University of York Context

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)	Library & Archive
Storage and access
Where are collection masters stored (media, number of copies, backup, preservation system)?	Current: Network Filestore, backed up. Some material is backed-up on DVD media. Desired: Fast rapid access network filestore for derivates (backed up with snapshots); masters on filestore but separate, and backed up to a different media also. Optimal: All of this handled by a dedicated preservation system.
Where is access to the collection provided from?	Current: Digital Library (some), via individual requests (some). Desired: Digital Library (all content).
What technical protocol is used to access files? Local file systems? Windows shares? (SMB/CIFS)	Current: http Desired: http, with an alternative route for large files (possibly working with the White Rose Grid)
Workflow	rough diagrams of current and desired

What tools are part of the existing workflow?	Current: Native scanner software (various) Hasselblad proprietary software Adobe CS5, Photoshop elements, Lightroom, Corel Paintshop Pro Robocopy Fedora Commons repository Muradora software Xforms Java Messaging Service (JMS) Kakadu (JPEG2000 processing) ImageMagick (other image conversion) Custom workflow Proposed: Checksumming tools Preservation metadata extraction
What technologies underly the existing workflow?	Java mostly.
What challenges are present in the existing workflow? (technology, organisational, staffing)	Organisational: work happening across different sections of the library/archives; work with different requirements (archival documents with archival requirements, scanning book chapters and texts, non-unique images from books). Staffing: use of casual staff. Technology: challenge is in knowing what tools to choose and finding time/staff to implement them.
Does the workflow include manual steps?	Yes, image QA is currently manual although kakadu will alert to problems in conversion.
Where in this content workflow would the prototype solution be deployed?	There are a number of solutions we could use, some early in the process to be used by those involved in digitisation and photography to check their files at the point of creation, or close to that, so that corrections or re-scans can be made. Others could be integrated into our submission workflow, automating OCR for example, checking submissions against expected formats ad standards (eg. audio) and alerting users at the point of submission to problems in their files. The following could be useful to us: Audio Auditing Script OCR Comparison ssdeep for duplicate image detection Validating TIFF to JPEG2000 migration Identify compressed TIFFs and convert them to uncompressed TIFFs
What is the process for changing or enhancing the workflow? What obstacles to change are present?	In-house development required staff time and IT Services support for the server infrastructure.
Actors
Who executes the existing workflow?	Digital Library Team and other trained staff.
Who adminsters the existing workflow?	Digital Library Manager and Digital Library Technical Staff.
What system rights do the workflow executors have? Can they install software? Can they use the web?	Varies depending on staff role. Mostly they can't install software but they can use the Web.
Who is the collection owner or curator? (section/department/team)	Varies, included Library & Archives, York Sound Archive, individual depositors.
Is there a workflow champion, who is it?	Digital Library Manager