Yale University Library Collection Development Council

Archival Assignments

DRAFT

The below topics generated a side-discussion about whether CoDGeR has the "right" to assign discussion topics to other groups. We generally decided that we can recommend discussion topics to other groups. Many of the topics were assigned to CDC. Since CDC is our parent committee, they may choose to reassign the topic back to us, which is their privilege.
(1) Examine current archiving/perpetual access options provided by remote-access vendors and decide on what we feel is an acceptable standard that should be met in order for us to consider that a resource is "archival". Some remote access vendors are providing archiving options. A prime example is OCLC Electronic Collections Online. We need to review what is being offered by remote access vendors as their archiving options, decide what we feel are acceptable options (or an acceptable minimum). This could be used in pushing for changes in vendor offerings, or to simply gauge whether we can dispense with other archiving efforts (print collection, etc.) [CDC]
(2) Identify what is the appropriate level of support, system migration, etc. for our local load servers to be considered archival architecture. [NOTE: I would be extremely surprised if this didn't already exist for Orbis, and hopefully that will help in writing a standard document.] Sue Crockford-Peters pointed out that LibTech has already created a document listing level of support to be devoted to different library servers. It may be a fairly simple matter to extend this to the question of archival level of support. [LibTech]
(3) Identify standard interface/systems requirements for locally or consortially archived materials (presentation, reproduction, etc.). This might be different at different levels: minimal for low expected use materials, standard for more heavily needed items, etc. Investigate local options for handling "residuals" from ended contracts, and form standards for contents and format of residuals. Explore consortial/cooperative efforts to handle archiving of electronic resources. We were making a distinction between "production level" interface/systems requirements and "archival level" in that we assume that "archival level" is almost a backup system and therefore should not be held to the same standards. This intertwines with acceptable content and format of residuals which we may need to make available at the archival level, and acceptability of access on a more heavily used (slower?) consortial server if necessary. [CDC/LibTech -- Different pieces may need to be discussed by different groups ; CDC identifying what is acceptable in presentation and LibTech specifying what that means for systems requirements]
(4) Discuss the difference between commitment to providing perpetual access, and commitment to archiving (implications of local control). Decide whether guarantee of commitment to resources needs to be formed at the time of acquisition, and how often re-evaluation should occur. Items that are locally loaded for convenience rather than archival purpose should be carefully distinguished. Part of this is simply recommendations for selectors to evaluate products in an archival light. Part of it is a need to have appropriate definitions of perpetual access and archiving. [CDC]
(5) Encourage discussion by appropriate groups of "outdated" formats, locally produced web pages and minor databases. [Preservation, MS&A, Special Collections, Reader Services]
Finally, there was a feeling that LMT or Library Automation Steering Committee should be the group addressing the overarching question here. The question is the level of commitment the library as a whole should be making to the archiving of our electronic resources.