DuraCloud to Test Cloud Technologies for Digital Preservation

DuraCloud will test cloud technologies for digital preservation purposes.

Here's an excerpt from the press release:

How long is long enough for our collective national digital heritage to be available and accessible? The Library of Congress National Digital Information Infrastructure and Preservation Program (NDIIPP) and DuraSpace have announced that they will launch a one-year pilot program to test the use of cloud technologies to enable perpetual access to digital content. The pilot will focus on a new cloud-based service, DuraCloud, developed and hosted by the DuraSpace organization. Among the NDIIPP partners participating in the DuraCloud pilot program are the New York Public Library and the Biodiversity Heritage Library.

Cloud technologies use remote computers to provide local services through the Internet. Duracloud will let an institution provide data storage and access without having to maintain its own dedicated technical infrastructure.

For NDIIPP partners, it is not enough to preserve digital materials without also having strategies in place to make that content accessible. NDIIPP is concerned with many types of digital content, including geospatial, audiovisual, images and text. The NDIIPP partners will focus on deploying access-oriented services that make it easier to share important cultural, historical and scientific materials with the world. To ensure perpetual access, valuable digital materials must be stored in a durable manner. DuraCloud will provide both storage and access services, including content replication and monitoring services that span multiple cloud-storage providers.

Martha Anderson, director of NDIIPP Program Management said "Broad online public access to significant scientific and cultural collections depends on providing the communities who are responsible for curating these materials with affordable access to preservation services. The NDIIPP DuraCloud pilot project with the DuraSpace organization is an opportunity to demonstrate affordable preservation and access solutions for communities of users who need this kind of help."

Electronic Theses and Dissertations Bibliography, Version 4

The Electronic Theses and Dissertations Bibliography, Version 4 is now available from Digital Scholarship.

This bibliography presents selected English-language articles, conference papers, and other printed and electronic sources that are useful in understanding electronic theses and dissertations (ETDs). Where possible, links are provided to sources that are freely available on the Internet, including e-prints in disciplinary archives and institutional repositories.

Scholarly Electronic Publishing Weblog Update (7/15/09)

The latest update of the Scholarly Electronic Publishing Weblog (SEPW) is now available. It provides information about new works related to scholarly electronic publishing, such as books, e-prints, journal articles, magazine articles, technical reports, and white papers.

Especially interesting are: "ARCHER—e-Research Tools for Research Data Management," "The Case for Regulating Google and the Proposed Book Rights Registry," "Characteristics of Open Access Scholarly Publishing: A Multidisciplinary Study," "Metadata Quality in Digital Repositories: A Survey of the Current State of the Art," "Motivations for Web-Based Scholarly Publishing: Do Scientists Recognize Open Availability as an Advantage?," "Name Authority Control in Institutional Repositories," "The National E-Books Observatory Project: Examining Student Behaviors and Usage," "Open Access for Digitization Projects," "Repository Metadata: Approaches and Challenges," and "Where There’s a Will There’s a Way?: Survey of Academic Librarian Attitudes about Open Access."

What to Do If a Digital Scholarship Website or Application Goes Down

Yesterday, the DigitalKoans weblog at the Digital Scholarship .org mirror was brought down by the host service without prior warning. It is now back up; however, given that this issue may not be fully resolved, this may be a good time to review what to do when a Digital Scholarship mirror site or application goes down.

Digital Scholarship has two websites: http://digital-scholarship.org/ and http://digital-scholarship.com/. The sites are mirrored with two significant exceptions: only the .org site generates the Scholarly Electronic Publishing Weblog RSS feed and the .com DigitalKoans does not include comments. Also, most DigitalKoans RSS feed subscribers use the FeedBurner .org feed rather than the .com feed.

So, what should you do if a mirror site, say the .org site, were to go down? For website access, simply switch to the .com site. For DigitalKoans, use the .com DigitalKoans website. If the down time exceeds one day, subscribe to the .com DigitalKoans feed if you don’t want to check the website daily for important service announcements.

Here are the major .com URLs:

You can get full access details about the Digital Scholarship mirror servers and feeds at:

Unless further technical issues emerge, I anticipate that DigitalKoans will become active again on Wednesday, and that I will release a new Scholarly Electronic Publishing Weblog and version 4 of the Electronic Theses and Dissertations Bibliography on that day.

“Adding eScience Assets to the Data Web”

Herbert Van de Sompel, Carl Lagoze, Michael L. Nelson, Simeon Warner, Robert Sanderson, and Pete Johnston have self-archived "Adding eScience Assets to the Data Web" on arXiv.org.

Here's an excerpt:

Aggregations of Web resources are increasingly important in scholarship as it adopts new methods that are data-centric, collaborative, and networked-based. The same notion of aggregations of resources is common to the mashed-up, socially networked information environment of Web 2.0. We present a mechanism to identify and describe aggregations of Web resources that has resulted from the Open Archives Initiative – Object Reuse and Exchange (OAI-ORE) project. The OAI-ORE specifications are based on the principles of the Architecture of the World Wide Web, the Semantic Web, and the Linked Data effort. Therefore, their incorporation into the cyberinfrastructure that supports eScholarship will ensure the integration of the products of scholarly research into the Data Web.

Digital Library Jobs: Digital Resources and Imaging Services Programmer/Analyst at University of Dublin

The Digital Resources and Imaging Services unit at the University of Dublin's Trinity College Library is recruiting a Digital Resources and Imaging Services Programmer/Analyst (one-year contract).

Here's an excerpt from the ad:

The Technical Infrastructure Programmer / Implementation Manager will be a key member of the libraries digitisation team, and will provide support and leadership with the planning, development and implementation of the Trinity College Digital Library Collections technical infrastructure. This position will provide programming and technical expertise to the development of an open source Fedora-based digital repository designed to provide new electronic access to the rare and unique Trinity College Library Special Collections and Library Research Resources while ensuring the long term preservation of these unique and valuable digital resources and assets.

Digital Library Jobs: Systems Programmer II at Clemson University

The Clemson University Libraries are recruiting a Systems Programmer II.

Here's an excerpt from the ad:

The Systems Programmer II will interact with a wide variety of individuals in the library and the university, working in Linux and Windows environments, providing software analysis, metadata transformation and support for digital library applications. This position will interact with counterparts at peer institutions developing and using similar systems.

Digital Preservation: Presentations from 2009 NDIIPP Partners Meeting

Presentations from the 2009 NDIIPP Partners Meeting are now available.

Here's a quick selection:

“Scholarly Publishing in the New Era of Scarcity 2010-2025”

Michael Jensen, Director of Strategic Web Communications at National Academies Press, has made a digital video of his presentation "Scholarly Publishing in the New Era of Scarcity 2010-2025" available on YouTube (part 1 and part 2).

Here's an excerpt from the abstract:

[Jensen] posits "an inconvenient truth" for scholarly publishers, and advocates that they restructure their business model toward a new environmentally friendly and economically efficient digital-primary, open-access (OA) model, including seeking support and partnership from their home universities and institutions, due to the urgency of environmental and economic collapse foreseen in the next ten years. Speech given at the Association of American University Presses Annual Meeting in Philadelphia, June 20, 2009.

The Association for Computing Machinery and Open Access

In "Open, Closed, or Cloven Access?," Moshe Y. Vardi, editor of Communications of the ACM, discusses the Association for Computing Machinery’s position on open access.

Here's an excerpt:

As for ACM's stand on the open-access issue, I'd describe it as "cloven," somewhere between open and closed. (In topology, a cloven set is one that is both open and closed.) ACM does charge a price for its publications, but this price is very reasonable. (If you do not believe me, ask your librarian.) ACM's modest publication revenues first go to cover ACM's publication costs that go beyond print costs to include the cost of online distribution and preservation, and then to support the rest of ACM activities. To me, this is a very important point. The "profits" do not go to some corporate owners; they are used to support the activities of the association, and the association is us, the readers, authors, reviewers, and editors of ACM publications. Furthermore, ACM operates as a democratic association. If you believe that ACM should change its publishing business model, then you should lobby for this position. . . .

Just remember, "free" is not a sound business model.

Mass Digitisation: The IMPACT Project

Fifteen institutions from Europe and the UK have launched the IMPACT project.

Here's an excerpt from the press release:

Feeding into the EU's i2010 vision to significantly improve access to Europe's cultural heritage, the British Library and the University of Salford have teamed up with a group of 15 institutions from across the continent as part of the four-year IMPACT project—IMProving Access to Text—to remove the barriers that stand in the way of the mass digitisation of the European cultural heritage.

Led by the National Library of the Netherlands, Koninklijke Bibliotheek, the IMPACT project aims to share expertise from across Europe and establish international best practice guidelines with a view to speeding up, standardising and enhancing the quality of mass digitisation through establishing a Centre of Competence for text based digitisation. As one of the main participants, the British Library has taken the lead on one of IMPACT's four sub-projects, establishing the operational context of the work carried out by contributors to the project.

Mass digitisation has become one of the most prominent issues in the library world over the last 5 years, with a number of experienced libraries in Europe already scanning millions of pages each year. To help establish some standardisation over the course of the project, the British Library's team will lead work on a set of 'Decision Support Tools' in an effort to focus on practical implementation support, providing guidance on digitisation workflow, the capturing of material and the organisation of metadata based on the real world experiences of project partners. These measures, announced at the first IMPACT conference in April will help ensure new material can be digitised successfully and feed into existing workflows. . . .

With extensive experience working with the digitisation of historic material, the British Library has also been working closely with technical experts at the internationally distinguished Pattern Recognition and Image Analysis (PRImA) research group, University of Salford, exploring methods of improving Optical Character Recognition (OCR) for use in the digitisation of less standardised material. OCR technology was absolutely vital for the delivery of the Library's recent newspaper digitisation project of 19th Century UK newspapers (http://newspapers.bl.uk/blcs), allowing the text to be fully searchable, but the current technology has it limitations. . . .

Through collaboration IMPACT has already established methods for overcoming issues with geometric correction, border removal and binarisation, and is looking at examples of best practice from around the world, such as the Australian Newspaper Digitisation project's cutting edge application of collaborative user generated corrections, to increase resource discovery success for historic mass digitisation.

Japanese Repositories: The DRF (Digital Repository Federation) Report during 2006-2008

Digital Repository Federation (DRF) in Japan has released The DRF (Digital Repository Federation) Report during 2006-2008.

Here's an excerpt:

Hokkaido University/Chiba University/Kanazawa University have organized Digital Repository Federation (DRF: 25 universities and 58 universities participated in 2006 and 2007, respectively) and worked on cooperation activities with support from CSI (Cyber Science Infrastructure)in order to form an IR community for IR promotion.

Main activities are:

  1. Construction of mailing list for information exchange on IR/Open Access and Wiki.
  2. Workshop for IR/Open Access
  3. International symposium for IR/Open Access
  4. International survey on cooperation model for IR
  5. Discussion on ideal future IR community

Patricia A. Steele Named Dean of the University of Maryland Libraries

Patricia A. Steele has been named Dean of the University of Maryland Libraries.

Here's an excerpt from the press release:

The University of Maryland has named as its new dean of university libraries, Patricia A. Steele—a national leader in the Google Project and other efforts to digitize collections creating wider access to universities' information resources. Steele, described as a visionary and dynamic leader, currently directs the libraries at Indiana University Bloomington. She begins at Maryland on Sept. 1.

"Librarians offer an important voice in this emerging technology environment and Maryland is an especially exciting place to work right now," says Steele. "The University has a dynamic vision for the future and appreciates the role libraries can play in achieving it. We'll be able to collaborate with top researchers on campus, and our enviable proximity to the nation's capital will give great access to the many leadership organizations." . . .

Among Steele's national leadership activities:

  • Member of the top-level academic library team renegotiating with Google in the project to digitize and make freely available on the Web millions of books;
  • As member of the Committee on Institutional Cooperation (CIC), a group of academic libraries working to incorporate academic collections in the Google Project, leads the effort to digitize project's first "collection of distinction";
  • Co-founded the HathiTrust, a shared digital library of leading research libraries;
  • Founding board member of CLOCKSS—a joint venture between scholarly publishers and research libraries to preserve Web-based scholarly publications.

"Pat Steele is a major appointment for Maryland that will keep us at the leading edge of information," says University of Maryland president C.D. Mote, Jr. "Her name is magic among librarians because she has led academic libraries through the changing technological landscape. She's at the forefront while simultaneously honoring the essential role that keeps libraries at the center of the research enterprise."

Read more about it at "Dean Patricia Steele to Depart."

Library IT Jobs: Assistant Director for Information Technology at Chadron State College

The Chadron State College Library is recruiting an Assistant Director for Information Technology.

Here's an excerpt from the ad:

Responsibilities include:

  • Providing technical expertise to all library operations including maintenance of the Library Website, all Innovative functions, electronic course reserves, and representing the Library in negotiations for electronic resources including information and instructional technology.
  • Supervision of Technical Services Librarian, maintenance of Library Computer Lab.
  • Liaison to campus units regarding technical issues and develop Library digitization program.

Word + SWORD + Ingester = Word to DSpace Deposit

In "Direct from MS Word to DSpace via SWORD," Stuart Lewis describes how to get documents into DSpace from Word via SWORD and a custom DSpace ingester.

Here's an excerpt:

This complete end to end process allows you to create Word templates, and to mark them up with required and optional fields. It also allows you to embed details of the SWORD deposit repository URL (so the users do not need to know what it is) within the template for easy deposit. This could be used for example for a journal editor to provide a template and a deposit location for new paper submissions all-in-one.

Peter Suber to “Step Back” from Blogging on Open Access News

Peter Suber will "step back from systematic daily blogging" on Open Access News so that he can focus on his new job at the Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University.

The open access movement owes a huge debt of gratitude to Peter and to Gavin Baker (who joined OAN on February 03, 2008) for their incredible work on OAN, which passed 15,000 posts on September 29, 2008. Unless you have done it, it's difficult to appreciate how time-consuming doing this kind of high-volume news and commentary blogging is, which involves a considerable amount of effort to identify, filter, summarize, and comment on relevant and timely news items. OAN is not just an excellent current news source—it's an important advocacy platform and the best historical chronicle of the open access movement that exists.

Here's an excerpt from "Housekeeping":

Today I step back from systematic daily blogging in order to free up time for my new position at the Berkman Center. 

The blog itself will continue and Gavin will continue at something like his current pace.  I will continue my daily crawl for OA-related news.  I'll continue to tag what I find for the OA tracking project (OATP).  I'll continue to write the monthly SPARC Open Access Newsletter (SOAN).  I'll continue to work full-time for OA. 

I'll even continue to blog, though only sporadically.  Open Access News (OAN) will be smaller and more selective than in the past.  I cannot assure you that the news it covers will be the most important subset.  (That presupposes that Gavin and I will be on top of all new developments and in a position to pick the most important.)  I'll blog what I notice, what moves me, and what I have time for, with the accent on the third criterion.  It should be a eclectic bunch.  I know that I'll notice a lot of important news, thanks to OATP, and I know that I'll be moved to blog a lot of it.  But because of my new projects, even the most important news will be important news that I only have time to tag, not to blog.

For a comprehensive source of OA news, subscribe to the OATP feed, which is available by RSS, email, and a blog-like web page with the most recent items displayed first.  The OATP feed has been more comprehensive than this blog since April and it grows more comprehensive and useful every day.  To help the cause, please join OATP as a tagger and help select new items for inclusion in the feed.  For more details, see the OATP home page or my SOAN article about it from May 2009. 

Oxford University Press Backs Google Book Search Settlement

In "Saving Texts From Oblivion: Oxford U. Press on the Google Book Settlement," Tim Barton, President of Oxford University Press, discusses the Google Book Search Settlement Agreement.

In conclusion. he states:

So we at Oxford University Press support the settlement, even as we recognize its imperfections and want it made better. As Voltaire said, "Le mieux est l'ennemi du bien," the perfect is the enemy of the good. Let us not waste an opportunity to create so much good. Let us work together to solve the imperfections of the settlement. Let us work together to give students, scholars, and readers access to the written wisdom of previous generations. Let us keep those minds alive.

Stuart Shieber on “University Open-Access Policies as Mandates”

In "University Open-Access Policies as Mandates," Stuart M. Shieber, Director of Harvard's Office for Scholarly Communication, discusses the difference between university open access policies and university open access mandates and whether it matters.

Here's an excerpt:

Try the following thought experiment. Suppose a policy on faculty were established that granted to the university a license in faculty articles but did not explicitly provide for a waiver of the license. Now imagine that a faculty member has an article accepted by a highly prestigious journal that does not allow for author distribution and will not accept an amendment of its copyright transfer policy. Perhaps the author is a junior faculty member soon up for tenure, whose promotion case will be considerably weakened without the publication in question. The author might naturally want to have the license waived even though no waiver is explicitly provided for. The faculty member is likely to storm into the dean’s office, howling about the unconscionable practice of taking rights even when it harms the faculty member. Is the university going to distribute the article anyway against the express wishes of the faculty member? Be serious. The dean says "Fine, we won’t make use of the license for this article." Voilà, a waiver. So much for university rights retention mandates.

Copyright and E-Reserves: Update on Cambridge University Press et al. v. Georgia State University

In "Interesting Development in Georgia State Case," Kevin Smith provides an update on Cambridge University Press et al. v. Georgia State University, an important case about copyright and electronic reserves in libraries.

Here's an excerpt:

Earlier this year, the Georgia Regents adopted a new copyright policy after a select committee reviewed and entirely rewrote the older one. The new policy is shorter, more easily comprehended and more pragmatic. . . .

After this new policy was adopted, attorneys for GSU filed a motion for a "protective order" which would state that only information about electronic course content going forward, under the new policy, could be "discovered" by the plaintiffs. GSU argued that since they were a state institution, and therefore entitled to immunity from damages, the plaintiffs could only get prospective relief (an injunction) and therefore should be limited to information about practices related to the policy under which GSU would go forward. After some legal maneuvering, the Judge granted this request last week.

ARL Publishes Author Addenda, SPEC Kit 310

The Association of Research Libraries has published Author Addenda, SPEC Kit 310. The table of contents and executive summary are freely available.

Here's an excerpt from the press release:

This survey was distributed to the 123 ARL member libraries in February 2009. Respondents were asked to provide information on the use of author addenda at their institutions, which rights authors were encouraged to retain, and the methods by which libraries were conducting promotion and outreach efforts on the topic of author rights and addenda. Seventy libraries (57%) responded to the survey. Of those respondents, 35 (50%) indicated that authors at their institutions were using author addenda, and 33 libraries (47%) indicated that they “did not know.” Only two libraries indicated that authors at their institutions were not using author addenda.

The majority of respondents (77%) did not formally collect information on the use of author addenda on their campuses at the time of this survey. Evidence was gathered mostly in an informal way, either when an author contacted the library with a question related to copyright or an author addendum, or through anecdotal stories of success or failure in using an addendum. Fifty-two percent (36) of the responding libraries reported that an author addendum had been endorsed by administrators or a governing body at their institution or by their consortia, while 62% (43) responded that there had been no endorsements. There had been more endorsements at the consortial level than at the institutional level. Eight libraries (12%) reported that an institutional endorsement was under consideration at the time of the survey. A larger number of libraries (46 or 68%) reported that their institution or consortium had worked to promote the use of an author addendum by providing links to an author addendum and copyright information on library Web sites or making faculty presentations on author rights (particularly pertaining to the NIH Public Access Policy).

This SPEC Kit includes documentation from respondents in the form of sample addenda, brochures, handouts, and author rights Web sites and slides from presentations to faculty and library staff.