random quote Link: Publications Forum Link: About DLF Link: News
Link: Digital Collections Link: Digital Production Link: Digital Preservation Link: Use, users, and user support Link: Build: Digital Library Architectures, Systems, and Tools
photo of books






Please send the DLF Director your comments or suggestions.

Summary of the Projects and their Progress

Cornell University Library: Project harvest
Harvard University Library: A Study of Electronic Journal Archiving
MIT Libraries: Planning for an Archive of Dynamic E-Journals
New York Public Library: Archiving Performing Arts Electronic Journals
University of Pennsylvania Library: Archiving and Preserving E-Journals
Stanford Libraries: LOCKSS, A Distributed Digital Preservation System
Yale Library and Elsevier Science: A Digital Preservation Collaboration

Cornell University Library: Project Harvest

The Project as Planned

Can a major research library effectively become an archive for numerous electronic journals, published by different publishers, in one field? Because Cornell is a land-grant university, its library has spearheaded national initiatives to ensure the preservation of agricultural literature. It also has developed expertise in creating and preserving digital library material. Now it will try to organize, design, and implement a digital archive for agricultural e-journals.

Project Harvest plans to invite as many as a dozen publishers of core journals in agricultural science to work with Cornell staff on a model agreement for archival deposit. The agreement will define responsibilities of both the archival repository and those who deposit journals in it, specify access policies including copyright clearance conditions, and resolve numerous other pertinent issues.

Simultaneously, the project staff will devise a model architecture for the e-journal repository, providing for data ingestion, storage, management, migration, and access. Among other things, the project will investigate contractual, economic, and technical implications of whether the repository should be "dark" (the content preserved on some stable format with minimal functionality, essentially for emergency use) or "living" (the content no longer maintained by the publisher but regularly accessible from the archive).

Also the project will deal with questions of how to ensure scholarly acceptance (trust and use), how to develop the repository organizationally, how to manage its growth, and ultimately, how to finance it. Not least of all, the staff is working on digital-repository certification standards, which Cornell would plan to meet, and which, along with the prospective model agreement and architecture, eventually could help others.

Project Developments as of 5 May 2001

Project Harvest has hired the publisher-relations specialist called for in its plan and has worked its way through early housekeeping requirements. Additionally, it has established criteria for selecting partners, identified agricultural journals with which it wishes to work at the outset, and started contacting publishers to arrange meetings. Moreover, Project Coordinator Peter Hirtle and his colleagues have begun consideration of attributes for an ideal system. They expect to make more information on their work available soon on a Web site they are drafting.

Harvard University Library: A Study of Electronic Journal Archiving

The Project as Planned

Can a major research library arrange with multiple publishers to archive many of the varied journals and databases that it provides in its electronic gateway? The Harvard University Library's list of such resources exceeds 2,000. Harvard gets paper copies also, primarily for preservation, but the Library does not regard this costly duplication as sustainable. Now it will plan an archive to preserve journals electronically, based on infrastructure for the creation, storage, and delivery of digital library collections in which it has invested heavily in the past two years.

In its planning, Harvard will analyze a two-part question: Which journals-and which components of them-will it archive? Answering will involve arranging with at least one journal publisher to provide a significant volume of material to test the scaling of the archive, working with that publisher (and possibly also with an actively publishing scholarly society) to develop a model for an archiving relationship, and selecting titles to archive from the list of journals that Harvard now acquires only in digital copies.

Harvard's plan includes drafting a policy on the components part of the question-will the archive contain only article texts from journals or also their covers, ads, letters-to-the-editor, book reviews, and digital links? The project also will investigate technical requirements for accession automation, archival formatting, on-going validation, bibliographic control, naming systems, access management, storage strategy, and output facilities.

The project will not now negotiate archiving licenses, but will explore what publishers are willing to provide and under what arrangements. A major concern is cost-designing the archiving process to minimize marginal costs, developing a model for cost distribution, and exploring long-term options for financial support.

Project Developments as of 5 December 2001

Marilyn Geller, project manager of the Harvard project, provides the following report: Since the last update this summer, Harvard has completed a first round of business meetings and technical meetings with our publisher-partners, Blackwell, John Wiley, and University of Chicago Press. We have also received a report from Inera, Inc.on the feasibility of developing a common archival article DTD [document type description].

Our business meetings have helped us refine the mission of the archive as a set of services and a logical organization for the preservation of significant intellectual content of the journal independent of the form in which that content was originally delivered. Substantive discussions have also taken place around the issue of the archive's stakeholders including researchers, authors, societies, publishers, and subscribers as represented by libraries. This stakeholder community, however it is organized, would have the opportunity to review and comment on policies and procedures for the development, administration, ongoing maintenance, and financing of the archive. Policies regarding access and financing of the archive continue to evolve.

The project's technical team has met with each of the publishers regarding the principles of technical development and the specifications for ingesting content. The most significant technical development in the last few months has been the delivery of the Inera study on the feasibility of creating a common archival DTD that would allow the archive to received material from all publishing partners tagged in the same manner. Ten publishers participated in this study by contributing their DTDs, documentation, and samples for review. The significant conclusions drawn from this study are that it is possible to create a common archival article DTD that would represent the intersection and the union of several existing publisher DTDs and that thorough documentation and quality assurance tools would be essential to insure that conversion is successful. Because this study has so much potential for resolving ingest, storage and delivery issues, it is being made available to the entire scholarly communications community. We are optimistic that this will encourage discussion and progress in the technical aspects of e-journal preservation.

In the coming months, we hope to finalize the conceptual agreement with our publishing partners, document technical development, operations, and staffing of the archive, and refine the business model that will sustain this archive over time.

Project Developments as of 31 August 2001

In the past few months, both the Steering Committee and the Technical Team of the Harvard E-Journal Archiving Project have made significant progress in refining their broad understanding of the research topic and exploring the detailed implications of this understanding. As a whole, Project Manager Marilyn Geller reports, the project has selected and begun to discuss the business and technical models with three publishers as partners in this project: Blackwell, University of Chicago Press, and Wiley.

Discussions of the business model have been centering around the nature of access to the archive; specifically, the project and the publisher partners are exploring who should have access to the archives, when, under what circumstances, and how. Initially, the project proposed three access "trigger" events: (1) when the content is no longer available on-line, (2) when the title ceases to be published, and (3) after a defined amount of time has passed; and it is the third type of trigger event that is generating comment and being refined.

The project also has delved into the issue of costs to understand what elements of the process of building and maintaining the archive are sensitive to size or quantity and how this might influence a model for sustainable financing of the archive. Project staff envision that both the number and kind of digital objects to be deposited will increase over time and may be difficult to estimate. To a lesser extent, the size of the archived content will have an effect on storage costs. Additionally, the cost of migrating formats will be dependent on the number of digital objects to be migrated, the frequency of migration, and the technology available to accomplish the migration.

Harvard is basing its archive on the architectural framework provided by the Open Archival Information System (OAIS) Reference Model. Under the OAIS model, material from a content producer is transmitted to the archive in a form called a Submission Information Package, or SIP. We have put together a tentative draft proposal for the technical specifications of the SIP that defines acceptable data formats, file naming conventions, bibliographic and technical metadata, and so forth. We are scheduling a round of meetings with technical representatives of our publishing partners to discuss and refine this proposal.

One of the key ideas we are exploring on the technical side is whether it is practical to design a common XML DTD that will reasonably represent the intellectual content of archival e-journal articles. Such a common DTD would simplify the work of gathering content from a variety of publishers using different DTDs. In this study, we have contracted with Inera because of their substantial background in this area and will look at the article DTDs being used by our publishing partners as well as a sampling of other DTDs representing large volumes of content and interesting elements. After determining the common elements of these DTDs, we hope to analyze the usefulness of this approach paying attention to what information is common to all DTDs and what information may be lost by using this common DTD.

MIT Libraries: Planning for an Archive of Dynamic E-Journals

The Project as Planned

Can a major research library capture and archive new scholarly "publications" called "dynamic e-journals"? These are Web sites where scholars share their findings unbound by conventions for articles published in periodic issues of print journals. Such "publications" provide dynamically updated, centralized access points for a wide-ranging variety of research information, scholarly interaction, and teaching resources in particular fields of study.

Convinced that "the dynamic e-journals currently published represent the leading edge of a broad range of dynamic content that we must learn to capture for future scholars," the MIT Libraries are taking on the challenge.

The challenge is great because Web-site publications change content flexibly; some parts of the content are more valuable to preserve than others; different kinds of content may require different archival treatment; and "look and feel" is less fixed for replication. But to the preservation task, MIT brings both experience with the digital repository infrastructure it already is building and the close relationship it has with the MIT Press, which last year launched CogNet," a central repository for resources for cognitive and brain sciences. The project would seek relationships with other publishers of "dynamic e-journals" as well.

In the planning year, the project may experiment with prototypes of the archiving process, but it will focus on the partnerships, strategies, and plans needed for the project's development. This work will include negotiations with publishing partners, detailed analysis of technical and legal challenges, identification of key technical and legal hurdles that must be addressed, and the development of technical specifications. Thus the project hopes to begin resolving archival issues for these new dynamic publications while they are still evolving.

Project Developments as of 19 November 2001

The Dynamic E-Journal Archive (DEJA) Project has determined to interface, as anticipated, with MIT's DSpace project, a digital repository for MIT's own digital, intellectual output. DEJA will rely on DSpace's repository for long-term storage and preservation. DEJA, the archive's engine, if you will, will handle all data coming from publishers, verify the data's integrity and completeness, track changes, add metadata, and generally ready SIPs (submission information packages) for DSpace to ingest them. DEJA will similarly call files back from DSpace and create DIPs (dissemination information packages) for the dissemination of information upon users' requests.

In recent weeks, we have concentrated on the interfaces between DEJA-Depot and DSpace. We have also continued our research into the description (using METS and Xlink) of the "spaghettiness" of web journals (the complexity of their inter-connection).

Project Developments as of 16 August 2001

The project hired Patsy Baudoin as project planner; she reports the following:

Since May, the MIT-Dynamic E-Journal Archive (MIT-DEJA) project has focused on born-digital journals. We have spent time defining "dynamic," identifying what characteristics make e-journals dynamic, including the full range of elements that make up the "webness" of these sites (multimedia, links, navigation systems, data-retrieval algorithms). We have traveled several paths trying to decide what to focus on and how best to capture such characteristics.

Two of the main issues we expect to tackle for the long run are:

  • Describing electronic journal sites? - what metadata will the archive need to describe a site and the inter-relationship of its parts to each other and to the whole?
  • Understanding the quandaries of archiving versions of journal-sites.

Preliminary discussions with MIT Press and Columbia University's EPIC are underway. No partnership has been shaped yet.

New York Public Library: Archiving Performing Arts Electronic Journals

The Project as Planned

Can a premier public library with vast research collections extend its services in a particular field by establishing secure repositories of archived electronic journals in that field? The New York Public Library (NYPL) will develop a plan to do so for e-journals in the performing arts and such related areas as media studies.

The project builds on several strengths of the NYPL: its long experience in library preservation, its current development of a digital library program, and its performing arts collections, which are among the most extensive in the world. One of four centers in The Research Libraries of the NYPL is its Library for the Performing Arts, at Lincoln Center.

Project staff will identify and select relevant journals, including those created digitally, those published in both print and electronic forms, and those published as an online supplement to print titles. Staff will then work with willing e-journal publishers to develop agreements on archival rights and responsibilities. Staff also will work on a technical implementation plan for the archive, an acquisitions and growth plan, an organizational model, staffing requirements, access policies, and long-term funding options. Special attention will be given to the development of methodologies that the archive would use to validate the archival processes and assure the user communities that the journals for which the archives is responsible will be accessible and readable into the future.

The project faces special challenges in dealing with performing arts e-journals because their publishers are often small rather than major commercial operations, and they make great use of embedded multimedia functions (such as digital sound and video) and hypertextuality (such as links to other Web presences). Questions will include how much commitment can be made to original presentation style.

Project Developments as of 29 August 2001

Jennifer Krueger, deputy to the director of NYPL's research libraries, is project officer. She reports that the project has identified a core group of electronic journals in the performing arts from which to derive a final list that will give the project a range of partners. The project plans to include journals published by a university press, by a commercial press, and by small, independent publishers whose publications are important in the performing arts but who are not part of an organization that could be expected to take care of them. Also, the journals selected will be in one or more languages besides English. Work is under way to engage such e-journals as participants in exploring the numerous issues involved in archiving, including means of handling a variety of ingest formats, the legal responsibilities of both parties, user needs and approaches to the archive and its data, decisions about advertisements and different media types contained in the original issues, and basic technological issues about where and how to store.

University of Pennsylvania Library: Archiving and Preserving E-Journals

The Project as Planned

Can a major research library take full advantage of electronic journals by partnering with academic publishers to ensure long-term access through creation of an e-journal archive? The University of Pennsylvania Library will try to do so by building on a successful relationship it already has with a major scholarly publisher.

For more than a year, the library has been working with the Oxford University Press to make its current book releases in history available to the library's local community. This has given the library experience in receiving a publisher's digital content, converting it to a form suitable for on-line use, maintaining it, and making it available under terms beneficial both to the publisher and to the library's scholarly community. Also of use in the e-journal archiving project will be hardware already in place at the library and a database of information about e-journals to which the library subscribes.

In the planning year, the project staff expects to select a set of e-journals, arrange with their publishers to archive them, and negotiate agreements for doing so that identify rights and responsibilities. Also the project will determine and arrange to support the metadata and workflow needed to receive, validate, archive, and provide access to e-journals; design and begin installing an information base for storing and accessing archived journal content and related metadata; begin to install documentation and support for the data formats and protocols used by the archive, and start acquiring and archiving journals, indexing them, providing metadata, and providing content to authorized parties on an experimental basis.

The planning year will conclude with dissemination of results and development of a plan for continuing and growing the archive on a permanent basis.

Project Developments as of 1 May 2001

Oxford University Press has agreed in principle to work with the University of Pennsylvania Library in the e-journal preservation project, and the project staff, lead by John Mark Ockerbloom, is working on a draft agreement specifying rights and responsibilities for both parties. At the same time, the project is progressing in its work on metadata descriptions.

Stanford Libraries: LOCKSS, A Distributed Digital Preservation System

The Project as Planned

Can an automated, decentralized preservation system protect libraries against loss of access to digital materials such as electronic journals to which they have subscribed? Fear of the demise of journals or problems with their publishers has inhibited library investment in electronic resources. Staff members of the Stanford University Libraries, a major research library system experimenting with automation, believe they have found one solution in a system called LOCKSS.

LOCKSS, which stands for "Lots Of Copies Keep Stuff Safe," provides a bootable floppy disk that converts a generic PC into a preservation appliance. The PC runs an enhanced Web cache that collects new issues of the e-journal and continually but slowly compares its contents with other caches. If damage or corruption is detected, it can be repaired from the publisher or from other caches. The intent is to make it feasible and affordable even for smaller libraries to preserve access to the e-journals to which they subscribe.

With support from NSF and Sun Microsystems, Stanford developed an alpha version of the system and ran a 10-month test with a single journal, six libraries, and 15 caches. With the Mellon funding and continued support from Sun, a more complete beta implementation has been developed. The beta version is being distributed to more than 40 libraries worldwide. They will run approximately 60 caches. Four "shadow" publisher machines at Stanford will mirror approximately 15 GB of content from real journals, and will simulate brief failures and permanent outages. Failures of the caches and corruption of their contents will also be simulated, as will attacks by simulated "bad guys."

The beta software will be released as open source. With experience from the beta tests and further funding, Stanford hopes to produce a production version in 2002.

Project Developments as of 20 July 2001

The project has begun its worldwide beta phase, which will test LOCKSS security, usability, and software performance, including impact on network traffic. More than 40 libraries with 60 widely distributed and varyingly configured caches have signed onto the project, and 35 publishers are endorsing the beta test. Beta test sites include major libraries, such as the Library of Congress, and smaller ones, such as the University of Otago in New Zealand. The publishers' Web sites are simulated on shadow servers to isolate LOCKSS data streams, measure network traffic, and test whether LOCKSS works when the publisher "goes away." Once the beta software is stable, representative government documents and other non-HighWire publisher content will be added to the test.

In mid-July, Project Manager Victoria Reich reported that the project had passed an important milestone. Of participating library sites, 35, almost all, have installed and are running version 06122001 of the beta software. 45 machines are simultaneously participating in the beta test. By comparison, the alpha test had a maximum of 18 simultaneously participating machines.

The Stanford team has improved the security of the user interface and tweaked the system to respond to various worldwide network configurations. Additionally, the LOCKSS protocol (LCAP) is working well. This larger international beta test bed is so far using one journal (the BMJ). It has identified and repaired content damage in some local library LOCKSS caches.

The next steps are to bring the few remaining beta sites online and to slowly add more journal content to the system.

See lockss.Stanford.edu for more information and status updates.

Yale Library and Elsevier Science: A Digital Preservation Collaboration

The Project as Planned

Can a major research library and a major publisher of electronic journals on multiple subjects develop mutually satisfactory agreements and technologies for ensuring long-term access to those journals? The Yale University Library, which has staff expertise in digital-information preservation and licensing, and Elsevier Science, which publishes numerous electronic journals varied in size and content, have agreed to explore that question together.

Elsevier will continue to provide ordinary business access to e-journals, which Yale will archive when they no longer are commercially viable, and will make accessible for future inquiries that could range far beyond contemporary use. For this archive, Elsevier intends to provide coded content and metadata; Yale intends to provide rendering software and a computer environment for use.

Technology to be developed will include content storage with database-management functionality, process-management software, and a user interface (a Web server-browser for requesting, rendering, and displaying data). Central to this will be a technical means for separating e-journal content from original functionality to allow "historical" researchers to use the material in ways more congenial to them while remaining assured of the authority and authenticity of the content.

In addition to developing the technology, the project will try to identify the circumstances in which the library would become the access provider, work out an agreement on intellectual property rights in those circumstances, and answer many questions about good design and management of a digital archive. Because of the variety in Elsevier's publications, the resulting design may be scaleable for adaptation by other libraries and publishers.

Project Development as of July 2001

The following is a mid-year status report on the Yale University Library/Elsevier Science Digital Archives Planning Project, generously supported by the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation. This report focuses on three lines of inquiry pursued since January 2001, involving technical questions, preservation metadata, and the service mission of a digital archive.

The principal investigators have been Scott Bennett and Ann Okerson of Yale University. Paul Conway, David Gewirtz, and Kimberly Parker are other Yale library staff who have participated deeply and consistently throughout the project. Karen Hunter, Geoffrey Adams, and Emeka Akaezuwa have led the participation of Elsevier Science in the project. The partnership built for this project between the Yale library and Elsevier Science has been cordial, candid, and highly productive. Both organizations are committed to understanding good archival practice for electronic publications, and both strongly wish to help create a functioning digital archive.

David Gewirtz visited the Electronic Warehouse maintained for its publications in Amsterdam by Elsevier Science. He also visited the National Library of the Netherlands. Titia van der Werf, NEDLIB Project Administrator at the National Library, visited for a day in New Haven. Both Yale and Elsevier Science staff met separately with William Telkowski and his colleagues at JP Morgan-Chase to discuss that firm's digital archives service. Karen Hunter had conversations about our project with staff at OCLC, the British Library, the National Library of the Netherlands, the University of Toronto, Australian academic libraries, and some libraries in Japan. Yale staff had conversations relating to our project with Sun Micro Systems staff in California.

TECHNICAL INQUIRIES. Early in the project, David Gewirtz purchased and commissioned a Sun server and complementary disk and tape subsystems. Elsevier Science sent us 18 tapes containing, in about 500-700 gigabytes of data, all of the e-journals it published between 1995 and November 1999. Elsevier Science also arranged for the project to use the ScienceServer software. With these and OpenText software in place, David and other project participants have pursued two inquiries.

  • We have documented the technical characteristics of Elsevier Science's e-journals. We have identified the various Document Type Definitions used by Elsevier Science and the technical standards that have controlled the production and distribution of its content since 1992. We have also documented the current workflow used in the production of Elsevier Science content. See Document 5 (in the Appendix listing project documents) and Document 10.
  • We have begun to investigate the technical configuration that the data store for a digital archive might take. See Document 13. David Gewirtz and Geoffrey Adams are consulting closely on this matter.

METADATA. Paul Conway has led a consideration of preservation metadata. He started with a review of the literature (Document 3) and with analyses of metadata issues (Document 4) and of preservation metadata in the OAIS model (Document 7). With this background, Paul and others studied the metadata provided for and actually created in the Elsevier Science EFFECT production standard. They also compared these findings with the standards for preservation metadata advanced by the British Library and by the NEDLIB project at the National Library of the Netherlands and with the MARC standards for cataloging serials. These findings are reported in Document 12.

Project participants will next model the preservation metadata that might be used in an archive of Elsevier Science e-journals. We will do this by selecting a limited body of content types (journal articles, editorials, and letters, for instance); identifying the metadata standards relevant to these types of information; agreeing on which metadata elements are essential to an effective archive; determining how much of this metadata is already being created by Elsevier Science and by serials catalogers; and assessing the effort required to create any essential metadata that are not now being created.

MISSION OF A DIGITAL ARCHIVE. In one sense, there is no question about the mission of an archive of digital content. It must provide permanent access to its content. This simple truth grows immensely complicated when one acknowledges that such access is also the basis of the publisher's business and that, in the digital arena (unlike the print arena), the archival agent owns nothing that it may preserve and cannot control the terms on which access to preserved information is provided.

Project participants have seen the question of archival mission as turning on our ability to identify conditions that would prompt a transfer of access responsibilities from the publisher to the archival agent. These conditions would be the key factors on which a business plan for a digital archive would turn. We started by trying to identify events that would trigger such a transfer (Document 2), but concluded that all such events led back to questions about the marketplace for and the life-cycle of electronic information that we could not answer. Project team members-from the Yale library and Elsevier Science alike-agreed that too little is known about the relatively young business of electronic publishing to enable us now to identify situations in which it would be reasonable for publishers to transfer access responsibility to an archival agent (Document 11).

In the process of coming to this conclusion, we modeled three kinds of archival agents-a de facto archival agent, defined as a library or consortium having a current license to load all of a publisher's journals locally; a self-designated archival agent; and a publisher-archival agent partnership (see Document 14). The first of these exists (e.g., CSIRO, OhioLink), and Elsevier Science is actively discussing the second type with a number of (mostly national) libraries. Whether the third type of archive, the focus of our investigation, can now be brought into existence turns on the business viability of an archive that is essentially "dark"-an archive, that is, for which no access responsibilities can now realistically be predicted. Project participants vary about whether an archive with so uncertain a mission can be created and sustained over time and whether, if created, an individual library such as Yale or a wide-reaching library enterprise like OCLC would be the more likely archival partner.

It is possible to imagine a digital archive that, while being "dark" for most purposes, might be "bright" for some highly selective purposes. Two such purposes have so far been named. One is providing access for libraries that have not renewed their licenses, but whose former licenses provided for perpetual access to the content covered by those licenses. A second is free or very low cost access to content provided to third-world libraries through some agency such as the World Health Organization. It might be that one or both of these purposes could provide enough of an enterprise base to make a publisher-archival agent partnership viable.

Appendix: List of planning documents

Listed here are various documents created during the first half of the Yale University Library/Elsevier Science Digital Archives Planning Project. Some of these documents contain more or less proprietary business information; many were written as part of an investigatory process and are not fully intelligible when dissociated from that ongoing process.

The status report to which this list is an appendix is meant to be understood without referring to any other document. Readers wishing to consult any of the documents listed below should address their request to Ann Okerson, the project's Principal Investigator (ann.okerson@yale.edu).

1. October: Scott Bennett. "Proposal for a Digital Preservation Collaboration between the Yale University Library and Elsevier Science."

2. February: Scott Bennett. "'Triggering Events' & Related Issues for a Digital Archive."
3. March: Paul Conway. "Preservation Metadata. An Annotated Bibliography."
4. March: Paul Conway. "Yale/Elsevier E-Journal Project. Metadata Issues."
5. March: David Gewirtz. "Site Visit Report to Elsevier Science. Amsterdam, Netherlands, March 26-30 2001."
6. March: David Gewirtz. "Yale/Elsevier E-Journal Project. Koninklijke Bibliotheek - The National Library of the Netherlands."
7. April: Paul Conway. "Yale/Elsevier E-Journal Project. OAIS Preservation Metadata."
8. April: Scott Bennett. "Characteristics of Two Types of Archival Arrangements."
9. May: JP Morgan Chase I-Solutions. "Building a Large Digital Archive Network."
10. May: Chris Shillum, Science Direct. "Publication Item Types in ScienceDirect."
11. May: Scott Bennett, "Purpose of the Digital Archive."
12. June: Paul Conway. "Metadata [Standards] Review."
13. June: David Gewirtz. "Mellon Foundation Planning Grant: Toward a Parallel Line of Inquiry."
14. June: Scott Bennett. "Three Models of Archival Agents."

return to top >>