HARVARD UNIVERSITY LIBRARY
E-Journal Archiving Project

February, 2001

PROJECT PROPOSAL OVERVIEW

Target content from formal commercial journal publishers

“Anchor tenant” (lots of titles) plus others

Presumably archive content we license

Build archive on the digital library technical infrastructure already under development

Assume the need for joint work with other grantees

Proposal suggested cooperation on licensing and archive validation

CURRENT STATUS

Project manager (Kathy Kwan) on staff

Technical and steering committees meeting regularly

Publisher contacts underway

Two discussions have taken place already (one promising)

Other discussions planned

Putting a LOT of effort into understanding OAIS!

Slide 4

1. DARK ARCHIVE?

Cannot hope to compete with ever-improving functionality from publishers

Not need to keep available an end-user interface and delivery platform?

Just a plan for how to re-establish a delivery environment?

Or just deliver archival objects to other subscribing institutions?

2. WHO DOES THE ARCHIVE SERVE?

3. WHEN IS ARCHIVE ACCESSIBLE?

Always accessible to an institution that has the legal right (license) to get copies, or when material passes into the public domain

“Failsafe” access when no longer on-line

Access when there is a “radical change in conditions of access” ( service price? format?)???

Do we need to archive information on subscribers and their rights?

4. STANDARD INGEST FORMAT?

We have a strong interest to getting publishers to help in making our ingestion and archiving processes as economical as possible

It would be useful in discussions with publishers if we had archiving community agreement on:

SIP (Submission Information Package)

Preferred archiving object format

5. STANDARD DISTRIBUTION FORMAT?

6. AUDITING?

7. WHAT CONTENT?

“Journal issues” are complex

Publishers do not treat all journal content the same (e. g. “front matter” not treated as digital objects)

“Associated materials” (datasets, images, tables, etc.) not in the print versions problematic but are major motivator for participation from at least 1 publisher

Advertising is sometimes dynamic, and can involve legal complexities in areas such as pharmaceuticals

8. ONLY PROSPECTIVE? FROM WHEN?

9. ECONOMIC MODEL?

Most important issue is not who pays, but how much is it going to cost

Reducing costs to the minimum is the most important issue

Publishers could be asked to bear much of the preparation costs for archived objects

Have content come with an “endowment”?

There are precedents for providing funding for future migrations when material is originally deposited

10. OTHER PLAYERS?


	Target content from formal commercial journal publishers
		“Anchor tenant” (lots of titles) plus others
		Presumably archive content we license
	Build archive on the digital library technical infrastructure already under development
	Assume the need for joint work with other grantees
		Proposal suggested cooperation on licensing and archive validation


	Project manager (Kathy Kwan) on staff
	Technical and steering committees meeting regularly
	Publisher contacts underway
		Two discussions have taken place already (one promising)
		Other discussions planned
	Putting a LOT of effort into understanding OAIS!


	Cannot hope to compete with ever-improving functionality from publishers
	Not need to keep available an end-user interface and delivery platform?
		Just a plan for how to re-establish a delivery environment?
		Or just deliver archival objects to other subscribing institutions?


	Always accessible to an institution that has the legal right (license) to get copies, or when material passes into the public domain
	“Failsafe” access when no longer on-line
	Access when there is a “radical change in conditions of access” ( service price? format?)???
	Do we need to archive information on subscribers and their rights?


	We have a strong interest to getting publishers to help in making our ingestion and archiving processes as economical as possible
	It would be useful in discussions with publishers if we had archiving community agreement on:
		SIP (Submission Information Package)
		Preferred archiving object format


	“Journal issues” are complex
		Publishers do not treat all journal content the same (e. g. “front matter” not treated as digital objects)
		“Associated materials” (datasets, images, tables, etc.) not in the print versions problematic but are major motivator for participation from at least 1 publisher
		Advertising is sometimes dynamic, and can involve legal complexities in areas such as pharmaceuticals


	Most important issue is not who pays, but how much is it going to cost
		Reducing costs to the minimum is the most important issue
	Publishers could be asked to bear much of the preparation costs for archived objects
	Have content come with an “endowment”?
		There are precedents for providing funding for future migrations when material is originally deposited