130 likes | 205 Views
Anders Bo Nielsen, The Danish National Archives Ulla Bøgvad Kejser, The Royal Library, Denmark. Using the LIFE Costing Model Case studies from DK. LIFE Costing Model - Denmark. LIFE - DK Project Aim
E N D
Anders Bo Nielsen, The Danish National Archives Ulla Bøgvad Kejser, The Royal Library, Denmark Using the LIFE Costing ModelCase studies from DK
LIFE Costing Model - Denmark • LIFE - DK Project • Aim • Estimate and compare lifecycle costs of preservation of digital materials held by Danish cultural heritage institutions • Partners • The National Archives • The Royal Library • The State and University Library • Timeline • October 2008 – December 2009 • Funding • The Danish Ministry of Culture (£75.000)
Evaluation of the LIFE Costing Model • Pros – already there • Usable for estimating the lifecycle costs of digital (and analogue) materials • The elements/subelements provide a comprehensive checklist of costs • Independent of preservation strategy (transformation or emulation) • Tested on real data sets • Required improvements • Consistency of model • Use OAIS terminology to ease understanding, cooperation and widespread use • Breakdown in more generic functional entities to avoid bias towards library materials • Metadata assigned to the functions they relate to (not a stage in itself) • Include all costs in one model (lifecycle and non lifecycle) • Allow for full economic costs to be modelled, including costs of system development • More test on real data needed
Case study 1: Costs of transformation (format migration) • Set up • Transforming from MS Word (creation format) to TIFF 6.0 (preservation format) • Amount of pages: 7.555 in app. 1.500 documents, produced/recieved by 10 persons for about 6 months • Transforming using a purchased TIFF-printer driver and an in-house developed system to control the transformation • Quality control using automatic system control for some controls and samples for other controls
The generic preservation model (GPM) Cost = t * TEW + (t / ULE + PON) * (CRS + UME + PPA + QA)
Case study 2: Costs of digital versus film preservation • Set up • Preservation copying of degrading historic nitrate and acetate negatives • Preservation strategies • Preservation as master files in KB-DK’s digital repository • Output on film and preserved in KB’s traditional storage facility Preservation copy of decaying nitrate negative (ca. 1950)
Concluding remarks • Promising model • Need to include full economic cost • Need consistency with OAIS • Quality assessment • Map LIFE Costing Model to certification/audit initiatives • Catalogue of Criteria for Trusted Digital Repositories (Nestor) • Trustworthy Repositories Audit & Certification: Criteria and Checklist (TRAC) • Digital Repository Audit Method Based on Risk Assessment (DRAMBORA)
Acknowledgements • LIFE2 project team • Colleagues at the Danish National Archives, State and University Library and the Royal Library • Contact information • Anders Bo Nielsen, The National Archives abn@ra.sa.dk • Ulla Bøgvad Kejser, The Royal Library ubk@kb.dk