Minutes of the CJH/METRO born-digital legacy media transfer working group, 7/14/14
Present: Ginger Barna (Leo Baeck Institute Library); Chris Bentley (Leo Baeck Institute Archives); Sarah Haug (Guggenheim Museum Archives); Christine McEvilly (American Jewish Historical Society); Natalie Milbrodt (Queens Library); Margo Padilla (METRO); Henry Raine (New-York Historical Society); Kevin Schlottmann (Center for Jewish History).
Administrative
Jefferson Bailey took a position at the Internet Archive, and has left the group. Margo has taken over METRO's role in the group.
Service agreement and delivery expectations
Christine (AJHS) provided comments on the service agreement. She noted that the insurance and shipping sections were light.
We discussed how to label a media object; do we place it in an envelope and label the envelope? Do we place a sticker or write on the item?
We also discussed whether media would be kept; obviously, this is an institutional choice. Regarding media objects abandoned with METRO, language could be added to the agreement stating that such media would be destroyed after a year or two.
Natalie (QL) noted that she would use Queens Library's standard loan agreement, and use the METRO service agreement as a project description. This is fine with METRO. Natalie chose this course because getting QL legal to sign off on a new agreement requires time and effort; other organizations may face similar issues, and this highlights the advantage of METRO being flexible in terms of the agreements used.
Natalie also attached QL digitization file format guidelines and file naming conventions; the METRO service agreement should probably have a section for listing any attached documents.
As a group we then discussed what level of metadata should be provided by METRO, and what level would be needed to ultimately provide for preservation and access.
In terms of delivery expectations, we also discussed (and liked) the idea of a tiered service, where METRO first creates and delivers disk images, for a fixed (low) fee; if the institution needs additional work, e.g. file format identification and possibly migration, that is a second variable charge based on the time and effort required. This could be integrated into the service agreement in the specifications area.
As we discussed migration, Sarah (Guggenheim) mentioned that they have a script that does automatic conversions for certain file types. It is found on github:
Finally, a grid or table format in the specifications and materials sections of the service agreement would aid in providing repetitive information, such as disk format. Perhaps a standardized attachment to the agreement, such as a spreadsheet, could capture that sort of information.
Idea: Flowchart showing what types of media METRO can handle, and what options attach to each
Idea: Possible output of group: flowchart identifying different types of media, the steps needed to transfer them, specific issues, and suggested metadata
Idea: What are other communities of practice (e.g. hobbyists, gamers) doing with legacy media? Can METRO serve as a resource for sharing relevant contact information? Perhaps that information could be incorporated into the flowchart?
Digital Forensics Station and Workflow
Margo (METRO) gave a quick overview of the planned forensics workstation. Specifics are being discussed with experts Don Mennerich (NYU) and Porter Olsen (U of Maryland), but the station will be a Windows PC with appropriate drives, controllers, and write blockers. Software will include imaging, anti-virus, and standard Office programs.
Transferred materials are stored in a locked drawer in the IT room at METRO, and a locked cabinet will be available for larger items.
Media Handoff
Christine (AJHS) provided media to METRO for transfer: Two 5.25'' disks and one 3.5'' disk (budget documents requested by the UJA from organizations it supported); one 5.25'' disk labeled "Time study"; and one 5.25'' disk labeled "Songs." All these disks come from the UJA-processing project, which is using MPLP (6 lf/wk) to work through thousands of linear feet of records. Regarding the "Time Study" disk, Christine noted that the processing team hadn't found any seemingly related paper material, but since they are moving so quickly they might have missed it.
Chris (LBI Archives) provided media to METRO for transfer: Two 3.5'' and two 5.25'' floppy disks from various archival collections. Contents include WordPerfect 5.1 files, GEDCOM genealogical data files, as well as some unknown types.
Ginger (LBI Library) provided media to METRO for transfer: four 3.5'' disks: two Imation1.44MB Preformatted IBM disks; one Polaroid diskette MF/2HD (dBase IV); one floppy in unknown logical format.
Varia
We had an excellent free-flowing discussion – major points are captured here.
*Idea: Digital archivy for IT staff class. Natalie (QL) suggested METRO offer a class providing an overview of archival practice and digital forensics to IT staff. IT support is crucial for digital preservation, and differences between archivists and IT in vocabulary and perceived priorities are barriers to efficient collaboration.
*Kevin brought up two points from a recent STOP AIDS Project Records case study. First, only 8% (!!!) of optical media were successfully transferred (18 out of 218 CDs). As the article states dryly, "our experience strengthens the literature asserting that recordable optical discs are an unreliable storage media."
Idea: Second, the article describes the Stanford Computer Media Log, a cross-collection database of all digital media found in the archival collections. Such a database might be useful for our organizations or, perhaps even moreso, for METRO, to gain understanding of and data about the types of media and the difficulties associated with each. Natalie (QL) suggested that METRO, as part of its digitization grants, consider supporting creation of such a database.
Wilsey, Laura; Skirvin, Rebecca; Chan, Peter; and Edwards, Glynn (2013) "Capturing and Processing Born-Digital Files in the STOP AIDS Project Records: A Case Study," Journal of Western Archives: Vol. 4: Iss. 1, Article 1.Available at:
*Kevin brought up the question, are there advantages to METRO doing media transfers even if an institution could theoretically do so in-house? Sarah (Guggenheim) noted that even though her department has an obsolete media workstation, staff time to actually do the transfers is the major limiting factor, and thus having METRO as a vendor for transfers makes sense for them.
Tasks and Next Meeting
*Publicize the work of the group – blog post or news release. Possible channels: METRO; CJH blog; UJA blog; MDOR blog; NYU AV preservation folks. Kevin will write a draft and send to the group for review.
*Continue to review service agreement and discuss deliverables by email
*Kevin will pull out all the "ideas" from the minutes and send them around
*If no media handoff yet: review of agreement; final selection of media for transfer - no more than ~5 items per institution
*If media handed off: workflows for born-digital material returned from METRO; review of agreement to see if all necessary information was captured
*Next meeting @METROpost-SAA (August/September) to hand off media/review transfer and resulting captures. Invite Don Mennerich (NYU) to talk about the transfer process.