Yale University Library

Digital Preservation Committee (DPC)

Meeting Notes prepared by Bobbie Pilette

 

Date:  February 7, 2005, 10:30

 

Present: David Gewirtz, , Ann Green, Bobbie Pilette

Absent: Nicole Bouche, Kevin Glick, Audrey Novak

 

A quick review of what we have at the moment—mission statement and financial statement are drafted.  The “what” statement we are waiting on and the lifecycle statement is in the works.

 

Lifecycle:  Ann brought her statement for discussion that had been sent to all committee members prior to the meeting.  It was decided that we would do a quick review and then bring it back for discussion when the full committee is together.  The main point of the Lifecycle statement: 

The statement also included lists and sources.  For the final statement it was decided that for the moment we could footnote one of the lists as a way of mentioning the lifecycle stages without going into great detail. 

 

Security:  Bobbie had a brief paragraph on Security that prompted discussion on what it was and what it should encompass. 

Security of digital resources happens at two levels, the overall system and the digital resource/object itself.  In the case of the digital resource/object there is the certification of authenticity and how that can be insured.  System security is related to back-up/redundancy and the steps taken to lower risks related to technological failure or environmental damage related to flood, fire, etc.

The decision was to include the “back-up/redundancy…” statement in Ann’s area of storage management and that the Authenticity portion would be worked on by David who would provide a brief paragraph covering authenticity, integrity & fixity.  In addition, there would be a comment on secure systems as it relates to the protection of the network.

 

Access:  David provided some ideas that we discussed in order for him to draft the Access statement.  David’s initial suggestion was to approach access in terms of an e-learning environment with a set of services.  However, as the discussion progressed the idea was to present the set of services in a more generic environment—it does not really matter what the environment is, there is a given infrastructure that is required—including the resolver for URLs.  Also under discussion is the question of what it is we are accessing, as it relates to preservation.  The draft Access statement will be used as the basis for further discussion with the committee as a whole. 

 

Action:

            Access draft statement-David

            Authenticity statement-David

            “what” statement-Audrey

 

Next meeting, Feb 14:

Quick review of all the draft statements:  mission, what, financial, lifecycle, authenticity, access.  Figure out what the order is and what is still to be worked on. We know we have metadata, storage, and surrogates, but are there others?  The goal is to combine into one document all the draft statements with placeholders for those components yet to come.