSS4Pres 2.0: Sharing is Caring: Developing an online community space for sharing workflows

By Sam Meister

____

This is the third post in the bloggERS series describing outcomes of the #OSS4Pres 2.0 workshop at iPRES 2016, addressing open source tool and software development for digital preservation. This post outlines the work of the group tasked with “developing requirements for an online community space for sharing workflows, OSS tool integrations, and implementation experiences” See our other posts for information on the groups that focused on feature development and design requirements for FOSS tools.

Cultural heritage institutions, from small museums to large academic libraries, have made significant progress developing and implementing workflows to manage local digital curation and preservation activities. Many institutions are at different stages in the maturity of these workflows. Some are just getting started, and others have had established workflows for many years. Documentation assists institutions in representing current practices and functions as a benchmark for future organizational decision-making and improvements. Additionally, sharing documentation assists in creating cross-institutional understanding of digital curation and preservation activities and can facilitate collaborations amongst institutions around shared needs.

One of the most commonly voiced recommendations from iPRES 2015 OSS4PRES workshop attendees was the desire for a centralized location for technical and instructional documentation, end-to-end workflows, case studies, and other resources related to the installation, implementation, and use of OSS tools. This resource could serve as a hub that would enable practitioners to freely and openly exchange information, user requirements, and anecdotal accounts of OSS initiatives and implementations.

At the OSS4Pres 2.0 workshop, the group of folks looking at developing an online space for sharing workflows and implementation experience started by defining a simple goal and deliverable for the two hour session:

Develop a list of minimal levels of content that should be included in an open online community space for sharing workflows and other documentation

The group the began a discussion on developing this list of minimal levels by thinking about the potential value of user stories in informing these levels. We spent a bit of time proposing a short list of user stories, just enough to provide some insight into the basic structures that would be needed for sharing workflow documentation.

User stories

  • I am using tool 1 and tool 2 and want to know how others have joined them together into a workflow
  • I have a certain type of data to preserve and want to see what workflows other institutions have in place to preserve this data
  • There is a gap in my workflow — a function that we are not carrying out — and I want to see how others have filled this gap
  • I am starting from scratch and need to see some example workflows for inspiration
  • I would like to document my workflow and want to find out how to do this in a way that is useful for others
  • I would like to know why people are using particular tools – is there evidence that they tried another tool, for example, that wasn’t successful?

The group then proceeded to define a workflow object as a series of workflow steps with its own attributes, a visual representation, and organizational context:

Workflow step
Title / name
Description
Tools / resources
Position / role

Visual workflow diagrams / model
Organizational Context
            Institution type
            Content type

Next, we started to draft out the different elements that would be part of an initial minimal level for workflow objects:

Level 1:

Title
Description
Institution / organization type
Contact
Content type(s)
Status
Link to external resources
Download workflow diagram objects
Workflow concerns / reflections / gaps

After this effort the group focused on discussing next steps and how an online community space for sharing workflows could be realized. This discuss led towards pursuing the expansion of COPTR to support sharing of workflow documentation. We outlined a roadmap for next steps toward pursuing this goal:

  • Propose / approach COPTR steering group on adding workflows space to COPTR
  • Develop home page and workflow template
  • Add examples
  • Group review
  • Promote / launch
  • Evaluation

The group has continued this work post-workshop and has made good progress setting up a Community Owned Workflows section to COPTR and developing an initial workflow template. We are in the midst of creating and evaluating sample workflows to help with revising and tweaking as needed. Based on this process we hope to launch and start promoting this new online space for sharing workflows in the months ahead. So stay tuned!

____

meister_photoSam Meister is the Preservation Communities Manager, working with the MetaArchive Cooperative and BitCurator Consortium communities. Previously, he worked as Digital Archivist and Assistant Professor at the University of Montana. Sam holds a Master of Library and Information Science degree from San Jose State University and a B.A. in Visual Arts from the University of California San Diego. Sam is also an Instructor in the Library of Congress Digital Preservation Education and Outreach Program.

 

OSS4Pres 2.0: Design Requirements for Better Open Source Tools

By Heidi Elaine Kelly

____

This is the second post in the bloggERS series describing outcomes of the #OSS4Pres 2.0 workshop at iPRES 2016, addressing open source tool and software development for digital preservation. This post outlines the work of the group tasked with “drafting a design guide and requirements for Free and Open Source Software (FOSS) tools, to ensure that they integrate easily with digital preservation institutional systems and processes.” 

The FOSS Development Requirements Group set out to create a design guide for FOSS tools to ensure easier adoption of open-source tools by the digital preservation community, including their integration with common end-to-end software and tools supporting digital preservation and access that are now in use by that community. 

The group included representatives of large digital preservation and access projects such as Fedora and Archivematica, as well as tool developers and practitioners, ensuring a range of perspectives were represented. The group’s initial discussion led to the creation of a list of minimum necessary requirements for developing open source tools for digital preservation, based on similar examples from the Open Preservation Foundation (OPF) and from other fields. Below is the draft list that the group came up with, followed by some intended future steps. We welcome feedback or additions to the list, as well as suggestions for where such a list might be hosted long term.

Minimum Necessary Requirements for FOSS Digital Preservation Tool Development

Necessities

  • Provide publicly accessible documentation and an issue tracker
  • Have a documented process for how people can contribute to development, report bugs, and suggest new documentation
  • Every tool should do the smallest possible task really well; if you are developing an end-to-end system, develop it in a modular way in keeping with this principle
  • Follow established standards and practices for development and use of the tool
  • Keep documentation up-to-date and versioned
  • Follow test-driven development philosophy
  • Don’t develop a tool without use cases, and stakeholders willing to validate those use cases
  • Use an open and permissive software license to allow for integrations and broader use

Recommendations

  • Have a mailing list, Slack or IRC channel, or other means for community interaction
  • Establish community guidelines
  • Provide a well-documented mechanism for integration with other tools/systems in different languages
  • Provide functionality of tool as a library, separating out the GUI and the actual functions
  • Package tool in an easy-to-use way; the more broadly you want the tool to be used, package it for different operating systems
  • Use a packaging format that supports any dependencies
  • Provide examples of functionality for potential users
  • Consider the organizational home or archive for the tool for long-term sustainability; develop your tool based on potential organizations’ guidelines
  • Consider providing a mechanism for internationalization of your tool (this is a broader community need as well, to identify the tools that exist and to incentivize this)

Premise

  • Digital preservation is an operating system-agnostic field

Next Steps

Feedback and Perspectives. Because of the expense of the iPRES conference (and its location in Switzerland), all of the group members were from relatively large and well-resourced institutions. The perspective of under-resourced institutions is very often left out of open-source development communities, as they are unable to support and contribute to such projects; in this case, this design guide would greatly benefit from the perspective of such institutions as to how FOSS tools can be developed to better serve their digital preservation needs. The group was also largely from North America and Europe, so this work would eventually benefit greatly from adding perspectives from the FOSS and digital preservation communities in South America, Asia, and Africa.

Institutional Home and Stewardship. When finalized, the FOSS development requirements list should live somewhere permanently and develop based on the ongoing needs of our community. As this line of communication between practitioners and tool developers is key to the continual development of better and more user-friendly digital preservation tools, we should continue to build on the work of this group.

Referenced FOSS Tool and Community Guides

____

heidi-elaine-kellyHeidi Elaine Kelly is the Digital Preservation Librarian at Indiana University, where she is responsible for building out the infrastructure to support long-term sustainability of digital content. Previously she was a DiXiT fellow at Huygens ING and an NDSR fellow at the Library of Congress.

Building Bridges and Filling Gaps: OSS4Pres 2.0 at iPRES 2016

By Heidi Elaine Kelly and Shira Peltzman

____

This is the first post in a bloggERS series describing outcomes of the #OSS4Pres 2.0 workshop at iPRES 2016.

Organized by Sam Meister (Educopia), Shira Peltzman (UCLA), Carl Wilson (Open Preservation Foundation), and Heidi Kelly (Indiana University), OSS4PRES 2.0 was a half-day workshop that took place during the 13th annual iPRES 2016 conference in Bern, Switzerland. The workshop aimed to bring together digital preservation practitioners, developers, and administrators in order to discuss the role of open source software (OSS) tools in the field.

Although several months have passed since the workshop wrapped up, we are sharing this information now in an effort to raise awareness of the excellent work completed during this event, to continue the important discussion that took place, and to hopefully broaden involvement in some of the projects that developed. First, however, a bit of background: The initial OSS4PRES workshop was held at iPRES 2015. Attended by over 90 digital preservation professionals from all areas of the open source community, individuals reported on specific issues related to open source tools, which were followed by small group discussions about the opportunities, challenges, and gaps that they observed. The energy from this initial workshop led to both the proposal of a second workshop, as well as a report that was published in Code4Lib Journal, OSS4EVA: Using Open-Source Tools to Fulfill Digital Preservation Requirements.

The overarching goal for the 2016 workshop was to build bridges and fill gaps within the open source community at large. In order to facilitate a focused and productive discussion, OSS4PRES 2.0 was organized into three groups, each of which was led by one of the workshop’s organizers. Additionally, Shira Peltzman floated between groups to minimize overlap and ensure that each group remained on task. In addition to maximizing our output, one of the benefits of splitting up into groups was that each group was able to focus on disparate but complementary aspects of the open source community.

Develop user stories for existing tools (group leader: Carl Wilson)

Carl’s group was comprised principally of digital preservation practitioners. The group scrutinized existing pain points associated with the day-to-day management of digital material, identified tools that had not yet been built that were needed by the open source community, and began to fill this gap by drafting functional requirements for these tools.

Define requirements for online communities to share information about local digital curation and preservation workflows (group leader: Sam Meister)

With an aim to strengthen the overall infrastructure around open source tools in digital preservation, Sam’s group focused on the larger picture by addressing the needs of the open source community at large. The group drafted a list of requirements for an online community space for sharing workflows, tool integrations, and implementation experiences, to facilitate connections between disparate groups, individuals, and organizations that use and rely upon open source tools.

Define requirements for new tools (group leader: Heidi Kelly)

Heidi’s group looked at how the development of open source digital preservation tools could be improved by implementing a set of minimal requirements to make them more user-friendly. Since a list of these requirements specifically for the preservation community had not existed previously, this list both fills a gap and facilitates the building of bridges, by enabling developers to create tools that are easier to use, implement, and contribute to.

Ultimately OSS4PRES 2.0 was an effort to make the open source community more open and diverse, and in the coming weeks we will highlight what each group managed to accomplish towards that end. The blog posts will provide an in-depth summary of the work completed both during and since the event took place, as well as a summary of next steps and potential project outcomes. Stay tuned!

____

peltzman_140902_6761_barnettShira Peltzman is the Digital Archivist for the UCLA Library where she leads the development of a sustainable preservation program for born-digital material. Shira received her M.A. in Moving Image Archiving and Preservation from New York University’s Tisch School of the Arts and was a member of the inaugural class of the National Digital Stewardship Residency in New York (NDSR-NY).

heidi-elaine-kellyHeidi Elaine Kelly is the Digital Preservation Librarian at Indiana University, where she is responsible for building out the infrastructure to support long-term sustainability of digital content. Previously she was a DiXiT fellow at Huygens ING and an NDSR fellow at the Library of Congress.