PASIG (Preservation and Archiving Special Interest Group) 2019 Recap

by Kelly Bolding

PASIG 2019 met the week of February 11th at El Colegio de México (commonly known as Colmex) in Mexico City. PASIG stands for Preservation and Archiving Special Interest Group, and the group’s meeting brings together an international group of practitioners, industry experts, vendors, and researchers to discuss practical digital preservation topics and approaches. This meeting was particularly special because it was the first time the group convened in Latin America (past meetings have generally been held in Europe and the United States). Excellent real-time bilingual translation for presentations given in both English and Spanish enabled conversations across geographical and lingual boundaries and made room to center Latin American preservationists’ perspectives and transformative post-custodial archival practice.

Perla Rodriguez of the Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México (UNAM) discusses an audiovisual preservation case study.

The conference began with broad overviews of digital preservation topics and tools to create a common starting ground, followed by more focused deep-dives on subsequent days. I saw two major themes emerge over the course of the week. The first was the importance of people over technology in digital preservation. From David Minor’s introductory session to Isabel Galina Russell’s overview of the digital preservation landscape in Mexico, presenters continuously surfaced examples of the “people side” of digital preservation (think: preservation policies, appraisal strategies, human labor and decision-making, keeping momentum for programs, communicating to stakeholders, ethical partnerships). One point that struck me during the community archives session was Verónica Reyes-Escudero’s discussion of “cultural competency as a tool for front-end digital preservation.” By conceptualizing interpersonal skills as a technology for facilitating digital preservation, we gain a broader and more ethically grounded idea of what it is we are really trying to do by preserving bits in the first place. Software and hardware are part of the picture, but they are certainly not the whole view.

The second major theme was that digital preservation is best done together. Distributed digital preservation platforms, consortial preservation models, and collaborative research networks were also well-represented by speakers from LOCKSS, Texas Digital Library (TDL), Duraspace, Open Preservation Foundation, Software Preservation Network, and others. The takeaway from these sessions was that the sheer resource-intensiveness of digital preservation means that institutions, both large and small, are going to have to collaborate in order to achieve their goals. PASIG seemed to be a place where attendees could foster and strengthen these collective efforts. Throughout the conference, presenters also highlighted failures of collaborative projects and the need for sustainable financial and governance models, particularly in light of recent developments at the Digital Preservation Network (DPN) and Digital Public Library of America (DPLA). I was particularly impressed by Mary Molinaro’s honest and informative discussion about the factors that led to the shuttering of DPN. Molinaro indicated that DPN would soon be publishing a final report in order to transparently share their model, flaws and all, with the broader community.

Touching on both of these themes, Carlos Martínez Suárez of Video Trópico Sur gave a moving keynote about his collaboration with Natalie M. Baur, Preservation Librarian at Colmex, to digitize and preserve video recordings he made while living with indigenous groups in the Mexican state of Chiapas. The question and answer portion of this session highlighted some of the ethical issues surrounding rights and consent when providing access to intimate documentation of people’s lives. While Colmex is not yet focusing on access to this collection, it was informative to hear Baur and others talk a bit about the ongoing technical, legal, and ethical challenges of a work-in-progress collaboration.

Presenters also provided some awesome practical tools for attendees to take home with them. One of the many great open resources session leaders shared was Frances Harrell (NEDCC) and Alexandra Chassanoff (Educopia)’s DigiPET: A Community Built Guide for Digital Preservation Education + Training Google document, a living resource for compiling educational tools that you can add to using this form. Julian Morley also shared a Preservation Storage Cost Model Google sheet that contains a template with a wealth of information about estimating the cost of different digital preservation storage models, including comparisons for several cloud providers. Amy Rudersdorf (AVP), Ben Fino-Radin (Small Data Industries), and Frances Harrell (NEDCC) also discussed helpful frameworks for conducting self-assessments.

Selina Aragon, Daina Bouquin, Don Brower, and Seth Anderson discuss the challenges of software preservation.

PASIG closed out by spending some time on the challenges involved with preserving emerging and complex formats. On the last afternoon of sessions, Amelia Acker (University of Texas at Austin) spoke about the importance of preserving APIs, terms of service, and other “born-networked” formats when archiving social media. She was followed by a panel of software preservationists who discussed different use cases for preserving binaries, source code, and other software artifacts.

Conference slides are all available online.

Thanks to the wonderful work of the PASIG 2019 steering, program, and local arrangements committees!


Kelly Bolding is the Project Archivist for Americana Manuscript Collections at Princeton University Library, as well as the team leader for bloggERS! She is interested in developing workflows for processing born-digital and audiovisual materials and making archival description more accurate, ethical, and inclusive.

Advertisements

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.

Latest #bdaccess Twitter Chat Recap

By Daniel Johnson and Seth Anderson

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

____

In preparation for the Born Digital Access Bootcamp: A Collaborative Learning Forum at the New England Archivists spring meeting, an ad-hoc born-digital access group with the Digital Library Federation recently held a set of #bdaccess Twitter chats. The discussions aimed to gain insight into issues that archives and library staff face when providing access to born-digital.

Here are a few ideas that were discussed during the two chats:

  • Backlogs, workflows, delivery mechanisms, lack of known standards, appraisal and familiarity with software were major barriers to providing access.
  • Participants were eager to learn more about new tools, existing functioning systems, providing access to restricted material and complicated objects, which institutions are already providing access to data, what researchers want/need, and if any user testing has been done.
  • Access is being prioritized by user demand, donor concerns, fragile formats and a general mandate that born-digital records are not preserved unless access is provided.
  • Very little user testing has been done.
  • A variety of archivists, IT staff and services librarians are needed to provide access.

You can search #bdaccess on Twitter to see how the conversation evolves or view the complete conversation from these chats on Storify.

The Twitter chats were organized by a group formed at the 2015 SAA annual meeting. Stay tuned for future chats and other ways to get involved!

____

Daniel Johnson is the digital preservation librarian at the University of Iowa, exploring, adapting, and implementing digital preservation policies and strategies for the long-term protection and access to digital materials.

Seth Anderson is the project manager of the MoMA Electronic Records Archive initiative, overseeing the implementation of policy, procedures, and tools for the management and preservation of the Museum of Modern Art’s born-digital records.