Cornell’s Project Harvest

CNI Fall 2001 Task Force Meeting

Anne R. Kenney and Nancy Y. McGovern

Project Harvest Overview

Subject-based approach: agriculture

National Preservation Plan

USAIN

Mann Library

Core Historical Literature

TEEAL

USDA

75% of core journals now available in electronic form

Focus of Planning Year

Investigating conditions under which publishers willing to participate in the development of an Subject-Based Digital Archives (SBDA)

Two pronged iterative cycle:

Explore (potential of SBDA, business model, broader preservation matrix)

Build (using agriculture as pragmatic application)

PBDA

SBDA

Intersection of Digital Archives

Slide 7

USAIN Survey

Access

45% indicated need for both print and electronic

55% indicated e-journal already substituted for print;

84% would cancel print if reliable archives built

JSTOR study – 78% of faculty think hard copy should be retained even if reliable digital archives

USAIN Survey

Observed loss in e-journals:

45% don’t know

22% yes noted difference

22% no, no difference

What to preserve (priority order):

1. Preserve content plus journal “look and feel” plus publisher functionality

2. Preserve content plus journal “look and feel”

How to preserve:

Over 90% rejected single solution; prefer multiple custodians or 3^rd party

Sept. 6 Publishers’ Meeting

American Dairy Science

Academic/Elsevier

American Phytopathological Society

BioOne

CABI

NRC-Canada

Wiley

NLA and USAIN representation

What’s the Publisher Incentive to Archive?

Protect assets, continuing value of material as it ages

Low additional overhead

Satisfy customers

Risk tolerance; sustainable loss

As calling card for or bi-product of services

Meeting Results

All publishers intend to establish archives

Shift from content currency to database development

Publishers see revenue stream in retrospective holdings

Publishers less concerned than librarians about “artifactual” archiving

Meeting Results

Differing perceptions around who should do digital preservation

Librarians want trusted third-party archiving

Publishers insufficiently aware that others don’t trust them to safeguard materials and insufficiently aware of what it takes to archive

Distrust of government (competition)

Meeting Results

Publishers not enthusiastic about “lit” archives—some would consider it if revenue returned to publisher

Convergence in formats

Reluctance to force authors to conform

Unwilling to share proprietary publisher DTD

Willing to consider archival DTD as another output

Trigger Events

None acknowledged by publishers

Technology watersheds:

Retrofitting legacy digital files

When paper no longer represents access and preservation alternative for electronic

SBDA triggers

Different subject domains have different half-lives

When common interests outweigh individual interests

Stakeholder pressure: when detrimental not to participate

Access and Funding

Publishers and librarians went into the meeting presuming different things

Publishers differed on access issues

Librarians asserted that publishers would have to finance dark archives

SBDA Distinguishes Between Metadata and Data

Dark metadata/dark data

Light metadata/light data

Light metadata/dark data

Light metadata/no data

Multiple options for different publishers and audiences

SBDA Hybrid Model

Ultimate goal is lightness

Comprehensiveness and buy-in trumps lightness

Commonality over distinctiveness emphasized

Hybrid model enables combinations of light to dark metadata and data

Access to metadata/data will change over time and in response to particular circumstances

Offers win/win possibilities

Possible Sustainability Models

Preservation surcharge on subscription

Preservation endowment

Bartered access privileges for preservation

Business insurance policy model

Government support

Slide 21

Possible Sustainability Models

Develop new markets

Harness the free riders

Charge for services, not content and archiving

Build value-adds on the SBDA

Next Steps

Developing subject domain profile

Surveying agricultural publishers to determine level of cooperation in SBDA

Evaluating existing architectural models

Writing CLIR report on the significance of the SBDA

Subject-based Profile

Who are the stakeholders? How many publishers? Research demographics of new user groups?

How big is the field? How structured and defined is it? What’s important? Why? Change driven by discipline and by technology

How standardized is the literature? (xml, etc)

How complex/fixed is it? (database, virtual)

Who owns rights for re-use? Assessment of economic, first-use, citations, second use, technology

How Willing to Cooperate?

Pre- and post-competitive collaboration

Standardized, normalized, and limited number of formats

Preservation from conception (requirements of authors; shut off point for non cooperation)

Archival DTD

Preservation metadata

How Willing to Cooperate?

Self certification/ external certification

Light (and common) metadata, move toward light data (monitoring with scheduling)

Economy of scale

Willing to financially support the effort


	CNI Fall 2001 Task Force Meeting
	Anne R. Kenney and Nancy Y. McGovern


Subject-based approach: agriculture
	National Preservation Plan
	USAIN
	Mann Library
		Core Historical Literature
		TEEAL
		USDA
75% of core journals now available in electronic form


	Investigating conditions under which publishers willing to participate in the development of an Subject-Based Digital Archives (SBDA)
	Two pronged iterative cycle:
		Explore (potential of SBDA, business model, broader preservation matrix)
		Build (using agriculture as pragmatic application)


	Access
		45% indicated need for both print and electronic
		55% indicated e-journal already substituted for print;
		84% would cancel print if reliable archives built
		JSTOR study – 78% of faculty think hard copy should be retained even if reliable digital archives


	Observed loss in e-journals:
			45% don’t know
			22% yes noted difference
			22% no, no difference
	What to preserve (priority order):
			1. Preserve content plus journal “look and feel” plus publisher functionality
			2. Preserve content plus journal “look and feel”
	How to preserve:
			Over 90% rejected single solution; prefer multiple custodians or 3^rd party


	American Dairy Science
	Academic/Elsevier
	American Phytopathological Society
	BioOne
	CABI
	NRC-Canada
	Wiley
	NLA and USAIN representation


	Protect assets, continuing value of material as it ages
	Low additional overhead
	Satisfy customers
	Risk tolerance; sustainable loss
	As calling card for or bi-product of services


	All publishers intend to establish archives
	Shift from content currency to database development
	Publishers see revenue stream in retrospective holdings
	Publishers less concerned than librarians about “artifactual” archiving


	Differing perceptions around who should do digital preservation
	Librarians want trusted third-party archiving
	Publishers insufficiently aware that others don’t trust them to safeguard materials and insufficiently aware of what it takes to archive
	Distrust of government (competition)


	Publishers not enthusiastic about “lit” archives—some would consider it if revenue returned to publisher
	Convergence in formats
	Reluctance to force authors to conform
	Unwilling to share proprietary publisher DTD
	Willing to consider archival DTD as another output


	None acknowledged by publishers
	Technology watersheds:
		Retrofitting legacy digital files
		When paper no longer represents access and preservation alternative for electronic


	Different subject domains have different half-lives
	When common interests outweigh individual interests
	Stakeholder pressure: when detrimental not to participate


	Publishers and librarians went into the meeting presuming different things
	Publishers differed on access issues
	Librarians asserted that publishers would have to finance dark archives


	Dark metadata/dark data
	Light metadata/light data
	Light metadata/dark data
	Light metadata/no data

	Multiple options for different publishers and audiences


	Ultimate goal is lightness
	Comprehensiveness and buy-in trumps lightness
	Commonality over distinctiveness emphasized
	Hybrid model enables combinations of light to dark metadata and data
	Access to metadata/data will change over time and in response to particular circumstances
	Offers win/win possibilities


	Preservation surcharge on subscription
	Preservation endowment
	Bartered access privileges for preservation
	Business insurance policy model
	Government support


	Develop new markets
	Harness the free riders
	Charge for services, not content and archiving
	Build value-adds on the SBDA


	Developing subject domain profile
	Surveying agricultural publishers to determine level of cooperation in SBDA
	Evaluating existing architectural models
	Writing CLIR report on the significance of the SBDA


		Who are the stakeholders? How many publishers? Research demographics of new user groups?
		How big is the field? How structured and defined is it? What’s important? Why? Change driven by discipline and by technology
		How standardized is the literature? (xml, etc)
		How complex/fixed is it? (database, virtual)
		Who owns rights for re-use? Assessment of economic, first-use, citations, second use, technology


	Pre- and post-competitive collaboration
	Standardized, normalized, and limited number of formats
	Preservation from conception (requirements of authors; shut off point for non cooperation)
	Archival DTD
	Preservation metadata


	Self certification/ external certification
	Light (and common) metadata, move toward light data (monitoring with scheduling)
	Economy of scale
	Willing to financially support the effort