Yale-Elsevier Mellon Project NISO/BISG Digital Archiving ALA, New Orleans, January 20, 2002 Karen...
-
Upload
easter-wilcox -
Category
Documents
-
view
217 -
download
2
Transcript of Yale-Elsevier Mellon Project NISO/BISG Digital Archiving ALA, New Orleans, January 20, 2002 Karen...
Yale-Elsevier Mellon Yale-Elsevier Mellon ProjectProject
NISO/BISG Digital ArchivingALA, New Orleans, January 20, 2002
Karen HunterSenior Vice President, Strategy
Elsevier Science
Yale Library as a playerYale Library as a player
history of electronic resources both on its own and with the NorthEast Research Libraries (NERL)
electronic expenditures of $1.4 million in 2000, $1.8 million in 2001
clear that cannot endlessly continue to support duplicate collection of paper and electronic
Elsevier Science as a Elsevier Science as a playerplayer e-journal interest dates to late 1970’s formal archiving policy in 1999 as part of
ScienceDirect license– guarantee that would maintain archive or
transfer to library-vetted repository customer feedback: “neutral” archive now
(i.e., in library hands)
also needed to protect authors’ interests explored various archiving arrangements
Joint effortsJoint efforts
between 1997 and 1999 Yale and ES had explored the possibility of Yale being a local repository for some or all of the 1,100 ES journals
end decision: license for SD online because of fuller functionality
throughout, working relationship had been good; started this discussion in summer 2000, proposal to Mellon followed
TeamsTeams
Yale Scott Bennett (PI), Paul Conway, David
Gewirtz, Fred Martz, Ann Okerson (Co-PI), Kimberly Parker, Richard Szary
Elsevier Science Geoffrey Adams, Emeka Akaezuwa,
Haroon Chohan, Karen Hunter, Paul Mostert
Some of the starting Some of the starting assumptionsassumptions digital archive >100
years archiving content, not
format or functionality archive responsible
for migration archive not competing
with publisher archive shouldn’t be
totally dark
archive does not mirror pub. site
archive does not create content not in original e-edition
highly desirable for publisher to provide needed metadata
standards are key archive not a “hot
backup” for disasters
Work plan -- issuesWork plan -- issues
what does it mean to be an archive journal business life cycles economic issues contractual relationship between publisher &
archive metadata needs archival uses independent of day-to-day
uses technical infrastructure
Sizing the problemSizing the problem
Elsevier Science published 1,100 journals when project started
acquired Harcourt (Academic Press, Saunders, Mosby, Churchill Livingstone) mid-2001, raising number of journals to 1,500
backfile digitization project (v.1, no.1) guestimate: 6.5-7 TB
What is an archive?What is an archive?
publisher’s production “archive”normal customers with locally-held
files (ScienceDirect On Site)“self-designated archives” -- national
bias“official” archives -- formal
relationship for “perpetual care”
Journal business life Journal business life cyclecycleScott Bennett’s starting premise:
“...information half-life, which is the point at which the commercial value of e-journal content to the publisher has declined to the point where the publisher hands off preservation and access responsibilities to an archiving agent”
Trigger eventsTrigger events
failed to find such a half-life – felt too early in the e-publishing process
– for example, we want to recover costs of retrodigitization
extensive, fascinating discussion of “trigger events” – points when archive can go bright to the public
could not identify trigger events – except if publisher goes out of business and no
successor taking ownership of assets
Economic Economic considerationsconsiderations inability to foresee a half-life and unlikely
trigger event leads to question: Does it make sense to establish an archive now, given costs involved?
conclusion: yes – libraries need archives to go e-only and it will
only be riskier, more difficult and more expensive later
how to fund: part of next phase
Contractual Contractual relationshiprelationship issues different from normal license,
including:– perpetual nature of an archive– service level agreement– trigger events -- public access– financial terms– format for submission– comprehensiveness of archive (e.g.,
“withdrawn” material)
Metadata needsMetadata needs adoption of both OAIS and OAI as standards to be used detailed evaluation of the metadata work done by
others, most notably the British Library also close analysis of metadata currently captured by
Elsevier mapping of needs and gaps mapping to Dublin Core for prototype
Archival usesArchival uses
notion that there are uses made of an archive that are quite different from normal day-to-day researchers’ use of journals
if could be identified, could open the archive for such uses immediately
started discussion with history of science faculty
Technical Technical infrastructureinfrastructure needed to understand the publisher’s e-
workflow and what the publisher can delivery (now or with modification)
needed to understand what others are doing – series of site visits (to ES Amsterdam, Royal
Library, British Library, Chase, etc.)
want to learn from others and avoid re-inventing the wheel– importance of standards (OAIS and OAI) clear
DeliverablesDeliverables
metadata elements -- done! – “Description of Metadata Elements for the Yale
Electronic Archive”
model license -- work in progress – early version that needs more wordsmithing
and legal polishing
prototype -- done! – working prototype that was registered with
ARC for OAI harvesting
Next stepsNext steps
we have learned a lot, including that we can work together and must work together if this is going to happen
now we want to build the 6.5-7+ TB real thing
part of that process will be further identifying ways to collaborate with other archives internationally