The aim of this proforma is to capture the institutional context to the collections, issues and solutions we are are considering at AQuA. What are the key issues that might affect the design of the solutions? How will the context impact on embedding solutions in the workflow? Can we learn from our experiences in taking forward the AQuA results?
Please fill in as much as you can, but don't worry if you can't fill out all the fields!
| Institutional context |
|
| Institution type (eg. Library, Archive) |
The British Library administers the EAP, and is responsible for preserving and providing access to surrogate copies created by the Projects. The EAP is funded by Arcadia. |
| Storage and access |
|
| Where are collection masters stored (media, number of copies, backup, preservation system)? |
Officially, the Masters are kept by the Projects' Main Institution of Deposit; the BL holds a surrogate copy. EAP material at the BL is stored across CDs, DVDs, HDDs, DV CAMs and Microfilm. Approx. 70TB received so far. The removable storage media is then kept in the BLs Archival Storage facilities. A stabilisation programme has been running for approximately 6 months, which is imaging discs and copying HDDs to a backed up server; approx. 10TB have been processed so far. |
| Where is access to the collection provided from? |
Currently in 2 ways: Material from 3 projects is available to view online via the EAP webpages. Further material may be added here in the future. Most material is available to view via the BL reading rooms. The material is not linked to the BL catalogue; users must contact EAP staff, who make requested material available in the reading room on a temporary web page (via FTP) Future - EAP material will be integrated into the BL Digital Library Systems |
| What technical protocol is used to access files? Local file systems? Windows shares? (SMB/CIFS) |
Online - CMS runs from 4D database? Reading rooms - material uploaded to temporary webpage via FTP ? |
| Workflow |
|
Describe your existing content workflow (in words, or with a diagram http://vue.tufts.edu ). |
Material arrives; sample checked to see if discs and files open Material accessioned and moved to storage The stabilisation project has started with the oldest material and is working forward. Material identified for cataloguing is bumped up the schedule. The bulk of errors are identified when material is used during the cataloguing process. When errors or broken files identified, requests are sent back to the project for replacements (it is not always possible to get replacements from older / finished projects) Workflow diagram coming soon... |
| What tools are part of the existing workflow? |
Initial checking is done with Photoshop and Bridge, and other image packages if PS doesn't work (images), Nero (sound and video) |
| What technologies underly the existing workflow? |
???????? |
| What challenges are present in the existing workflow? (technology, organisational, staffing) |
Staffing - temporary staff member from Digital Preservation is assigned to the stabilisation project; also EAP only has 2 staff members (Curator and Cataloguer) who work with content. Size and format of the backlog - approx. 70TB material stored across approx. 17,000 discs, and approx 65 HDDs Timeframe for integration with the DLS is unknown |
| Does the workflow include manual steps? |
All of the QA at the time being is manual! Stabilisation is semi-automated -- the imaging process works automatically but requires technician intervention |
| Where in this content workflow would the prototype solution be deployed? | 2 stages: (1) Project holders could use tools during the digitisation process - would increase likelihood of re-digitising material when errors found, also allows them to improve their QA; could also run these before submitting material. (2) EAP staff - when material is received, OR after stabilisation. Due to the time constraints of doing it manually, and issues of running checks on individual discs, it might make more sense to run it after material is stabilised. |
| What is the process for changing or enhancing the workflow? What obstacles to change are present? |
Discussion with Digital Preservation and Stabilisation team Re: project holders - would need to decide how to deliver tools and guidance to project holders. In some cases it may not be possible for project holders to integrate QA. |
| Actors |
|
| Who executes the existing workflow? |
EAP staff; stabilisation staff |
| Who adminsters the existing workflow? |
EAP Curator and Assigned Digital Preservation Team Member? plus EAP director |
| What system rights do the workflow executors have? Can they install software? Can they use the web? |
EAP - user rights only; can use the web Project holders - this will vary according to project |
| Who is the collection owner or curator? (section/department/team) |
EAP |
| Is there a workflow champion, who is it? |
N/A |
| |
|
Labels:
None