Transcript Digital Curation Institutional Repository Committee

Digital Curation
Institutional Repository
Committee
Helen R. Tibbo
School of Information and Library
Science
UNC-Chapel Hill
Thank you to all involved in this effort!
What is this All About?
 Digital preservation and curation
stand as grand opportunities and
challenges of the first decade of the
21st century.
 Universities have critical roles to play
in fostering and supporting wise and
appropriate curation of campus
digital assets.
Why Are We Doing This?
 The university is replete with rich
intellectual assets in digital form to
support teaching, research, and
service.
 Inherently fragile digital objects are
far more likely to persist over time
within a centralized and managed
repository than on isolated servers
across campus.
Campus Digital Assets
 Examples of digital assets & images.
Digital Curation
 Is the active management and
preservation of digital resources over
the life-cycle of scholarly and
scientific interest, and over time for
current and future generations of
users.
Digital Curation
 It involves time-sensitive appraisal by
creators and archivists, evolving
provision of intellectual access, midterm preservation including backups
and transformations such as
migration, and ultimately, for some
materials, a commitment to centurieslong archiving.
Digital Curation
 Digital curation is stewardship that
provides for the reproducibility and
re-use of authentic digital data and
other digital assets.
Digital Curation
 Essential to the longevity of digital
resources and the success of curation
efforts are:




Trusted and durable digital repositories,
Principles of sound metadata construction,
Use of open standards for file formats and
data encoding, and
The promotion of information management
literacy.
Cliff Lynch (CNI) on IRs
 … a university-based institutional
repository is a set of services that a
university offers to the members of its
community for the management and
dissemination of digital materials created
by the institution and its community
members.
 No other restrictions/implications about
content.
Organizational Commitment
 It is most essentially an organizational
commitment to the stewardship of these
digital materials, including long-term
preservation where appropriate, as well
as organization and access or
distribution.
Necessarily Collaborative
 While operational responsibility for these
services may reasonably be situated in
different organizational units at different
universities, an effective institutional
repository of necessity represents
collaboration among librarians,
information technologists, archives and
records mangers, faculty, and university
administrators and policymakers.
Not Just Technology
 At any given point in time, an institutional
repository will be supported by a set of
information technologies, but a key part of the
services that comprise an institutional
repository is the management of technological
changes, and the migration of digital content
from one set of technologies to the next as part
of the organizational commitment to providing
repository services. An institutional repository is
not simply a fixed set of software and hardware.
Vision
 Trusted repository for UNC’s digital
assets.
Vision
 Trusted repository for UNC’s digital
assets.
 Model for the state, nation, and world.
 We have 2 years to make this work!
How we’re going about this…
Committee Structure
 Steering Committee
 DC/IR Committee
 Scholarly Communications Committee
Steering Committee
 Sarah Michalak, Chair
 José-Marie Griffiths, SILS
 Lolly Gasaway, Law School
 Robert Peet, Biology
 Helen Tibbo, SILS
 Jack Snoeyink, Computer Science
DC/IR Committee
 Priscilla Alden, ITS
 Janis Holder, U. Archives
 Alan Blatecky, RENCI
 Paul Jones, ibiblio
 Robyn East, ITS
 Susan Kellogg, B School
 Jaroslav Folda, Art
 Cal Lee, SILS
 Lolly Gasaway, Law
 Wallace McLendon, HSL
 Charlie Green, ITS
 James Noblitt, Romance Lang.
 Carolyn Hank, SILS
 Mark Simpson-Vos, UNC Press
 Debra Hanken Kurtz, AAL
 Natasha Smith, AAL - DocSouth
 Andy Hart, AAL
 Vin Steponaitis, Anthropology
 Robert Henshaw, ITS
 Helen Tibbo, SILS
 Ellen Whisler, SILS
DC/IR Committee’s Charge
 Develop a feasible plan that will both
serve UNC-Chapel Hill’s curation needs
and will place the University in the
forfront of such efforts in the Triangle,
nationally, and internationally.
DC/IR Committee’s Charge
 Design a pilot institutional repository and
digital preservation program in
partnership with Information Technology
Services (ITS), the University Library,
and the School of Information and
Library Science (SILS).
DC/IR Committee’s Charge
 Develop policies, procedures, and long-
term digital data preservation strategies
to benefit the entire campus. This will
include strategies to educate the campus
community.
DC/IR Committee Structure
 Organized into 4 subcommittees based on the
RLG-NARA Audit Checklist for Certifying
Digital Repositories .




Governance
Community and Digital Assets (CDA)
Repository Management (RM)
Technologies and Technical Infrastructure (TTI)
 We added a 5th subcommittee

Guidance Training and Engagement (GTE).
Projected Activities – Year 1

Form working groups within the larger
committee. These will be based on the
RLG/NARA Draft Audit Checklist for Certifying
Digital Repositories along with a working
group for participant training and guidance.
 Provide each working group with charges and
select a chair for each.
 Explore current international, state-of-the-art,
practices, policies, and research in digital
curation and create a white paper on this
topic.
Projected Activities – Year 1

Strategically select communities and materials for
inclusion in a small-scale, but diverse, pilot
repository.
 Develop the technical and repository
management infrastructures for a pilot digital
repository for the group of communities/materials
at UNC-Chapel Hill selected in step 4.
 Recommend standards such as file formats,
optimal storage media, minimal/optimal/practical
metadata requirements, and procedures for
migrating and refreshing deposited content thus
laying the groundwork for a much larger
implementation in the future.
Projected Activities – Year 1

Document the guidelines and procedures
developed in step 6.
 Develop an engagement strategy and
infrastructure on campus.
 Coordinate with the scholarly communications
committee to develop a process to establish
policies for use of an institutional repository at
UNC.
 Coordinate with the scholarly communications
committee to create initial policy documents
for an institutional repository.
Projected Activities – Year 2

Expand the contents of the repository with
additional digital assets from a variety of
communities across campus. New types are
materials will be selected to expand the
capabilities of the repository.
 Explore research data curation issues on
campus.
 Conduct a strategic, campus-wide
examination of digital curation issues, needs,
centers of expertise, and best-case responses
at UNC in light of cutting-edge practices,
research, and experience identified in Year 1.
Project Activities – Year 2

Develop an overall, initial strategic plan for digital
curation at UNC-Chapel in light of its teaching,
research, and service roles in light of best
practices and the pilot repository experience.
 Provide digital curation guidance documents, tools,
and engagement opportunities to the campus.
 Seek evaluation of our efforts, guidance
documents and tools, and the initial institutional
repository from campus and external reviewers,
perhaps in the form of a certification audit.
 Create proposal for the future of the institutional
repository and digital curation efforts on campus,
including a sustainability plan.
Naming Opportunity…
 Keeping Carolina: Preserving Access to
Carolina’s Digital Assets