1

UPDATE ON PARTNER VISITSJanuary 18, 2013

1/18/2013 APTrust Update

APTrust Update 2

Conversations with partners

1/18/2013

Partner Visit date Participants DeanUNC 11/15/12 10 Sarah MichalakDuke 11/16/12 4 Deborah Jakubs

NCState 11/16/12 5 Susan NutterColumbia 11/29/12 4 Jim NealSyracuse 11/30/12 13 Suzanne Thorin

Notre Dame 12/14/12 13 Diane WalkerEmory 12/19/12 4 Rich Mendola

Hopkins 1/10/13 7 Winston TabbMaryland 1/11/13 16 Pat SteeleStanford 1/17/13 2 Mike Keller Michigan ?? Paul Courant

UVa ?? Karin Wittenborg

1/18/2013 APTrust Update 3

APTrust Update 41/18/2013

APTRUST

Future Proposed Services

DPN Replicating

Node

Aggregate Repository

1/18/2013 APTrust Update 5

AGGREGATE REPOSITORY

Partner priorities

• TDR (or equivalent) status

• Scalability

• Ability to deposit all types of content; especially video, audio, data, metadata

• Rights management – levels TBD

• Reasonable cost, i.e. for retrieving content

• Flexibility with regard to technologies

1/18/2013 APTrust Update 6

DPN REPLICATING NODE

What we heard:

When will we hear more about DPN development?

What differentiates APTrust from DPN?

Will DPN nodes specialize in different types of content?

Is APTrust the only node allowing direct deposit?

Will charges for DPN be able to be combined with charges for APTrust?

1/18/2013 APTrust Update 7

Feedback re: PROPOSED SERVICES

• Preservation services more important than access services to most partners “Universities are about access & production, we need APTrust to take care of preservation.”

• Group (and charge for) services by preservation level:• storage (DPN), • archiving (AggRepo)• preservation (APTrust services)• curation (probably IRs)

• Interest in:• Format migration alerts and possible migration

service • Lead common standards development• Common definitions of preservation levels• Joint API development

APTrust Update 8

Business concerns

• How many preservation efforts will my library need to support?

• What services will generate the most sustainable business model?

• How to develop cost based on level of service as well as amount of content?

1/18/2013

APTrust Update 9

Potential Use Cases

• Alerts for range of preservation activities: human audits, format migration

• Temporary storage for uncurated digital content• Retrieval of multiple collections for data mining

(rights dependent)• Light up content for disaster recovery• API (and potentially standards) development for

use of specialized content

1/18/2013

APTrust Update 10

Key takeaways

• Keep focus on preservation – universities & publishers focusing on access and production.

• Collaborative community model (flexible cohesion) highly valued, both for technology development and knowledge sharing.

• Partners grateful for outreach and dialogue.• Partners very anxious to find ways to stay

engaged and actively contribute.

1/18/2013

APTrust Update 11

What’s Ahead

• Partner conversations about priority of future services

• APTrust Advisory Group mtg (3/7) at UVa• Article in Journal of Library Administration

(spring 2013)• ARL full-partner meeting (4/29) at UNC• ARL presentation to library deans (5/1-2) at

ARL spring meeting in Chapel Hill

1/18/2013