I have also served in an advisory capacity the following grant-funded projects:

• Art Information Commons, Philadelphia Museum of Art (2018 - 2021)
• Structured Data on Commons, Wikimedia Foundation (2017 - 2019)
• Exploring Benefits of Linked Open Data for Digitized Special Collections, University of Illinois (2016 - 2018)
• PeriodO 2, University of Texas (2016 - 2018)

I was previously involved in the following initiatives:

• W3C Schema Architypes Community Group
• The archival RDF vocabulary
• Semantic Archives Google Group (e-mail list)
• LODLAM Summit (assisted with organizing in 2011 and 2017)

In reverse chronological order, these include:

• Radio Preservation Task Force Database (2017 - present)
• Digital Library of the Middle East (2017 - present)
• Digital Public Library of America (2013 - 2016)
• Consortium for History of Science Technology and Medicine Search Hub (2009 - 2013, formerly Philadelphia Area Consortium for History of Science)
• The American Institute of Physics’ International Catalog of Sources and Physics History Finding Aids Website (2006 - 2008)
• Testing and debugging the DLXS Findaid Class (2002 - 2003, as a grad student employee)

AIMS (“Born Digital Collections: An Inter-Institutional Model for Stewardship (AIMS)”)

An Andrew W. Mellon Foundation-funded project, with University of Virginia, Yale University, Stanford University, and University of Hull collaborating on an inter-institutional framework for stewarding electronic records in collecting repositories.

• AIMS Project Site
• AIMS White Paper
• Born Digital Archives (project blog)
• Hypatia, a prototype application to support accessioning, arrangement, description, delivery and long term preservation of born digital collections using Hydra and Fedora
• Symposia and workshops organized by AIMS project

Digital forensics and archives

• BitCurator: I served as a project advisor for both the BitCurator and BitCurator NLP grant projects.
• Fiwalk plugins
• A dfxml gem for Ruby, to aid parsing Digital Forensics XML
• Gumshoe, a Blacklight (Rails+Solr) interface to index/present/search metadata and content extracted from disk images

Overview

• Office hours: See below and contact as needed
• Required textbook: Harvey, Ross. Digital Curation: A How-To-Do It Manual.New York: Neal-Schuman, 2010. ISBN 9781555706944.

Assignment Due Dates

• April 22: Hands-On Exercise #1 (15%)
• April 29: Group Project Part 1 (not graded)
• May 13: Hands-On Exercise #2 (15%)
• June 3: Case Study (20%)
• June 10: Group Project Part 2 (30%) and Part 3 (5%)

Course Description

The class will consist of weekly lectures, supplemented by readings,discussion, and assignments. Each week will focus on specific primary topics,but students should seek connections between the topics and the applicationof principles across domains and different types of digital preservationproblems. Furthermore, each week’s concepts will build on concepts andmaterial introduced and discussed in previous weeks. In discussion, studentsare encouraged to bring up past experience when relevant to the currentweek’s topic.

Policies and Guidelines

Academic Integrity and Plagiarism

This course follows all Drexel University policies and procedures regardingacademic integrity (seeDrexel University’s Code of Conduct for moredetails). All assignments submitted must be your own work, with sourcesproperly cited. Any incidence of plagiarism or other academic dishonesty willresult in an F for the course. See “Guidelines for Assignments” below as anacademic honesty assignment is required on each assignment submitted.

Support for Students with Disabilities

Drexel University ensures people with disabilities will have an equalopportunity to participate in its programs and activities. Members and guestsof the Drexel community who have a disability need to register with the Officeof Disability Resources (ODR), if requesting auxiliary aids, accommodations,and services to participate in Drexel University’s programs. For furtherinformation please contact the ODS:

• Web: http://www.drexel.edu/oed/disabilityResources/
• Postal address: 3201 Arch St, Suite 210, Philadelphia, PA, 19104
• Telephone: (215) 895-1401 / TTY: (215) 895-2299

Support for Equality and Diversity

Drexel University strives to promote an environment of equality of opportunityand compliance with University policies and federal, state and local lawsprohibiting discrimination based upon race, color, religion, gender (sex),marital status, pregnancy, national origin, age, disability and veteranstatus. Students, faculty and staff with questions about or complaintsconcerning discrimination, harassment, and/or retaliation should contact theOffice of Equality and Diversity: http://www.drexel.edu/oed/, (215) 895-1403.

Course Drop/Withdrawal

Students may drop a course before the end of the second week of classes. Moreinformation about dropping a course can be found athttp://www.drexel.edu/provost/policies/course_drop.asp.

Students may withdraw from a course before the end of the sixth week ofclasses. More information about withdrawing from a course can be found athttp://www.drexel.edu/provost/policies/course_withdrawal_policy.asp.

Attendance

Students are expected to “attend class” virtually by following lectures,completing assigned readings in advance of class, participating indiscussion, and/or submitting assignments on time. If a student doesnot participate in a week’s class, it will be considered an “absence.”

Excused absences from class are granted in cases approved by the DrexelUniversity Office of the Provost. These include: 1) absences due to UniversitySponsored Activities where the student seeks approval at least two weeks inadvance of the absence, 2) religious observances where the student makes therequest at the beginning of term, and 3) catastrophic events such as illness,bereavement, accident, or fire, and the student provides documentation toprovide perspective that class absence is warranted. It is expected thatstudents seeking an approved absence develop a plan and timetable to make upthe missed coursework.

Students may have one unexcused absence for the term. Each furtherunexcused absence will result in a one-level grade reduction in your finalcourse grade (e.g., a B+ final grade lowered to a B). To avoid being chargedwith an unexcused absence, students should at least check into the discussioneach week, even if they are not going to make substantive comments. Moreinformation about class absences can be found at the Office of the Provost athttp://www.drexel.edu/provost/policyweb/absence.html.

Grading Scale

All assignments are assigned point grades based on the percentage to whichthey count towards your final grade. For example, an assignment worth 20% ofyour final grade has a maximum possible grade of 20 points.

For final grades, the grading scale is as follows:

• A+ = 98.5 - 100
• A = 93.5 - 98.5
• A- = 89.5 - 93.5
• B+ = 85.5 - 89.5
• B = 81.5 - 85.5
• B- = 77.5 - 81.5
• C+ = 73.5 - 77.5
• C = 69.5 - 73.5
• C = 66.5 - 69.5
• D+ = 63.5 - 66.5
• D = 61 - 63.5
• D- = 58 - 61
• F = 0 - 58

Incomplete Policy

Incomplete grades are contingent upon instructor approval and will only be considered in extenuating circumstances beyond a student’s control. The instructor is under no obligation to offer an incomplete grade. At least 80% of the graded coursework must have already been completed in order for an incomplete grade to be considered (per the recommendation of the Provost’s Office). An incomplete contract with due date for delivery of the completed work should be completed by the student and the instructor. It can be found here: http://www.ischool.drexel.edu/content/documents/incompletegradecontract.pdf.

Class Preparation and Scheduling

• Class runs from 6 PM Eastern Time on Monday to the same time on thefollowing Monday.
• Assignments are due at the beginning of each class, which is no later than6 PM Eastern Time on Monday of the specified week unless prior arrangementshave been made with the instructor. For example, Week 5 begins on April29 at 6 pm, and runs through the following week. The assignment due forWeek 5 is due no later than 6 PM on April 29.
• Students are expected to complete all readings for a given weekbefore the start of class with the exception of Week 1. See “Readings”below for more details.
• This class does not use PowerPoint or Class Capture for lectures. Youshould keep up with the lectures by reading the lecture notes after classbegins for that week.

Guidelines for Assignments

Late assignments may not be accepted unless the instructor has granted anextension. Any requests for extensions for a particular assignment must bemade prior to its due date. Exceptions to this will generally only beconsidered as a result of serious emergencies. In the event that I do accepta late assignment without an extension or you turn in an assignment past thedate due associated with the extension, I will deduct 5% of the total possiblepoints each day that it is late (e.g. 0.5 points per day on an assignmentworth 10 points).

While assignment length is a guideline, it is also significant. Becausestudents tend to use various fonts and margins, I have included approximateword counts for assignments rather than page numbers. Word counts forassignments do not include cover pages, honesty statements, citations, and thelike.

Correct spelling, proper grammar, clear phrasing, and proper and accuratecitations are all essential in your assignments. Ignoring these issueswithin your assignments will lead to your grade being reduced. If you areconcerned about the quality of your writing, please contact me or considerusing the services of theDrexel Writing Center.

Citations should be formatted consistently, using preferablyChicago/Turabian, MLA, or APA style. The particular citation style does notmatter, but being consistent in the formatting of your citations does.

Assignments should be submitted via the Blackboard assignments section - notthe digital dropbox. If Blackboard is down or you are having other problemssubmitting your assignments via Blackboard, please let me know immediately.I do not accept assignments via email without prior arrangements.

Each student must submit an academic honesty statement at the beginning ofof the term for this class. In order to raise awareness about academicdishonesty and reduce cases of academic dishonesty in the College, iSchoolpolicy requires that all syllabi contain the notice that students mustinclude the following certification page once per semester, which covers alldeliverables (for example: papers, projects, exams) indicating that the worksubmitted is their own. Syllabi must include notification about this andindicate that deliverables will not begraded without this certificationstatement. For more information, please visit theDrexel University Code of Conduct.The certification text follows:

I certify that my work in this course will be entirely my own work. I willnot quote the words of any other person from a printed source or a websitewithout indicating what has been quoted and providing an appropriate citation.I will not submit my work in this course to satisfy the requirements of anyother course.

Signature ____________________
Date ____________________

Questions, Assistance, Etc.

• You can use the “Lifeline” discussion board on Blackboard to ask questionsrelated to the class, assignments, etc. There is an option to ask questionsanonymously as well.
• I can hold “office hours” on Tuesdays from 7:30 PM to 9:00 PM EasternTime (unless noted otherwise). Any questions about course content,assignments, and the like are welcome here, but you must contact me to letme know that you want to schedule time to talk.
• If you would like to ask me a question privately or would like to set upanother time to talk, please contact me via email.

Course Evaluations

Course evaluations are a required element of every course in the iSchool.Evaluation forms are completely anonymous; in addition, the instructors do nothave access to evaluation results until after they have turned in the gradesfor their classes. The information in the evaluations provides feedback to theinstructor, helps the College improve classes and teaching, and is used byadministrators in annual faculty performance reviews. Please be part of thisintegral process by submitting a course evaluation at the end of this term.

Assignments and Course Requirements

Readings

You are expected to complete the readings for a given week before the start ofclass that week, with the exception of week 1. Please complete Week 1’sreadings by the middle of Week 1 if possible. The readings for a given weekare listed in the Course Schedule below. The listing below should be treatedas the authoritative listing.

The lectures will both build on and supplement the material in the readings.In some cases, assigned readings may only require you to skim them or areconsidered optional. In those cases, the readings will be denoted inBlackboard by the words [SKIM] or [OPTIONAL] in their title.

If you are having difficulty locating or accessing a reading, please post amessage to the Lifeline board on Blackboard.

Class Participation (15%)

Students are expected to participate in discussion boards on a regular basis,preferably every week. You are free to create a new discussion topic, butwhenever possible you should attempt to continue the discussion of an existingtopics for your own benefit, as well as that of your fellow students and yourinstructor.

Students have until 6 PM Eastern Time on the following Monday to postcomments. In general, I will not be providing weekly discussion questions toguide the conversation, so feel free to raise points that you have identifiedin your response papers (see below). I may post a topic if discussion does notseem to happen naturally. Posts may also address the readings and the othermaterials that are part of that week’s assignments as well as any other topicrelevant to a given week’s content.

You are expected to participate nine of the ten weeks of class, witheight of the those demonstrating substantive evidence of participation. Ifa student posts more than eight weeks, the highest eight grades will becounted. However, the grades are assigned based on the quality of the postsrather than the quantity. See also Attendance (above) for a discussion ofabsences. To ensure that you are not charged with an unexcused absence, youshould at least check in during the weeks you are not planning to make asubstantive comment.

Posts will be assessed based on four criteria:

• Relevance of the post to the question posed and/or the conversation takingplace in the - i.e., the degree to which a post advances the discussion,either by clarifying, extending, or deepening it.
• Thoughtfulness of the post - i.e., level of insight reflected in the post.
• Depth of understanding of the assigned materials reflected in the post -i.e., level of preparation reflected in the post.
• Inclusion of relevant materials outside of the assigned readings - i.e.,the degree to which the post adds to the understanding of the questions ordiscussion by bringing in new information or perspectives from other sources.

Midterm grades for participation will be distributed around weeks 5 to 6.

Hands-On Exercises (15% each / 30% total)

For these assignments, you will undertake a fairly straightforward taskrelated to preservation, such as creating descriptive metadata, identifyingfile formats, etc. Along with completing the exercise, you are expected towrite a response of 500-800 words that allow you to reflect on theexercise and its results.

More detail about these assignments are available on Blackboard.

Case Study Analysis (20%)

In this assignment, you will select a case study that describes a specificdigital preservation project, program, or activity, and analyze and critiquethe article. To identify an appropriate case study, you can use a publishedarticle or a report or digital preservation policy that is available on theweb, as long as it follows the guidelines below:

• The case study was not assigned as a reading for class.
• You must choose a case study that reports on work that has been started orcompleted, rather than one that only describes a plan for a project.
• The case study must be no more than five years old (i.e. published in 2007or later).
• The case study must focus on the preservation of digital information,not just about the digitization of “analog” materials.
• You also must get the approval of the instructor for your case study nolater than the beginning of Week 6.

Your analysis should be 1200-1800 words and should include a synopsis ofthe article, a description of particular preservation strategies, policies,technologies, or methodologies used, and analysis of any lessons learned,particularly if they could impact future projects. Regardless whether youagree or disagree with the approach the project took, describe the reasons whyyou feel that way in detail.

Potential sources for your case studies can include, but are not limited tothe following:

• Archives journals, like American Archivist, Archivaria, ArchivalScience, etc.
• Digital curation/digital preservation journals, like International Journalfor Digital Curation
• Policies for digital preservation programs and initiatives (see links on Blackboard)
• Library technology/digital library journals, like Library Hi-Tech,D-Lib, Ariadne, Code4lib Journal, etc.
• Papers from conferences, like iPRES, DigCCurr, Society of AmericanArchivists, Association of Moving Image Archivists, etc.
• Case studies from professional organizations, like the Digital CurationCentre, NDIIPP, the Digital Preservation Coalition, Open Planets Foundation,etc.
• The Digital Curation Bibliography:http://digital-scholarship.org/dcpb/dcb.htm

Group Project (35%)

This is a group project designed to allow you gain experience assessing thepreservation needs of a collection of digital information important to you andyour classmates and developing a detailed plan that would help ensure thepreservation of that information. Each group will usually have four or fivestudents total, but this project should be manageable with groups of at leastthree students. The instructor will form the groups for you and list thegroups by the beginning of Week 2.

You may use any technology you’d like to collaborate with the members of yourgroup, including but not limited to group discussion boards, email, Skype,etc. If any problems occur with the group collaboration, please notify me atthe time that these occur. Although I can consider relative contributions, Icannot make any allowance for problems that are reported after assignmentshave been graded.

This assignment has three parts: a draft preservation plan (Part 1), a finalreport (Part 2), and an evaluation of your peers in your group (Part 3). ForParts 1 and 2, you should ensure that your submitted assignments are writtenin a consistent voice that represents the entire group. Part 3 is submittedindividually and will be used in grade apportionment.

Part 1: Draft Preservation Plan (not assessed)

The first part of this assignment is a draft of your preservation plan. Whilenot graded, it is nonetheless a mandatory part of the assignment. This givesthe instructor an opportunity to give you feedback and guidance about how toexpand and improve upon this draft for the final report.

For this part of the assignment, your group should ensure you do thefollowing:

• Identify a common area of interest across the members of your group, andidentify or create a collection of digital information for that interest. Thiscan include websites, audio or video recordings, software, textual material,etc., and should include more than one of these types of digital media.
• Develop a description of that shared interest and the motivation forpreserving that material. Identify the context of the collection and provideinformation about its creation, and describe it in any other way you think isrelevant in terms of how it gets preserved.
• Perform an appraisal of the contents of your collection and identify asubset of that collection that you consider worthy of long-term preservation.Your group should describe its appraisal decision and selection process indetail. In addition, identify any important needs for this subset that wouldneed to be addressed for that information to be preserved appropriately.
• Begin developing a preservation plan to address the identified needs. Yourpreliminary plan should address potential strategies and actions, technicalconsiderations such as file formats or metadata requirements, and potentialcompromises that you will need to make. These may include considerations ofintellectual property rights, and in reflecting on these, describe theimplications on your plan of action.

Be sure to address the big picture as well as focusing on the details, such aswhether you think this is feasible, potential expertise or staffing needed forthis project, and how much time and/or money it would take.

Part 2: Final Report (30%)

Using the feedback you received on Part 1, rewrite and expand upon yourpreservation plan to thoroughly identify the collection of information and itsrequirements for preservation. Treat this as if you were developing a fundingproposal for a grant agency or a private foundation. Your report shouldinclude the following components:

• A revised version of your documentation from part 1 of your assignment.Ensure you adequately address the feedback provided by the instructor, such asexpanding things in need of more detail.
• A detailed staffing plan, identifying the roles, time allocation, andexpertise needed to actualize this plan.
• A detailed timeline and work plan that breaks down the necessary work intomultiple phases, with a reasonable estimate about how long each phase and setof tasks will take.
• A detailed description of any additional tangible resources (e.g. hardwareor software, etc.) or services that you would need.
• Identification of any significant risks or challenges for the project, andhow your group intends to address them.
• An overview of similar projects or those which may have some relevance tohow your group intends to execute its plan.
• A brief outline of how you would evaluate the success of your project.Stating that you intend to evaluate the success of how well the informationwas preserved over the long term is not adequate. Assume that your projecthas a finite first phase and that you need to evaluate yourproject to get further support.

You are not expected to prepare a budget.

While there is not a specific length requirement, I expect that most finalreports will be between 3500-5000 words. Ensure that your final reportshares one common voice. You can refer to specific discussions within yourgroup, but the writing style should be consistent throughout.

Sample successful (i.e. funded) grant proposals that can be used for ideascan be found from the following links:

• Institute of Museum and Library Services:http://www.imls.gov/recipients/grantsearch.aspx (see National LeadershipGrants - Advancing Digital Resources)
• National Historical Publications & Records Commission - ElectronicRecords Projects:http://www.archives.gov/nhprc/projects/electronic-records/projects.html
• National Endowment for the Humanities - Preservation and Access Research and Development:http://www.neh.gov/grants/preservation/preservation-and-access-research-and-development(see Recently Funded Awards and Sample Application Narratives)

Part 3: Peer Evaluation (5%)

All students are required to submit a peer evaluation at the end of the termthat indicated the relative contribution of their group members to theproject. These evaluations are used for grade apportionment. It is criticalthat you take these seriously. You will complete a peer evaluation form foreach member of your group, including yourself. In addition, writeapproximately 150-200 words about each member of your group describingspecific strengths, weaknesses and moments of excellence or problems thatyou’ve identified.

The peer evaluation form is available on Blackboard.

Course Schedule

Week 1: What is Digital Preservation? (April 1)

This week will contain an overview of the course and assignments, as well asbackground on and overview of digital preservation, including key themes inthe course and the field. We will also investigate the related idea of“digital curation.”

Readings (complete by April 4 if possible)

• In Harvey, Ross. Digital Curation: A How-To-Do-It-Manual (New York: NealSchuman, 2010):
  • “Chapter 1: Introduction,” 3-18.
  • “Chapter 2: The Changing Landscape,” 19-32.
  • “Chapter 4: Defining Data,” 45-52.
  • “Chapter 5: Curation and Curators,” 55-63.
• Lavoie, Brian, and Lorcan Dempsey. “Thirteen Ways of Looking At… DigitalPreservation.” D-Lib Magazine 10, no. 7/8 (July/August 2004).http://dx.doi.org/10.1045/july2004-lavoie.
• Sterling, Bruce. “Digital Decay.” In Permanence Through Change: TheVariable Media Approach, edited by Alain Depocas, Jon Ippolito, and CaitlinJones, 11-22. New York and Montréal: The Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum andDaniel Langlois Foundation, 2003.http://variablemedia.net/pdf/Sterling.pdf.
• Choose one of the following:
  • [Audio, 28 mins.]: “Digital Archaeology and the Temporary Nature ofTechnology.” Future Tense. ABC Radio National, January 29, 2012.http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/futuretense/digital-archaeology-and-the-temporary-nature-of-technology/3821064.
  • [Video, 15 mins.]: “Digital Antiquities.” Future States.http://futurestates.tv/episodes/digital-antiquities.

Week 2: Conceptual Models: OAIS and the DCC Lifecycle (April 8)

The Reference Model for an Open Archival Information System is a conceptualframework and an international standard for describing the components of adigital preservation environment. We will focus on the different componentsand their relationships during this week. We will also be looking at the DCCLifecycle model, as developed by the Digital Curation Centre.

Readings

• Harvey, Ross. “Chapter 3: Conceptual Models.” In Digital Curation: AHow-To-Do-It-Manual, 33-44. New York: Neal Schuman, 2010.
• Higgins, Sarah. “The DCC Curation Lifecycle Model.” International Journalof Digital Curation 3, no. 1 (2008): 134-140.http://dx.doi.org/10.2218/ijdc.v3i1.48.
• Lee, Christopher A. “Open Archival Information System (OAIS) ReferenceModel.” In Encyclopedia of Library and Information Sciences, Third Edition,edited by Marcia J. Bates and Mary Niles Maack, 4020-4030. Boca Raton, FL:CRC Press, 2009. http://ils.unc.edu/callee/p4020-lee.pdf.
• [SKIM] Consultative System for Space Data Systems. Reference Model foran Open Archival Information System. Recommended Practice CCSDS 650.0-M-2.June 2012. http://public.ccsds.org/publications/archive/650x0m2.pdf.
  • Note: This document is long, but you should skim it to get a high-levelunderstanding of how the different parts of the Reference Model fittogether. This week’s lecture and the other readings will explain thingsin more detail. The most important sections to skim in advance of classare section 2, section 3, and section 4.1, and skim sections 4.2 and 4.3if you can complete them. Appendix F will give you a good high-level viewof the relationships in section 4.1.
• Vardigan, Mary, and Cole Whiteman. “ICPSR meets OAIS: Applying the OAISReference Model to the Social Science Archive Context,” Archival Science 7,no. 1 (2007): 73-87.
• [OPTIONAL] Ball, Alex. Review of Data Mangement Lifecycle Models.Version 1.0. REDm-MED Project Document redm1rep120110ab10. Bath, UK:University of Bath, January 10, 2012. http://opus.bath.ac.uk/28587.

Week 3: Ingest, Selection, Provenance and Authenticity (April 15)

Ingest is the function within the OAIS Reference Model that accepts packagesof digital information into a preservation system. Digital preservationrequires processes of assessment and selection to determine the proper courseof action. We will review means of identifying requirements and establishingselection criteria to ensure appropriate and responsible allocation ofresources. We will also discuss the concepts of authenticity and provenance,or origin, of digital information and how it both relates to and distinct fromthe related archival concepts.

Readings

• In Harvey, Ross, Digital Curation: A How-To-Do-It-Manual, 131-149. (NewYork: Neal Schuman, 2010):
  • “Chapter 11: Deciding What Data to Keep,” 131-149.
  • “Chapter 12: Ingesting Data,” 151-159.
• In AIMS Work Group, AIMS Born-DigitalCollections: An Inter-Institutional Model for Stewardship (2012)http://www2.lib.virginia.edu/aims/whitepaper/AIMS_final.pdf:
  • “Chapter 1: Collection Development,” 1-16.
  • “Chapter 2: Accessioning,” 17-30.
• Mumma, Courtney C., Glenn Dingwall, and Sue Bigelow, “A First Look at theAcquisition and Appraisal of the 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Winter GamesFonds; SELECT * FROM VANOC_Records AS Archives WHERE Value=“true”.”Archivaria 72 (2011): 93-122.
• Fear, Kathleen, and Devan Ray Donaldson. “Provenance andCredibility in Scientific Data Repositories.” Archival Science 12, no. 3(2012): 319-339.
• Smith, Abby. “Authenticity and Affect: When Is a Watch Not a Watch?”Library Trends 52, no. 1 (2003): 172-182. http://hdl.handle.net/2142/8498.

Week 4: Significant Properties and Preservation Planning (April 22)

Assignment Due: Hands-On Exercise #1

Preservation planning is an important component of the OAIS model, andinvolves both monitoring a preservation environment and its surroundings aswell as developing preservation plans for specific types or collections ofdigital information. Preservation plans must address the significantproperties of digital information, which are the characteristics of aninformation object that must be maintained to ensure that object’s continuedaccess, use, and meaning over time.

Readings

• In Harvey, Ross, Digital Curation: A How-To-Do-It-Manual (New York: Neal Schuman, 2010):
  • “Chapter 9: Designing Data,” 105-114.
  • “Chapter 10: Creating Data,” 115-130.
• Knight, Gareth, and Maureen Pennock. “Data without Meaning: Establishing theSignificant Properties of Digital Research.” International Journal ofDigital Curation 4, no. 1 (2009): 159-174.http://dx.doi.org/10.2218/ijdc.v4i1.86.
• Yeo, Geoffrey. “‘Nothing is the Same as Something Else’:Significant Properties and Notions of Identity and Originality.” ArchivalScience 10 (2010): 85-116.
• Becker, Christoph, Hannes Kulovits, Mark Guttenbrunner, Stephan Strodl,Andreas Rauber and Hans Hofman. “Systematic Planning For DigitalPreservation: Evaluating Potential Strategies And Building PreservationPlans.” International Journal on Digital Libraries 10 no. 4 (2009),133-157.
• Dappert, Angela, and Adam Farquhar. “Modelling Organizational PreservationGoals to Guide Digital Preservation.” International Journal of DigitalCuration 4, no. 2 (2009), 119-134.http://dx.doi.org/10.2218/ijdc.v4i2.102.
• [OPTIONAL] Guttenbrunner, Mark, Christoph Becker, and Andreas Rauber.“Keeping the Game Alive: Evaluating Strategies for the Preservation ofConsole Video Games.” International Journal of Digital Curation 5, no. 1(2010), 64-90.http://dx.doi.org/10.2218/ijdc.v5i1.144.

Week 5: Describing and Characterizing Digital Information (April 29)

Assignment Due: Group Project Part 1

This week will focus on particular requirements and challenges related to thelong-term viability and accessibility of digital information, such as theselection and recording appropriate metadata, or information about theinformation itself. We will also discuss some issues relating to the viabilityor obsolescence of file formats.

Readings

• Harvey, Ross. “Chapter 6: Description and Representation Information.” InDigital Curation: A How-To-Do-It-Manual, 65-82. New York:Neal-Schuman, 2010.
• [OPTIONAL] Gilliland, Anne J. “Setting the Stage.” In Introduction toMetadata, edited by Murtha Baca. 3rd ed. Los Angeles: Getty ResearchInstitute, 2008.http://www.getty.edu/research/publications/electronic_publications/intrometadata/setting.html.
  • Note: This reading is optional but strongly recommended if you havelimited familiarity or experience with metadata. It is a high-leveloverview and will give you some background information on types ofmetadata in advance of class.
• Wilson, Andrew. “How Much Is Enough: Metadata for Preserving Digital Data.”Journal of Library Metadata 10 (2010), 205-217.
• AIMS Work Group. “Chapter 3: Arrangement and Description.” In AIMSBorn-Digital Collections: An Inter-Institutional Model for Stewardship,31-43. 2012. http://www2.lib.virginia.edu/aims/whitepaper/AIMS_final.pdf.
• Starr, Joan, and Angela Gastl. “isCitedBy: A Metadata Scheme for DataCite.”D-Lib Magazine 17, no. 1/2 (January/February 2011).http://dx.doi.org/10.1045/january2011-starr.
• Read one of the following:
  • Dappert, Angela, and Markus Enders. “Using METS, PREMIS andMODS for Archiving eJournals,” D-Lib Magazine 14, no. 9/10(September/October 2008).http://dx.doi.org/10.1045/september2008-dappert.
  • Guenther, Rebecca, and Leslie Myrick. “Archiving Web Sitesfor Preservation and Access: MODS, METS, and MINERVA.” Journal of ArchivalOrganization 4, no. 1-2 (2007): 141-166.
• [SKIM] Caplan, Priscilla. Understanding PREMIS. Washington: Library ofCongress, 2009.http://www.loc.gov/standards/premis/understanding-premis.pdf.
• [SKIM] Abrams, Stephen. “File Formats.” DCC Digital CurationManual, edited by Seamus Ross and Michael Day (2007).http://www.dcc.ac.uk/sites/default/files/documents/resource/curation-manual/chapters/file-formats/file-formats.pdf.

Week 6: Digital Preservation Strategies (May 6)

This week focuses on specific strategies for ensuring the longevity of digitalinformation and heavily focuses on case studies. Emulation duplicates thefunction of a full computer system. Migration involves transforming digitalinformation into a different format than in which it was originally held. Wewill also discuss the impact of storage media on digital preservation.

Readings

• In Harvey, Ross, Digital Curation: A How-To-Do-It-Manual (New York: NealSchuman, 2010):
  • “Chapter 13: Preserving Data,” 161-180.
  • “Chapter 14: Storing Data,” 181-198.
• Carroll, Laura. Erika Farr, Peter Hornsby, and Ben Ranker. “A ComprehensiveApproach to Born-Digital Archives.” Archivaria 72 (2011): 61-92.
• Brown, Geoffrey. “Developing Virtual CD-ROM Collections: The VoyagerCompany Publications.” *International Journal of Digital Curation 7. no. 2(2012), 3-20. http://dx.doi.org/10.2218/ijdc.v7i2.226
• Gregory, Lisa. “The ‘M’ Word: Exploring File Format Migration withOpen Source Tools.” Proceedings of the 2010 Society of American Archivists Research Forum. Chicago: Society of American Archivists, 2011. http://www2.archivists.org/sites/all/files/LGFinal_0.pdf
• Ippolito, Jon. “Accomodating the Unpredictable: The Variable MediaQuestionnaire.” In Permanence Through Change: The Variable Media Approach,edited by Alain Depocas, Jon Ippolito, and Caitlin Jones, 47-53. New York andMontréal: The Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum and Daniel LangloisFoundation, 2003. http://variablemedia.net/pdf/Ippolito.pdf.
• Rothenberg, Jeff. “Renewing the Erl King.” Millenium Film Journal 45/46(2006). http://www.bampfa.berkeley.edu/about/ErlKingReport.pdf.
• Janée, Greg, James Frew, and Terry Moore. “Relay-supporting Archives:Requirements and Progress.” International Journal of Digital Curation 4, no.1 (2009), 57-70. http://dx.doi.org/10.2218/ijdc.v4i1.78.

Week 7: Digital Preservation Policy and Security (May 13)

Assignment Due: Hands-On Exercise #2

Digital preservation policy frameworks are essential in ensuring the continuedoperation of a preservation environment within an institution. We will belooking at some examples of guidelines for developing policy as well aspolicies from specific institutions.

Readings

• Harvey, Ross. “Chapter 7: Preservation Planning and Policy.” In DigitalCuration: A How-To-Do-It-Manual, 83-92. New York: Neal Schuman, 2010.
• Trusted Digital Repositories: Attributes and Responsibilities. AnRLG-OCLC Report. Mountain View, CA: RLG, 2002.http://www.oclc.org/resources/research/activities/trustedrep/repositories.pdf.
  • Read pages 1-32, 37-40, and 49-53.
• Prom, Christopher. “Making Digital Curation a Systematic InstitutionalFunction.” International Journal of Digital Curation 6, no. 1 (2011),139-152. http://dx.doi.org/10.2218/ijdc.v6i1.178.
• Inter-University Consortium for Political and Social Research.“Digital Preservation Policies and Planning at ICPSR.” (June 20, 2007).http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/icpsrweb/content/datamanagement/preservation/policies/.
  • Read through the following documents linked from the above page:
    • ICPSR Digital Preservation Policy Framework (read this first before the others!)
    • Digital Preservation Policy Framework: Outline
    • OAIS Conformance at ICPSR
    • Digital Preservation Requirements Applied to ICPSR
    • Roles and Responsibilities for Digital Preservation at ICPSR
  • SKIM the following documents linked from the above page:
    • ICPSR Strategic Plan
    • ICPSR Collection Development Policy
    • ICPSR Access Policy Framework
    • Disaster Planning Policy Framework
• [SKIM] Beagrie, Neil, Najla Semple, Peter Williams, and Richard Wright.“Digital Preservation Policies Study: Part 1: Final Report.” (2008).http://www.jisc.ac.uk/media/documents/programmes/preservation/jiscpolicy_p1finalreport.pdf.

Week 8: Compliance, Auditing, and Certification (May 20)

Certification and auditing are important steps to determine the soundness,resilience, and long-term viability of institutions and programs thatundertake digital preservation initiatives. We will look at a few keyinitiatives that evaluate preservation environments as well as a few casestudies.

Readings

• [SKIM] Consultative System for Space Data Systems, Audit andCertification of Trustworthy Digital Repositories. Recommended Practice652.0-M-1, September 2011.http://public.ccsds.org/publications/archive/652x0m1.pdf.
  • Note: Like the OAIS Reference Model, this is document is long. Skimsections 2, 3, 4, 5 and Annex A.
• McHugh, Andrew, Seamus Ross, Perla Innocenti, Ravio Ruusalepp, and HansHofman. “Bringing Self-Assessment Home: Repository Profiling and Key Lines ofEnquiry within DRAMBORA.” International Journal of Digital Curation 3, no.2 (2008): 130-142.http://dx.doi.org/10.2218/ijdc.v3i2.64.
• Steinhart, Gail, Dianne Dietrich, and Ann Green. “Establishing Trust in aChain of Preservation: The TRAC Checklist Applied to a Data StagingRepository (DataStaR).” D-Lib Magazine 15, no. 9/10 (2009).http://dx.doi.org/10.1045/september2009-steinhart.
• Vermaaten, Sally, Brian Lavoie, and Priscilla Caplan.“Identifying Threats to Successful Digital Preservation: the SPOT Model forRisk Assessment.” D-Lib Magazine 18, no. 9/10.http://dx.doi.org/10.1045/september2012-vermaaten.
• Read one of the following:
  • Center for Research Libraries. “Report on Scholars Portal Audit.”February 2013.http://crl.edu/sites/default/files/attachments/pages/ScholarsPortal_Report_2013_%C6%92.pdf
  • Center for Research Libraries. “Certification Report on Chronopolis.”March 2012.http://www.crl.edu/sites/default/files/attachments/pages/Chron_Report_2012_final_0.pdf
  • Center for Research Libraries. “Certification Report on the HathiTrust Digital Library.”March 2011.http://www.crl.edu/sites/default/files/attachments/pages/CRL%20HathiTrust%202011.pdf
  • Center for Research Libraries. “Report on Portico Audit Findings.”January 2010.http://www.crl.edu/sites/default/files/attachments/pages/CRL%20Report%20on%20Portico%20Audit%202010.pdf

May 27-June 2 - No Class

Week 9: Resource Allocation and Sustainability (June 3)

Assignment Due: Case Study

Resources are a key component of ensuring the operation of a digitalpreservation initiative over time. There has been considerable work over thelast few years that addresses issues related to the sustainability ofpreservation programs. We will look at some emerging work in the field,including sustainability analyses and cost models.

Readings

• Sustainable Economics for a Digital Planet: Ensuring Long-Term Access toDigital Information. Final Report of the Blue Ribbon Task Force onSustainable Digital Preservation and Access (February 2010).http://brtf.sdsc.edu/biblio/BRTF_Final_Report.pdf.
  • Read chapters 1, 2, 3, and 5.
  • SKIM chapter 4.
• Lavoie, Brian F. “The Fifth Blackbird: Some Thoughts on EconomicallySustainable Digital Preservation.” D-Lib Magazine 14, no. 3/4 (2008).http://dx.doi.org/10.1045/march2008-lavoie.
• Wheatley, Paul, and Brian Hole. “LIFE3: Predicting Long Term DigitalPreservation Costs.” Paper presented at iPRES 2009: the Sixth InternationalConference on Preservation of Digital Objects, San Francisco, Ca. (2009).http://escholarship.org/uc/item/23b3225n.
• Abrams, Stephen, Patricia Cruse, John Kunze, and Michael Mundrane.Total Cost of Preservation: Cost Modeling for Sustainable Services. Revision0.16. Oakland: UC Curation Center/California Digital Library, April 9, 2012.https://wiki.ucop.edu/download/attachments/163610649/TCP-total-cost-of-preservation.pdf.

Week 10: Access and User Needs (June 10)

Assignment Due: Group Project Parts 2 and 3

Access is the driving force behind preservation. This week will address meansand requirements of access to preserved digital information.

Readings

• Harvey, Ross. “Chapter 15: Using and Reusing Data.” In Digital Curation:A How-To-Do-It-Manual, 199-216. New York: Neal Schuman, 2010.
• Kirschenbaum, Matthew G. “Coda: Austin’s Afternoons.” In Mechanisms: NewMedia and the Forensic Imagination, 207-211. Cambridge, Mass.: MITPress, 2008.
• AIMS Work Group. “Chapter 4: Discovery and Access.” In AIMS Born-DigitalCollections: An Inter-Institutional Model for Stewardship, 44-62. 2012.http://www2.lib.virginia.edu/aims/whitepaper/AIMS_final.pdf.
• Hedstrom, Margaret, Christopher Lee, Judith Olson, and Clifford Lampe.“‘The Old Version Flickers More:’ Digital Preservation from the User’sPerspective.” American Archivist 69 (Summer 2006), 159-187.
• Beaudoin, Joan E., “A Framework for Contextual Metadata Used in the DigitalPreservation of Cultural Objects.” D-Lib Magazine 18, no. 11/12 (2012).http://dx.doi.org/10.1045/november2012-beaudoin2
• Choudhury, Sayeed, Mike Furlough, and Joyce Ray, “Digital Curation andE-Publishing: Libraries Make the Connection.” Charleston Conference 2009.http://jhir.library.jhu.edu/handle/1774.2/35005.
• [OPTIONAL] Lane, Julia, and Stephanie Shipp. “Using a Remote Access DataEnclave for Data Dissemination.” International Journal of Digital Curation2, no. 1 (2007): 128-134.http://dx.doi.org/10.2218/ijdc.v2i1.20.

Overview

• Office hours: See below and contact as needed
• Required textbook: Harvey, Ross. Digital Curation: A How-To-Do It Manual.New York: Neal-Schuman, 2010. ISBN 9781555706944. All other required readingswill be are available online (through Drexel University’s electronicresources, as freely available resources, or included on Blackboard).

Course Description

The class will consist of weekly lectures, supplemented by readings,discussion, and assignments. Each week will focus on specific primary topics,but students should seek connections between the topics and the applicationof principles across domains and different types of digital preservationproblems. Furthermore, each week’s concepts will build on concepts andmaterial introduced and discussed in previous weeks. In discussion, studentsare encouraged to bring up past experience when relevant to the currentweek’s topic.

Policies and Guidelines

Academic Integrity and Plagiarism

This course follows all Drexel University policies and procedures regardingacademic integrity (seehttp://www.drexel.edu/provost/policies/academic_dishonesty.asp for moredetails). All assignments submitted must be your own work, with sourcesproperly cited. Any incidence of plagiarism or other academic dishonesty willresult in an F for the course. See “Guidelines for Assignments” below as anacademic honesty assignment is required on each assignment submitted.

Support for Students with Disabilities

Drexel University ensures people with disabilities will have an equalopportunity to participate in its programs and activities. Members and guestsof the Drexel community who have a disability need to register with the Officeof Disability Resources (ODR), if requesting auxiliary aids, accommodations,and services to participate in Drexel University’s programs. For furtherinformation please contact the ODS:

• Web: http://www.drexel.edu/oed/disabilityResources/
• Postal address: 3201 Arch St, Suite 210, Philadelphia, PA, 19104
• Telephone: (215) 895-1401
• TTY: (215) 895-2299

Support for Equality and Diversity

Drexel University strives to promote an environment of equality of opportunityand compliance with University policies and federal, state and local lawsprohibiting discrimination based upon race, color, religion, gender (sex),marital status, pregnancy, national origin, age, disability and veteranstatus. Students, faculty and staff with questions about or complaintsconcerning discrimination, harassment, and/or retaliation should contact theOffice of Equality and Diversity:

• Web: http://www.drexel.edu/oed/
• Telephone: (215) 895-1403

Course Drop/Withdrawal

Students may drop a course before the end of the second week of classes. Moreinformation about dropping a course can be found athttp://www.drexel.edu/provost/policies/course_drop.asp.

Students may withdraw from a course before the end of the sixth week ofclasses. More information about withdrawing from a course can be found athttp://www.drexel.edu/provost/policies/course_withdrawal_policy.asp.

Attendance

Students are expected to “attend class” virtually by following lectures,completing assigned readings in advance of class, participating indiscussion, and/or submitting assignments on time. If a student doesnot participate in a week’s class, it will be considered an “absence.”

Excused absences from class are granted in cases approved by the DrexelUniversity Office of the Provost. These include: 1) absences due to UniversitySponsored Activities where the student seeks approval at least two weeks inadvance of the absence, 2) religious observances where the student makes therequest at the beginning of term, and 3) catastrophic events such as illness,bereavement, accident, or fire, and the student provides documentation toprovide perspective that class absence is warranted. It is expected thatstudents seeking an approved absence develop a plan and timetable to make upthe missed coursework.

Students may have one unexcused absence for the term. Each furtherunexcused absence will result in a one-level grade reduction in your finalcourse grade (e.g., a B+ final grade lowered to a B). To avoid being chargedwith an unexcused absence, students should at least check into the discussioneach week, even if they are not going to make substantive comments. Moreinformation about class absences can be found at the Office of the Provost athttp://www.drexel.edu/provost/policyweb/absence.html.

Grading Scale

All assignments are assigned point grades based on the percentage to whichthey count towards your final grade. For example, an assignment worth 20% ofyour final grade has a maximum possible grade of 20 points.

For final grades, the grading scale is as follows:

• A+ = 99-100
• A = 94-98
• A- = 90-93
• B+ = 86-89
• B = 82-85
• B- = 78-81
• C+ = 74-77
• C = 70-73

In the event that your numerical grade falls between two letter grades, yourgrade will be rounded up if the decimal value is 0.5 or greater; otherwise, itwill be rounded down.

Incompletes

Incompletes will be assigned only in cases of serious emergency (e.g. medicalor family). The instructor retains the right to ask for evidence of theemergency upon request. If granted an incomplete, you and the instructor willset a mutually agreed-upon final due date by which all outstanding work mustbe completed.

Class Preparation and Scheduling

• Class runs from 6 PM Eastern Time on Monday to the same time on thefollowing Monday.
• Assignments are due no later than 6 PM Eastern Time on Monday of thespecified week unless prior arrangements have been made with the instructor.
• Students are expected to complete all readings for a given weekbefore the start of class with the exception of Week 1. See “Readings”below for more details.
• This class does not use PowerPoint or Class Capture for lectures. Youshould keep up with the lectures by reading the lecture notes after classbegins for that week.

Guidelines for Assignments

Late assignments may not be accepted unless the instructor has granted anextension. Any requests for extensions for a particular assignment must bemade prior to its due date. Exceptions to this will generally only beconsidered as a result of serious emergencies. In the event that I do accepta late assignment without an extension or you turn in an assignment past thedate due associated with the extension, I will deduct 5% of the total possiblepoints each day that it is late (e.g. 0.5 points per day on an assignmentworth 10 points).

While assignment length is a guideline, it is also significant. Becausestudents tend to use various fonts and margins, I have included approximateword counts for assignments rather than page numbers. Word counts forassignments do not include cover pages, honesty statements, citations, and thelike.

Correct spelling, proper grammar, clear phrasing, and proper and accuratecitations are all essential in your assignments. Ignoring these issueswithin your assignments will lead to your grade being reduced. If you areconcerned about the quality of your writing, please contact me or considerusing the services of theDrexel Writing Center.

Citations should be formatted consistently, using preferablyChicago/Turabian, MLA, or APA style. The particular citation style does notmatter, but being consistent in the formatting of your citations does.

Assignments should be submitted via the Blackboard assignments section - notthe digital dropbox. If Blackboard is down or you are having other problemssubmitting your assignments via Blackboard, please let me know immediately.I do not accept assignments via email without prior arrangements.

All submitted assignments must include Drexel’s Academic HonestyCertification Statement. Any assignment missing the Academic HonestyCertification Statement will not be graded until it is resubmitted includingthe Certification Statement. In order to raise awareness about academicdishonesty and reduce cases of academic dishonesty in the College, the iSchoolpolicy requires that all syllabi contain the notice that students must includethe following certification page with all deliverables (for example: papers,projects, exams) indicating that the work submitted is their own. Syllabi mustinclude notification about this and indicate that deliverables will not begraded without this certification page. For more information, please visit thefollowing page: http://www.drexel.edu/studentlife/judicial/honesty.html. Thecertification text follows:

I certify that:

• This paper/project/exam is entirely my own work.

• I have not quoted the words of any other person from a printed source ora website without indicating what has been quoted and providing anappropriate citation.

• I have not submitted this paper / project to satisfy the requirements ofany other course.

Signature ____________________
Date ____________________

Questions, Assistance, Etc.

• You can use the “Lifeline” discussion board on Blackboard to ask questionsrelated to the class, assignments, etc. There is an option to ask questionsanonymously as well.
• I will have public “office hours” for every Tuesdayfrom 7:30 PM to 9:00 PM Eastern Time (unless noted otherwise), held in WimbaClassroom. Any questions about course content, assignments, and the like arewelcome here.
• If you would like to ask me a question privately or wouldlike to set up another time to talk, please contact me via email.

Course Evaluations

Course evaluations are a required element of every course in the iSchool.Evaluation forms are completely anonymous; in addition, the instructors do nothave access to evaluation results until after they have turned in the gradesfor their classes. The information in the evaluations provides feedback to theinstructor, helps the College improve classes and teaching, and is used byadministrators in annual faculty performance reviews. Please be part of thisintegral process by submitting a course evaluation at the end of this term.

Assignments and Course Requirements

Readings

You are expected to complete the readings for a given week before the start ofclass that week, with the exception of week 1. Please complete Week 1’sreadings by the middle of Week 1 if possible. The readings for a given weekare listed in the Course Schedule below. The listing below should be treatedas the authoritative listing.

The lectures will both build on and supplement the material in the readings.In some cases, assigned readings may only require you to skim them or areconsidered optional. In those cases, the readings will be denoted inBlackboard by the words [SKIM] or [OPTIONAL] in their title.

If you are having difficulty locating or accessing a reading, please post amessage to the Lifeline board on Blackboard.

Class Participation (15%)

Students are expected to participate in discussion boards on a regular basis,preferably every week. You are free to create a new discussion topic, butwhenever possible you should attempt to continue the discussion of an existingtopics for your own benefit, as well as that of your fellow students and yourinstructor.

Students have until 6 PM Eastern Time on the following Monday to postcomments. In general, I will not be providing weekly discussion questions toguide the conversation, so feel free to raise points that you have identifiedin your response papers (see below). I may post a topic if discussion does notseem to happen naturally. Posts may also address the readings and the othermaterials that are part of that week’s assignments as well as any other topicrelevant to a given week’s content.

You are expected to participate nine of the ten weeks of class, witheight of the those demonstrating substantive evidence of participation. Ifa student posts more than eight weeks, the highest eight grades will becounted. However, the grades are assigned based on the quality of the postsrather than the quantity. See also Attendance (above) for a discussion ofabsences. To ensure that you are not charged with an unexcused absence, youshould at least check in during the weeks you are not planning to make asubstantive comment.

Posts will be assessed based on four criteria:

• Relevance of the post to the question posed and/or the conversation takingplace in the - i.e., the degree to which a post advances the discussion,either by clarifying, extending, or deepening it.
• Thoughtfulness of the post - i.e., level of insight reflected in the post.
• Depth of understanding of the assigned materials reflected in the post -i.e., level of preparation reflected in the post.
• Inclusion of relevant materials outside of the assigned readings - i.e.,the degree to which the post adds to the understanding of the questions ordiscussion by bringing in new information or perspectives from other sources.

Midterm grades for participation will be distributed around weeks 5 to 6.

Response Papers (10% each / 30% total)

Throughout the term, you are responsible for writing three response papers of800-1200 words. For each response papers, you choose a reading from agiven class week’s readings, summarize the key points in that piece, andcritique those key points. You do not need to choose a reading from the weekthat the response paper is due (e.g., for Response Paper #1, you can choose areading from Week 1, 2, or 3). Readings from the textbook (DigitalCuration: A How-To-Do-It Manual) and any reading marked [SKIM] are not to beused for response papers. Whenever possible, justify your positions based onother assigned readings, class discussions, or other material in professionalliterature on digital preservation.

Alternate Option for Response Paper #3

For Response Paper #3, you also have the option to write an analysis of adigital preservation policy. A set of links to policy documents from a varietyof institutions is provided on Blackboard in the folder entitled “Policies forAnalysis.” You may choose one of the policies available in this folder, butyou are also welcome to choose another institution if you can easily obtainits policy or practices documentation. There are two exceptions to this:

• You cannot use the ICPSR documentation as it was reading for class.
• You cannot use documentation from your current employer.

Your analysis should include the following:

• A description of the initiative and its institutional context, highlightingany particular aspects that you consider distinctive.
• An overview of its policies and guidelines (or practices, if no formalpolicies are available), including its mission, the scope of itsresponsibility and the types of material it contains, the services itprovides, roles and responsibilities for its operations, its level ofsecurity, and its sustainability or viability.
• A brief description of how the initiative could determine if it issuccessful or adequately addressing its mission and its needs of the usercommunity.
• An overview of ways that the initiative’s policy and practice could bestrengthened.

You are not expected or required to contact staff that operate the program.

In reviewing the policy documentation, please be aware that many of theseindividual documents do not stand on their own. In other words, they may referor link to other documentation, which you should subsequently review todetermine if it addresses important components of the initiative’s overallpreservation policies. For example, the ICPSR Digital Preservation PolicyFramework refers to more than eight other documents. You may need to do alittle additional research to find related documentation.

Hands-On Exercise (10%)

For this assignment, you will choose a hands-on exercise out from two or threeoptions. Each option involves undertaking a fairly straightforward taskrelated to preservation, such as creating descriptive metadata, identifyingfile formats, etc. Along with completing the exercise, you are expected towrite a response of 800-1200 words that allow you to reflect on theexercise and its results.

More detail about this assignment is available on Blackboard.

Case Study Analysis (10%)

In this assignment, you will select a case study that describes a specificdigital preservation project, program, or activity, and analyze and critiquethe article. To identify an appropriate case study, you can use a publishedarticle, or a report that is available on the web, as long as it follows theguidelines below:

• The case study was not assigned as a reading for class.
• You must choose a case study that reports on work that has been started orcompleted, rather than one that only describes a plan for a project.
• The case study must be no more than five years old (i.e. published in 2007or later).
• Your case study must also be about the preservation of digital information,not just about the digitization of “analog” materials.
• You also must get the approval of the instructor for your case study nolater than the beginning of Week 8.

Your analysis should be 800-1200 words and should include a synopsis ofthe article, a description of particular preservation strategies,technologies, or techniques used, and analysis of any lessons learned,particularly if they could impact future projects. Regardless whether youagree or disagree with the approach the project took, describe the reasons whyyou feel that way in detail.

Potential sources for your case studies can include, but are not limited tothe following:

• Archives journals, like American Archivist, Archivaria, ArchivalScience, etc.
• Digital curation/digital preservation journals, like International Journalfor Digital Curation
• Library technology/digital library journals, like Library Hi-Tech,D-Lib, Ariadne, Code4lib Journal, etc.
• Papers from conferences, like iPRES, DigCCurr, Society of AmericanArchivists, Association of Moving Image Archivists, etc.
• Case studies from professional organizations, like the Digital CurationCentre, NDIIPP, the Digital Preservation Coalition, Open Planets Foundation,etc.
• The Digital Curation Bibliography:http://digital-scholarship.org/dcpb/dcb.htm

Group Project (35%)

This is a group project designed to allow you gain experience assessing thepreservation needs of a collection of digital information important to you andyour classmates and developing a detailed plan that would help ensure thepreservation of that information. Each group will usually have four or fivestudents total, but this project should be manageable with groups of at leastthree students. The instructor will form the groups for you and list thegroups by the beginning of Week 2.

You may use any technology you’d like to collaborate with the members of yourgroup, including but not limited to group discussion boards, email, Skype,etc. If any problems occur with the group collaboration, please notify me atthe time that these occur. Although I can consider relative contributions, Icannot make any allowance for problems that are reported after assignmentshave been graded.

This assignment has three parts: a draft preservation plan (Part 1), a finalreport (Part 2), and an evaluation of your peers in your group (Part 3). ForParts 1 and 2, you should ensure that your submitted assignments are writtenin a consistent voice that represents the entire group. Part 3 is submittedindividually and will be used in grade apportionment.

Part 1: Draft Preservation Plan (not assessed)

The first part of this assignment is a draft of your preservation plan. Whilenot graded, it is nonetheless a mandatory part of the assignment. This givesthe instructor an opportunity to give you feedback and guidance about how toexpand and improve upon this draft for the final report.

For this part of the assignment, your group should ensure you do thefollowing:

• Undertake the selection of a common area of interest across your group, andidentify or create a collection of digital information for that interest. Thiscan include websites, audio or video recordings, software, textual material,etc., and should include more than one of these types of digital media.
• Develop a description of that shared interest and the motivation forpreserving that material. Identify the context of the collection and provideinformation about its creation, and describe it in any other way you think isrelevant in terms of how it gets preserved.
• Perform an appraisal of the contents of your collection and identify asubset of that collection that you consider worthy of long-term preservation.Your group should describe its appraisal decision and selection process indetail. In addition, identify any important needs for this subset that wouldneed to be addressed for that information to be preserved appropriately.
• Begin developing a preservation plan to address the identified needs. Yourpreliminary plan should address potential strategies and actions, technicalconsiderations such as file formats or metadata requirements, and potentialcompromises that you will need to make. These may include considerations ofintellectual property rights, and in reflecting on these, describe theimplications on your plan of action.

Be sure to address the big picture as well as focusing on the details, such aswhether you think this is feasible, potential expertise or staffing needed forthis project, and how much time and/or money it would take.

Part 2: Final Report (30%)

Using the feedback you received on Part 1, rewrite and expand upon yourpreservation plan to thoroughly identify the collection of information and itsrequirements for preservation. Treat this as if you were developing a fundingproposal for a grant agency or a private foundation. Your report shouldinclude the following components:

• A revised version of your documentation from part 1 of your assignment.Ensure you adequately address the feedback provided by the instructor, such asexpanding things in need of more detail.
• A detailed staffing plan, identifying the roles, time allocation, andexpertise needed to actualize this plan.
• A detailed timeline and work plan that breaks down the necessary work intomultiple phases, with a reasonable estimate about how long each phase and setof tasks will take.
• A detailed description of any additional tangible resources (e.g. hardwareor software, etc.) or services that you would need.
• Identification of any significant risks or challenges for the project, andhow your group intends to address them.
• An overview of similar projects or those which may have some relevance tohow your group intends to execute its plan.
• A brief outline of how you would evaluate the success of your project.Stating that you intend to evaluate the success of how well the informationwas preserved over the long term is not adequate. Assume that your projecthas a finite first phase and that you need to evaluate yourproject to get further support.

You are not expected to prepare a budget.

While there is not a specific length requirement, I expect that most finalreports will be between 3500-5000 words. Ensure that your final reportshares one common voice. You can refer to specific discussions within yourgroup, but the writing style should be consistent throughout.

Sample successful (i.e. funded) grant proposals that can be used for ideascan be found from the following links:

• Institute of Museum and Library Services:http://www.imls.gov/recipients/grantsearch.aspx (see National LeadershipGrants - Advancing Digital Resources)
• National Historical Publications & Records Commission - ElectronicRecords Projects:http://www.archives.gov/nhprc/projects/electronic-records/projects.html
• National Endowment for the Humanities - Preservation and Access Research and Development:http://www.neh.gov/grants/preservation/preservation-and-access-research-and-development(see Recently Funded Awards and Sample Application Narratives)

Part 3: Peer Evaluation (5%)

All students are required to submit a peer evaluation at the end of the termthat indicated the relative contribution of their group members to theproject. These evaluations are used for grade apportionment. It is criticalthat you take these seriously. You will complete a peer evaluation form foreach member of your group, including yourself. In addition, writeapproximately 150-200 words about each member of your group describingspecific strengths, weaknesses and moments of excellence or problems thatyou’ve identified.

The peer evaluation form is available on Blackboard.

Course Schedule

Week 1: What is Digital Preservation? (September 24)

This week will contain an overview of the course and assignments, as well asbackground on and overview of digital preservation, including key themes inthe course and the field. We will also investigate the related idea of“digital curation.”

Readings (complete by September 27 if possible)

• In Harvey, Ross. Digital Curation: A How-To-Do-It-Manual (New York: NealSchuman, 2010):
  • “Chapter 1: Introduction,” 3-18.
  • “Chapter 2: The Changing Landscape,” 19-32.
  • “Chapter 4: Defining Data,” 45-52.
  • “Chapter 5: Curation and Curators,” 55-63.
• Sterling, Bruce. “Digital Decay.” In Permanence Through Change: TheVariable Media Approach, edited by Alain Depocas, Jon Ippolito, and CaitlinJones, 11-22. New York and Montréal: The Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum andDaniel Langlois Foundation, 2003.http://variablemedia.net/pdf/Sterling.pdf.
• Lavoie, Brian, and Lorcan Dempsey. “Thirteen Ways of Looking At… DigitalPreservation.” D-Lib Magazine 10, no. 7/8 (July/August 2004).http://dx.doi.org/10.1045/july2004-lavoie.
• Choose one of the following:
  • [Audio, 28 mins.] “Digital Archaeology and the Temporary Nature ofTechnology.” Future Tense. ABC Radio National, January 29, 2012.http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/futuretense/digital-archaeology-and-the-temporary-nature-of-technology/3821064.
  • [Video, 15 mins.]: “Digital Antiquities.” Future States.http://futurestates.tv/episodes/digital-antiquities.
• Beagrie, Neil. “Digital Curation for Science, Digital Libraries, andIndividuals.” International Journal of Digital Curation 1, no. 1 (2006):3-16. http://dx.doi.org/10.2218/ijdc.v1i1.2.

Week 2: Conceptual Models: OAIS and the DCC Lifecycle (October 1)

The Reference Model for an Open Archival Information System is a conceptualframework and an international standard for describing the components of adigital preservation environment. We will focus on the different componentsand their relationships during this week. We will also be looking at the DCCLifecycle model, as developed by the Digital Curation Centre.

Readings

• Harvey, Ross. “Chapter 3: Conceptual Models.” In Digital Curation: AHow-To-Do-It-Manual, 33-44. New York: Neal Schuman, 2010.
• [SKIM] Consultative System for Space Data Systems. Reference Model foran Open Archival Information System. Recommended Practice CCSDS 650.0-M-2.June 2012. http://public.ccsds.org/publications/archive/650x0m2.pdf.
  • Note: This document is long, but you should skim to get a high-levelunderstanding of how the different parts of the Reference Model fittogether. This week’s lecture and the other readings will explain thingsin more detail. The most important sections to skim in advance of classare section 2, section 3, and section 4.1, and skim sections 4.2 and 4.3if you can complete them. Appendix F will give you a good high-level viewof the relationships in section 4.1.
• Higgins, Sarah. “The DCC Curation Lifecycle Model.” International Journalof Digital Curation 3, no. 1 (2008): 134-140.http://dx.doi.org/10.2218/ijdc.v3i1.48.
• Lee, Christopher A. “Open Archival Information System (OAIS) ReferenceModel.” In Encyclopedia of Library and Information Sciences, Third Edition,edited by Marcia J. Bates and Mary Niles Maack, 4020-4030. Boca Raton, FL:CRC Press, 2009. http://ils.unc.edu/callee/p4020-lee.pdf.
• Ockerbloom, John Mark. “What Repositories Do: The OAIS Model.” Everybody’sLibraries, October 13, 2008).http://everybodyslibraries.com/2008/10/13/what-repositories-do-the-oais-model/.
• Vardigan, Mary, and Cole Whiteman. “ICPSR meets OAIS: Applying the OAISReference Model to the Social Science Archive Context,” Archival Science 7,no. 1 (2007): 73-87.
• [OPTIONAL] Ball, Alex. Review of Data Mangement Lifecycle Models.Version 1.0. REDm-MED Project Document redm1rep120110ab10. Bath, UK:University of Bath, January 10, 2012. http://opus.bath.ac.uk/28587.

Week 3: Ingest, Selection, Provenance and Authenticity (October 8)

Assignment Due: Response Paper #1

Ingest is the function within the OAIS Reference Model that accepts packagesof digital information into a preservation system. Digital preservationrequires processes of assessment and selection to determine the proper courseof action. We will review means of identifying requirements and establishingselection criteria to ensure appropriate and responsible allocation ofresources. We will also discuss the concepts of authenticity and provenance,or origin, of digital information and how it both relates to and distinct fromthe related archival concepts.

Readings

• Harvey, Ross. “Chapter 11: Deciding What Data to Keep.” In DigitalCuration: A How-To-Do-It-Manual, 131-149. New York: Neal Schuman, 2010.
• Harvey, Ross. “Chapter 12: Ingesting Data.” In Digital Curation:A How-To-Do-It-Manual, 151-159. New York: Neal Schuman, 2010.
• AIMS Work Group. “Chapter 1: Collection Development.” In AIMS Born-DigitalCollections: An Inter-Institutional Model for Stewardship, 4-16. 2012.http://www2.lib.virginia.edu/aims/whitepaper/AIMS_final.pdf.
• AIMS Work Group. “Chapter 2: Accessioning.” In AIMS Born-DigitalCollections: An Inter-Institutional Model for Stewardship, 17-30. 2012.http://www2.lib.virginia.edu/aims/whitepaper/AIMS_final.pdf.
• Hirtle, Peter. “Archival Authenticity in a Digital Age.” In Authenticityin a Digital Environment. Washington: Council on Library and InformationResources, 2000: 8-23. http://www.clir.org/pubs/reports/pub92/.
• Rothenberg, Jeff. “Preserving Authentic Digital Information.” InAuthenticity in a Digital Environment. Washington: Council on Library andInformation Resources, 2000: 51-68. http://www.clir.org/pubs/reports/pub92/.
• Mumma, Courtney C., Glenn Dingwall, and Sue Bigelow, “A First Look at theAcquisition and Appraisal of the 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Winter GamesFonds; SELECT * FROM VANOC_Records AS Archives WHERE Value=“true”.”Archivaria 72 (2011): 93-122.
• Groth, Paul, Yolanda Gil, James Cheney, and Simon Miles. “Requirements forProvenance on the Web.” International Journal of Digital Curation 7, no. 1(2012): 39-56.http://dx.doi.org/10.2218/ijdc.v7i1.213.
• [OPTIONAL] Fear, Kathleen, and Devan Ray Donaldson. “Provenance andCredibility in Scientific Data Repositories.” Archival Science 12, no. 3(2012): 319-339.

Week 4: Significant Properties and Preservation Planning (October 15)

Preservation planning is an important component of the OAIS model, andinvolves both monitoring a preservation environment and its surroundings aswell as developing preservation plans for specific types or collections ofdigital information. Preservation plans must address the significantproperties of digital information, which are the characteristics of aninformation object that must be maintained to ensure that object’s continuedaccess, use, and meaning over time.

Readings

• Harvey, Ross. “Chapter 9: Designing Data.” In Digital Curation: AHow-To-Do-It-Manual, 105-114. New York: Neal Schuman, 2010.
• Harvey, Ross. “Chapter 10: Creating Data.” In Digital Curation: AHow-To-Do-It-Manual, 115-130. New York: Neal Schuman, 2010.
• Knight, Gareth, and Maureen Pennock. “Data without Meaning: Establishing theSignificant Properties of Digital Research.” International Journal ofDigital Curation 4, no. 1 (2009): 159-174.http://dx.doi.org/10.2218/ijdc.v4i1.86.
• Becker, Christoph, Hannes Kulovits, Mark Guttenbrunner, Stephan Strodl,Andreas Rauber and Hans Hofman. “Systematic Planning For DigitalPreservation: Evaluating Potential Strategies And Building PreservationPlans.” International Journal on Digital Libraries 10 no. 4 (2009),133-157.
• Dappert, Angela, and Adam Farquhar. “Modelling Organizational PreservationGoals to Guide Digital Preservation.” International Journal of DigitalCuration 4, no. 2 (2009), 119-134.http://dx.doi.org/10.2218/ijdc.v4i2.102.
• Guttenbrunner, Mark, Christoph Becker, and Andreas Rauber.“Keeping the Game Alive: Evaluating Strategies for the Preservation ofConsole Video Games.” International Journal of Digital Curation 5, no. 1(2010), 64-90.http://dx.doi.org/10.2218/ijdc.v5i1.144.
• [OPTIONAL] Yeo, Geoffrey. “‘Nothing is the Same as Something Else’:Significant Properties and Notions of Identity and Originality.” ArchivalScience 10 (2010): 85-116.

Week 5: Describing and Characterizing Digital Information (October 22)

Assignment Due: Response Paper #2

This week will focus on particular requirements and challenges related to thelong-term viability and accessibility of digital information, such as theselection and recording appropriate metadata, or information about theinformation itself. We will also discuss some issues relating to the viabilityor obsolescence of file formats.

Readings

• Harvey, Ross. “Chapter 6: Description and Representation Information.” InDigital Curation: A How-To-Do-It-Manual, 65-82. New York:Neal-Schuman, 2010.
• [OPTIONAL] Gilliland, Anne J. “Setting the Stage.” In Introduction toMetadata, edited by Murtha Baca. 3rd ed. Los Angeles: Getty ResearchInstitute, 2008.http://www.getty.edu/research/publications/electronic_publications/intrometadata/setting.html.
  • Note: This reading is optional but strongly recommended if you havelimited familiarity or experience with metadata. It is a high-leveloverview and will give you some background information on types ofmetadata in advance of class.
• Wilson, Andrew. “How Much Is Enough: Metadata for Preserving Digital Data.”Journal of Library Metadata 10 (2010), 205-217.
• AIMS Work Group. “Chapter 3: Arrangement and Description.” In AIMSBorn-Digital Collections: An Inter-Institutional Model for Stewardship,31-43. 2012. http://www2.lib.virginia.edu/aims/whitepaper/AIMS_final.pdf.
• Starr, Joan, and Angela Gastl. “isCitedBy: A Metadata Scheme for DataCite.”D-Lib Magazine 17, no. 1/2 (January/February 2011).http://dx.doi.org/10.1045/january2011-starr.
• [SKIM] Caplan, Priscilla. Understanding PREMIS. Washington: Library ofCongress, 2009.http://www.loc.gov/standards/premis/understanding-premis.pdf.
• [SKIM] Abrams, Stephen. “File Formats.” DCC Digital CurationManual, edited by Seamus Ross and Michael Day (2007).http://www.dcc.ac.uk/sites/default/files/documents/resource/curation-manual/chapters/file-formats/file-formats.pdf.
• [OPTIONAL] Dappert, Angela, and Markus Enders. “Using METS, PREMIS andMODS for Archiving eJournals,” D-Lib Magazine 14, no. 9/10(September/October 2008).http://dx.doi.org/10.1045/september2008-dappert.
• [OPTIONAL] Guenther, Rebecca, and Leslie Myrick. “Archiving Web Sitesfor Preservation and Access: MODS, METS, and MINERVA.” Journal of ArchivalOrganization 4, no. 1-2 (2007): 141-166.

Week 6: Digital Preservation Strategies (October 29)

Assignment Due: Group Project Part 1

This week focuses on specific strategies for ensuring the longevity of digitalinformation and heavily focuses on case studies. Emulation duplicates thefunction of a full computer system. Migration involves transforming digitalinformation into a different format than in which it was originally held. Wewill also discuss the impact of storage media on digital preservation.

Readings

• Harvey, Ross. “Chapter 13: Preserving Data.” In Digital Curation: AHow-To-Do-It-Manual, 161-180. New York: Neal Schuman, 2010.
• Harvey, Ross. “Chapter 14: Storing Data.” In Digital Curation: AHow-To-Do-It-Manual, 181-198. New York: Neal Schuman, 2010.
• Ippolito, Jon. “Accomodating the Unpredictable: The Variable MediaQuestionnaire.” In Permanence Through Change: The Variable Media Approach,edited by Alain Depocas, Jon Ippolito, and Caitlin Jones, 47-53. New York andMontréal: The Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum and Daniel LangloisFoundation, 2003. http://variablemedia.net/pdf/Ippolito.pdf.
• Rothenberg, Jeff. “Renewing the Erl King.” Millenium Film Journal 45/46(2006). http://www.bampfa.berkeley.edu/about/ErlKingReport.pdf.
• Carroll, Laura. Erika Farr, Peter Hornsby, and Ben Ranker. “A ComprehensiveApproach to Born-Digital Archives.” Archivaria 72 (2011): 61-92.
• Gano, Gretchen, and Julie Linden. “Government Information in LegacyFormats: Scaling a Pilot Project to Enable Long-Term Access.” D-LibMagazine 13, no. 7/8 (2007).http://dx.doi.org/10.1045/july2007-linden.
• Janée, Greg, James Frew, and Terry Moore. “Relay-supporting Archives:Requirements and Progress.” International Journal of Digital Curation 4, no.1 (2009), 57-70.http://dx.doi.org/10.2218/ijdc.v4i1.78.
• [OPTIONAL] Guttenbrunner, Mark and Andreas Rauber. “A MeasurementFramework for Evaluating Emulators for Digital Preservation.” ACMTransactions on Information Systems 30, no. 2 (2012): 14:1-14:28.

Week 7: Digital Preservation Policy and Security (November 5)

Assignment Due: Hands-On Exercise

Digital preservation policy frameworks are essential in ensuring the continuedoperation of a preservation environment within an institution. We will belooking at some examples of guidelines for developing policy as well aspolicies from specific institutions.

Readings

• Harvey, Ross. “Chapter 7: Preservation Planning and Policy.” In DigitalCuration: A How-To-Do-It-Manual, 83-92. New York: Neal Schuman, 2010.
• Trusted Digital Repositories: Attributes and Responsibilities. AnRLG-OCLC Report. Mountain View, CA: RLG, 2002.http://www.oclc.org/research/activities/past/rlg/trustedrep/repositories.pdf.
  • Read pages 1-32, 37-40 and 49-56.
• Prom, Christopher. “Making Digital Curation a Systematic InstitutionalFunction.” International Journal of Digital Curation 6, no. 1 (2011),139-152. http://dx.doi.org/10.2218/ijdc.v6i1.178.
• Trusted Repositories Audit and Certification: Criteria and Checklist.Center for Research Libraries and OCLC (2007).http://www.crl.edu/sites/default/files/attachments/pages/trac_0.pdf.
  • Read pages 9-19.
• Inter-University Consortium for Political and Social Research.“Digital Preservation Policies and Planning at ICPSR.” (June 20, 2007).http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/icpsrweb/content/datamanagement/preservation/policies/.
  • Read through the following documents linked from the above page:
    • ICPSR Digital Preservation Policy Framework (read this first before the others!)
    • Digital Preservation Policy Framework: Outline
    • OAIS Conformance at ICPSR
    • Digital Preservation Requirements Applied to ICPSR
    • Roles and Responsibilities for Digital Preservation at ICPSR
  • SKIM the following documents linked from the above page:
    • ICPSR Strategic Plan
    • ICPSR Collection Development Policy
    • ICPSR Access Policy Framework
    • Disaster Planning Policy Framework
• [SKIM] Beagrie, Neil, Najla Semple, Peter Williams, and Richard Wright.“Digital Preservation Policies Study: Part 1: Final Report.” (2008).http://www.jisc.ac.uk/media/documents/programmes/preservation/jiscpolicy_p1finalreport.pdf.
• [SKIM] Beagrie, Neil, and Daniel Greenstein. A Strategic PolicyFramework for Creating and Preserving Digital Collections. London: Arts andHumanities Data Service, 1998.http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/services/papers/bl/framework/framework.html.

Week 8: Compliance, Auditing, and Certification (November 12)

Assignments Due: Response Paper #3; submission of choice of case study

Certification and auditing are important steps to determine the soundness,resilience, and long-term viability of institutions and programs thatundertake digital preservation initiatives. We will look at a few keyinitiatives that evaluate preservation environments as well as a few casestudies.

Readings

• [OPTIONAL] Trusted Digital Repositories: Attributes andResponsibilities. An RLG-OCLC Report. Mountain View, CA: RLG, 2002.http://www.oclc.org/research/activities/past/rlg/trustedrep/repositories.pdf.
  • If you need a refresher, re-read pages 1-16, 33-35, and 49-56 ONLY.No other reading is assigned from this document for this week.
• [SKIM] Consultative System for Space Data Systems, Audit andCertification of Trustworthy Digital Repositories. Recommended Practice652.0-M-1, September 2011.http://public.ccsds.org/publications/archive/652x0m1.pdf.
• Center for Research Libraries. “CRL Certification Report on Chronopolis.”March 2012.http://www.crl.edu/sites/default/files/attachments/pages/Chron_Report_2012_final_0.pdf
• Ross, Seamus, and Andrew McHugh. “Audit and Certification of DigitalRepositories: Creating a Mandate for the Digital Curation Centre (DCC).”RLG DigiNEWS 9, no. 5 (2005). http://eprints.erpanet.org/105/01/Ross_McHugh_auditandcertification_RLG_DigiNews.pdf.
• McHugh, Andrew, Seamus Ross, Perla Innocenti, Ravio Ruusalepp, and HansHofman. “Bringing Self-Assessment Home: Repository Profiling and Key Lines ofEnquiry within DRAMBORA.” International Journal of Digital Curation 3, no.2 (2008): 130-142.http://dx.doi.org/10.2218/ijdc.v3i2.64.
• Steinhart, Gail, Dianne Dietrich, and Ann Green. “Establishing Trust in aChain of Preservation: The TRAC Checklist Applied to a Data StagingRepository (DataStaR).” D-Lib Magazine 15, no. 9/10 (2009).http://dx.doi.org/10.1045/september2009-steinhart.
• [OPTIONAL] Vermaaten, Sally, Brian Lavoie, and Priscilla Caplan.“Identifying Threats to Successful Digital Preservation: the SPOT Model forRisk Assessment.” D-Lib Magazine 18, no. 9/10.http://dx.doi.org/10.1045/september2012-vermaaten.

November 19-25 - No Class

Week 9: Resource Allocation and Sustainability (November 26)

Resources are a key component of ensuring the operation of a digitalpreservation initiative over time. There has been considerable work over thelast few years that addresses issues related to the sustainability ofpreservation programs. We will look at some emerging work in the field,including sustainability analyses and cost models for digital preservation.

Readings

• Lavoie, Brian F. “The Fifth Blackbird: Some Thoughts on EconomicallySustainable Digital Preservation.” D-Lib Magazine 14, no. 3/4 (2008).http://dx.doi.org/10.1045/march2008-lavoie.
• Wheatley, Paul, and Brian Hole. “LIFE3: Predicting Long Term DigitalPreservation Costs.” Paper presented at iPRES 2009: the Sixth InternationalConference on Preservation of Digital Objects, San Francisco, Ca. (2009).http://escholarship.org/uc/item/23b3225n.
• Sustainable Economics for a Digital Planet: Ensuring Long-Term Access toDigital Information. Final Report of the Blue Ribbon Task Force onSustainable Digital Preservation and Access (February 2010).http://brtf.sdsc.edu/biblio/BRTF_Final_Report.pdf.
  • Read chapters 1, 2, 3, and 5.
  • SKIM chapter 4.
• Abrams, Stephen, Patricia Cruse, John Kunze, and Michael Mundrane.Total Cost of Preservation: Cost Modeling for Sustainable Services. Revision0.16. Oakland: UC Curation Center/California Digital Library, April 9, 2012.https://wiki.ucop.edu/download/attachments/163610649/TCP-total-cost-of-preservation.pdf.
• [SKIM] Eakin, Lorraine, Amy Friedlander, Roger Schonfeld and SayeedChoudhury. “A Selective Literature Review on Digital PreservationSustainability.” (2008)http://brtf.sdsc.edu/biblio/Cost_Literature_Review.pdf.
• [SKIM] Kejser, Ulla Bøgvad, Anders Bo Nielsen, and Alex Thirifays.“Cost Model for Digital Preservation: Cost of Digital Migration.”International Journal of Digital Curation 6, no. 1 (2011): 255-267.http://dx.doi.org/10.2218/ijdc.v6i1.186.
• [OPTIONAL] Goldstein, Serge J., and Mark Ratliff. “DataSpace: A Fundingand Operational Model for Long-Term Preservation and Sharing of ResearchData” (2010). http://arks.princeton.edu/ark:/88435/dsp01w6634361k.

Week 10: Access and User Needs (December 3)

Assignment Due: Case Study Analysis

Access is the driving force behind preservation. This week will address meansand requirements of access to preserved digital information.

Readings

• Harvey, Ross. “Chapter 15: Using and Reusing Data.” In Digital Curation:A How-To-Do-It-Manual, 199-216. New York: Neal Schuman, 2010.
• Kirschenbaum, Matthew G. “Coda: Austin’s Afternoons.” In Mechanisms: NewMedia and the Forensic Imagination, 207-211. Cambridge, Mass.: MITPress, 2008.
• AIMS Work Group. “Chapter 4: Discovery and Access.” In AIMS Born-DigitalCollections: An Inter-Institutional Model for Stewardship, 44-62. 2012.http://www2.lib.virginia.edu/aims/whitepaper/AIMS_final.pdf.
• Chowdhury, Gobinda. “From Digital Libraries to Digital PreservationResearch: The Importance of Users and Context.” Journal of Documentation66, no. 2 (2010): 207-223.
• Hedstrom, Margaret, Christopher Lee, Judith Olson, and Clifford Lampe.“‘The Old Version Flickers More:’ Digital Preservation from the User’sPerspective.” American Archivist 69 (Summer 2006), 159-187.
• Choudhury, Sayeed, Mike Furlough, and Joyce Ray, “Digital Curation andE-Publishing: Libraries Make the Connection.” Charleston Conference 2009.http://jhir.library.jhu.edu/handle/1774.2/35005.
• [OPTIONAL] Lane, Julia, and Stephanie Shipp. “Using a Remote Access DataEnclave for Data Dissemination.” International Journal of Digital Curation2, no. 1 (2007): 128-134.http://dx.doi.org/10.2218/ijdc.v2i1.20.

December 10 (Exam Week)

Assignments Due: Group Project Parts 2 and 3

Overview

Given constraints on the class, you are not expected to have a background or experience with particular library technologies. Accordingly, this course cannot teach you exhaustive skills that will allow you to build digital libraries. This course will instead focus instruction in two main areas: the major infrastructural components of digital library projects (metadata, software architectures, etc.), and aspects of the social and technical impact of digital libraries that lead to their success or failure (sustainability, usability, audience, etc.)

Objectives

This class aims to teach students how:

• to read and evaluate technical and research-based articles on digital libraries without having exhaustive knowledge in particular technologies or subject areas,
• to evaluate proposed digital library projects in international and inter-institutional contexts,
• to gain a high-level understanding of the interplay between the technologies, social practices, and people involved in digital library projects, and
• to understand why certain project plans, technologies, and evaluation strategies have or have not been proven successful in digital libraries.

Required Texts and Readings

We will be relying on the following two books heavily throughout the class. I recommend purchasing them, but they are also available on reserve at the NYU Bobst Library Reserve desk. Digital Library Use is also available as an eBook through LIU; ask me for more details if you’d prefer to use the eBook version.

• Bishop, Ann Peterson, Nancy A. Van House, and Barbara P. Buttenfield, eds. Digital Library Use: Social Practice in Design and Evaluation. The MIT Press, 2003.
• Reese, Terry, and Kyle Banerjee. Building Digital Libraries: A How-to-do-it Manual. 1st ed. Neal Schuman Publishers, 2007.

All other readings are available online either freely or through LIU’s electronic journal subscriptions. Each week’s readings are split up into required and supplemental readings. As this suggests, you are obligated to complete the required readings before class. The supplemental readings complement and build on the required readings and are optional.

Course Policies

• It is your responsibility to attend class. If you miss class for any reason without notifying or following up with the instructor, you will get a zero grade for class participation for that week. If you must miss class, please contact the instructor at least 3 hours in advance if possible. You may miss class for medical reasons, work-related reasons, or religious reasons if you give the instructor advance notice. If you are sick, have an emergency, or must miss class for any other reason on short notice, please contact the instructor as soon as is feasible. Please refer to the “class participation” section under Grading and Assignments about your responsibilities for participating even if you miss class.
• Assignments are due on the date indicated (or the date chosen in the case the of leading class discussion and summarizing that week’s readings).
• Plagiarism is an extremely serious matter. All submissions must be your own work in your own words. You can incorporate excerpts or ideas from other sources, but they must be properly attributed. In addition, you can get assistance with copy-editing or discuss ideas with your classmates or other people, but all content must be your own or otherwise explicitly cited. Please familiarize yourself the information on preventing and detecting plagiarism, available at http://www.liu.edu/cwis/cwp/library/exhibits/plagiarism.htm. In particular, please note “academic irregularities or dishonesty, such as plagiarism and cheating, may result in an automatic failure in a course and dismissal from the program.”
• In addition, this instructor and this course will follow Long Island University’s academic policy, available at http://www.liu.edu/cwis/cwp/stuact/acadconductpol.html.

Grading and Assignments

Note: All written assignments must be completed with citations formatted using the Chicago Manual of style.

• Class participation (35%). This class will be taught as a seminar. You will be expected to complete the week’s required readings and be prepared to discuss them; you are also strongly urged to complete as many of the supplemental readings as is feasible. Obviously, attendance is a factor. If you miss class, you must discuss the week’s readings on the class Google Group.
• Two instances of leading class discussion and written summaries for weekly readings (15% each). During the semester, you will choose two classes where you and a few of your other classmates will be responsible for leading discussion. For each class you choose, you will need to 1) prepare a brief (five-minute) summary that you’ll use to start discussion, and 2) a three to five page written summary each summarizing the week’s readings. Your summaries should discuss any connections or conflicts you see between the articles. Potential areas of discussion appear below each week’s readings on the syllabus; these are merely suggested, and you are encouraged to think of your own topics for discussion. The written summary is due at the beginning of the class in which you lead discussion.
• A final project/paper (20%), an accompanying proposal (10%), and a brief presentation (5%) on your project during the one of last two classes (December 9 and 16). You will be expected to write a detailed research paper on some aspect of digital libraries that we cover during the course or implement a small-scale digital library project in some capacity. To ensure your project is feasible given the time allotted for the assignment, you must write a two to three page proposal and meet with the instructor to discuss your plans.** This part of the assignment is mandatory.** Finally, you will be required to present on your project during the last class sessions. Further details about this assignment are forthcoming.
• There is also an optional extra credit assignment. See December 2 for more detail.

Course Schedule

Notes:

• The readings appear in suggested order of reading; feel free to read them in any order you like.
• Readings marked with are available from LIU’s online databases.

September 9

• Introductions.
• What are your preconceptions of a digital library?
• Definitions of “digital libraries” in various contexts: technical, societal, and this course.
• Assignment of discussion leadership.

September 16

• Definitions of “digital libraries,” continued.
• Digital libraries as sociotechnical systems.

Required reading:

• Edwards, Paul N. “How to Read a Book, v4.0.” http://www.si.umich.edu/%7Epne/PDF/howtoread.pdf.
• Van House, Nancy A., Ann Peterson Bishop, and Barbara P. Buttenfield, “Introduction: Digital Libraries as Sociotechnical Systems,” in Digital Library Use (chapter 1).
• Borgman, Christine L. “What are digital libraries? Competing visions,” Information Processing and Management 35, no. 3 (1999): 227 - 243.
• Greenstein, Daniel, and Suzanne E. Thorin. The Digital Library: A Biography. Digital Library Federation, 2002. http://www.clir.org/PUBS/reports/pub109/pub109.pdf.
• O’Day, Vicki L, and Bonnie A. Nardi, “An Ecological Perspective on Digital Libraries,” in Digital Library Use (chapter 4).
• Lynch, Clifford. “Colliding with the Real World: Heresies and Unexplored Questions about Audience, Economics, and Control of Digital Libraries,” in Digital Library Use (chapter 8).

Supplemental reading:

• Levy, David. “Digital Libraries and the Problem of Purpose.” D-Lib Magazine 6, no. 1 (1, 2000). http://www.dlib.org/dlib/january00/01levy.html.
• Kling, Rob. “What is Social Informatics and Why Does it Matter?.” D-Lib Magazine 5, no. 1 (1, 1999). http://www.dlib.org/dlib/january99/kling/01kling.html.
• Van House, Nancy A. “Actor-Network Theory, Knowledge Work, and Digital Libraries.” http://people.ischool.berkeley.edu/~vanhouse/bridge.html.

Potential topics for discussion:

• Did these readings fit with what your preconceptions of what digital libraries were?
• Using Greenstein and Thorin’s typology (“young,” “maturing,” and “adult”), what stage do you think most digital libraries you’ve used are? Give examples and reasons.
• Do you think “socially grounded engineering” as described by Lynch is actually possible? Give examples and reasons.
• Describe an example of a digital library that you’ve used in terms of O’Day and Nardi’s “ecological” framework.

September 23

• Short- and long-term planning of digital library projects.
• Development of sustainable projects.
• Disruptions and boundaries.
• First week of class-led discussion and reading summaries.

Required reading:

• Reese and Banerjee, chapter 1.
• National Initiative for a Networked Cultural Heritage, NINCH Guide to Good Practice in the Digital Representation and Management of Cultural Heritage Materials, chapters I, II, and IX. http://www.nyu.edu/its/humanities/ninchguide/.
• National Information Standards Organization, “Introduction,” “Initiatives,” and “Initiative Principles,” in A Framework of Guidance for Building Good Digital Collections. http://framework.niso.org/.
• Marshall, Catherine C. “Finding the Boundaries of the Library Without Walls,” in *Digital Library Use *(chapter 3).
• Agre, Philip E. “Information and Institutional Change: The Case of Digital Libraries,” in Digital Library Use (chapter 9).
• Cervone, H. Frank. “How not to run a digital library project.” OCLC Systems & Services 20, no. 4 (2004): 162 - 166.
• Cervone, H. Frank. “Standard methodology in digital library project management.” OCLC Systems & Services 23, no. 1 (2007): 30 - 34.
• Cervone, H. Frank. “The system development life cycle and digital library development.” OCLC Systems & Services 23, no. 4 (2007): 348 - 352.
• Dietrich, Dianne, Jennifer Doty, Jen Green, and Nicole Scholtz. “Reviving Digital Projects.” The Code4Lib Journal 5 (December 15, 2008). http://journal.code4lib.org/articles/685.
• Rieger, Oya Y. “Select for Success: Key Principles in Assessing Repository Models.” D-Lib Magazine 13, no. 7/8 (7, 2007). http://www.dlib.org/dlib/july07/rieger/07rieger.html.

Supplemental reading:

• Pitti, Daniel V. “Designing Sustainable Projects and Publications,” in A Companion to Digital Humanities, ed. Susan Schreibman, Ray Siemens, John Unsworth. Oxford: Blackwell, 2004. http://www.digitalhumanities.org/companion/.

Potential topics for discussion:

• Do you feel like the NINCH and NISO suggestions are sufficient groundwork for planning a digital library project?
• How do boundaries and disruptions affect the planning and sustainability of digital library projects?
• Do you think Cervone’s list in “How not to run a digital library project” is exhaustive?
• What is the interplay between social and technical aspects in long-term custodianship of digital library projects? Whose responsibility should these projects be?

September 30

• Digital library building blocks: XML, databases, and Resource Description Framework.
• Identifiers.

Required reading:

• Reese and Banerjee, chapter 4.
• “Object Principle 4,” A Framework of Guidance (see September 16).
• Ianella, Renato. “An Idiot’s Guide to the Resource Description Framework.” New Review of Information Networking 4 (1998). http://renato.iannella.it/paper/rdf-idiot/
• Berners-Lee, Tim. “Primer - Getting into the semantic web and RDF using N3.” http://www.w3.org/2000/10/swap/Primer.html.
• Pitti, Daniel V. “Introduction to XML.” http://www.iath.virginia.edu/~dvp4c/xmlintro.html.
• University of Texas at Austin Division of Instructional Innovation and Assessment. Summary of Hernandez, Michael J, Database Design for Mere Mortals: A Hands-On Guide to Relational Database Design. http://www.utexas.edu/academic/cit/howto/resources/database/
• Berners-Lee, Tim. “Why RDF model is different from the XML model,” 1998. http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/RDF-XML.html.
• Berners-Lee, Tim. “Relational Databases on the Semantic Web,” 1998. http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/RDB-RDF.html.
• Bourret, Ronald. “XML and Databases.” http://www.rpbourret.com/xml/XMLAndDatabases.htm
• Hakala, Juha. “The seven levels of identification: An overview of the current state of identifying objects within digital libraries.” Program: electronic library and information systems 40, no. 4 (2006): 361 - 371.
• Lynch, Clifford. “Identifiers and Their Role in Networked Information Applications,” ARL Newsletter 194 (October 1997). http://www.arl.org/bm~doc/identifier.pdf
• Vitello, Giuseppe. “Identifiers and Identification Systems: An Informational Look at Policies and Roles from a Library Perspective.” D-Lib Magazine 10, no. 1 (2004). http://www.dlib.org/dlib/january04/vitiello/01vitiello.html

Supplemental reading:

• Kunze, John A. “Towards Electronic Persistence Using ARK Identifiers.” http://www.cdlib.org/inside/diglib/ark/arkcdl.pdf
• O’Steen, Ben. “Object ‘PID’s and UUID, why not?” http://oxfordrepo.blogspot.com/2007/12/object-pids-and-uuid-why-not.html, and “Conclusions on UUIDs and local ids in Fedora” http://oxfordrepo.blogspot.com/2008/01/conclusions-on-uuids-and-local-ids-in.html
• Van de Sompel, Herbert. “Introduction to Thoughts on Persistent Resolution.” http://www.diglib.org/forums/spring2006/presentations/vandersompel0406.pdf

Potential topics for discussion:

• Do you think XML, databases, and RDF are sufficient to model all possible digital objects?
• What are the role of identifiers in relation to XML, databases, and RDF respectively?
• Do you see the choice of a data format (i.e., XML, databases, or RDF) as a decision that will have a sociotechnical impact? What about choice of an identifier scheme?
• Which identifier scheme would you choose first for a digital library project, and why?

October 7

• Metadata and representation.

Required reading:

• Levy, David M. “Documents and Libraries: A Sociotechnical Perspective,” in Digital Library Use (chapter 2).
• Gilliland, Anne J. “Setting the Stage.” In Introduction to Metadata, edited by Murtha Baca. 3rd ed. Los Angeles: Getty Research Institute, 2008. http://www.getty.edu/research/conducting_research/standards/intrometadata/setting.pdf.
• Reese and Banerjee, chapter 5.
• NINCH Guide, Appendix B (See September 16).
• “Object Principles 3 and 6,” “Metadata,” and “Metadata Principles,” A Framework of Guidance (see September 16).
• Chan, Lois Mai, and Marcia Lei Zeng. “Metadata Interoperability and Standardization - A Study of Methodology Part I: Achieving Interoperability at the Schema Level.” D-Lib Magazine 12, no. 6 (6, 2006). http://www.dlib.org/dlib/june06/chan/06chan.html.
• Duval, Erik, Wayne Hodgins, Stuart Sutton, and Stuart L. Weibel. “Metadata Principles and Practicalities.” D-Lib Magazine 8, no. 4 (4, 2002). http://www.dlib.org/dlib/april02/weibel/04weibel.html.
• Marshall, Catherine C. “Making Metadata: A Study of Metadata Creation for a Mixed Physical-Digital Collection.” In Proceedings of the third ACM conference on Digital libraries, 162-171. Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, United States: ACM, 1998. http://www.csdl.tamu.edu/~marshall/dl98-making-metadata.pdf.
• McDonough, Jerome. “Structural Metadata and the Social Limitation of Interoperability: A Sociotechnical View of XML and Digital Library Standards Development.” In Proceedings of Balisage: The Markup Conference 2008. Balisage Series on Markup Technologies, vol. 1 (2008). http://www.balisage.net/Proceedings/vol1/html/McDonough01/BalisageVol1-McDonough01.html.

Supplemental reading:

• Coyle, Karen, and Thomas Baker. “Guidelines for Dublin Core Application Profiles (Working Draft).” Dublin Core Metadata Initiative, May 18, 2009. http://dublincore.org/documents/profile-guidelines/.

Potential topics for discussion:

• How does Levy see the digital world as being different from the world of “traditional” libraries? Does metadata begin to address these concerns?
• How does metadata need to be stored, and what are the sociotechnical impacts of storing them in the different formats we discussed last week?
• Is metadata really as interoperable as the technical community wants us to believe?
• Taking a cue from McDonough’s article, what are the sociotechnical limitations on metadata interoperability? Consider this in terms of some of the other readings, such as Chan and Zeng, Duval, and Marshall.

October 14

• Modeling objects: digitally, intellectually, and physically.

Required reading:

• Van House, Nancy A. “Digital Libraries and Collaborative Knowledge Construction,” in Digital Library Use (chapter 11).
• Kahn, Robert, and Robert Wilensky. “A framework for distributed digital object services,” International Journal on Digital Libraries 6, no. 2 (2006), 115-123. http://www.doi.org/topics/2006_05_02_Kahn_Framework.pdf.
• Daniel, Ron, Jr., Carl Lagoze, and Sandra Payette. “A Metadata Architecture for Digital Libraries.” In Proceedings of the Advances in Digital Libraries Conference. Washington: IEEE Computer Society, 1998. http://www.cs.cornell.edu/lagoze/papers/ADL98/dar-adl.html.
• Hurley, Bernard J., John Price-Wilkin, Merrilee Proffitt, and Howard Besser. 1999.* The Making of America II Testbed Project: A Digital Library Service Model.* Council on Library and Information Resources Reports. Council on Library and Information Resources. http://www.clir.org/pubs/abstract/pub87abst.html.
• Lagoze, Carl, Dean B. Kraft, Sandy Payette, and Susan Jesuroga. “What Is a Digital Library Anyway? Beyond Search and Access in the NSDL.” D-Lib Magazine 11, no. 11 (11, 2005). http://www.dlib.org/dlib/november05/lagoze/11lagoze.html.
• Pearce, Judith, David Pearson, Megan Williams, and Scott Yeadon. “The Australian METS Profile - A Journey about Metadata.” D-Lib Magazine 14, no. 3/4 (3, 2008). http://www.dlib.org/dlib/march08/pearce/03pearce.html.
• Twidale, Michael B., and Paul F. Marty. “Coping with errors: the importance of process data in robust sociotechnical systems.” In Proceedings of the 2000 ACM conference on Computer supported cooperative work, 269-278. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States: ACM, 2000. http://people.lis.illinois.edu/~twidale/pubs/cscw00.pdf.
• Hedstrom, Margaret, and Christopher A. Lee. “Significant properties of digital objects: definitions, applications, implications.” In Proceedings of the DLM-Forum 2002, 6"“8 May, 2002, Barcelona: @ccess and preservation of electronic information: Best practices and solutions, 218"“227, 2002. http://ils.unc.edu/callee/sigprops_dlm2002.pdf.

Potential topics for discussion:

• Do you see the modeling and creation of digital objects as a case of collaborative knowledge construction? Who do you think the key stakeholders would be?
• Do you think the Kahn/Wilensky architecture can accurately represent any kind of digital object? If not, why? Give examples.
• How would you record the “significant properties” in a digital object as described by Hedstrom and Lee?
• How does Twidale and Marty’s article relate to the workflows needed for digital objects? How would you create such a workflow?
• Do you think the Making of America II project was successful? Give reasons.

October 21

• Platforms for digital library development.
• Content management systems.
• Digital repositories.

Required reading:

• Spasser, Mark A. “The Flora of North America Project: Making the Case [Study] for Social Realist Theory,” in Digital Library Use (chapter 12).
• Reese and Banerjee, chapter 3.
• Robertson, James. “So, what is a CMS?” http://www.steptwo.com.au/papers/kmc_what/index.html
• Garza, Alejandro. “From OPAC to CMS: Drupal as an extensible library platform.” Library Hi Tech 27 (June 12, 2009): 252-267.
• Smith, MacKenzie, Mary Barton, Margret Branschofsky, Greg McClellan, Julie Harford Walker, Mick Bass, Dave Stuve, and Robert Tansley. “DSpace: An Open Source Dynamic Digital Repository.” D-Lib Magazine 9, no. 1 (1, 2003). http://www.dlib.org/dlib/january03/smith/01smith.html.
• Staples, Thornton, Ross Wayland, and Sandra Payette. “The Fedora Project: An Open-source Digital Object Repository Management System.” D-Lib Magazine 9, no. 4 (4, 2003). http://www.dlib.org/dlib/april03/staples/04staples.html.
• Marill, Jennifer L., and Edward C. Luczak. “Evaluation of Digital Repository Software at the National Library of Medicine.” D-Lib Magazine 15, no. 5/6 (5, 2009). http://dlib.org/dlib/may09/marill/05marill.html.
• Allinson, Julie. OAIS as a reference model for repositories: an evaluation. Bath, UK: UKOLN, 2006. http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/repositories/publications/oais-evaluation-200607/Drs-OAIS-evaluation-0.5.pdf.
• Jantz, Ronald, and Michael J. Giarlo. “Digital Preservation: Architecture and Technology for Trusted Digital Repositories.” D-Lib Magazine 11, no. 6 (6, 2005). http://www.dlib.org/dlib/june05/jantz/06jantz.html.
• LeFurgy, William G. “Levels of Service for Digital Repositories.”* D-Lib Magazine* 8, no. 5 (5, 2002). http://www.dlib.org/dlib/may02/lefurgy/05lefurgy.html.

Potential topics for discussion:

• What do you think the appropriate infrastructural choice (i.e. a CMS or a repository) would be for the project described by Spasser?
• Do you see a concrete difference between a CMS and a repository?
• Do you think the various repository platforms you read about can store and retrieve digital objects reliably?
• Do you think the highest levels of service (as described by Allinson, Jantz and Giarlo, and LeFurgy) are sustainable? What are the sociotechnical limitations on their sustainability?

October 28

• Metadata sharing and interoperability.
• Final project proposals due.

Required reading:

• Reese and Banerjee, chapter 6.
• Woodley, Mary S. “Crosswalks, Metadata Harvesting, Federated Searching, Metasearching: Using Metadata to Connect Users and Information.” In Introduction to Metadata, edited by Murtha Baca. 3rd ed. Los Angeles: Getty Research Institute, 2008. http://www.getty.edu/research/conducting_research/standards/intrometadata/path.pdf.
• Lagoze, Carl, and Herbert Van de Sompel. “The making of the Open Archives Initiative protocol for metadata harvesting.” Library Hi Tech 21, no. 2: 118 - 128.
• Lagoze, Carl, Herbert Van de Sompel, Michael L. Nelson, Simeon Warner, Robert Sanderson, and Pete Johnston. “Object Re-Use & Exchange: A Resource-Centric Approach.”* 0804.2273* (April 14, 2008). http://arxiv.org/abs/0804.2273.
• Shreeves, Sarah L., Ellen M. Knutson, Besiki Stvilia, Carole L. Palmer, Michael B. Twidale, and Timothy W. Cole. “Is “Quality” Metadata “Shareable” Metadata? The Implications of Local Metadata Practices for Federated Collections.” In Proceedings of the Twelfth National Conference of the Association of College and Research Libraries, April 7-10 2005, Minneapolis, MN, edited by H. A. Thompson, 223-237. Chicago: Association of College and Research Libraries, 2005. https://www.ideals.uiuc.edu/handle/2142/145.
• Tennant, Roy. “Bitter Harvest: Problems & Suggested Solutions for OAI-PMH Data & Service Providers.” http://www.cdlib.org/inside/projects/harvesting/bitter_harvest.html.
• Tarrant, David, Ben O’Steen, Tim Brody, Tim Hitchcock, Neil Jefferies, and Leslie Carr. “Using OAI-ORE to Transform Digital Repositories into Interoperable Storage and Services Applications.” The Code4Lib Journal 6 (March 30, 2009). http://journal.code4lib.org/articles/1062.
• Zeng, Marcia Lei, and Lois Mai Chan. “Metadata Interoperability and Standardization - A Study of Methodology Part II: Achieving Interoperability at the Record and Repository Levels.” D-Lib Magazine 12, no. 6 (6, 2006). http://www.dlib.org/dlib/june06/zeng/06zeng.html.
• Gow, Virginia, Lewis Brown, Courtney Johnston, Andy Neale, Gordon Paynter, and Fiona Rigby. “Making New Zealand Content Easier to Find, Share and Use.” In Museums and the Web 2009: Proceedings. Toronto: Archives & Museum Informatics, 2009. http://www.archimuse.com/mw2009/papers/gow/gow.html.

Supplemental reading:

• Cole, Timothy W., Joanne Kaczmarek, Paul F. Marty, Christopher J. Prom, Beth Sandore, and Sarah Shreeves. “Now That We’ve Found the “˜Hidden Web,’ What Can We Do With It? The Illinois Open Archives Initiative Metadata Harvesting Experience.” In Museums and the Web 2002: Selected Papers from an International Conference, 63”“72. Pittsburgh: Archives & Museum Informatics, 2002. http://www.archimuse.com/mw2002/papers/cole/cole.html.
• Lagoze, Carl, Dean Krafft, Tim Cornwell, Naomi Dushay, Dean Eckstrom, and John Saylor. “Metadata aggregation and “automated digital libraries”: a retrospective on the NSDL experience.” In Proceedings of the 6th ACM/IEEE-CS joint conference on Digital libraries, 230-239. Chapel Hill, NC, USA: ACM, 2006. http://arxiv.org/abs/cs.DL/0601125.

Potential topics for discussion:

• What are the sociotechnical factors needed for interoperability across repositories?
• How are the barriers described by Tennant sociotechnical rather than just technical?
• Do you think Gow, et al. were successful in getting past barriers described by Shreeves, et al. and Tennant?

November 4

• Designing applications on digital library infrastructures (1): designing workflows and tools for building and adding materials to digital libraries.

Required reading:

• Reese and Banerjee, chapters 2 and 8.
• Star, Susan Leigh, Geoffrey C. Bowker, and Laura J. Neumann, “Transparency beyond the Individual Level of Scale: Convergence between Information Artifacts and Communities of Practice,” in Digital Library Use (chapter 10).
• Agnew, Grace, and Yang Yu. “The Rutgers Workflow Management System: Migrating a Digital Object Management Utility to Open Source.” The Code4Lib Journal 1 (December 18, 2007). http://journal.code4lib.org/articles/25.
• Green, Richard, and Chris Awre. “Towards a Repository-enabled Scholar’s Workbench: RepoMMan, REMAP and Hydra.” D-Lib Magazine 15, no. 5/6 (2009). http://www.dlib.org/dlib/may09/green/05green.html.
• Krevit, Leah, and Linda Crays. “Herding cats: Designing DigitalCommons @ The Texas Medical Center, a multi-institutional repository.” OCLC Systems & Services 23, no. 2 (2007): 116 - 124.
• Müller, Eva, Uwe Klosa, Stefan Andersson, and Peter Hansson. “The DiVA Project - Development of an Electronic Publishing System.” D-Lib Magazine 9, no. 11 (11, 2003). http://www.dlib.org/dlib/november03/muller/11muller.html.
• Waugh, Andrew. “The Design and Implementation of an Ingest Function to a Digital Archive.” D-Lib Magazine 13, no. 11/12 (11, 2007). http://www.dlib.org/dlib/november07/waugh/11waugh.html.
• Zhang, Allison B. “Creating Online Historical Scrapbooks with a User-Friendly Interface.” D-Lib Magazine 13, no. 11/12 (11, 2007). http://www.dlib.org/dlib/november07/zhang/11zhang.html.
• Daines, J. Gordon, and Cory L. Nimer. “Integrating Process Management with Archival Management Systems: Lessons Learned.” The Code4Lib Journal 6 (March 30, 2009). http://journal.code4lib.org/articles/1016.

Supplemental reading:

• Guerard, Genie, and Robin L. Chandler. “California cultures: Implementing a model for virtual collections.” Journal of Archival Organization 4, no. 1 (2007): 45"“67.
• McWilliams, Jeremy. “Developing an Academic Image Collection with Flickr.” The Code4Lib Journal 3 (June 23, 2008). http://journal.code4lib.org/articles/74.

Potential topics for discussion:

• Do you think transparency is an essential part of usability for these “back-end” applications?
• Are the examples represented by the other readings “transparent” to the user given the description by Star, Bowker, and Neumann?
• What is the social and technical impact of putting restrictions on various types of workflows? Consider the examples given by Green and Awre, Daines and Nimer, and Waugh.
• How do you think Krevit and Crays could have better “herded their cats”?

November 11

• Designing applications on digital library infrastructures (2).
• Designing for user communities.

Required reading:

• Marchionini, Gary, Catherine Plaisant, and Anita Komlodi, “The People in Digital Libraries: Multifaceted Approaches to Assessing Needs and Impact,” in Digital Library Use (chapter 6).
• Bishop, Ann Peterson, Bharat Mehra, Imani Bazzell, and Cynthia Smith, “Participatory Action Research and Digital Libraries: Reframing Evaluation,” in Digital Library Use (chapter 7).
• Lervik, Jon E., Mark Easterby-Smith, Kathryn Fahy, and Carole Elliott. “Limits to Information Transfer: The Boundary Problem.” Ariadne 50 (January 2007). http://www.ariadne.ac.uk/issue50/lervik-et-al/.
• Maness, Jack M., Tomasz Miaskiewicz, and Tamara Sumner. “Using Personas to Understand the Needs and Goals of Institutional Repositories.” D-Lib Magazine 14, no. 9/10 (9, 2008). http://www.dlib.org/dlib/september08/maness/09maness.html.
• Marlow, Jennifer, Paul Clough, Neil Ireson, Juan Manuel Cigarrán Recuero, Javier Artiles, and Franca Debole. “The Multimatch Project: Multilingual/Multimedia Access To Cultural Heritage On The Web.” In Museums and the Web 2008: Proceedings. Toronto: Archives & Museum Informatics, 2008. http://www.archimuse.com/mw2008/papers/marlow/marlow.html.
• Pienaar, Heila, and Martie Van Deventer. “To VRE or Not to VRE? Do South African Malaria Researchers Need a Virtual Research Environment?.” Ariadne 59 (April 2009). http://www.ariadne.ac.uk/issue59/pienaar-vandeventer/.
• Salo, Dorothea. “Innkeeper at the Roach Motel.” Library Trends 57, no. 2 (Fall 2008). http://digital.library.wisc.edu/1793/22088.

Potential topics for discussion:

• Does a digital library always have to be designed for a specific user community to be successful?
• How do boundaries as described by Lervik, et al. inhibit or allow for digital libraries aimed at a broad user community?
• Give your description of what you view as an ideal user community for the design of a digital library project.
• What are the common aspects and distinctions between the methodologies used by Marchioni, et al. and Bishop, et al.?
• Is a well-designed trans-national or global digital library possible? Consider Marlow, et al. as well as projects such as Europeana or the World Digital Library. Given the types of infrastructure we have studied, where do you see the largest problems coming up?

November 18

• Designing applications on digital library infrastructures (3).
• Designing for access: public interfaces; search/browse and “discovery”; information visualization for digital libraries.

Required reading:

• Reese and Banerjee, chapter 7.
• “Collections Principle 4,” A Framework of Guidance (see September 23).
• Borgman, Christine L. “Designing Libraries for Usability,” in *Digital Library Use *(chapter 5).
• Hearst, Marti. “Design of Search User Interfaces.” In Search User Interfaces. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2009. http://searchuserinterfaces.com/book/sui_ch1_design.html
• Beer, Chris, and Courtney Michael. “Visualizing Media Archives: A Case Study.” The Code4Lib Journal 6 (March 30, 2009). http://journal.code4lib.org/articles/1119.
• Börner, Katy, Ying Feng, and Tamara McMahon. “Collaborative visual interfaces to digital libraries.” In Proceedings of the 2nd ACM/IEEE-CS joint conference on Digital libraries, 279-280. Portland, Oregon, USA: ACM, 2002.
• Hyvönen, Eero, et al. “CultureSampo - Finnish Culture on the Semantic Web 2.0: Thematic Perspectives for the End-user.” In Museums and the Web 2009: Proceedings. Toronto: Archives & Museum Informatics, 2009. http://www.archimuse.com/mw2009/papers/hyvonen/hyvonen.html.
• Sadler, Elizabeth. “Project Blacklight: a next generation library catalog at a first generation university.” Library Hi Tech 27, no. 1 (March 6, 2009): 57-67.

Supplemental reading:

• Chan, Sebastian. “Tagging and Searching: Serendipity and museum collection databases.” In Museums and the Web 2007: Proceedings. Toronto: Archives & Museum Informatics, 2007. http://www.archimuse.com/mw2007/papers/chan/chan.html.
• Kumar, Vijay, Richard Furuta, and Robert B. Allen. “Metadata visualization for digital libraries: interactive timeline editing and review.” In Proceedings of the third ACM conference on Digital libraries, 126-133. Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, United States: ACM, 1998. http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=276689.
• Schmitz, Patrick L., and Michael T. Black. “The Delphi Toolkit: Enabling Semantic Search for Museum Collections.” In Museums and the Web 2008: Proceedings. Toronto: Archives & Museum Informatics, 2008. http://www.archimuse.com/mw2008/papers/schmitz/schmitz.html.

Potential topics for discussion:

• What do you think are the most important aspects of designing a digital library for usability?
• What is needed for minimal access to digital libraries?
• Is search sufficient? How can users benefit from interfaces that allow for visualization?
• What would your ideal discovery interface for digital libraries look like?

November 25 [No class (Thanksgiving break).]

December 2 [No class, but see below.]

• Federated and distributed architectures and “the cloud.”

Note: You are still expected to do the readings and participate in class discussion this week via the class email list. In addition, you have the option of turning in a briefer written summary (a maximum of 3 pages), addressing what you thought were the most important aspects of the articles for the week and connecting the ideas to other concepts brought up in class. This extra credit is worth about 5% of your final grade, or approximately a partial letter grade (e.g. the difference between an A- and an A). The extra credit assignment is due by the beginning of class that week.

Required reading:

• Reese and Banerjee, chapter 9.
• Davidow, Ari. “Fedora, Drupal, and Cloud Computing for a Low-Cost, Sustainable DAM.” In Museums and the Web 2009: Proceedings. Toronto: Archives & Museum Informatics, 2009. http://www.archimuse.com/mw2009/papers/davidow/davidow.html.
• Hitchcock, Steve, Tim Brody, Jessie M.N. Hey, and Leslie Carr. “Digital Preservation Service Provider Models for Institutional Repositories: Towards Distributed Services.” D-Lib Magazine 13, no. 5/6 (2007). http://www.dlib.org/dlib/may07/hitchcock/05hitchcock.html.
• Manepalli, Giridhar, Henry Jerez, and Michael L. Nelson. “FedCOR: An Institutional CORDRA Registry.” D-Lib Magazine 12, no. 2 (2, 2006). http://www.dlib.org/dlib/february06/manepalli/02manepalli.html.
• Moad, Charles, Edward Bachta, and Rob Stein. “Museums and Cloud Computing: Ready for Primetime, or Just Vaporware?” In Museums and the Web 2009: Proceedings. Toronto: Archives & Museum Informatics, 2009. http://www.archimuse.com/mw2009/papers/moad/moad.html.
• Payette, Sandy. “DuraCloud: A Service Provided by DuraSpace” presented at the Sun PASIG, Malta, June 2009. http://duraspace.org/documents/DuraCloudPASIGJune09.ppt.
• Tarrant, David, Tim Brody, and Les Carr. “From the Desktop to the Cloud: Leveraging Hybrid Storage Architectures in your Repository.” In Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Open Repositories, 2009. http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/17084/1/or09.pdf.
• Van de Sompel, Herbert, Ryan Chute, and Patrick Hochstenbach. “The aDORe federation architecture: digital repositories at scale.” International Journal on Digital Libraries 9, no. 2 (2008): 83-100. http://hdl.handle.net/1854/LU-431740.
• Van de Sompel, Herbert, Carl Lagoze, Jeroen Bekaert, Xiaoming Liu, Sandy Payette, and Simeon Warner. “An Interoperable Fabric for Scholarly Value Chains.” D-Lib Magazine 12, no. 10 (10, 2006). http://www.dlib.org/dlib/october06/vandesompel/10vandesompel.html.

Potential topics for discussion:

• Do you think an interoperable, federated repository system is possible?
• What sociotechnical barriers do you think some of these authors (namely Van de Sompel, Lagoze, et al., and Manepalli, et al.) ran into while creating federated systems?
• Do you think the cloud is secure or reliable enough for long-term storage and preservation?

December 9

• Final papers due.
• Presentations of final projects.

December 16

• Final class.
• Presentations of final projects, continued.
• Tying up any loose ends.