Preservation and Access Can Coexist: Implementing Archivematica with Collaborative Working Groups

By Bethany Scott

The University of Houston (UH) Libraries made an institutional commitment in late 2015 to migrate the data for its digitized and born-digital cultural heritage collections to open source systems for preservation and access: Hydra-in-a-Box (now Hyku!), Archivematica, and ArchivesSpace. As a part of that broader initiative, the Digital Preservation Task Force began implementing Archivematica in 2016 for preservation processing and storage.

At the same time, the DAMS Implementation Task Force was also starting to create data models, use cases, and workflows with the goal of ultimately providing access to digital collections via a new online repository to replace CONTENTdm. We decided that this would be a great opportunity to create an end-to-end digital access and preservation workflow for digitized collections, in which digital production tasks could be partially or fully automated and workflow tools could integrate directly with repository/management systems like Archivematica, ArchivesSpace, and the new DAMS. To carry out this work, we created a cross-departmental working group consisting of members from Metadata & Digitization Services, Web Services, and Special Collections.

Continue reading

Exploring Digital Preservation, Digital Curation, and Digital Collections in Mexico

By Natalie Baur

This post is the fourth post in our series on international perspectives on digital preservation.

___

During the 2015-2016 academic year, I received a Fulbright García-Robles fellowship to pursue research relating to the state of digital preservation initiatives and digital information access in Mexico. The Instituto de Investigaciones Bibliotecológicas y de la Información at the Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México in Mexico City graciously hosted me as a visiting researcher, and I worked with leading Mexican digital preservation expert Dr. Juan Voutssás.

In Mexico, I was able to conduct interviews with nearly thirty organizations working on building, managing, sharing and preserving their digital collections. The types of organizations I visited were diverse in several areas: geographic location (i.e. outside of heavily centralized Mexico City), organization size, organization mission, and industry sector.

  • Cultural Heritage organizations (galleries, libraries, archives, museums)
  • Government institutions
  • Business/For-profit organizations
  • College and University archives and libraries

Because of the diversity of the types of institutions that I visited, the results and conclusions I drew were also varied, and I noticed distinct trends within each area or category of institutions. For the brevity of this blog post, I have taken the liberty to abbreviate my findings in the following bullet points. These are not meant to be definitive or exhaustive, as I am still compiling, codifying and quantifying interview data.

  • The focus on digital collection building and preservation in business and government tends toward records management approaches. Retention schedules are dictated by the federal government and administered and enforced by the National Archives. All federal and state government entities are obligated to follow these guidelines for retention and transfer of records and archives. While the guidelines and processes for paper records are robust, many institutions are only beginning to implement and use electronic records management platforms. Long-term digital preservation of records designated for permanent deposit is an ongoing challenge.
  • In cultural heritage institutions and college and university archives, digital collection work is focused on building digitization and digital collection management programs. The primary focus of the majority of institutions is still on digitization, storage and diffusion of digitized assets, and wrangling issues related to long-term, sustainable maintenance of digital collections platforms and backups on precarious physical media formats like optical disks and (non-redundant) hard drives.
  • While digital preservation issues are still in the nascent stages of being worked through and solved everywhere around the globe, in some areas strong national and regional groups have been formed to help share strategies, create standards and think through local solutions. In Mexico and Latin America, this has mostly been done through participation in the InterPARES project, but a national Mexican digital preservation consortium, similar to the National Digital Stewardship Alliance (NDSA) in the United States, is still yet to be established in Mexico. In the meantime, several Mexican academic and government institutions have taken the lead on digital preservation issues, and through those initiatives, a more cohesive, intentional organization similar to the NDSA may be able to take root in the near future.

My opportunity to live and do research in Mexico was life-changing. It is now more crucial than ever for librarians, archivists, developers, administrators, and program leaders to look outside of the United States for collaborations and opportunities to learn with and from colleagues abroad. The work we have at hand is critical, and we need to share all the resources we have, especially those resources money cannot buy: a different perspective, diversity of language, and the shared desire to make the whole world, not just our little corner of it, a better place for all.  


natalie_headshotNatalie Baur is currently the Preservation Librarian at El Colegio de México in Mexico City, an institution of higher learning specializing in the humanities and social sciences. Previously, she served as the Archivist for the Cuban Heritage Collection at the University of Miami Libraries and was a 2015-2016 Fulbright-García Robles fellowship recipient, looking at digital preservation issues in Mexican libraries, archives and museums. She holds an M.A. in History and a certificate in Museum Studies from the University of Delaware and an M.L.S. with a concentration in Archives, Information and Records Management from the University of Maryland. She is also co-founder of the Desmantelando Fronteras webinar series and the Itinerant Archivists project. You can read more about her Fullbright-García Robles fellowship here.

Consortial Certification Processes: the Goportis Digital Archive—a Case Study

By Franziska Schwab, Yvonne Tunnat, and Dr. Thomas Gerdes

This post is the second post in our series on international perspectives on digital preservation.

___

The Goportis Consortium consists of the three German National Subject Libraries: the TIB Hannover, ZB MED Cologne/Bonn and the ZBW Kiel/Hamburg.

One key area of collaboration is digital preservation. We jointly use the Goportis Digital Archive based on Ex Libris’s Rosetta since 2010. The certification of our digital archive is part of our quality management, since all workflows are evaluated. Beyond that, a certification seal signals to external parties, like stakeholders and customers, that the long-term availability of the data is ensured, and the digital archive is trustworthy.

So far TIB and ZBW have successfully completed the certification processes for the Data Seal of Approval (DSA) and are currently working on the application for the nestor Seal. Here are some key facts about the seals:

Seal Since Extent Focus Certified institutions (01/2017)
Data Seal of Approval 2010 16 guidelines Ingest, Preservation, Access 64
nestor Seal 2014 34 criteria Ingest, Preservation, Access, Organization & Sustainability Aspects 2

Distribution of Tasks

In general, we are equal partners. For digital preservation, though, TIB is the consortium leader, since it is the software licensee and hosts the computing center.

Due to the terms of the DSA—as well as those of the nestor Seal—a consortium cannot be certified as a whole, but only each partner individually. For that reason each partner drew up its own application. However, for some aspects of the certification ZBW had to refer to the answers of TIB, which functions as its service provider.

Beside these external requirements, we organized the distribution of tasks on the basis of internal goals as well. We interpreted the certification process as an opportunity to get a deeper insight in the workflows, policies and dependencies of our partner institutions. That is why we analyzed the DSA guidelines together. Moreover, we discussed the progress of the application process regularly in telephone conferences and matched our answers to each guideline. As a positive side effect, this way of proceeding strengthened not only the ability of our teamwork, it also led to a better understanding of the guidelines and more elaborate answers for the DSA application.

The documentations for the DSA were created in more detail than recommended in order to facilitate further use of the documents for the nestor Seal.

Time Frame

The certification process for the DSA extended over six months (12/2014–08/2015).  In each institution one employee was in charge of the certification process. Other staff members added special information about their respective areas of work. This included technical development, data specialists, legal professionals, team leaders, and system administration (TIB only). The costs of applying for the seal can be measured in person months:

Institution Person Responsible Other Staff Total
TIB ~ 3 ~ 0.25 ~ 3.25
ZBW ~ 1.5 ~ 0.1 ~ 1.6

Outlook: nestor Seal

The nestor Seal represents the second level of the European Framework for Audit and Certification of Digital Repositories. With its 34 criteria, it is more complex than the DSA. It also requires more detailed information, which makes it necessary to involve more staff from different departments. The time effort is not foreseeable at this time.

map5
Map with relationships between the nestor criteria (Click on the image to enlarge it.) (Read more.)

 

Based on our positive experiences with the DSA certification, we plan to acquire the nestor Seal following the same procedures. The DSA application has prepared the ground for this task, since important documents, such as policies, have already been drafted.

___

Franziska Schwab is working as a Preservation Analyst in the Digital Preservation team at the German National Library of Science and Technology (TIB) since 2014. She’s responsible for Pre-Ingest data analysis, Ingest, process documentation, policies, and certification.

Yvonne Tunnat is the Digital Preservation Manager for the Leibniz Information Centre for Economics in Kiel/Hamburg (ZBW) since 2011. Her key working areas are format identification, validation, and preservation planning.

Dr. Thomas Gerdes is part of the Digital Preservation team of the Leibniz Information Centre for Economics in Kiel/Hamburg (ZBW), since 2015. His interests are in the field of certification methods.

Processing Digital Research Data

By Elise Dunham

This is the sixth post in our Spring 2016 series on processing digital materials.

———

The University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign’s (Illinois) library-based Research Data Service (RDS) will be launching an institutional data repository, the Illinois Data Bank (IDB), in May 2016. The IDB will provide University of Illinois researchers with a repository for research data that will facilitate data sharing and ensure reliable stewardship of published data. The IDB is a web application that transfers deposited datasets into Medusa, the University Library’s digital preservation service for the long-term retention and accessibility of its digital collections. Content is ingested into Medusa via the IDB’s unmediated self-deposit process.

As we conceived of and developed our dataset curation workflow for digital datasets ingested in the IDB, we turned to archivists in the University Archives to gain an understanding of their approach to processing digital materials. [Note: I am not specifying whether data deposited in the IDB is “born digital” or “digitized” because, from an implementation perspective, both types of material can be deposited via the self-deposit system in the IDB. We are not currently offering research data digitization services in the RDS.] There were a few reasons for consulting with the archivists: 1) Archivists have deep, real-world curation expertise and we anticipate that many of the challenges we face with data will have solutions whose foundations were developed by archivists and 2) If, through discussing processes, we found areas where the RDS and Archives have converging preservation or curation needs, we could communicate these to the Preservation Services Unit, who develops and manages Medusa, and 3) I’m an archivist by training and I jump on any opportunity to talk with archivists about archives!

Even though the RDS and the University Archives share a central goal–to preserve and make accessible the digital objects that we steward–we learned that there are some operational and policy differences between our approaches to digital stewardship that necessitate points of variance in our processing/curation workflow:

Appraisal and Selection

In my view, appraisal and selection are fundamental to the archives practice. The archives field has developed a rich theoretical foundation when it comes to appraisal and selection, and without these functions the archives endeavor would be wholly unsustainable. Appraisal and selection ideally tend to occur in the very early stages of the archival processing workflow. The IDB curation workflow will differ significantly–by and large, appraisal and selection procedures will not take place until at least five years after a dataset is published in the IDB–making our appraisal process more akin to that of an archives that chooses to appraise records after accessioning or even during the processing of materials for long-term storage. Our different approaches to appraisal and selection speak to the different functions the RDS and the University Archives fulfill within the Library and the University.

The University Archives is mandated to preserve University records in perpetuity by the General Rules of the University, the Illinois State Records Act. The RDS’s initiating goal, in contrast, is to provide a mechanism for Illinois researchers to be compliant with funder and/or journal requirements to make results of research publicly available. Here, there is no mandate for the IDB to accept solely what data is deemed to have “enduring value” and, in fact, the research data curation field is so new that we do not yet have a community-endorsed sense of what “enduring value” means for research data. Standards regarding the enduring value of research data may evolve over the long-term in response to discipline-specific circumstances.

To support researchers’ needs and/or desires to share their data in a simple and straightforward way, the IDB ingest process is largely unmediated. Depositing privileges are open to all campus affiliates who have the appropriate University log-in credentials (e.g., faculty, graduate students, and staff), and deposited files are ingested into Medusa immediately upon deposit. RDS curators will do a cursory check of deposits, as doing so remains scalable (see workflow chart below), and the IDB reserves the right to suppress access to deposits for a “compelling reason” (e.g., failure to meet criteria for depositing as outlined in the IDB Accession Policy, violations of publisher policy, etc.). Aside from cases that we assume will be rare, the files as deposited into the IDB, unappraised, are the files that are preserved and made accessible in the IDB.

Preservation Commitment

A striking policy difference between the RDS and the University Archives is that the RDS makes a commitment to preserving and facilitating access to datasets for a minimum of five years after the date of publication in the Illinois Data Bank.

The University Archives, of course, makes a long-term commitment to preserving and making accessible records of the University. I have to say, when I learned that the five-year minimum commitment was the plan for the IDB, I was shocked and a bit dismayed! But after reflecting on the fact that files deposited in the IDB undergo no formal appraisal process at ingest, the concept began to feel more comfortable and reasonable. At a time when terabytes of data are created, oftentimes for single projects, and budgets are a universal concern, there are logistical storage issues to contend with. Now, I fully believe that for us to ensure that we are able to 1) meet current, short-term data sharing needs on our campus and 2) fulfill our commitment to stewarding research data in an effective and scalable manner over time, we have to make a circumspect minimum commitment and establish policies and procedures that enable us to assess the long-term viability of a dataset deposited into the IDB after five years.

The RDS has collaborated with archives and preservation experts at Illinois and, basing our work in archival appraisal theory, have developed guidelines and processes for reviewing published datasets after their five-year commitment ends to determine whether to retain, deaccession, or dedicate more stewardship resources to datasets. Enacting a systematic approach to appraising the long-term value of research data will enable us to allot resources to datasets in a way that is proportional to the datasets’ value to research communities and its preservation viability.

Convergences

To show that we’re not all that different after all, I’ll briefly mention a few areas where the University Archives and the RDS are taking similar approaches or facing similar challenges:

  • We are both taking an MPLP-style approach to file conversion. In order to get preservation control of digital content, at minimum, checksums are established for all accessioned files. As a general rule, if the file can be opened using modern technology, file conversion will not be pursued as an immediate preservation action. Establishing strategies and policies for managing a variety of file formats at scale is an area that will be evolving at Illinois through collaboration of the University Archives, the RDS, and the Preservation Services Unit.
  • Accruals present metadata challenges. How do we establish clear accrual relationships in our metadata when a dataset or a records series is updated annually? Are there ways to automate processes to support management of accruals?
  • Both units do as much as they can to get contextual information about the material being accessioned from the creator, and metadata is enhanced as possible throughout curation/processing.
  • The University Archives and the RDS control materials in aggregation, with the University Archives managing at the archival collection level and the RDS managing digital objects at the dataset level.
  • More? Certainly! For both the research data curation community and the archives community, continually adopting pragmatic strategies to manage the information created by humans (and machines!) is paramount, and we will continue to learn from one another.

Research Data Alliance Interest Group

If you’re interested in further exploring the areas where the principles and practices in archives and research data curation overlap and where they diverge, join the Research Data Alliance (RDA) Archives and Records Professionals for Research Data Interest Group. You’ll need to register with the RDA, (which is free!), and subscribe to the group. If you have any questions, feel free to get in touch!

IDB Curation Workflow

The following represents our planned functional workflow for handling dataset deposits in the Illinois Data Bank:

Dunham_ProcessingDigitalReserachData_PublishedDepositScan_ERSblog_1
Workflow graphic created by Elizabeth Wickes. Click on the image to view it in greater detail.

Learn More

To learn more about the IDB policies and procedures discussed in this post, keep an eye on the Illinois Data Bank website after it launches next month. Of particular interest on the Policies page will be the Accession Policy and the Preservation Review, Retention, Deaccession, Revision, and Withdrawal Procedure document.

Acknowledgements

Bethany Anderson and Chris Prom of the University of Illinois Archives

The rest of the Research Data Preservation Review Policy/Procedures team: Bethany Anderson, Susan Braxton, Heidi Imker, and Kyle Rimkus

The rest of the RDS team: Qian Zhang, Elizabeth Wickes, Colleen Fallaw, and Heidi Imker

———

Dunham_ProcessingDigitalReserachData_PublishedDepositScan_ERSblog_2Elise Dunham is a Data Curation Specialist for the Research Data Service at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. She holds an MLS from the Simmons College Graduate School of Library and Information Science where she specialized in archives and metadata. She contributes to the development of the Illinois Data Bank in areas of metadata management, repository policy, and workflow development. Currently she co-chairs the Research Data Alliance Archives and Records Professionals for Research Data Interest Group and is leading the DACS workshop revision working group of the Society of American Archivists Technical Subcommittee for Describing Archives: A Content Standard.

Keeping Track of Time with Data Accessioner

By Kevin Dyke

This post is the fourth in our Spring 2016 series on processing digital materials.

———

When it comes to working to process large sets of electronic records, it’s all too easy to get so wrapped up in the task at hand that when you finally come up for air you look at the clock and think to yourself, “Where did the time go? How long was I gone?” Okay, that may sound rather apocalyptic, but tracking time spent is an important yet easily elided step in electronic records processing.

At the University of Minnesota Libraries, the members of the Electronic Records Task Force are charged with developing workflows and making estimates for future capacity and personnel needs. In an era of very tight budgets, making a strong, well-documented case for additional personnel and resources is critical. To that end, we’ve made some efforts to more systematically track our time as we pilot our workflows.

Chief among those efforts has been a customization of the Data Accessioner tool. Originally written for internal use at the David M. Rubenstein Rare Book & Manuscript Library at Duke University, the project has since become open source, with support for recent releases coming from the POWRR Project. Written in Java and utilizing the common logging library log4j, Data Accessioner is structured in a way that made it possible for someone like me (familiar with programming, but not much experience with Java) to enhance the time logging functionality.  As we know some accession tasks take a few minutes, others can run for many hours (if not days). Enhancing the logging functionality of Data Accessioner allows staff to accurately see how long any data transfer takes, without needing to be physically present. The additional functionality was in itself pretty minor: log the time and folder name before starting accessioning of a folder and upon completion. The most complex part of this process was not writing the additional code, but rather modifying the log4j configuration. Luckily, with an existing configuration file, solid documentation, and countless examples in the wild, I was able to produce a version of Data Accessioner that outputs a daily log as a plain text file, which makes time tracking accessioning jobs much easier. You can see more description of the changes I made and the log output formatting on GitHub. You can download a ZIP file with the application with this addition from that page as well, or use this download link.

Screenshots and a sample log file:

Main Data Accessioner Folder
Main Data Accessioner folder
Contents of Log Folder
Contents of log folder
Sample of the beginning and ending of log file showing the start time and end times for file migration
Sample of the beginning and ending of log file showing the start time and end times for file migration

With this change, we are now able to better estimate the time it takes to use Data Accessioner.  Do the tools you use keep track of the time it takes to run?  If not, how are you doing this?  Questions or comments can be sent to lib-ertf [at] umn [dot] edu.

———

Kevin DykeKevin Dyke is the spatial data analyst/curator at the University of Minnesota’s John R. Borchert Map Library. He’s a member of the University of Minnesota Libraries’ Electronic Records Task Force, works as a data curator for the Data Repository for the University of Minnesota (DRUM), and is also part of the Committee on Institutional Cooperation’s (CIC) Geospatial Data Discovery Project. He received a Masters degree in Geography from the University of Minnesota and can be reached at dykex005 [at] umn.edu.

Recent Changes in How Stanford University Libraries is Documenting Born-Digital Processing

By Michael G. Olson

This post is the third in our Spring 2016 series on processing digital materials.

———

Stanford University Libraries is in the process of changing how it documents its digital processing activities and records lab statistics. This is our third iteration of how we track our born-digital work in six years and is a collaborative effort between Digital Library Systems and Services, our Digital Archivist Peter Chan, and Glynn Edwards, who manages our Born-Digital Program and is the Director of the ePADD project.

Initially we documented our statistics using a library-hosted FileMaker Pro database. In this initial iteration we were focused on tracking media counts and media failure rates. After a single year of using the database we decided that we needed to modify the data structure and the data entry templates significantly. Our staff found the database too time consuming and cumbersome to modify.

We decided to simplify and replaced the database with a spreadsheet stored with our collection data. Our digital archivist and hourly lab employees were responsible for updating this spreadsheet when they had finished working with a collection. This was a simple solution that was easy to edit and update, and it worked well for four years until we realized we needed more data for our fiscal year-end reports. As our born-digital program has grown and matured, we discovered we were missing key data points that documented important processing decisions in our workflows. It was time to again improve how we documented our work.

BDFL_labstats_FY2015Q1-Q2_v2Stanford Statistics Spreadsheet version 2

For our brand new version of work tracking we have decided to continue to use a spreadsheet but have migrated our data to Google Drive to better facilitate updates and versioning of our documentation. New data points have been included to better track specific types of born-digital content like email. This new version also allows us to better document the processing lifecycle of our born-digital collections. In order to better do this we have created the following additional data points:

  • Number of email messages
  • Email in ePADD.stanford.edu
  • File count in media cart
  • File size on media cart (GB)
  • SearchWorks (materials discoverable / available in library catalog)
  • SpotLight Exhibit (a virtual exhibit)

BDFL_stats_v3Stanford Statistics Spreadsheet version 3

We anticipate that evolving library administrative needs, the continually changing nature of born-digital data, and new methodologies for processing these materials will make it necessary to again change how we document our work. Our solution is not perfect but is flexible enough to allow us to reimagine our documentation strategy in a few short years. If anyone is interested in learning more about what we are documenting and why, please do let us know, as we would be happy to provide further information and may learn something from our colleagues in the process.

———

Michael G. Olson is the Service Manager for the Born-Digital / Forensics Labs at Stanford University Libraries. In this capacity he is responsible for working with library stakeholders to develop services for acquiring, preserving and accessing born-digital library materials. Michael holds a Masters in Philosophy in History and Computing from the University of Glasgow. He can be reached at mgolson [at] Stanford [dot] edu.

Clearing the digital backlog at the Thomas Fisher Rare Book Library

By Jess Whyte

This is the second post in our Spring 2016 series on processing digital materials.

———

Tucked away in the manuscript collections at the Thomas Fisher Rare Book Library, there are disks. They’ve been quietly hiding out in folders and boxes for the last 30 years. As the University of Toronto Libraries develops its digital preservation policies and workflows, we identified these disks as an ideal starting point to test out some of our processes. The Fisher was the perfect place to start:

  • the collections are heterogeneous in terms of format, age, media and filesystems
  • the scope is manageable (we identified just under 2000 digital objects in the manuscript collections)
  • the content has relatively clear boundaries (we’re dealing with disks and drives, not relational databases, software or web archives)
  • the content is at risk

The Thomas Fisher Rare Book Library Digital Preservation Pilot Project was born. It’s purpose: to evaluate the extent of the content at risk and establish a baseline level of preservation on the content.

Identifying digital assets

The project started by identifying and listing all the known digital objects in the manuscript collections. I did this by batch searching all the .pdf finding aids from post-1960 with terms like “digital,” “electronic,” “disk,” —you get the idea. Once we knew how many items we were dealing with and where we could find them, we could begin.

Early days, testing and fails
When I first started, I optimistically thought I would just fire up BitCurator and everything would work.

whyte01

It didn’t, but that’s okay. All of the reasons we chose these collections in the first place (format, media, filesystem and age diversity) also posed a variety of challenges to our workflow for capture and analysis. There was also a question of scalability – could I really expect to create preservation copies of ~2000 disks along with accompanying metadata within a target 18-month window? By processing each object one-by-one in a graphical user interface? While working on the project part-time? No, I couldn’t. Something needed to change.

Our early iterations of the process went something like this:

  1. Use a Kryoflux and its corresponding software to take an image of the disk
  2. Mount the image in a tool like FTK Imager or HFSExplorer
  3. Export a list of the files in a somewhat consistent manner to serve as a manifest, metadata and de facto finding aid
  4. Bag it all up in Bagger.

This was slow, inconsistent, and not well-suited to the project timetable. I tried using fiwalk (included with BitCurator) to walk through a series of images and automatically generate manifests of their contents, but fiwalk does not support HFS and other, older filesystems. Considering 40% of our disks thus far were HFS (at this point, I was 100 disks in), fiwalk wasn’t going to save us. I could automate the process for 60% of the disks, but the remainder would still need to be handled individually–and I wouldn’t have those beautifully formatted DFXML (Digital Forensics XML) files to accompany them. I needed a fix.

Enter disktype and md5deep

I needed a way to a) mount a series of disk images, b) look inside, c) generate metadata on the file contents and d) produce a more human-readable manifest that could serve as a finding aid.

Ideally, the format of all that metadata would be consistent. Critically, the whole process would be as automated as possible.

This is where disktype and md5deep come in. I could use disktype to identify an image’s filesystem, mount it accordingly and then use md5deep to generate DFXML and .csv files. The first iteration of our script did just that, but md5deep doesn’t produce as much metadata as fiwalk. While I don’t have the skills to rewrite fiwalk, I do have the skills to write a simple bash script that routes disk images based on their filesystem to either md5deep or fiwalk. You can find that script here, and a visualization of how it works below:

whyte02

I could now turn this (collection of image files and corresponding imaging logs):

Whyte03

into this (collection of image files, logs, DFXML files, and CSV manifests):

Whyte04

Or, to put it another way, I could now take one of these:

Whyte05

And rapidly turn it into this ready-to-be-bagged package:

Whyte06

Challenges, Future Considerations and Questions

Are we going too fast?
Do we really want to do this quickly? What discoveries or insights will we miss by automating this process? There is value in slowing down and spending time with an artifact and learning from it. Opportunities to do this will likely come up thanks to outliers, but I still want to carve out some time to play around with how these images can be used and studied, individually and as a set.

Virus Checks:
We’re still investigating ways to run virus checks that are efficient and thorough, but not invasive (won’t modify the image in any way).  One possibility is to include the virus check in our bash script, but this will slow it down significantly and make quick passes through a collection of images impossible (during the early, testing phases of this pilot, this is critical). Another possibility is running virus checks before the images are bagged. This would let us run the virus checks overnight and then address any flagged images (so far, we’ve found viruses in ~3% of our disk images and most were boot-sector viruses). I’m curious to hear how others fit virus checks into their workflows, so please comment if you have suggestions or ideas.

Adding More Filesystem Recognition
Right now, the processing script only recognizes FAT and HFS filesystems and then routes them accordingly. So far, these are the only two filesystems that have come up in my work, but the plan is to add other filesystems to the script on an as-needed basis. In other words, if I happen to meet an Amiga disk on the road, I can add it then.

Access Copies:
This project is currently focused on creating preservation copies. For now, access requests are handled on an as-needed basis. This is definitely something that will require future work.

Error Checking:
Automating much of this process means we can complete the work with available resources, but it raises questions about error checking. If a human isn’t opening each image individually, poking around, maybe extracting a file or two, then how can we be sure of successful capture? That said, we do currently have some indicators: the Kryoflux log files, human monitoring of the imaging process (are there “bad” sectors? Is it worth taking a closer look?), and the DFXML and .csv manifest files (were they successfully created? Are there files in the image?). How are other archives handling automation and exception handling?

If you’d like to see our evolving workflow or follow along with our project timeline, you can do so here. Your feedback and comments are welcome.

———

Jess Whyte is a Masters Student in the Faculty of Information at the University of Toronto. She holds a two-year digital preservation internship with the University of Toronto Libraries and also works as a Research Assistant with the Digital Curation Institute.  

Resources:

Gengenbach, M. (2012). The way we do it here”: Mapping digital forensics workflows in collecting institutions.”. Unpublished master’s thesis, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.

Goldman, B. (2011). Bridging the gap: taking practical steps toward managing born-digital collections in manuscript repositories. RBM: A Journal of Rare Books, Manuscripts and Cultural Heritage, 12(1), 11-24

Prael, A., & Wickner, A. (2015). Getting to Know FRED: Introducing Workflows for Born-Digital Content.

Digital Processing at the Rockefeller Archive Center

By Bonnie Gordon

This is the first post in our Spring 2016 series on processing digital materials, exploring how archivists conceive of, implement, and track activities to arrange and describe digital materials in archival collections. If you are interested in contributing to bloggERS!, check out our guidelines for writers or contact us at ers.mailer.blog@gmail.com

———

At the Rockefeller Archive Center, we’re working to get “digital processing” out of the hands of “digital” archivists and into the realm of “regular” archivists. We are using “digital processing” to mean description, arrangement, and initial preservation of born digital archival content stored on removable storage media. Our definition will likely expand over time, as we start to receive more born digital materials via network transfer and fewer acquisitions of floppy disks and CDs.

The vast majority of our born digital materials are on removable storage media and currently inaccessible to our researchers, donors, and staff. We have content on over 3,000 digital storage media items, which are rapidly deteriorating. Our backlog of digital media items includes over 2,500 optical disks, almost 200 3.5″ floppy disks, and almost 100 5.25″ floppy disks. There are also a handful of USB flash drives, hard drives, and older and unusual media (Bernoulli disks, Sy-Quest cartridges, 8″ floppy disks). This is a lot of work for one digital archivist! Having multiple “regular” archivists process these materials distributes the work, which means we can get through the backlog much more quickly. Additionally, integrating digital processing into regular processing work will prevent a future backlog from being created.

In order to help our processing archivists establish and enhance intellectual control of our born digital holdings, I’m working to provide them with the tools, workflows, and competencies needed to process digital materials.  Over the next several months, a core group of processing archivists will be trained and provided with documentation on digital media inventorying, digital forensics, and other born digital workflows. After training, archivists will be able to use the skills they gained in their “normal” processing projects. The core group of archivists trained on dealing with born digital materials will then be able to train other archivists. This will help digital processing be perceived as just another aspect of “regular” processing. Additionally, providing good workflow documentation gives our processing archivists the tools and competencies to do their jobs.

Streamlining our digital processing workflows is also a really important part of this. One step in this direction is to create a digital media inventory and disk imaging log that will be able to “talk” to our collections management system (ArchivesSpace). We currently have an inventory and imaging log, but they’re in a Microsoft Access database, which has a number of limitations, one of the primary ones being that it can’t integrate with our other systems. Integrating with ArchivesSpace reduces duplicate data entry, inconsistent data, and further integrates digital processing into our “regular” processing work.

The RAC’s processing archivists establish and enhance intellectual and physical control of our archival holdings, regardless of format, in order to facilitate user access. By fully integrating digital processing into “normal” processing activities, we will be able to preserve and provide access to unique born digital content stored on obsolete and decaying media.

———

Bonnie Gordon is an Assistant Digital Archivist at the Rockefeller Archive Center, where she works primarily with born digital materials and digital preservation workflows. She received her M.A. in Archives and Public History, with a concentration in Archives, from New York University.

Publication of the University of Minnesota Libraries Electronic Records Task Force (ERTF) Final Report

By Carol Kussmann

In May of 2014 the University of Minnesota Libraries charged the Electronic Records Task Force with developing initial capacity for ingesting and processing electronic records; defining ingest and processing workflows as well as tasks and workflows for both technical and archival staff.  The Electronic Records Task Force (ERTF) is pleased to announce the final report is now available here through the University Digital Conservancy.

The report describes our work over the past year and covers many different areas in detail including our workstation setup, software and equipment, security concerns, minimal task selection for ingesting materials, and tool and software evaluation and selection.  The report also talks about how and why we modified workflows when we ran into situations that warranted change.  To assist in addressing staffing needs we summarized the amount of work we were able to complete, how much time it took to do so, and projections for known future work.

High level lessons learned include:

  • Each accession brings with it its own questions and issues. For example:
    • A music collection had many file names that included special characters; because of this the files didn’t transfer correctly.
    • New accessions can include new file formats or types that you are unfamiliar with and need to find the best way to address. Email was one of those for us. [Which we still haven’t fully resolved.]
    • Some collections are ‘simple’ to ingest as all files are contained on a single hard drive, others are more complicated or more time consuming. One collection we ingested had 60+ CD/DVDs that needed to be individually ingested.
  • Personnel consistency is key.
    • We had a sub-group of five Task Force members who could ingest records. It was found that those who were able to spend more time working with the records didn’t have to spend as much time reviewing procedures.  Those who spent more time also better understood common issues and how to work through them.

We hope that readers find this final report useful as not only does it document the work of the Task Force but also shares many resource pieces that were created throughout the year some of which include:

  • Description of our workstation, including hardware and software
  • Processing workflow instructions for ingesting materials
  • Draft Deed of Gift Addendum for electronic records
  • Donor guides (for sharing information with donors about electronic records)

The ERTF completed the tasks set out in the first charge but understand that working with electronic records is a constant process and work must continue.  To this end, we are in the process of drafting a second charge to address processing ingested records and providing access to processed records.

Thank you to the work of the entire Task Force: Lisa Calahan, Kevin Dyke, Lara Friedman-Shedlov, Lisa Johnston, Carol Kussmann (co-chair), Mary Miller, Erik Moore, Arvid Nelsen (co-chair), Jon Nichols, Justin Schell, Mike Sutliff, and sponsors John Butler and Kris Kiesling.

Carol Kussmann is a Digital Preservation Analyst with the University of Minnesota Libraries Data & Technology – Digital Preservation & Repository Technologies unit, and co-chair of the University of Minnesota Libraries – Electronic Records Task Force. Questions about the report can be sent to: lib-ertf@umn.edu.