The June 2012 Library of Congress Digital Preservation Newsletter is now available.

In this issue:

*The Library of Congress digital preservation blog, The Signal, is a year old

*A recap of the week-long International Internet Preservation Consortium General Assembly

*News from The Signal: Defining the "Big" in Big Data; GeoMAPP and the Future of Digital Geospatial Preservation; National Digital Stewardship Residency Program Curriculum Panel Meets; and 2012 Junior Fellows Working on Digital Preservation Policies

*Read thoughts about the impermanence, selection and digital stewardship of digital content

*Learn how librarians are helping their communities with personal digital archiving

*Apocalypse Bit: Disaster Mythologies & Digital Preservation?

*Recent interviews with Doug White, Project leader for the National Institute of Standards and Technology National Software Reference Library; Ben Fino-Radin, Digital Conservator for the Rhizome ArtBase; and Joe Lambert, Founder and Executive Director of the Center for Digital Storytelling

*Call for Applications: Digital Preservation Outreach and Education Train-the-Trainer Workshop, Midwest Region

*Upcoming events: DigitalPreservation 2012, July 24-25 and CurateCamp: Processing Data/Processing Collection, July 26

Publishing, Promoting and Preserving Scholarship @ SUNY

The Binghamton University Libraries presented a collection of talks to discuss emerging trends and challenges in publishing, promoting and preserving the scholarly record.

Representatives from the library, publishing and research community shared innovative and exciting new tools available to researchers, faculty, students and librarians. Over 60 librarians, researchers, and campus administrators from throughout SUNY and upstate New York gathered for this event, held on April 7, 2011 at the University Downtown Center at Binghamton University.

The symposium goals were to:

- Discover new channels to communicate research

- disseminate scholarly works to wider audiences

- incorporate best practices in publishing from researchers, editors, and librarians into scholarly communications

- preserve scholarship for future generations

Thanks to all who attended, presented and supported this event. A final report on the program will be available soon.

Publishing, Promoting and Preserving Scholarship @ SUNY
Speakers and Presentations

Keynote Speaker
[\]Ensuring and enriching the scholarly communications chain: The role of technology and standards in content distribution\[\\

Todd Carpenter\]Managing

Director, [NISO\]\\

Perspectives in Scholarship and Publishing
Perspectives in Scholarship and Publishing: The Academic/Research Library View\]\\

Andrew White
PhD, Interim Dean and Director ofLibraries, Stony Brook University

Access, Discovery, Partnership: Bringing the Library to the User
Jason Phillips
Director, Outreach & Participation Services, JSTOR/[Portico\


Patricia Renfro
Deputy Librarian, Columbia University & SPARC Steering Committee

Scholarship in Practice 1

SUNY Press Spring 2011
Donna Dixon
Co-Director, [SUNY Press\


JoVE - Video Journal to Increase Efficiency of Research in Biomedical Education[
Moshe Pritsker|], PhD
CEO and co-founder, Journal of Visualized Experiments (JoVE)

Research Gone Social: Encouraging Collaboration + Transparency[
Jessica Mezei|]
Community Liaison, Mendeley Ltd.

Scholarship in Practice 2
Trends in Publishing Promoting and Preserving Scholarship
Dave Stout
Sales Director, Digital Commons, BEPress

VIVO Researcher Networking[
Ellen J. Cramer|], PhD
Research Associate & VIVO Special Projects Lead, Cornell University Library

More Information about the Presenters

Program inquiries can be directed to Elizabeth Brown, Scholarly Communications Officer, at or (607) 777-4882.

Publishing, Promoting and Preserving Scholarship @ SUNY has been generously funded as part of the 2010-2011 SUNY Conversations in the Disciplines (CID)Program, with additional support from the Binghamton University Libraries and BEPress.

DCC Tools Catalogue

An announcement from Dr. Angus Whyte at the DCC, introducing the new Digital Curation Tools and Services Catalogue at  This will be of interest for digital archivists, data librarians, researchers, and anyone interested in the management, curation, and preservation of digital materials.

Begin forwarded message:

*From: *Angus Whyte <>

Subject: DCC Tools Catalogue

*Date: *3 May 2012 13:14:29 GMT+01:00

+ apologies for cross posting +

The Digital Curation Centre is pleased to announce our refreshed and replenished catalogue of tools and services for managing and curating research data. The catalogue is at

This is more than a new look; the catalogue has been overhauled to focus on software and services that directly perform curation and management tasks. It splits these resources into five major categories, based on who the intended users are and what stage of the data lifecycle they will be most useful in. Sub-categories contain tables for quick comparison of tools against others that perform similar functions, linked to in-depth descriptions of how the resource can help. This resource will evolve; if you have suggestions of tools to add please send them to

Dr Angus Whyte
Senior Institutional Support Officer
Digital Curation Centre
University of Edinburgh
Crichton St, Edinburgh EH8 9LE

*** New Book: Graham Pryor (Ed.) 'Managing Research Data' Facet Publishing 2011

The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
Scotland, with registration number SC005336.

This is an interesting thread that I've been following on DigiPres:

The Justice Department recently seized the servers of a cloud storage service called Megaupload for alleged copyright infringement.  Granted this is an extreme situation with a lesser known company, but perhaps still a cautionary tale:


"...But the digital world is different, says copyright attorney Jim Burger. He says in the Megaupload case the court would probably have to appoint someone to sort through the huge amount of material involved.

He says that person would have to say, "'Oh yes, this 100 megabytes is Mr. Smith's and it's legal, it's his personal stuff. But this 50 megabytes is clear infringing.'""

Kimberly Peach


WXPN Public Radio

On Fri, May 4, 2012 at 6:44 PM, Minor, David <> wrote:

Hi - I was about to respond to this thread and then noticed Chronopolis mentioned at the end of the previous message. So … please take what I say with a grain of salt… I promise I was going to say this anyway.  ;-)

I think there's a less of a difference in the current day than in previous times between "cloud" services and local storage. In many organizations, storage services, both basic and advanced, have moved to a more collaborative environment. As data size and complexity have grown, larger and more sophisticated data centers are needed. Often these centers are outside the scope of the traditional library computer room, if such even exists. This environment usually means the library working with either central campus computing or large local data centers, etc.

There is then the next level up from this, where organizations are working together to provide storage and storage-based services beyond what can be offered locally. Think here of HathiTrust or the California Digital Library. Similarly, as David Lowe mentions, things like LOCKSS or Chronopolis are also becoming quite prevalent.

In all of these cases, the *same* questions must be asked of the storage environment: is the data safe? Is at accessible? Who's driving "driving the bus" and making sure that everything is OK? And in point of fact, the technology is the *least* important question here.  Bruce Gordon is spot-on when he says, "Media is not the key to preservation." A well-formed plan with an explicit set of demands and rigorous monitoring of the systems are the key. This is the case whether the data is stored in the library, across campus or across the country.

The problem with many cloud systems is that they fall down in their transparency. I'll be frank here: I trust Amazon's ability to store bits more than I trust many local storage instances. They have iron and expertise that far outstrips many of us. I don't trust them to give me the kind of audits and logging functions I want though. Nor do I trust that they have my best interests at heart. And that's where the preservation step comes in: I don't doubt they *can* do it, but I'm not sure they *will.* And again, being perfectly frank, those are the same questions I often ask of my local, but external-to-me, storage.


David Minor
Chronopolis Program Manager
Director of Digital Preservation Initiatives
UC San Diego Libraries
San Diego Supercomputer Center

On May 4, 2012, at 3:20 PM, David Lowe wrote:

> I can distill my mistrust of the cloud, although it is context-specific and I would agree that cloud storage might make sense for many situations.  (Hmm, I feel a flowchart/decision tree coming on, but that will have to wait.)
> My story goes back to a not-too-distant audit that our IT shop endured, and I was able to observe parts of the process.  Since Social Security numbers are among the most sensitive type of data that libraries have had over the years, and since our hosted ILS system did contain some SSNs in old layers of patron data, to satisfy the auditor, we had to go to the vendor to get a statement that there had been no unauthorized access to that info.  I think the auditor even wanted logs (!), which seemed silly to me, since it was really like proving a negative and could easily have been doctored anyway.  So, I see the vendor in this situation as a type of cloud, if you will, with third-party service level agreement terms standing in control of our crown jewels.  Replace SSNs in this scenario with restricted data from our archives, and I think the problem begins to reveal itself.  If libraries and archives are to retain their trusted status as knowledge repositories in society’s eyes, then as institutions, we need to be as sure as we can that what we preserve is protected inside and out from neglect, malicious behavior, entropy, etc.  Handing off core mission functionality to the custody of contractual service terms involves a level of risk I would prefer to avoid.  Years ago in Margaret Hedstrom’s DP class in grad school, we had a lot of David Bearman on our reading list, and he emphasizes the need for archival material to “hold up in court,” which is why provenance matters so much.  Chain of custody, like any other chain, is only as strong as its weakest link, so avoiding third parties as much as possible seems most prudent to me in the context of control over digital data in libraries and archives.  I admit this is not always possible, but risks are things we balance and manage.
> To the original question for this thread, I wanted to say that, as an NPR listener and fan for almost all of my adult life, I would consider the cultural significance of this material to be worthy of the security of a trusted digital repository, perhaps with a LOCKSS- or Fedora-based infrastructure, secured (“dark” or “offline”) where needed, and openly accessible and linkable where possible.  Services like Chronopolis are becoming a viable way to pair the accessibility of cloud services with the trustworthiness of the cultural institutions that have built these collaborations.
> --DBL
> David B. Lowe
> Preservation Librarian
> UConn Libraries
> From: Jacob Nadal []
> Sent: Friday, May 04, 2012 9:32 AM
> To:
> Subject: [Digipres] Cloud concerns (Was: Physical Medium for Preservation Copies)
> Bruce raises an issue regarding cloud storage that has nagged at me – we seem to have some ambient mistrust of the cloud in the digital pres community, yet wide acceptance that “an array of some kind that constitutes a logical volume” will be the standard means of storage. Those things seem at odds to me. A cloud system is an array that constitutes a logical volume, is it not? What’s not to like?
> -----
> Jacob Nadal
> Director of Library and Archives
> Brooklyn Historical Society
> From: Gordon, Bruce []
> Sent: Thursday, May 03, 2012 4:55 PM
> To: Ira Apt
> Cc: Howard Besser; Stern, Randall; Janel Kinlaw;
> Subject: [Digipres] Re: Re: RE: Re: Physical Medium for Preservation Copies
> Optical media are not recommended for preservation purposes. Beyond the short lifespan (which may have been lengthened with recent developments) is the limited storage space and constant monitoring to ensure there are no errors. By the time you are setup to do a proper job with optical media it is more expensive and cumbersome than it is to use multiple copies on hard disk and tape, or even in the cloud if you are a trusting soul. Optical media shine when you need a portable copy for presentation and when there is also no streaming version available. Media is not the key to preservation. A comprehensive system that protects your assets and a plan that includes monitoring technological trends for eventual migration of the essence from one file format to another when obsolescence threatens is the key. Please see IASA-TC 04 section 8.1.1 regarding optical media. IASA-TC 04 is available in a web version for free.
> You may have noticed that file sizes are not decreasing. This means that increasingly your files will not necessarily be on a single, particular piece of media but will most likely be spread across an array of some kind that constitutes a logical volume.
> Best,
> -Bruce
> Bruce J. Gordon
> Audio Engineer
> Eda Kuhn Loeb Music Library
> Harvard University
> Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138
> U.S.A
> tel. +1(617) 495-1241
> fax +1(617) 496-4636
> On May 3, 2012, at 2:23 PM, Ira Apt wrote:
> I am a fan of Archival optical media as the removable option.  (cd/dvd/bd)
> Yes, I do work for the manufacturer but it will be a good option for some time.  The concerns given on file formats do apply.
> With the release of BDXL 100gb, we are at least getting a little closer in capacity.
> Ira
> Ira Apt
> Sales Manager
> MAM-A Inc.
> 10045 Federal Drive
> Colorado Springs, CO  80908
> (918) 352-3681 Direct
> (918) 688-3818 Mobile
> (305) 946-8314 Fax
> On May 3, 2012, at 12:56 PM, "Howard Besser" <> wrote:
> Storage on spinning disk does not necessarily mean storage on a server
> connected to the Internet (or even to another server).  And given 2
> parallel situations: storage on a spinning disk in a secure area vs
> storing on removable media in a secure area -- I'd say that a malicious
> act would have a greater chance of success against removabe media (because
> there's no further protection once you're inside the secure area, and no
> trace is left of when a malicious act took place).  There might be a
> slightly larger chance of inadvertent distruction on a spinning disk, but
> at least check-summing software would warn you that that had happened
> (whereas with the removable media, it could be years before you discovered
> that a cleaning crew had buffered the floor with a machine whose motor had
> demagnetized the tapes stored on the lower shelves).
> -howard
> On Thu, 3 May 2012, Stern, Randall wrote:
> Re: benefits of removable media. There is still some benefit there, once
> you remove the media to a safe storage facility, in protection against
> malicious or inadvertent destruction of all on-line copies.
> Randy Stern
> Manager of Systems Development
> Library Technology Services,  Harvard Library
> ----Original Message----
> From: Howard Besser []
> Sent: Thursday, May 03, 2012 1:28 PM
> To: Janel Kinlaw
> Cc:
> Subject: [Digipres] Re: Physical Medium for Preservation Copies
> I think that your inquiry is really 2 questions that need separate
> answers: redundancy and removable media:
> Data centers have more than 40 years of well-developed history of handling
> redundant storage: multiple copies and physical dispersal of these are the
> key.  Formulas for optimal numbers of redundant copies have been developed
> by the LOCKKS project and Storage Resource Broker (SRB), but are
> ultimately governed by your budget vs the level of risk you can take.
> The most advanced thinking today is that the only reason for removable
> media is that your total storage needs would be too expensive if put on
> spinning disks, though that cost difference will vastly diminish over
> time.  For large-scale storage, current thinking focuses on LTO tapes.
> But hidden within the "removable media" advocacy are some other issues
> that are not necessarily solved by removable media at all.  One is
> bit-flipping (which does little damage to a digital audio file if it flips
> in the "content" part, but is hugely damaging if the bit flips in the
> header or other metadata).  Another is the tying of your content (audio
> files) to a specific management and retrieval system (removable media
> sounds like it solves this, but it doesn't), and some people advocate
> putting each set of replicated files into management/retrieval systems
> having different types of architectures.
> On top of that, of course there are issues of migration (when your
> Broadcast WAV files are no longer supported by any audio software),
> periodic check-sums, tracking of any changes made to your files (PREMIS),
> and other routine digital preservation activities.
> .......................................
> Howard Besser, Professor and
> Director, Moving Image Archive and Preservation Program
> NYU's Tisch School of the Arts
> Cinema Studies Department
> 665 Broadway, room 612
> New York, NY  10012
> tel: 212-992-9399
> fax: 212-995-4844
> On Thu, 3 May 2012, Janel Kinlaw wrote:
> Hello!
> At NPR we are trying to move away
> from multiple physical copies of our archival audio.  Our goal is to
> just have redundant digital copies and one physical copy on some medium
> in case of catastrophic failure with the servers.
> We are curious to know what
> physical medium other audio archives are using for preservation/backup
> copies of digital audio files.
> Thanks!
> --Janel Kinlaw
> Broadcast Librarian, NPR
> --
> .......................................
> Howard Besser, Professor and
> Director, Moving Image Archive and Preservation Program
> NYU's Tisch School of the Arts
> Cinema Studies Department
> 665 Broadway, room 612
> New York, NY  10012
> tel: 212-992-9399
> fax: 212-995-4844

The May 2012 Library of Congress Digital Preservation Newsletter is now available.

In this issue:

*Exploring Collections using Viewshare

*The challenges of extracting information from floppy disks

*U.S. government elections and web archiving at the Spring CNI Meeting

*Preservation of and access to federally funded scientific data

*Help launch a digital preservation Q & A site

*Recent interviews with Bram van de Werf, Lori Phillips, Anne Van Camp, and Ellysa Stern Cahoy

This joint interview with CNI's Clifford Lynch and Lee Dirks of Microsoft Research is part of the Against the Grain series of video interviews, "Views from the Penthouse Suite," and was recorded at the November 2011 Annual Charleston Conference.  Topics covered include the librarian's role in data management, emerging tools in scholarly communication, backing up digital collections in the Cloud, and much more.  

This video has been added to the Clifford Lynch playlist on YouTube, available from CNI's channel at, or access it directly:

The Digital Preservation Coalition, Richard Wright and Charles Beagrie Ltd are delighted to announce the public release of the latest DPC Technology Watch Report ‘Preserving Moving Pictures and Sound’, written by Richard Wright, formerly of the BBC.

‘Moving image and sound content is at great risk’, explained Richard Wright.  ‘Surveys have shown that 74 per cent of professional collections are small: 5,000 hours or less. Such collections have a huge challenge if their holdings are to be preserved. About 85 per cent of sound and moving image content is still analogue, and in 2005 almost 100 per cent was still on shelves rather than being in files on mass storage. Surveys have also shown that in universities there is a major problem of material that is scattered, unidentified, undocumented and not under any form of preservation plan. These collection surveys are from Europe and North America because there is no survey of the situation in the UK, in itself a cause for concern.’

‘This report is for anyone with responsibility for collections of sound or moving image content and an interest in preservation of that content.’ 

‘New content is born digital, analogue audio and video need digitization to survive and film requires digitization for access. Consequently, digital preservation will be relevant over time to all these areas. The report concentrates on digitization, encoding, file formats and wrappers, use of compression, obsolescence and what to do about the particular digital preservation problems of sound and moving images.’

The report discusses issues of moving digital content from carriers (such as CD and DVD, digital videotape, DAT and minidisc) into files. This digital to digital ‘ripping’ of content is an area of digital preservation unique to the audio-visual world, and has unsolved problems of control of errors in the ripping and transfer process. It goes on to consider digital preservation of the content within the files that result from digitization or ripping, and the files that are born digital. While much of this preservation has problems and solutions in common with other content, there is a specific problem of preserving the quality of the digitized signal that is again unique to audio-visual content. Managing quality through cycles of ‘lossy’ encoding, decoding and reformatting is one major digital preservation challenge for audio-visual as are issues of managing embedded metadata.

DPC members have already had a preview.  Pip Laurenson of Tate commented ‘This is  a terrific report. Thank you so much for commissioning it - it is the best thing I have read on the subject.’ 

The report has also been subject to extensive review prior before publication.  Oya Rieger and colleagues at Cornell University who reviewed the final draft welcomed the report: ‘It is a very thorough report. We realize that it was a challenging process to gather and organize all this information and present it in a succinct narrative. Another virtue of the report is that it incorporates both analog and digital media issues. The final section with conclusions and recommendation is very strong and provides an excellent summary.'  

Another reviewer explained why the preview for DPC-members was so timely: ‘We are currently working on a grant proposal focusing on new media art and having access to the preserving moving pictures and sound report was very useful. The report provides a thorough characterization of the current practices, shortcomings, and challenges. Having access to the report has saved us from spending expensive time on conducting a literature review. ‘

DPC Technology Watch Reports identify, delineate, monitor and address topics that have major bearing on ensuring our collected digital memory will be available tomorrow.  They provide an advanced introduction in order to support those charged with ensuring a robust digital memory and they are of general interest to a wide and international audience with interests in computing, information management, collections management and technology.  The reports are commissioned after consultation with members; they are written by experts; and they are thoroughly scrutinised by peers before being released.  The reports are informed, current, concise and balanced and they lower the barriers to participation in digital preservation. The reports are a distinctive and lasting contribution to the dissemination of good practice in digital preservation.

‘Preserving Moving Pictures and Sound’ is the second Technology Watch Report to be published by the DPC in association with Charles Beagrie Ltd. Neil Beagrie, Director of Consultancy at Charles Beagrie Ltd, was commissioned to act as principal investigator and managing editor of the series in 2011.  The managing editor has been further supported by an Editorial Board drawn from DPC members and peer reviewers who have commented on the text prior to release.  The Editorial Board comprises William Kilbride (Chair), Neil Beagrie (Series Editor), Janet Delve (University of Portsmouth), Sarah Higgins (Archives and records Association), Tim Keefe (Trinity College Dublin), Andrew McHugh (University of Glasgow) and Dave Thompson (Wellcome Library).

The report is online at:  (PDF 915KB) 
Digital Commons bepress

The Libraries have registered for two free online webinars from bepress about their DAMS, Digital Commons. All are welcome!

The Digital Content Task Force is investigating content management systems as we work towards developing a plan for archiving, preserving and expanding access to and awareness of content created by UA faculty, the UA Libraries and other UA departments and units.

One system, created by bepress, is Digital Commons. We have scheduled two webinars that we hope you can find time to attend:

Webcast: The Repository Today: A necessary campus investment?

Date/Time: May 1, 2012 at 2:00 pm Eastern, SPE Conference Room

Presented by: Jean-Gabriel Bankier, President and CEO of bepress

Since 2007, the number of library-led institutional repositories (IRs) has more than tripled world-wide. What is driving these libraries to implement IRs and how are they doing so, even in times of financial constraint? Please join Jean-Gabriel Bankier, President and CEO of bepress, to explore these timely issues via a special introductory webinar. Drawing from the Digital Commons community – more than 200 libraries of all shapes and sizes – he will examine why they’ve launched IR programs and the challenges and pay-offs of what has quickly become a core component of the new library’s digital services strategy.

A Tour of bepress’s Digital Commons: Successful IRs in Action

Date/Time: Tuesday, June 5, 2012 at 2pm Eastern, SPE Conference Room

Institutional repository (IR) services have extended across campus – to faculty, students, centers, institutes, and other academic and administrative units. How are libraries doing this, and what does success look like? Please join Tim Tamminga of bepress to explore both the collections and partnerships coming out of the Digital Commons user community – from student research and publishing, to conferences, symposia, monographs, press imprints, peer reviewed journals and more.

From: karim boughida []
Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2012 10:30 PM
Subject: [Digipres] JCDL 2012 (Joint Conference on Digital Libraries) Program (Washington, DC)

Hi All,

The program is online now: Long and short papers, demos, posters, panels, etc.

JCDL the ACM/IEEE Joint Conference on Digital Libraries is a major international forum focusing on digital libraries and associated technical, practical, organizational, and social issues.

Chronopolis a TDR

This is big news:

Hello all - if you don't mind a little horn-tooting, I'd like to pass along some exciting news. Chronopolis has been certified as a Trustworthy Digital Repository by the Center for Research Libraries. The audit was an intense process that involved many participants, including Chronopolis staff, past and current customers, and community experts.

We'd like to thank, of course, our friends at NDIIPP, who funded this effort as part of our work with them. You provided the opportunity for us to take this important step forward.

All of us in the Chronopolis program are thrilled to be certified and look forward to a bright future.

Here are a selection of relevant links:

- The official announcement on the CRL website:

- The press release from the UCSD Libraries:

- A new TRAC-related page on the Chronopolis website:

David Minor

Chronopolis Program Manager

Director, Digital Preservation Initiatives UC San Diego Libraries San Diego Supercomputer Center

The April 2012 Library of Congress Digital Preservation Newsletter is now available.

In this issue:

*Nominations being accepted for the National Digital Stewardship Alliance Innovation Awards

*How Many Libraries of Congress Does it Take? A look at an unusual unit of measurement

*What's the Value of A Broken Link?

*Becoming Digital, Or, What Comes Before The Preservation?

*What do you think are the best images for promoting digital preservation?

*Digital Preservation Outreach and Education updates

*An update from the NDSA Infrastructure Working Group

*News from recent conferences: WebWise 2012, Personal Digital Archiving 2012, SXSW 2012

*Upcoming evens: Preservation Week 2012 is April 22-28; JCDL2012 is June 10-14

Digital Commons is an institutional repository platform with powerful publishing tools at its core. Join us to learn more about publishing with Digital Commons, and the benefits of integrating a library publishing program within an IR.

Webcast: Publishing with Digital Commons
Date/Time: Wednesday, April 18, 11am – 12pm PST (1pm CST)
Register here:

This webinar will include:

  • a tour of the peer-review workflow and publishing tools within Digital Commons, including key features that help editors create high-impact publications with minimal time and cost
  • examples of universities that use Digital Commons to integrate books, journals, and other publishing services within their IR for maximum effect
  • a description of bepress support and services that make sure your publishing operation runs smoothly without overtaxing your library team

This webinar will discuss platform features as well as publishing strategies, and is intended both for library staff and faculty editors.

DigCCurr Professional Institute participants will qualify for 15 ACA Institute for Archival Recertification Credits under Section B.3.a (Education / Attendance at archival institutes / Program of 3 days or more).

DigCCurr Professional Institute: Curation Practices for the Digital Object Lifecycle Supported by IMLS Grant Award #RE-05-08-0060-08 and the School of Information and Library Science, UNC-Chapel Hill

May 20-25, 2012 & January 7-8, 2013 (One price for two sessions) University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

Visit for more information.


The Institute consists of one five-day session in May 2012 and a two-day follow-up session and a day-long symposium in January 2013. Each day of the summer session will include lectures, discussion and hands-on "lab" components. A course pack and a private, online discussion space will be provided to supplement learning and application of the material. An opening reception dinner on Sunday, Continental breakfast, break time snacks and coffee, and a dinner on Thursday will also be included.

This institute is designed to foster skills, knowledge and community-building among professionals responsible for the curation of digital materials.


* Regular registration : $950

* Late registration (after April 15, 2012): $1,050

* Summer Institute accommodations (includes 5 nights of a private room in a 4 room/2 bath dorm suite on the UNC campus, with kitchen, linens, and internet access): $300*

 *We highly recommend that you choose the on-campus accommodations but many area hotels will be available. This fee covers accommodations for May 2012 only.

 If you are a grant recipient working on a digital project, we recommend that you check with your program officer to request approval to use available grant funds to attend the institute.

 Institute Instructors Include:

 * From the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill: Dr. Cal Lee, Dr. Richard Marciano, Dr. Helen Tibbo.

* Dr. Nancy McGovern, from the University of Michigan.

* Dr. Seamus Ross, from the University of Toronto.

* Dr. Carolyn Hank, McGill University.

 Institute Components: (may be subject to some revisions and reorganization)

 * Overview of digital curation definition, scope and main functions

* Where you see yourself in the digital curation landscape

* Digital curation program development

* Engendering Trust: Processes, Procedures and Forms of Evidence

* LAB - DRAMBORA in action

 * Strategies for engaging data communities

* Characterizing, analyzing and evaluating the producer information environment

* Submission and transfer scenarios – push and pull (illustrative examples)

* Defining submission agreements and policies

* Strategies for writing policies that can be expressed as rules and rules that can automatically executed

* LAB - Making requirements machine-actionable

* Importance of infrastructure independence

* Overview of digital preservation challenges and opportunities

* Managing in response to technological change

* Detaching Bits from their Physical Media: Considerations, Tools and Methods

* LAB - Curation of Unidentified Files

* Returning to First Principles: Core Professional Principles to Drive Digital Curation

* Characterization of digital objects

* LAB - Assessing File Format Robustness

* Access and use considerations

* Access and user interface examples

* How and why to conduct research on digital collection needs

* LAB - Analyzing server logs and developing strategies based on what you find

* Overview and characterization of existing tools

* LAB - Evaluating set of software options to support a given digital curation workflow

* Formulating your six-month action plan - task for each individual, with instructors available to provide guidance

* Summary of action plans

* Clarifying roles and expectations for the next six months

January 7-8, 2013

Participants in the May event will return to Chapel Hill in Jan. 2013 to discuss their experiences in implementing what they have learned in their own work environments.  Participants will compare experiences, lessons learned and strategies for continuing progress. Friday, January 4th will be a public symposium, free to the Institute participants. (Accommodations for January will be the responsibility of the attendee.)

 Visit for more information.

 For more information, contact Angela Murillo ( for Institute questions or Wakefield Harper ( for payment or registration questions.

 We look forward to seeing you there!   -Helen

 Dr. Helen R. Tibbo, Alumni Distinguished Professor

President, 2010-2011 & Fellow, Society of American Archivists

School of Information and Library Science

201 Manning Hall  CB#3360

University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

Chapel Hill, NC 27599-3360

Phone: (919) 962-8063

Fax: (919) 962-8071

From: Therese Triumph [|]
Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2011 12:14 PM
Cc: Penney Beile; Lee Dotson; Athena Hoeppner
Subject: [SCHOLCOMM] Summary report on "Brief Institutional Repository Survey"

[please excuse cross posting]


The UCF Libraries Scholarly Communications Task Force has completed its  “Brief Institutional Repository Survey” and has posted a  summary report on Google docs.

In brief:

The UCF Libraries Scholarly Communications Task Force conducted a survey of existing institutional repositories (IRs) which included questions concerning their organization, staffing, and funding requirements. The ten question survey included the name and type of institution, information about the responder, specifics about the IR including the personnel, job assignment and department, and its funding.

Of the fifty four (54) responses 95.9% were from 4 year/Masters and/or PhD granting universities with 92.3% of the IRs falling within the institutions’ libraries. The survey revealed that IRs report to a wide variety of units within the libraries including the library administration, digital services or technical services. From these results it shows that IRs’ success may be more a function of the people driving the effort than its setting. From the question (#6) concerning which positions are involved with IR operations, the results show that in general there are about 3-4 people working on the IR. And finally, of the twelve (12) institutions reporting actual funding levels for their hardware, software and subscriptions, the range was $1000 to $110,000, with an average of $22,746.

The complete report can be found at

Thank you to all who participated,

Therese Triumph

UCF Libraries Scholarly Communications Task Force