1 / 15

LIFE2 case study: SHERPA DP

LIFE2 case study: SHERPA DP. Stephen Grace Centre for e-Research. What is SHERPA DP?. Providing digital preservation services to institutional repositories Following OAIS functional model Institutional repository responsible for first acquisition of content Funded by JISC and CURL.

jena-benton
Download Presentation

LIFE2 case study: SHERPA DP

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. LIFE2 case study: SHERPA DP Stephen Grace Centre for e-Research

  2. What is SHERPA DP? • Providing digital preservation services to institutional repositories • Following OAIS functional model • Institutional repository responsible for first acquisition of content • Funded by JISC and CURL

  3. Bringing SHERPA DP to LIFE • Some costs were easy to find • Directly incurred staff costs • Others less so • Directly allocated staff time • Mists of time • Used TRAC for full Economic Cost (fEC) • Estates and Indirect costs added to salary

  4. 1 Creation or purchase • Cost = £0 • No creation, no purchase

  5. 2 Acquisition • Aq = £74,050 in Yr1, £77,510 in Yr5, £81,515 in Yr10 • Majority of costs for development of OAI-PMH and integrating harvester with AHDS repository

  6. 3 Ingest • I = £763 in Y1, £2841 in Y5, £7630 in Y10 • QA largely responsibility of source IRs • Characterisation is automated via DROID

  7. 4 Metadata creation • M = £0 • Implicit in other areas • PREMIS generated automatically

  8. 5 Bit-stream preservation • BP = £19,848 in Y1, £125,870 in Y5, £223,818 in Y10 • Duplicate storage and storage provision major costs

  9. 6 Content preservation • CP = £13,233 in Y1, £64,615 in Y5, £129,217 in Y10 • Technology watch, preservation planning consistent across time • Harder to predict preservation action so assumed major task every 3 years

  10. 7 Access • Ac = £11,907 in Y1, £45,875 in Y5, £88,334 in Y10 • Almost entirely for user support (in this case, of our IR colleagues) • SHERPA DP2 will address return of content to repositories

  11. Lessons learned • Costing exercises are difficult – they take time, evidence not readily to hand • LIFE offers a consistent methodology • Value of third-party preservation service

  12. Key findings and costs • 10yr cost per object preserved = £8.13 (N=6526) • Reducing storage costs will have significant effect

  13. Conclusions • Third-party preservation can be cost-effective • LIFE methodology works for us • Helps with development of a charged preservation service

  14. Why it was useful • Comparison across services and institutional settings • Costs  Cost model  Business model • Dovetails with our case study for ‘Keeping research data safe’

  15. Thank you • Stephen Grace • Centre for e-Research • King’s College London • www.kcl.ac.uk • stephen.grace@kcl.ac.uk • 020 7848 1972

More Related