AIMS: the UnConference

Not two full weeks into my new job as Digital Archivist at UVa on the AIMS grant, I rolled up my sleeves to facilitate and host an unconference with my fellow Digital Archivists. Our unconference would be two full days of discussions, demonstrations, lightning talks, and networking with digital archivists from around the globe. At first the thought was a little terrifying – I’m not even fully sure I know what this job is yet, how could I actually lead discussions on the salient topics? But my fears were baseless: all the unconference attendees were thoughtful, articulate, and lively participants. I learned much more from them than they probably did from me.

The unconference was held on the 13th and 14th of May at the Omni Hotel in Charlottesville. The 27 participants represented libraries, archives, museums, and digital humanities centers across the US, Canada, and the United Kingdom. Despite the differences in our institutions, backgrounds, and training, we learned that we not only shared similar challenges, but also the same hopes for collaboration and innovation.

The first day started off with a round of lightning talks. Each participant had 5 minutes to present a topic, project, problem or idea that they were interested in talking about. The variety in the talks was remarkable to me, traversing the breadth and depth of all that can be thought of as “born-digital” and the many processes involved in managing it. The lightning talks were also great way to get an introduction to each participant as well as their perspective or the particular issues they were dealing with in their institution. A brief outline of each of the talks is available on the AIMS Unconference Wiki.

Workshop on "Using FTK Imager and AccessData FTK to Capture and Process Born Digital Materials"

On April 22, I conducted a 2-hour workshop on "Using FTK Imager and AccessData FTK to Capture and Process Born Digital Materials.” The purpose of the workshop was to give staff a hands-on experience in using FTK Imager and AccessData FTK. Eight colleagues from the Stanford University Libraries attended the workshop – primarily from Special Collections and University Archives and the Humanities and Social Sciences Group.

The workshop covered the following:

FTK Imager – how to:
1. Download and install the software (free software - http://accessdata.com/support/adownloads).
2. Create a forensic image of an USB flash drive.
3. Create a logical image of the same flash drive.

AccessData FTK – how to:
1. Load an image – for this workshop we used a sampling from the Stephen Jay Gould papers.
2. View technical metadata generated by the software.
3. Arrange column settings to see specific file attribute (e.g. duplicate files).
4. Search for social security numbers using pattern search.
5. Test the full-text search function.
6. Flag files with sensitive information with "privileged" tag (such as those with social security numbers, etc.)
7. Use the bookmark feature for hierarchical information and apply it to groups of files (e.g. series, subseries, etc.)
8. Label groups of files with user defined labels (controlled vocabulary for computer storage media, document type suggested in the workshop, subject headings or access rights, etc.)
9. View files with specific bookmarks and labels.

Many incoming collections are hybrid collections – containing both analog and digital material. The digital component will become even greater as we move forward. Empowering all archivists to use a tool such as AccessData FTK to process the digital materials would be very useful.

Data Management Planning?

Guest blogger: Andrew Sallans

Following on Tom's generous invitation to write a post for the AIMS partner blog, I am finally getting around to doing so. Tom and I have been holding monthly discussions about our respective projects since sometime last summer, and have talked in great length about the commonalities between what my group (the Scientific Data Consulting Group) is dealing with in regards to research data management versus what the AIMS group is dealing with in terms of born-digital archive material.

http://www.lib.virginia.edu/

We have found that there are many areas of similarity, and that we face many of the same challenges, although we approach the problem quite differently and of course have entirely different terminology given our relative perspectives.

To get started, I have a pretty good understanding of the born-digital problem set, but have not been keeping detailed notes on the workflows and solutions that the AIMS group has identified as best practices throughout the life of this project. My intention for this post is to share the issues that we are dealing with in research data management and try to make some suggestions around areas where there may be overlap and opportunities for great information sharing and collaboration.

Starting this past January 18, 2011, the National Science Foundation (NSF) put into effect a new implementation of their pre-existing data management planning requirement. This revision now requires that researchers submit a 2 page data management plan (DMP) that specifies the steps they will take to share the data that underlies their published results. This DMP will undergo formal peer-review, require reporting in interim/final reports, and all future proposals. In effect, what one says must then be done, or else one runs the risk of losing future funding opportunities or worse, losing all funding for the institution from that particular agency. Although this requirement is focused on data sharing, it isn't possible for such an initiative to succeed without first addressing a mass of other data management issues, ranging from technical, to policy, to cultural. As we often point out these days, it is far easier to improve the process of data management up-front, in the operational process phase, than it is to begin thinking about how to share the data at the end of the project. I would expect that those attacking the born-digital archive problem can fully relate.

Here in the Scientific Data Consulting (SciDaC) Group in the UVA Library, we have been collecting and developing our local set of data management best practices for some time and have served as advisors to researchers in both the research data management and DMP development areas (they are of course interrelated, but sometimes have different levels of urgency). In doing so, we have developed what we call a "data interview/assessment" (based in large part upon the visionary work of others, Purdue's Data Curation Profile and work from the UK's Digital Curation Centre, to name a few), which is a series of questions that address many different areas of data management, including context, technical specifications (formats, file types, sizes, software, etc.), policies, opinions, and needs. We meet with researchers to have a conversation, educate them on emerging trends and regulations in data sharing, and listen to their concerns and challenges. In the end, we try to make recommendations on how they can improve their data management processes, and then we offer to connect them with people who can help with the specific details (if it isn't us). For the DMPs, we have a series of templates that are specifically configured for the respective program requirements. Again in this case, we do some education, then offer some feedback and advising on what qualifies as good data management decisions for a particular community. Behind all of these efforts, we know we don't know all the answers, but we do know most of the questions to ask and who we need to pull together to figure out the solutions. That's our basic operating principle.

So, sound a bit familiar? Based on conversations with Tom, and reading some of the posts in the AIMS blog myself, it sounds like we are up against some very similar challenges in regards to the front-end of the issue, around education, conducting inventories and assessments, and figuring out how to manage processes before it comes down to managing the information itself and providing access to it for others. Appraisal and selection is incredibly important to us, but is usually driven more by the type of data. As an example, reproducible data generated by a big machine might not be important to keep, but the instructions and context in which it is generated would be invaluable. On the other hand, data from natural observations (ie. like climate data) would be critical to save. These considerations are not always apparent to the researcher, as they often think within the context of their work, rather than others. I would expect that the back-end is even more similar, as we are all ultimately dealing with bits and bytes, formats, standards, and figuring out how to decide what to keep and how to do it.

Lastly, for now, I also would like to mention that I had the opportunity to attend the annual Duke-Dartmouth Advisory Council meeting at the Fall CNI Forum several months ago.

http://www.dartmouth.edu/~vox/0708/0218/infomgmt.html

As you'll read, this project aims to bring together stakeholders from all areas of digital information across the institution, to talk about and plan in a collaborative and strategic way. They aim to tackle the challenges of management, technology, policy, and hardest, culture. I was incredibly impressed by the vision of this undertaking, and hope that we can continue to refine our efforts at developing a collaborative digital information management strategy as well. In practical terms, we all need to try and be attentive to how our effort plugs-in with others around the institution. The issue of digital information management is undoubtedly a very big one, and requires coordination and collaboration across many experts in order to appropriately treat the various bits that we encounter. Doing so will hopefully also provide us with the ability to bring best practices from one challenge to another.

--

Andrew is currently the Head of Strategic Data Initiatives and the Scientific Data Consulting Group at the UVA Library.

Contact info: Andrew Sallans, Email: als9q@virginia.edu, Twitter: asallans

Digital Collaboration Colloquium

On Tuesday I attended the Digital Collaboration Colloquium event in Sheffield organised to mark the end of the White Rose Libraries LIFE-SHARE Project.

The day included a number of talks about how institutions can collaborate including an interesting account of the Wales Higher Education Libraries Forum (WHELF) and experiences from the Victoria & Albert Museum. Although the majority of examples focussed on digitisation the principles and lessons learnt were all equally appropriate to a born-digital context.

As part of the day I presented a Pecha Kucha session on the AIMS project and some of the digital collaboration tools that we have found to be effective including Skype and GoogleDocs. In you are not familiar with this format it involves a presentation of 20 slides, changing automatically every 20 seconds and despite cutting the content quite heavily I still found myself chasing to keep-up with the changes. Other sessions looked at digitisation in-situ in a public setting – bringing behind the scenes in-front of the curtain, and other sessions on the Knitting patterns project at Southampton, the Addressing History project based at EDINA and the Yorkshire Playbills project.

The afternoon included a presentation form our hosts on the LIFE-SHARE project and their experiences of the collaboration continuum and a roundtable session that led to a good discussion between panel and audience. With alot covered in a relaxed and friendly atmosphere there was plenty of networking and I’m sure everybody took something from the day.

The presentations are available via slideshare

Personal Digital Archiving Conference 2011

I had the good fortune to attend the 2011 Personal Digital Archiving conference at the Internet Archive, along with other colleagues on the AIMS project, including Michael Forstrom from Yale and Michael Olson, Peter Chan, and Glynn Edwards from Stanford. The conference was exceptional, and had a great range of presentations ranging from those on fairly pragmatic topics to the highly theoretical. There are a number of other blogs with comprehensive notes on the conference, and the conference's organizers have already provided a detailed listing of those. Instead, I'd just like to focus on what I considered the highlights of the conference.

• Cathy Marshall's keynote was excellent. I have seen her speak before, and she presented an survey of her ongoing research into personal digital archives.
• Jeremy Leighton John presented on work undertaken since the Digital Lives project at the British Library.
• Judith Zissman presented on "agile archiving", similar to agile development, wherein individuals can continually refine their archival practices.
• Birkin Diana presented on how Brown University is working to make their institutional repository a space for personal materials, and strategies that allow users to work on adding metadata iteratively.
• Daniel Reetz presented on his DIY Book Scanner project, but also brought in detailed technical analysis about how image sensors in digital cameras work and how our brains process image data.
• Jason Zalinger introduced the notion of Gmail as a "story-world" and presented some prototype tools and games to help navigate that world.
• Cal Lee presented on introducing education about digital forensics to the archival curriculum.
• Kam Woods also presented on applying digital forensics to the archival profession.
• Sam Meister presented on the complex ethics of using forensics in acquiring and processing the records from start-up companies.

In addition, I presented with Amelia Abreu on "archival sensemaking", which introduces the notion of personal digital archiving practice as an iterative, context-bound process.

Processing Born Digital Materials Using AccessData FTK

To follow up with my previous blog entry on "Surprise Use of Forensic Software in Archives", I have prepared a YouTube video "Processing Born Digital Materials Using AccessData FTK". I hope this video can give people more details on how FTK is being used at Stanford University Libraries. Take a look and let me know what you think.

I would like to say a few words on discovery and access even though it is not the topic of the video. After we process the files in FTK, one way to delivery the files is to store them in a Fedora repository and let people access our Fedora repository using a web browser through Internet. We have developed an alpha version of this model using files from the Stephen Jay Gould collection. Another way to provide access to the files is to let people use FTK to access the files in our reading room. I will write about that later.

Hope you enjoy the video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hDAhbR8dyp8

File type categories with PRONOM and DROID

In order to assess a born digital accession, the AIMS digital archivists expressed a need for a report on the count of files grouped by type. The compact listing gives the archivist an overview that is difficult to visualize from a long listing. The category report supplements the full list of all files, and helps with a quick assessment after creation of a SIP via Rubymatica. (In a later post I’ll point out some reasons why pre-SIP assessment is often not practical with born digital.)

At the moment we have six categories. Below is a small example ingest:

Category summary for accession ingested files

data	3
moving image	1
other	2
sound	2
still image	26
textual	12
Total	46

Some time ago we decided to exclusively use DROID as our file identification software. It works well to identify a broad variety of files, and is constantly being improved. We initially were using file identities from FITS, but the particular identity was highly variable. FITS gives a “best” identity based meta data returned by several utility programs. We wanted a consistent identification as opposed to some files being identified by DROID, some by the “file utility” and some by Jhove. We are currently using the DROID identification by pulling the DROID information out of the FITS xml for each file. This is easy and required very little change to Rubymatica.

PRONOM has the ability to have “classifications” via the XML element FormatTypes. However, there are a couple of issues. The first problem is that the PRONOM team is focused primarily on building new signatures (file identification configurations) and doesn’t have time to focus on low priority tasks such as categories. Second, the categories will almost certainly be somewhat different at each institution.

Happily I was able to create an easy-to-use web page to manage DROID categories. It only took one day to create this handy tool, and the tool is built-in to Rubymatica. The Rubymatica file listing report now has three sections: 1) overview using the categories 2) list of donor files in the ingest with the PRONOM PUID and human readable format name 3) the full list of all files (technical and donor) in the SIP.

This simple report seems anticlimactic, but processing born digital materials consists of many small details, which collectively can be a huge burden if not properly managed and automated. Adding this category feature to Rubymatica was a pleasant process, largely because the PRONOM data is open source, readily available, and delivered in a standard format (XML). My thanks and gratitude to the PRONOM people for their continuing work.

http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/PRONOM/Default.aspx

http://droid.sourceforge.net/

As I write this I notice that DROID v6 has just been released! The new version certainly includes a greatly expanded set of signatures (technical data for file identifications). We look forward to exploring all the new features.