So...I think my brain may have fallen completely out of my head which does not bode well for this assignment. For the life of me, I could not remember to post it and am now trying to do it while I get ready for work. Anyway, here it is.
LOCKSS: Does a Library Good?
An Investigation into the
Implementation of LOCKSS
Caitlin Hoffman
FIS1311, Section 4
Colin Furness
November 8, 2007
“…Let us save what remains: not by vaults and locks which fence them from the public eye…but by such a multiplication of copies, as shall place them beyond the reach of accident” (Thomas Jefferson as cited on www.lockss.org/lockss/Home, 2007). This quotation appears at the top of the LOCKSS web site and is very much the impetus for the project. LOCKSS, or Lots of Copies Keep Stuff Safe, an international non-profit endeavour aims to provide tools and support to libraries for the preservation of web-published materials (www.lockss.org/lockss/Home, 2007). The project was initiated by Stanford University to help libraries everywhere maintain their collections by housing copies of digital materials, stressing the importance of long term survival. By supporting this long term survival, libraries are able to uphold their roles as “memory organizations” allowing them to “transmit today’s intellectual, cultural, and historical output to the future” (www.lockss.org/lockss/About_LOCKSS, 2007).
In order to further explore LOCKSS, the following scenario will be considered: a small academic library with a very limited budget concerned with the preservation of its web content is considering implementing LOCKSS in order to address this issue. Let the following information be considered:
Implementation of LOCKSS would mean no longer worrying about loss of material that has come to be associated with loss of subscription (www.lockss.org/lockss/For_Librarians, 2007). And librarians need not worry about the loss of control over the material as LOCKSS is not interested in removing custody from libraries but rather sheltering the information from various threats (Fox, 2007). LOCKSS seeks to “empower libraries, not in any way replace the values or responsibilities libraries have traditionally maintained” (Fox, 2007, p. 23). They strive to do so easily and cost effectively, with technology that is “open source, peer-to-peer, decentralized digital preservation infrastructure” (www.lockss.org/lockss/Home, 2007).
The objective is, using “the LOCKSS software to turn a low cost PC into a digital preservation appliance (a LOCKSS box)” (www.lockss.org/lockss/How_It_Works, 2007). It is important to note that this computer will be dedicated exclusively to the running of LOCKSS. Expensive hardware is not necessary, as LOCKSS neither requires nor benefits from it (www.lockss.org/lockss/Installing_LOCKSS, 2007). Transforming the computer into a LOCKSS box involves simply downloading and burning a CD Image, provided free of charge, and installing it on the chosen computer (www.lockss.org/lockss/Installing_LOCKSS, 2007). Updates are applied automatically, and the system is designed to ensure as little staff intervention as possible (Fox, 2007). Once online the box requires as little as 15 minutes to an hour of maintenance per month (www.lockss.org/lockss/Installing_LOCKSS, 2007).
Before collection can begin LOCKSS must obtain permission from publishers whose content they would like to preserve. This is usually done by the LOCKSS Alliance and not by individual libraries or librarians (www.lockss.org/lockss/For_Librarians, 2007). Collection is then done via a web crawler (www.lockss.org/lockss/How_It_Works, 2007). To provide access to the preserved content, LOCKSS boxes integrate with web proxies and caches. The boxes intercept requests from the browsers; the request is first forwarded to the publisher, and only if content is not returned does the preserved copy get used (www.lockss.org/lockss/How_It_Works, 2007).
Concerns raised by experts, in regards to LOCKSS seem to center around issues of trust. Seadle (2006) suggests that “in the digital world trusting a single provider, a single institution, and a single archive represents the real risk” (p. 76). LOCKSS is aware of such concerns, stating that one of its founding principles is that “a digital preservation system needs to build confidence in its users” (www.lockss.org/lockss/About_LOCKSS, 2007). This is done by a commitment to authenticity and integrity. For LOCKSS it is imperative that any information contained within its boxes retains its authenticity, which Fox argues is at the heart of their approach (2007). As he points out, “the reliability of a long-term preservation effort is based upon the ability of the archive to preserve the authentic digital representation of an object, no matter what the original format.” (Fox, 2007, p. 24) Seadle, a member of the LOCKSS Alliance Technical Policy Committee (2006) provides a nice summary about the commitment to integrity in his paper. He explains that “LOCKSS validates the integrity of works it archives by comparing multiple copies of the digital object on multiple servers…[requiring] at least six LOCKSS caches to hold a work before it can make a reasonable guarantee of its integrity” (Seadle, 2006, p. 76). He also speaks to the issue of authenticity stating that when errors occur “changing the digital copy does…create a problem with authenticity…LOCKSS has addressed this problem by a technique whereby it keeps each authentic version of the original” (Seadle, 2006, p. 76).
LOCKSS builds further confidence by providing information about funding for the project, listing major contributors such as: The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation whose mission is to provide grants in areas including scholarly communications and research information technology (www.mellon.org, 2007), The National Science Foundation that “promotes and advances scientific progress in the United States by competitively awarding grants and cooperative agreements for research and education” (www.nsf.gov/funding/, 2005) and The Library of Congress that works to “sustain and preserve a universal collection of knowledge and creativity for future generations” (www.loc.gov/about/ ,2007).
It is important to reiterate that LOCKSS is open source which means that individual libraries can modify the system to better suit their needs (Corrado, 2005). However, it does not seem that this is the aim or even the advantage of LOCKSS. The purpose is to allow conversion of a “personal computer into a digital preservation appliance” (www.lockss.org/lockss/About_LOCKSS, 2007). The appliance is then symbolically locked away in the hopes that “‘bad guys’ have trouble finding and destroying all copies” (www.lockss.org/lockss/For_Librarians, 2007).
Upon reviewing information on LOCKSS, it seems not only feasible but also sensible to implement LOCKSS at the aforementioned academic library. There is very little if any cost associated with implementation. The software is free; the only cost to the library is for hardware, which they likely already have, and system administration which could be as little as an hour per month (www.lockss.org/lockss/For_Librarians, 2007). The LOCKSS team is very dedicated to the ideas they espouse and are committed to the efficiency and effectiveness of the project. In an age where information seems to be becoming more and more important, and the issue of leasing versus ownership of that information more and more relevant, LOCKSS would be an incredibly useful tool. And despite concerns raised, this seems to be the general consensus. Seadle admits that LOCKSS is not perfect “but it works, and has been tested. Few if any alternative digital archiving systems can claim equivalent practical experience” (2006, p. 77). Fox suggests “the development team has taken great pains…to produce a very reliable system and this does seem to be a very promising approach that reinforces traditional library values” (2007, p. 25-26). At present, most reactions to LOCKSS originate from information professionals as LOCKSS is primarily implemented within libraries. However a new initiative, blog preservation was recently announced (www.lockss.org/lockss/Home, 2007) and with this movement, more feedback from outside the information profession may soon be available.
REFERENCES CITED
Corrado, Edward M. (2005). The Importance of Open Access, Open Source, and Open
Standards for Libraries. Issues in Science and Technology Librarianship. Retrieved on October November 5, 2007, from http://www.istl.org/05-spring/article2.html
Fox, Robert (2007). The double bind of e-journal collections. OCLC Systems & Services
23 (1), 21-29.
Seadle, Michael (2006). A Social Model for Archiving Digital Serials: LOCKSS.
Serials Review 32(2), 73-77.
Andrew W. Mellon Foundation (2007). Retrieved on November 4, 2007, from
http://www.mellon.org/
Library of Congress (n.d). Retrieved on November 4, 2007, from
http://www.loc.gov/about/
LOCKSS (2007). Retrieved on November 4, 5, 7, 2007, from
http://www.lockss.org/lockss/Home
National Science Foundation (2007). Retrieved on November 4, 2007, from http://www.nsf.gov/funding/
Friday, November 9, 2007
Monday, October 22, 2007
A pinch of braindead :(
It turns out that I did not fare as well last week as I'd originally thought. Upon reviewing my blog, I realize that I did not post the URL for my article. So for any and all that are interested, here it is. My sincerest apologies.
http://www.dlib.org/dlib/may07/05contents.html
http://www.dlib.org/dlib/may07/05contents.html
Anger!!
I'm not sure if it's just me...but I seem to be unable to post any comments about other people's reviews. I have attempted on 3 different blogs...but keep getting a message that my request cannot be completed. Has anybody else had this problem? Does anybody know to solve it? I promise you all I am reading your reviews and attempting to post but it would appear that the computer gods are conspiring against me. Hopefully you'll hear from me soon.
Wednesday, October 17, 2007
Relief
Well...I appear to have survived my first week of many assignments. (Knock on wood) So here it is. My critical analysis, posted for all to enjoy.
Weig, Eric., Terry, Kopana & Kathryn Lybarger. Large Scale Digitization of Oral
History: A Case Study. D-Lib Magazine, 13(5/6).
In this article, the authors present a project carried out at the Louie B. Nunn Center for Oral History at the University of Kentucky Libraries (Weig, Terry & Lybarger, 2007). The purpose of the project was twofold: first to “establish a digital preservation methodology and work flow for analog-to-digital conversion and archiving of audio oral histories currently residing on magnetic cassette” (Weig et al., 2007, p.2) and second “to develop an interface for serving the digitized oral histories on the Web” (Weig et al., 2007, p.2). The aim of the article was to provide a procedural guide, describing the steps involved in the project. The authors also sought to encourage others with such collections to make similar attempts. It was a very well written article that would be immensely valuable to any information professional interested in an endeavour such as this one.
In reading the article, it became clear that the authors’ intended audience was information professionals interested in converting material housed on cassettes to a digital format. More specifically they directed this paper to those “with a large target collection and limited funding” (Weig et al., 2007, p.1). Because this article summarizes a case study of a project carried out by the authors themselves, it reads much like a lab report. The information contained within was organized logically so as to provide a straightforward description of the methodology employed.
The authors began by explaining why the decision was made to undertake an analog-to-digital conversion of their oral history collection. They were concerned “with magnetic tape as a preservation medium…magnetic cassette tape in particular may remain stable for as little as ten years” (Weig et al., 2007, p. 2). They went on to discuss the materials and methods used, providing justification as to why certain choices were made. For example, when deciding which production system to use, anticipation of further expansion in the future involving other formats such as vinyl discs and video was taken into consideration (Weig et al., 2007). The production system chosen was able to “handle a number of necessary machines for this” (Weig et al., 2007, p. 4).
Although the authors were reasonably thorough in their descriptions, I did note a few problems in this section. Firstly, the authors seemed to assume a great deal of prior knowledge about audio reformatting and recording terms and equipment. I feel that some of the terms used needed further clarification or explanation. There were a few short forms or acronyms used that were also not adequately defined. A brief discussion about the software used, referred to a switch from Adobe Audition to ProTools being necessary, but no explanation as to why was provided. The authors stated that they “lost a great deal of functionality with the DigiDesign by taking this route and eventually returned to ProTools” (Weig et al., 2007, p. 5). The loss of functionality was not defined or discussed at all. Nor were the advantages and disadvantages of each system explained. This is information that would be very important for others intending to commence a project such as this, and I feel that this is a significant omission.
The description of the procedure was extremely detailed, providing a wealth of knowledge that would allow for easy reproduction of such a project. The authors discussed the difficulties faced in their attempts to create Web files for user access, and provided tips as to how to make this process easier. As the authors discovered, “more than just the digital audio files were needed. Metadata was necessary to describe the interviews and provide access points for users to perform searches” (Weig et al., 2007, p. 6).
It is important in articles such as these not to simply describe the successes, but also to provide information about challenges faced so that future projects don’t involve reinventing the wheel. The authors were quite aware of this in suggesting that although metadata is integral it was not in their budget and was “really only economically feasible for small specialized or partial collections” (Weig et al., 2007, p. 7).
Due to the fact that the information provided in this article was fact rather than opinion, and described first hand, it is quite authoritative. It also appears to have been well researched. In examining the works cited, it is clear that the authors referred to numerous sources that discussed sound recording and digitizing (Weig et al., 2007).
What is interesting about this article is that it was written before the project was actually completed. The project was started in September of 2005 and was meant to last 2 years. This article, though published in 2007 was written approximately 14 months into the project, so although results to date were discussed, no final results were available (Weig et al., 2007). At the time that the article was written, “staff and student workers [had] diligently transcribed, in first draft form, nearly half of the collection” (Weig et al., 2007, p. 1).
Cost analysis was only available for the first 14 months as well. During the discussion of cost analysis of the project, there arose a bit of confusion. At the beginning of the article, the authors stated the cost at $5,000 stating that “the project funding, which came from the Nunn Center’s budget, covered 40 hours per week for students dedicated to the project and provided $5,000 to build an analog-to-digital conversion workstation” (Weig et al., 2007, p. 2). However later in the paper, the costs associated with the first 13 months were broken down and the authors revealed that the total cost for personnel and storage was $32,168.72 (Weig et al., 2007, p. 12). There is obviously a large discrepancy between these numbers. I could find no information in the article to explain this discrepancy or where additional funding was acquired. I am unsure whether the cost quoted at the beginning is as such due to the fact that it is what the Nunn Center was able to provide, or whether there was an assumption that this is actually what the reformatting would cost. This issue is further confused in the conclusion as the authors state that “cost has been kept to a minimum” (Weig et al., 2007, p. 12).
This, I feel is a serious blunder on the part of the authors, as it would be difficult for a future endeavour to be planned and undertaken if there is no clear information about the true costs associated.
In conclusion, though I do feel the confusion surrounding the cost analysis is a major issue, the rest of the problems associated with the article are quite minor. In general it is an extremely well written and well intentioned article. The authors make an effort to not only describe their process in reformatting their oral histories, but also to provide further suggestions to others about how to save time and trouble. I feel that this article would be extremely useful for any information professional thinking about undertaking a project such as the one described in the article.
Weig, Eric., Terry, Kopana & Kathryn Lybarger. Large Scale Digitization of Oral
History: A Case Study. D-Lib Magazine, 13(5/6).
In this article, the authors present a project carried out at the Louie B. Nunn Center for Oral History at the University of Kentucky Libraries (Weig, Terry & Lybarger, 2007). The purpose of the project was twofold: first to “establish a digital preservation methodology and work flow for analog-to-digital conversion and archiving of audio oral histories currently residing on magnetic cassette” (Weig et al., 2007, p.2) and second “to develop an interface for serving the digitized oral histories on the Web” (Weig et al., 2007, p.2). The aim of the article was to provide a procedural guide, describing the steps involved in the project. The authors also sought to encourage others with such collections to make similar attempts. It was a very well written article that would be immensely valuable to any information professional interested in an endeavour such as this one.
In reading the article, it became clear that the authors’ intended audience was information professionals interested in converting material housed on cassettes to a digital format. More specifically they directed this paper to those “with a large target collection and limited funding” (Weig et al., 2007, p.1). Because this article summarizes a case study of a project carried out by the authors themselves, it reads much like a lab report. The information contained within was organized logically so as to provide a straightforward description of the methodology employed.
The authors began by explaining why the decision was made to undertake an analog-to-digital conversion of their oral history collection. They were concerned “with magnetic tape as a preservation medium…magnetic cassette tape in particular may remain stable for as little as ten years” (Weig et al., 2007, p. 2). They went on to discuss the materials and methods used, providing justification as to why certain choices were made. For example, when deciding which production system to use, anticipation of further expansion in the future involving other formats such as vinyl discs and video was taken into consideration (Weig et al., 2007). The production system chosen was able to “handle a number of necessary machines for this” (Weig et al., 2007, p. 4).
Although the authors were reasonably thorough in their descriptions, I did note a few problems in this section. Firstly, the authors seemed to assume a great deal of prior knowledge about audio reformatting and recording terms and equipment. I feel that some of the terms used needed further clarification or explanation. There were a few short forms or acronyms used that were also not adequately defined. A brief discussion about the software used, referred to a switch from Adobe Audition to ProTools being necessary, but no explanation as to why was provided. The authors stated that they “lost a great deal of functionality with the DigiDesign by taking this route and eventually returned to ProTools” (Weig et al., 2007, p. 5). The loss of functionality was not defined or discussed at all. Nor were the advantages and disadvantages of each system explained. This is information that would be very important for others intending to commence a project such as this, and I feel that this is a significant omission.
The description of the procedure was extremely detailed, providing a wealth of knowledge that would allow for easy reproduction of such a project. The authors discussed the difficulties faced in their attempts to create Web files for user access, and provided tips as to how to make this process easier. As the authors discovered, “more than just the digital audio files were needed. Metadata was necessary to describe the interviews and provide access points for users to perform searches” (Weig et al., 2007, p. 6).
It is important in articles such as these not to simply describe the successes, but also to provide information about challenges faced so that future projects don’t involve reinventing the wheel. The authors were quite aware of this in suggesting that although metadata is integral it was not in their budget and was “really only economically feasible for small specialized or partial collections” (Weig et al., 2007, p. 7).
Due to the fact that the information provided in this article was fact rather than opinion, and described first hand, it is quite authoritative. It also appears to have been well researched. In examining the works cited, it is clear that the authors referred to numerous sources that discussed sound recording and digitizing (Weig et al., 2007).
What is interesting about this article is that it was written before the project was actually completed. The project was started in September of 2005 and was meant to last 2 years. This article, though published in 2007 was written approximately 14 months into the project, so although results to date were discussed, no final results were available (Weig et al., 2007). At the time that the article was written, “staff and student workers [had] diligently transcribed, in first draft form, nearly half of the collection” (Weig et al., 2007, p. 1).
Cost analysis was only available for the first 14 months as well. During the discussion of cost analysis of the project, there arose a bit of confusion. At the beginning of the article, the authors stated the cost at $5,000 stating that “the project funding, which came from the Nunn Center’s budget, covered 40 hours per week for students dedicated to the project and provided $5,000 to build an analog-to-digital conversion workstation” (Weig et al., 2007, p. 2). However later in the paper, the costs associated with the first 13 months were broken down and the authors revealed that the total cost for personnel and storage was $32,168.72 (Weig et al., 2007, p. 12). There is obviously a large discrepancy between these numbers. I could find no information in the article to explain this discrepancy or where additional funding was acquired. I am unsure whether the cost quoted at the beginning is as such due to the fact that it is what the Nunn Center was able to provide, or whether there was an assumption that this is actually what the reformatting would cost. This issue is further confused in the conclusion as the authors state that “cost has been kept to a minimum” (Weig et al., 2007, p. 12).
This, I feel is a serious blunder on the part of the authors, as it would be difficult for a future endeavour to be planned and undertaken if there is no clear information about the true costs associated.
In conclusion, though I do feel the confusion surrounding the cost analysis is a major issue, the rest of the problems associated with the article are quite minor. In general it is an extremely well written and well intentioned article. The authors make an effort to not only describe their process in reformatting their oral histories, but also to provide further suggestions to others about how to save time and trouble. I feel that this article would be extremely useful for any information professional thinking about undertaking a project such as the one described in the article.
Sunday, September 30, 2007
Exhaustion
I turned on my computer and logged onto the internet with every intention of getting my readings off sakai...I swear. But as if often the case...I got distracted and so here I am on my blog. Now that I am here I find that I haven't much to say. I worked a full shift today (retail...yuck!!!) and therefore am feeling a wee bit brain dead. That is the real difficulty I am facing during my time at FIS. Unfortunately I must contiue to work throughout the school year so as not to starve and possibly become homeless which doesn't leave me a lot of time for homework and readings. What little time I do have usually comes at the end of a day spent at work which translates into little motivation for homework. Such is life I suppose. Enough feeling sorry for myself. I shall get back to my reading...I mean it this time.
Monday, September 24, 2007
Apprehension
I have taken a quick look at some of my classmates' blogs and have a sneaking suspicion that this is an area in which my ignorance will shine. Nay...I am confident that this is area in which my ignorance will shine. However it does warm the cockles of my heart to see that I am not the only person new to the world of blogging.
Not much to add since my last post...I lead a fairly uneventful life. Though I am hoping that my time at U of T will change that. So...perhaps I will expand on the purpose and focus of this blog. As mentioned previously it was set up for one of my classes. FIS 1311: Information Technology Applications to be exact. I expect that a great number of my posts will involve my incredulity at and about the world of technology applications, as I will be the first to admit that I am slightly...ever so slightly technologically daft. So one of my hopes for the class is that I will become much more savvy in this area.
Not much to add since my last post...I lead a fairly uneventful life. Though I am hoping that my time at U of T will change that. So...perhaps I will expand on the purpose and focus of this blog. As mentioned previously it was set up for one of my classes. FIS 1311: Information Technology Applications to be exact. I expect that a great number of my posts will involve my incredulity at and about the world of technology applications, as I will be the first to admit that I am slightly...ever so slightly technologically daft. So one of my hopes for the class is that I will become much more savvy in this area.
Friday, September 21, 2007
Uncertainty...I think.
So...here I am...finally with a blog. Welcome all!!! I must admit this is something that I have been avoiding like the plague. A little dramatic perhaps... maybe not like the plaque but rather a bad rash. Not because I was taking any kind of moral stand but simply because I never felt that I had anything of great importance to say. However I have recently begun a Masters of Library Sciences at the University of Toronto for which I am taking a class where I must create a blog. So hopefully I will have many greatly important things to say. :) Stay tuned to find out....
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)