Yale University Library

Digital Preservation Committee (DPC)

Meeting Notes prepared by Bobbie Pilette


Date:  April 24, 2006, 10:30


Present: Bobbie Pilette, Gretchen Gano, Kevin Glick, Audrey Novak, Rebekah Irwin, E.C. Schroeder

Absent: David Gewirtz


The JISC Digital Repositories Program Support team is working on a report for the reference model of OAIS.  Outside of digital preservation there has been discussion regarding the wider usefulness of OAIS and the potential for an OAIS-lite approach.  Alice had sent us an email asking if we wanted to comment on the question of OAIS and the OAIS-lite.  During our discussion on this it was pointed out that currently most folks using OAIS as a reference model use the diagram and not much else—and the question was asked how much “lighter” could it go and be considered OAIS “compliant”.  Also, what is meant by “lite”?  In general the consensus was we don’t have enough information to comment—perhaps in six months we could.


We then began updating the group as a whole on the progress of the two teams.  The Technical team has had a breakthrough and has determined what the format of the technical information should be.[see attached]  It was decided after reviewing the format that the admin team would follow the basic outline for their information as well.  These in general follow the format of the NEDCC Technical Leaflets.  It was also acknowledged that we were essentially following the categories of the Audit Checklist for Certification of Trusted Digital Repositories put out by RLG.  Following that outline we are currently working on A. Organization and D. Technologies and Technical Infrastructure. 


The goals of the technical reports will be to education, outline best practices, make sort-term and long-term recommendations, and provide useful information to Yale and the larger community.  In addition, they have completed first drafts on METS and RDF, fixity, persistent identifiers, registries, system infrastructure: repository backup function, and system infrastructure: repository functions on well supported operating systems and other core infrastructure. 


E.C. had pulled together some information regarding categories of costs to consider.  It is very difficult to come up with firm figures associated with all the associated costs.  Hardware costs are known.  However, ingest costs will need to be estimated and best on estimates from the Sciences, Beinecke and VRC projects.  Though even these will not be a good estimate as the ingest application is being re-written with the hopes of speeding things up.  Audrey will be developing various scenarios for the Rescue Repository which may be used to help establish some relative costs for digital preservation.   There was discussion of actually putting costs into the Technical Reports associated with different recommendations. 


The job draft was discussed in general terms—whether we need to consider a different approach.  The idea of having a shared responsibility among the stakeholders—preservation, ILTS, and maybe electronic collections and/or cataloging—was discussed.  Some of the pros and cons of this model was reviewed.


Don’t have to negotiate time with stakeholders, as they are part of the success of the program

Shared goals across departments/units


No single point of contact

Must have the back fill position support

The decision was to ask IAC for their input on this as we were to give an update on our progress later that day.



·        Each team will continue to move forward


Next Meeting for committee as a whole:

·        May 8 & 22


Committee members’ schedules through August:

Bobbie:            June 19th

Rebekah:          May 22nd

Kevin:              May 15, June 19,26, July 17, Sep 11,18,25