1 / 26

Cornell’s Project Harvest

Explore the intersection of digital archives and agriculture literature, focusing on preservation challenges and incentives for publishers. Discuss potential sustainability models for archives. Stakeholder collaboration and next steps in developing a subject-based digital archive.

fmccormick
Download Presentation

Cornell’s Project Harvest

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  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

  7. 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

  8. 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

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

  10. 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

  11. 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

  12. 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)

  13. 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

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Events • None acknowledged by publishers • Technology watersheds: • Retrofitting legacy digital files • When paper no longer represents access and preservation alternative for electronic

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

  16. 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

  17. 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

  18. 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

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

  20. Possible Sustainability Models • Preservation pledge drives

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

  22. 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

  23. 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

  24. 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

  25. 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

More Related