VIEWS: 5 PAGES: 44 POSTED ON: 2/3/2011
HATHI TRUST A Shared Digital Repository Digital Preservation, HathiTrust, and the Reimagination of the Library Landscape Jeremy York Iceland August 5, 2010 Outline • Digital Preservation in U.S. • HathiTrust – About HathiTrust – Content – What we do (services) – Governance – Partnership & Resources • Google Settlement • Publishing • Changing Library Landscape Books and Journals Archives Data Portico Internet Archive ICPSR • Centralized • Centralized • Centralized • Journals • Web files • Social science data • Source files, mainly focused on XML, highly controlled transformation LOCKSS MetaArchive (NDIIPP) DATA-PASS (NDIIPP) • Distributed • Distributed • Distributed • Journals • Private LOCKSS Network • Social science data • Web files, not source images • Web files or XML HathiTrust International Internet GeoMAPP (NDIIPP) • Centralized Preservation Consortium • Distributed • Books and Journals • Distributed • Geospatial data • Master image and OCR files • Harvesting tools, Access, • State governments Preservation strategies OCLC – Digital Archive • Centralized • Master files, web archiving LOCKSS, DuraCloud, DSpace, Fedora • CONTENTdm, custom repository NDIIPP Mission: Develop a national strategy to collect, preserve and make available significant digital content, especially information that is created in digital form only, for current and future generations. • Since 2000 • Broad collaborations with institutions and organizations (e.g., OCLC, Portico) • Funding (Establishing a network, Preserving Creative America, Preserving State Government Information) • Standards/Best Practices • Tools o JHOVE2 (validation) o Chronopolis (data grid framework) o Dataverse (management, dissemination, exchange, and citation of virtual collections (dataverses) of quantitative data) o BagIt (transfer utilities - creation, manipulation and validation of bags) o Hub and Spoke (repository interoperability) o FITS (bundle of identification, validation and metadata extraction tools) About HathiTrust Digital Library • Digital Repository – Initial focus on digitized book and journal content – “Light” archive • Collections and Collaboration – Comprehensive collection – Shared strategies – Local services – Public Good Current Partners – Columbia University – New York Public Library – University of California system – CIC (Committee on Institutional Cooperation) University of Chicago University of Minnesota University of Illinois Northwestern University Indiana University Ohio State University University of Iowa Pennsylvania State University University of Michigan Purdue University Michigan State University University of Wisconsin-Madison – University of Virginia – Yale University Content Distribution 6,383,209 – Total 1,234,088 – Public Domain * As of August 5, 2010 Language Distribution (1) * As of July 25, 2010 Language Distribution (2) The next 40 languages make up ~13% of total * As of July 25, 2010 Dates * As of July 25, 2010 Originating Institution * As of July 25, 2010 Content over time * As of July 25, 2010 Content Growth What we do Services (1) • Ingest – Google, Internet Archive – Working toward sustainable model for ingest of content from diverse sources • Long-term preservation – Bit-level, migration – Standard and open formats (ITU G4 TIFF, JPEG2000, JPG, Unicode) – OAIS, TRAC – Validation, integrity, redundancy Services (2) • Preservation…with Access • Brings concerns of research libraries to bear on the way the scholarly record is cared for and made available – Scholarly Resource – Bibliographic Search – Full-text search – Collections – Full-PDF download of public domain Services (4) • Rights Management – Rights Database – Copyright review • US 1923-1963 • 188k candidates, 85k reviewed • 60% in public domain • Data Distribution – Metadata files, Bib API, Data API • Print on Demand Services (5) • Community Development Environment • Non-Google Ingest • Non-Book/Non-Journal Ingest • Computational Research Outlook • Leverage partner resources and input to create and maintain the library of the future • This is our library • The more we use it, the better it will become Governance Governance Strategic Guidance on Budget/Finances Advisory Policy, Decision-making Board Planning Executive Committee HathiTrust Partnership & Resources Funding • Funded for a initial 5 years with base-funding from partners • 3-year review of governance and sustainability • Budget – separately held within UMich budget system • Cost Models – Per GB cost of storage per year with a one-time fee on new content to build a capital fund – Volume overlap Cost Model 1 Reasonable costs of sustaining the archive, includes cost of replacement, capital fund Cost Model 1 • Economies of scale keep costs low – $0.145/volume/year for Google-digitized – about $0.45/volume/year for IA-digitized • Advantages not fully known until you jump in Cost Model 2 • Shared space to deal with shared problems – Use HathiTrust as part of broader library strategies • Beginning to see benefits of aggregating this body of materials together – Overlap, collection development – Coordinated print management – Begin to ask “What is missing”? Cost Model 2 For public domain volumes: (PD*X*C)/N For a given in-copyright volume: IC=(C*X)/H • Share in costs of curation • Share in uses of relevant materials • Voice in future directions • Free riders? Staff • Staff/Expertise – highly integrated – Project managers, IT and communications staff, copyright experts, administrators (UM, Indiana and UC taking the lead) • Working groups • Shared development space Quality e-Commerce Content Ingest Content Access User Services Outreach Legal Assurance Transformation PageTurner Quality Review Risk management Print on Demand Usability Project website (use of materials) Validation Collection Builder Content User support Partner Certification Monthly agreements (helpdesk) newsletter Large-scale Search Advocacy Papers and Financial presentations contributions of partners Research Center HathiTrust Functional Communication with potential Bibliographic Catalog Framework partners Surveys, general APIs inquiries Repository evaluation and audit (e.g., DRAMBORA, TRAC) Working Groups Current • Quality • Discovery Interface (with OCLC) • Collections • Communication • Usability Past • Storage • Research Center Google Settlement (1) • 2005, Author’s Guild, AAP sued • Google claimed fair use • Settlement – 2008 • Amended – Nov 2009 • Works covered – registered with U.S. copyright office, Canada, UK, Australia • Works not covered – public domain, published after 5 Jan 2009 Google Settlement (2) • Google continues scanning • In copyright, non-commercially available out-of-print work – Sell individual access, any book retailer - 63% of revenue to rights holders, distributed by BRR – display up to 20% – Copy & paste and printing – Rights holders can open access, distribute under CC, set printing limits – Institutional subscription (available to libraries, fee based on FTE users) • Includes unclaimed works – BRR required to search for rights holders and hold revenue on their behalf • Public access terminals • Cash payments to Rightsholders whose works were scanned before May 5, 2009 Book Rights Registry • Book Rights Registry – Represent the interests of the Rightsholders – equal representation of Author and Publisher sub-classes on board; one author and publisher representative from US, UK, Canada, Australia; court-appointed representative for rights holders of unclaimed works – Establish and maintain a database of contact information for authors and publishers; – Use commercially reasonable efforts to locate Rightsholders; – Distribute payments received from Google for the Rightsholders’ share of revenues; and – Assist in the resolution of disputes between Rightsholders. – Funded by Google (initial 34.5 million, ongoing percentage of revenues) http://www.googlebooksettlement.com/help/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=118704 Settlement for HathiTrust • Complementary – Settlement provides access to covered works, HathiTrust is preservation, trust for the future – Research Center (75% of Google Book Search scanned from HathiTrust partner libraries) • Specifically sanctions – Section 108 uses, access for users with print disabilities, computational research • Does not allow – Fair use, sale of access, interlibrary loan, e-reserves, use in course management systems Publishing • Libraries would like to buy more eBooks • Cost is high • Not good models for consortia (multiple users) • Move to on-demand purchase, leasing of volumes • Do we need to own it? Changing Library Landscape • Leverage collective resources, expertise – Drive costs down – Increase discoverability, use – Improve strength of archiving – Reduce redundancy of collections (digital and print), effort – Address collective challenges • Focus on local resources and services • Redefine who we are, what we provide – Collections, research Thank you!
Pages to are hidden for
"Dartmouth College"Please download to view full document