Cornell’s Project Harvest

1. Cornell’s Project Harvest CNI Fall 2001 Task Force Meeting Anne R. Kenney and Nancy Y. McGovern

2. Project Harvest Overview • Subject-based approach: agriculture • National Preservation Plan • USAIN • Mann Library • Core Historical Literature • TEEAL • USDA • 75% of core journals now available in electronic form

3. Focus of Planning Year • Investigating conditions under which publishers willing to participate in the development of an Subject-Based Digital Archives (SBDA) • Two pronged iterative cycle: • Explore (potential of SBDA, business model, broader preservation matrix) • Build (using agriculture as pragmatic application)

4. PBDA

5. SBDA

6. Intersection of Digital Archives Format-based

8. USAIN Survey • Access • 45% indicated need for both print and electronic • 55% indicated e-journal already substituted for print; • 84% would cancel print if reliable archives built • JSTOR study – 78% of faculty think hard copy should be retained even if reliable digital archives

9. USAIN Survey • Observed loss in e-journals: • 45% don’t know • 22% yes noted difference • 22% no, no difference • What to preserve (priority order): 1. Preserve content plus journal “look and feel” plus publisher functionality 2. Preserve content plus journal “look and feel” • How to preserve: • Over 90% rejected single solution; prefer multiple custodians or 3rd party

10. Sept. 6 Publishers’ Meeting • American Dairy Science • Academic/Elsevier • American Phytopathological Society • BioOne • CABI • NRC-Canada • Wiley • NLA and USAIN representation

11. What’s the Publisher Incentive to Archive? • Protect assets, continuing value of material as it ages • Low additional overhead • Satisfy customers • Risk tolerance; sustainable loss • As calling card for or bi-product of services

12. Meeting Results • All publishers intend to establish archives • Shift from content currency to database development • Publishers see revenue stream in retrospective holdings • Publishers less concerned than librarians about “artifactual” archiving

13. Meeting Results • Differing perceptions around who should do digital preservation • Librarians want trusted third-party archiving • Publishers insufficiently aware that others don’t trust them to safeguard materials and insufficiently aware of what it takes to archive • Distrust of government (competition)

14. Meeting Results • Publishers not enthusiastic about “lit” archives—some would consider it if revenue returned to publisher • Convergence in formats • Reluctance to force authors to conform • Unwilling to share proprietary publisher DTD • Willing to consider archival DTD as another output

15. Trigger Events • None acknowledged by publishers • Technology watersheds: • Retrofitting legacy digital files • When paper no longer represents access and preservation alternative for electronic

16. SBDA triggers • Different subject domains have different half-lives • When common interests outweigh individual interests • Stakeholder pressure: when detrimental not to participate

17. Access and Funding • Publishers and librarians went into the meeting presuming different things • Publishers differed on access issues • Librarians asserted that publishers would have to finance dark archives

18. SBDA Distinguishes Between Metadata and Data • Dark metadata/dark data • Light metadata/light data • Light metadata/dark data • Light metadata/no data Multiple options for different publishers and audiences

19. SBDA Hybrid Model • Ultimate goal is lightness • Comprehensiveness and buy-in trumps lightness • Commonality over distinctiveness emphasized • Hybrid model enables combinations of light to dark metadata and data • Access to metadata/data will change over time and in response to particular circumstances • Offers win/win possibilities

20. Possible Sustainability Models • Preservation surcharge on subscription • Preservation endowment • Bartered access privileges for preservation • Business insurance policy model • Government support

21. Possible Sustainability Models • Preservation pledge drives

22. Possible Sustainability Models • Develop new markets • Harness the free riders • Charge for services, not content and archiving • Build value-adds on the SBDA

23. Next Steps • Developing subject domain profile • Surveying agricultural publishers to determine level of cooperation in SBDA • Evaluating existing architectural models • Writing CLIR report on the significance of the SBDA

24. Subject-based Profile • Who are the stakeholders? How many publishers? Research demographics of new user groups? • How big is the field? How structured and defined is it? What’s important? Why? Change driven by discipline and by technology • How standardized is the literature? (xml, etc) • How complex/fixed is it? (database, virtual) • Who owns rights for re-use? Assessment of economic, first-use, citations, second use, technology

25. How Willing to Cooperate? • Pre- and post-competitive collaboration • Standardized, normalized, and limited number of formats • Preservation from conception (requirements of authors; shut off point for non cooperation) • Archival DTD • Preservation metadata

26. How Willing to Cooperate? • Self certification/ external certification • Light (and common) metadata, move toward light data (monitoring with scheduling) • Economy of scale • Willing to financially support the effort