Content uploaded by Devan Ray Donaldson
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Devan Ray Donaldson on Jan 04, 2019
Content may be subject to copyright.
IJDC | Peer-Reviewed Paper
Media Digitization and Preservation Initiative:
A Case Study
Devan Ray Donaldson
Indiana University
Allison McClanahan
Indiana University
Leif Christiansen
Indiana University
Laura Bell
Indiana University
Mikala Narlock
Indiana University
Shannon Martin
Indiana University
Haley Suby
Indiana University
Abstract
Since its creation nearly a decade ago, the Digital Curation Centre (DCC) Curation Lifecycle
Model has become the quintessential framework for understanding digital curation. Organizations
and consortia around the world have used the DCC Curation Lifecycle Model as a tool to ensure
that all the necessary stages of digital curation are undertaken, to define roles and responsibilities,
and to build a framework of standards and technologies for digital curation. Yet, research on the
application of the model to large-scale digitization projects as a way of understanding their efforts
at digital curation is scant. This paper reports on findings of a qualitative case study analysis of
Indiana University Bloomington’s multi-million-dollar Media Digitization and Preservation
Initiative (MDPI), employing the DCC Curation Lifecycle Model as a lens for examining the
scope and effectiveness of its digital curation efforts. Findings underscore the success of MDPI in
performing digital curation by illustrating the ways it implements each of the model’s
components. Implications for the application of the DCC Curation Lifecycle Model in
understanding digital curation for mass digitization projects are discussed as well as directions for
future research.
Received 9 July 2017 ~ Revision received 4 May 2018 ~ Accepted 7 May 2018
Correspondence should be addressed to Dr. Devan Ray Donaldson, 700 N. Woodlawn Avenue, Luddy Hall 2126,
Department of Information and Library Science, School of Informatics, Computing, and Engineering, Bloomington,
IN, USA, 47408. Email: drdonald@indiana.edu
The International Journal of Digital Curation is an international journal committed to scholarly excellence and
dedicated to the advancement of digital curation across a wide range of sectors. The IJDC is published by the
University of Edinburgh on behalf of the Digital Curation Centre. ISSN: 1746-8256. URL: http://www.ijdc.net/
Copyright rests with the authors. This work is released under a Creative Commons Attribution
Licence, version 4.0. For details please see https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
International Journal of Digital Curation
2018, Vol. 13, Iss. 1, 91–113 91 http://dx.doi.org/10.2218/ijdc.v13i1.502
DOI: 10.2218/ijdc.v13i1.502
92 | Media Digitization and Preservation Initiative doi:10.2218/ijdc.v13i1.502
Introduction
Since its creation nearly a decade ago, the Digital Curation Centre (DCC) Curation
Lifecycle Model has become the quintessential framework for understanding digital
curation. Organizations and consortia around the world have used the DCC Curation
Lifecycle Model as a tool to ensure that all the necessary stages of digital curation are
undertaken, to define roles and responsibilities, and to build a framework of standards
and technologies for digital curation. Recently, researchers have begun exploring the
impact of the DCC Curation Lifecycle Model on understanding how digital curation is
performed in various contexts with different types of digital data. These include, but are
not limited to: video data in social studies of interaction (Whyte, 2009), and brain
images in psychiatric research (Whyte, 2008). One unexplored research area involves
the utility of the DCC Curation Lifecycle Model to act as a lens for understanding
digital curation in mass digitization projects. This type of research is critical given the
rise of mass digitization projects over the past decade, which is expected to increase
within the cultural heritage and library services domains.
The purpose of this paper is to report findings from a qualitative case study analysis
of a mass digitization project using the DCC Curation Lifecycle Model as a means of
understanding the scope and effectiveness of its digital curation efforts. Of the mass
digitization projects that currently exist worldwide, we selected Indiana University
Bloomington’s (IUB’s) multi-million-dollar Media Digitization and Preservation
Initiative (MDPI) for our case study because heretofore research has focused primarily
on the mass digitization of textual resources (e.g., books). In contrast, MDPI aims to
digitize and make accessible a wide variety of time-based, audiovisual media. The main
research question this study addresses is: How do the actions of MDPI compare to the
actions specified in the DCC Curation Lifecycle Model?
The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. First, the background section
explores: 1) the value and importance of mass digitization and recent mass digitization
projects; 2) MDPI, including its history and development; and 3) the DCC Curation
Lifecycle Model, including previous research on its application in various
organizational contexts with different types of digital data. Second, the methods section
describes how we applied case study research design and methods to this project. Third,
the findings section provides details about how MDPI implements each part of the DCC
Curation Lifecycle Model. Fourth, the discussion section addresses the utility of the
DCC Curation Lifecycle Model for understanding digital curation in mass digitization
projects based on our findings. The discussion section also compares our results with
findings of other studies that have used the DCC Curation Lifecycle Model as a
framework. The paper concludes with discussion of future directions for research.
Background
Defining Mass Digitization
As early as 1993, mass digitization has been discussed as a way to provide wider access
to and preservation for archives and collections. In the past decade, mass digitization
IJDC | Peer-Reviewed Paper
doi:10.2218/ijdc.v13i1.502 Donaldson et al. | 93
has received a considerable amount of attention and scrutiny due to the involvement of
large corporations and research institutions such as Yahoo!, Google, Microsoft, Stanford
University, the University of California system, and the University of Michigan. Despite
several publications on the topic of mass digitization, few definitions for the term exist
(Schmitz, 2008). This has led to some vagaries and has, in part, hidden the variety of
mass digitization projects. Coyle (2006) defines mass digitization as “the conversion of
materials on an industrial scale.” For this paper, our working definition of mass
digitization builds on Coyle’s (2006) by considering six characteristics. Note that they
are not mutually exclusive:
Aggregation and production (e.g., whether a project aggregates material that
others have digitized, and the extent to which a project performs any digitization
in-house);
Openness (e.g., the extent to which materials are open and freely accessible);
Business model and cost (e.g., commercial, non-profit, etc., and who pays for
the digitization?);
Scope (e.g., are you digitizing everything, most everything, or specific
collections?);
Format (e.g., digitized books, audiovisual materials, 3D Materials, etc.);
Time spent digitizing (e.g., seconds per item, minutes per item, hours per item,
etc.).
Based on our scan of recent major mass digitization projects, we argue that these
characteristics make the most significant difference in determining whether a
digitization project is a mass digitization project. Below we describe each of these
characteristics as they relate to specific projects.
Aggregation and production
Arguably the most massive and most publicized digitization project is the Google
Books project, formerly Google Print. Officially started in 2004, the Google Books
project has amassed a collection of approximately 25 million volumes to create a
searchable and meaningful indexed digital library (Heyman, 2015). Google digitized
many of these volumes. Libraries may bring books to Google for digitization according
to Google’s proprietary method.1 Libraries have also contributed books that they
digitized, such as the University of California Davis’ contribution of 45,000 volumes.2
In contrast to Google Books, the Open Book Alliance was formed in support of open
digitization projects.3 The Open Book Alliance was a consortium of industry, library,
and union representatives dedicated to open digital libraries. Members of the Open
Book Alliance undertook their own self-titled mass digitization projects. The most
successful member of the Open Book Alliance is the Internet Archive, which has over
11 million books and texts.4 These books are scanned either by the archive or one of its
15 Things About JSTOR: https://about.jstor.org/5things/
2UC Davis Joins Google Book Digitization Project: https://www.cdlib.org/cdlinfo/2013/07/29/uc-davis-
joins-google-book-digitization-project/
3Open Book Alliance - Mission: http://www.che.ntu.edu.tw/ntuche/safety/upload/browse.php?
u=Oi8vd2ViLmFyY2hpdmUub3JnL3dlYi8yMDEzMDYyMDE1NTk0NS9odHRwOi8vd3d3Lm9wZ
W5ib29rYWxsaWFuY2Uub3JnL21pc3Npb24v&b=13
4Internet Archive – About: https://archive.org/about/
IJDC | Peer-Reviewed Paper
94 | Media Digitization and Preservation Initiative doi:10.2218/ijdc.v13i1.502
450+ partners. The Internet Archive operates 33 scanning centers across the globe.5
Partners of the Internet Archive include corporate entities such as Yahoo!, which
contributed approximately 200,000 texts to the archive.6 The Internet Archive allows the
full download and creative commons use of all 11 million texts with an additional
500,000 texts available for protected viewing.
By aggregating content from other digitization projects, some mass digitization
projects have greatly increased their holdings. This is true for the Internet Archive and
Google Books. One of the largest digital libraries, HathiTrust, has reached over 15
million volumes by ingesting the digitized works of its partners.7
When considering digitization projects that do not involve aggregation, the number
of items digitized drops drastically. For example, JSTOR has digitized 50 million pages
of data.8 Assuming an average book size of 300 pages, this is roughly equivalent to
170,000 books. In an effort to effectively utilize its resources, JSTOR staff follow a
strict selection process for what they choose to digitize.9 Similar in size, the American
Memory Project has digitized nine million documents; since many of these are only a
few pages, the total number of pages digitized is roughly comparable to JSTOR.10 At the
high end of digitization projects that do not involve aggregation, the Million Book
Project has digitized 1.5 million volumes (BizResearch, 2007). Yet, this is still an order
of magnitude smaller than the huge aggregation/production projects that currently exist.
Openness
Initially, librarians heralded mass digitization initiatives for bound volumes, such as
the Internet Archive, Google Books, and HathiTrust. Online libraries yielded new
possibilities for collaboration and were capable of addressing issues of access,
preservation, and collection management. However, over time, the commercial interests
of others, namely Google Books, hampered the optimism motivating these ideas. At
present, Google Books serves as an index allowing users to search for words and terms
to decide if certain books will suit their needs. It provides minimal contextual
information, and restricts access to most of the documents.
As the previous example illustrates, digitization projects differ on how they
approach the concept of openness. For example, the Open Book Alliance, HathiTrust,
and the Internet Archive all strive to make their materials as open and accessible as
possible, while complying with copyright law. They do this by, for example, digitizing
works no longer under copyright restrictions. Although openness of digitized files is not
a requirement for mass digitization initiatives, it is a characteristic of some of them,
depending on institutional goals/beliefs, copyright, and intellectual property issues.
Business model and cost
Institutions involved in mass digitization are either non-profit or for-profit. For
example, the Internet Archive is non-profit and Google Books is for-profit. Google
funds the Google Books, while the Internet Archive charges its partners to offset its
costs.11 Google is a multi-billion-dollar company, while the Internet Archive receives
approximately $10 million in funding annually (Womack, 2003). Google describes the
5Internet Archive – Scanning Services: https://archive.org/scanning
6Open Content Alliance: https://archive.org/details/opencontentalliance&tab=about
7HathiTrust – Statistics and Visualizations: https://www.hathitrust.org/statistics_visualizations;
HaithiTrust – Welcome: https://www.hathitrust.org/about#
8JSTOR – About: https://about.jstor.org/5things/
9Journals: https://about.jstor.org/whats-in-jstor/journals/
10 American Memory Project – About the Collections: http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/about/about.html
11 Internet Archive – Scanning Services: https://archive.org/scanning
IJDC | Peer-Reviewed Paper
doi:10.2218/ijdc.v13i1.502 Donaldson et al. | 95
original motivation behind Google Books as creating a searchable, meaningfully
indexed digital library.12 However, the limited access of the site has led librarians and
scholars to question how closely the intentions of Google align with the values of
libraries (Hahn, 2011). Furthermore, Google Books has taken a risky, opt-out approach
to digitizing copyrighted works, which has led to a series of litigations arguably
counterproductive to public digitization projects (Vaidhyanathan, 2007). Regardless of
the business model in place, mass digitization requires the mobilization and
coordination of significant institutional resources, as can be seen by the prevalence of
collaboration in mass digitization projects.
Scope
Similar to Google Books, the Internet Archive does not discriminate in terms of
what is digitized. This, according to Coyle (2006), is the goal of mass digitization: “the
goal of mass digitization is not to create collections but to digitize everything.”
However, more recently, it has been argued that such a lack of discrimination should be
avoided, lest digital libraries turn into digital “garbage dumps” and “towers of babel”
(Gooding, 2013). In contrast, other mass digitization projects specify their scope. For
example, in 2000, the China-America Digital Academic Library (CADAL) project
scanned 1.43 million: 1) ancient books published before 1911, which are out of
copyright; 2) books published since 1911, which may be in the public domain; and 3)
dissertations from the 16 partner Chinese libraries (Jihai, 2008).
It appears that scope and size interrelate and are open to interpretation when
considering mass digitization. For example, Europeana is a multi-lingual online
collection of European heritage institutions.13 One of its contributors digitized nearly the
entire museum collection of the Civic Archaeological Museum in Milan, Italy,
producing 500 models (Guidi, Barsanti, Micoli and Russo, 2015). This project has
significantly fewer items than even the most modest text digitization project. Yet,
researchers who are responsible for this contribution to Europeana claim that they have
undertaken mass digitization because of the size of the files that comprise each of the
500 models.
Format
As with most mass digitization projects, Google Books focuses on the digitization of
print objects. This may be due to libraries’ historical emphasis on print materials, the
straightforward nature of text digitization, and/or perhaps this is merely a reflection of
the predominance of text as the subject of digitization. More recently, mass digitization
projects similar to the one at the National Library of Australia (2017) are continuing to
digitize print materials but are also expanding to include music. Other large-scale
digitization projects focus specifically on non-textual resources. For example, the
Netherlands Institute for Sound and Vision has digitized close to 100,000 hours of audio
and video respectively along with 22,000 hours of film.14 If we are to use some number
of items digitized as a criterion for determining mass digitization, the addition of
different formats necessitates a change of units. How might we meaningfully compare
two formats (e.g., the digitization of books to the digitization of video)?
12 Google Books – History: https://www.google.com/googlebooks/about/history.html
13 Europeana: http://www.europeana.eu/portal/en
14 Netherlands Institute for Sound and Vision: http://www.beeldengeluid.nl/en/about
IJDC | Peer-Reviewed Paper
96 | Media Digitization and Preservation Initiative doi:10.2218/ijdc.v13i1.502
Time spent digitizing
The Netherlands Institute’s self-reporting indicates that for many legacy audiovisual
formats the play time of the item is roughly equivalent to the time necessary to digitize.
However, with advances in technology and innovation in technique, the time necessary
to digitize texts has changed drastically. A direct comparison of formats, whether it be
number or digitization time, becomes even more convoluted when one introduces the
digitization of 3D objects, such as with the Europeana collection.
Media Digitization and Preservation Initiative (MDPI)
Established in 2010, MDPI is the culmination of incremental infrastructural
improvements and practically gained expertise at IUB. The remainder of this section
briefly describes its origins and background.
In 1998, the then Vice President and Chief Information Officer Michael A.
McRobbie helped to found the Digital Library Program at IUB. It was a collaboration
between Indiana University Libraries, University Information and Technology Services
(UITS), and the then-School of Library and Information Science15 to “produce,
maintain, deliver, and preserve networked resources for scholars and students at Indiana
University and elsewhere to improve the teaching and research of IU faculty, improve
the learning and research of IU students, and increase knowledge about the development
of digital libraries.”16
In 1998 IUB implemented the Scholarly Data Archive (SDA), then known as the
Massive Data Storage System (MDSS), an extensive storage service that currently has
over 40 petabytes of magnetic tape storage. The SDA is a system built with the goal of
preserving bit-level data for the long term. When data is ingested into the SDA it is dual
written to the IUB and the Indiana University – Purdue University Indianapolis (IUPUI)
data centers.
IUB continued to develop infrastructure as well as technical expertise. With units
and IU entities such as the IU Libraries Moving Image Archive and the Variations
Project, IU continued to be at the forefront of learning and developing techniques and
best practices for digitization and preservation of audiovisual materials. IUB was
constantly striving to digitize more materials while publishing works on best practice
for digitizing audio materials, such as those through the Sound Directions project.17
While IUB has had a long-standing commitment to the preservation of audiovisual
media, at $15 million dollars and counting, MDPI is one of the most expensive archival
projects IUB has ever undertaken. In 2009, an IUB task force published a survey of the
media in the IUB collections with a frightening message; there is only 15 years left to
preserve over 750,000 valuable recordings in the IUB collection. IUB developed MDPI
to address this need for preservation to safeguard the valuable cultural heritage found
within its audiovisual collections.
According to the six characteristics defined above, MDPI is a mass digitization
project:
Aggregation and production – in partnership with Memnon (Sony),
audiovisual engineers and experts digitize materials.
15 MDPI – History: https://mdpi.iu.edu/about/history.php
16 History of Digital Preservation at Indiana University:
https://wiki.dlib.indiana.edu/display/DIGIPRES/History+of+Digital+Preservation+at+Indiana+Univers
ity
17 Sound Directions: http://www.dlib.indiana.edu/projects/sounddirections/
IJDC | Peer-Reviewed Paper
doi:10.2218/ijdc.v13i1.502 Donaldson et al. | 97
Openness – currently, the digital objects are stored in a dark archive to avoid
copyright infringement. However, the ultimate goal is to provide access to these
materials, after appropriate metadata has been assigned and copyright review has
taken place.
Business model and cost – the business model for MDPI is non-profit. The IUB
Office of the President, the Office of the Provost, and the Office of the Vice
President for Research provide support for the cost of preparation, digitization,
and storage of the materials. Additional support is provided by numerous
campus facilities, such as UITS as well as repositories and libraries across the
university.
Scope – MDPI digitizes specific items that have significance and are in need of
long-term preservation. In total, approximately 280,000 items from IUB and
approximately 25,000 items from IU’s regional campuses will be digitized.
Format – MDPI is exclusively focusing on audiovisual material. There are
additional files being attached to the digital objects, such as images of the
original, but these are secondary to the main goal.
Time spent digitizing – For extremely delicate items, MDPI digitizes items one
at a time. For less delicate materials, MDPI uses parallel processing for
digitization (i.e., it digitizes multiple items at the same time).
The DCC Curation Lifecycle Model
Digital curation “involves maintaining, preserving and adding value to digital research
data throughout its lifecycle.”18 Pennock (2007) describes digital curation as a lifecycle
process. The DCC Curation Lifecycle Model acknowledges that digital curation and
data preservation are ongoing processes (Higgins, 2008). It was designed by the DCC
“as a training tool to help curators understand the processes involved in successful
curation, and develop curation and preservation methodologies for their organisations”
(Higgins, 2008). It includes Full Lifecycle Actions (e.g., Description and
Representation Information; Preservation Planning; Community Watch and
Participation; and Curate and Preserve), Sequential Actions (e.g., Conceptualise;
Create or Receive; Appraise and Select; Ingest; Preservation Action; Store; Access,
Use, and Reuse; and Transform) and Occasional Actions (e.g., Dispose; Reappraise; and
Migrate). For detailed descriptions of each of these actions see Higgins (2008).
The DCC’s research on the Curation Lifecycle Model underscores its applicability
to digital archival projects. For example, in a series of seven case studies, the DCC used
the Curation Lifecycle Model as a tool to analyse the current practices of digital
archives and provide recommendations for future improvements. As a high-level
abstraction, the Curation Lifecycle Model served as a meaningful way to organize the
actions of the archives studied. However, once these relations were made, it was found
that the archives’ actions often only covered a subsection of the entire model. The DCC
concluded that the Curation Lifecycle Model was most effective when adapted to the
specific situations of the archives (Lyon, Rusbridge, Neilson and Whyte, 2010). In two
of the seven case studies, the DCC explicitly demonstrated this benefit: Case Study 1
and Case Study 5.
18 DCC – What is Digital Curation?: http://www.dcc.ac.uk/digital-curation/what-digital-curation
IJDC | Peer-Reviewed Paper
98 | Media Digitization and Preservation Initiative doi:10.2218/ijdc.v13i1.502
In Case Study 1, the DCC applied the Curation Lifecycle Model to the curation of
brain images in psychiatric research. In this case, the Curation Lifecycle Model was
used as a tool to identify risks and mitigations present at each phase. This information
was then used to prescribe steps to improve data policy in accordance with the Curation
Lifecycle Model. Similarly, researchers from the University of Oxford Research Data
Management Project and the UK Research Data Service used the Curation Lifecycle
Model to identify problematic aspects of their data management practices (Martinez-
Uribe, 2008; Sykes, 2008).
In Case Study 5, the DCC applied the Curation Lifecycle Model to the reuse of
video data in the social studies of interactions. The DCC specifically examined the
video archival practices of two Scottish research groups. The DCC drafted a
recommendation for an iterative process targeted at tailoring the Curation Lifecycle
Model to digital video management in the social sciences.
In summary, several archives and advisory groups in digital curation education,
project planning, and curation strategy development have applied the Curation Lifecycle
Model (Higgins, 2009). In these cases, the model has provided valuable insights.
However, the types of projects to which the Curation Lifecycle Model has been applied
have been primarily concerned with born digital or already digitized objects. To date,
the Curation Lifecycle Model has not been applied to any mass digitization projects,
such as MDPI. Research on applicability of the Curation Lifecycle Model to mass
digitization projects could further demonstrate the validity of the model while
increasing our understanding of how digital curation is performed in mass digitization
projects.
Methodology
To critically examine the functions of the DCC Curation Lifecycle Model in the context
of MDPI, we performed a qualitative case study analysis (Yin, 2014). The Indiana
University Human Subjects Office approved this study (IRB Study #1703553601).
From August 2016 through February 2017, the research team collected data concerning
MDPI’s history, organizational structure, facilities, staff, processes, collections, and the
project’s partnership with the commercial entity Memnon-Sony (Sony Europe Ltd.).
Data sources included: 1) participant-observation, 2) a tour of MDPI’s physical space,
3) documentation, 4) the MDPI website, 5) guest lectures, and 6) interviews. We
received permission from the tour guides, guest speakers, interviewees, and other
relevant MDPI employees to use any relevant information that they shared with us
during class presentations, tours, emails, or conversations as data for our research
project. We also promised not to report anyone’s identity in any publications resulting
from this research.
To study digital curation in a naturalistic environment, the second author acted as a
participant-observer. She was a non-traditional participant-observer because she worked
on MDPI in two different capacities for two years prior to joining our research team.
Her prior experience brought a wealth of expertise, including tacit knowledge, which
was useful for us in understanding MDPI. In her role as a Strategic Media Access and
Resource Team (SMARTeam) Member, she beta-tested and provided feedback for the
development of the Physical Object Database (POD) and MediaSCORE/MediaRIVERS
systems, including helping to assemble and edit user guides for the systems.
Additionally, she developed workflows for processing audiovisual materials for
IJDC | Peer-Reviewed Paper
doi:10.2218/ijdc.v13i1.502 Donaldson et al. | 99
digitization, developed training documentation, trained other team members, helped
create and return shipments of materials from Memnon and the IUB Digitization team,
and diagnosed technical/physical problems and other issues for audiovisual materials.
She also coordinated with IUB’s Cook Music Library faculty and staff to digitize and
process materials for digitization, as well as troubleshoot and address any anomalies.
The research team examined MDPI in its naturalistic environment by taking a tour
of the Innovation Center, the physical location for MDPI, which is housed on the IUB
campus. During the tour, we took field notes as MDPI staff described how they do their
work.
Documentation for MDPI included two reports and a user guide, all of which are
publicly available: ‘Media Preservation Survey: A Report; Meeting the Challenge of
Media Preservation: Strategies and Solutions’ and the Media Research and Instructional
Value Evaluation and Ranking System (MediaSCORE/MediaRIVERS) user guide. The
first document contains key information about the state of digital media at IUB and
justified the need for the establishment of MDPI to address preservation of those media
(Casey, 2009). The second document contains information about MDPI’s background,
preservation planning, preservation strategies for film, access, technology infrastructure,
structure and personnel, and engagement on IUB’s campus (Indiana University
Bloomington Media Preservation Initiative Task Force, 2011). The third document is the
Media Selection: Condition, Obsolescence, and Risk Evaluation/Media Research and
Instructional Value Evaluation and Ranking System (MediaSCORE/MediaRIVERS)
user guide that is available on GitHub (Bohm et al., 2015). We compared all this
documentation against the DCC Curation Lifecycle Model Checklists.19
The MDPI website contained valuable information about MDPI’s history,
development, and status. For example, as of April 2018, MDPI has preserved 281,882
items.20
Guest lectures by MDPI staff took place during Fall 2016 in a graduate-level course
taught by the first author in the Department of Information and Library Science in the
School of Informatics, Computing, and Engineering at IUB, Z586 – Digital Curation.
The guest speakers defined their roles and responsibilities and described the initiative
from their perspectives. Members of the research team took field notes during the
speakers’ guest lectures, which we added to our dataset.
After analysing data from the aforementioned sources, we realized that we had a
few gaps in our understanding of how MDPI applied some of the concepts in the DCC
Curation Lifecycle Model. Consequently, we conducted interviews with MDPI staff to
better understand how the Description and Representation Information, Preservation
Action, and Store concepts in the DCC Curation Lifecycle Model applied to MDPI.
The research team compiled all the data into one dataset in a password-protected,
encrypted file folder. The research team reviewed each other’s field notes, checking for
consistency and accuracy. Next, the research team compared these data against
descriptions of each component of the DCC Curation Lifecycle Model. Afterwards, the
research team wrote reports on how MDPI addresses each component of the DCC
Lifecycle Model based on the aggregated dataset. We cited the documentation we
analysed for our case study throughout this methodology section, and Donaldson et al.
(2018) contains our field notes.
19 DCC Curation Lifecycle Model: http://www.dcc.ac.uk/resources/curation-lifecycle-model
20 Media Digitization and Preservation Initiative: https://mdpi.iu.edu/index.php
IJDC | Peer-Reviewed Paper
100 | Media Digitization and Preservation Initiative doi:10.2218/ijdc.v13i1.502
Findings
We have organized our findings based on the components and subcomponents of the
DCC Curation Lifecycle Model. These components and their definitions are provided in
Higgins (2008). Our analysis of how MDPI addresses each component is as follows:
Data (Digital Objects or Databases)
Digital objects
MDPI focuses on preserving the content of single digital objects, specifically sound
and video recordings. These objects are processed by the SMARTeam using the
Physical Object Database (POD), a database specifically designed by IUB Libraries
developers to describe, process, manage, inventory, and track physical objects as they
go through digitization workflows. In addition to the audiovisual content, Memnon has
added a workflow to capture images of 78 rpm records and their packaging (when
available). This allows for the capture of descriptive metadata that otherwise may not
have been recorded, such as matrix numbers of the disc recordings.
Databases
As described above, MDPI uses the POD to describe, manage, and process materials
before, during, and after digitization has occurred. MDPI has identified discovery and
access of their audiovisual resources as a key component of their mission, and has
adopted three systems to fulfil this requirement: Avalon, HydraDAM2, and Fedora.
Avalon
The public, front-facing instance of Avalon for IUB is Media Collections Online
(MCO). Avalon Media System is an open source, online program that allows institutions
to manage and provide access to audiovisual materials.21 This system is integrated with
the IUB servers, and can use other resources such as IUCAT, IUB’s online library
catalog. By submitting a “catalog key” from IUCAT along with the file during ingest,
Avalon imports bibliographic data that enables users to discover and access the
audiovisual resources of MDPI.
HydraDAM/HydraDAM2
HydraDAM is a digital asset management system designed by WGBH Boston,22 an
American public broadcaster, to support libraries, archives and cultural institutions with
digital preservation of audio and video files. PHYDO, formerly HydraDAM223, is a
joint NEH-funded project between Indiana University Libraries and WGBH to extend
the functionality of HydraDAM to meet the needs of more complex storage
environments. It will be used as the preservation repository for MDPI content. When an
item is processed by PHYDO, the system will create a YAML file to extract all metadata
properties deemed to be of importance to long-term preservation activities and
discoverability for content managers. This extracted metadata will be stored within the
Fedora repository, while the content bitstreams will be put into the Scholarly Data
Archive due to their size and the robustness of the storage. An asynchronous storage
21 Avalon: http://avalonmediasystem.org/
22 WGBH: http://www.wgbh.org
23 Phydo: https://wiki.dlib.indiana.edu/display/HD2/PHYDO
IJDC | Peer-Reviewed Paper
doi:10.2218/ijdc.v13i1.502 Donaldson et al. | 101
gem implemented within PHYDO will allow the Fedora repository to support actions on
the content bitstream, so that a user of the system can stage the file for download or for
fixity checks, as needed. PHYDO also implements the preservation metadata schema
PREMIS in order to log preservation actions undertaken on content within the system.
Fedora
Key features of Fedora that makes it well-suited for the needs of MDPI are: no file
restriction, machine- and human-readable metadata, interoperability with other systems
to increase search and discovery of resources, advanced storage options, built-in fixity
checks, audit trails, versioning control, and backup/restore.
Full Lifecycle Actions
Description and representation information
MDPI captures and maintains descriptive and technical metadata for each object as
it goes through the digitization process. MDPI also includes information such as which
box or bin an item was placed into for shipment. Prior to the release of materials for
digitization, information is captured in a single-cell spreadsheet that functions as a
manifest for delivery to the digitization vendor. The metadata in the manifest is limited
to what is needed for the digitization stage.
Preservation planning
In numerous publications, MDPI established a solid preservation plan prior to any
digitization. For example, ‘Media Preservation Survey: A Report’ generally described
the action plan that should be undertaken, such as establishing a media preservation and
digitization center (Casey, 2009). ‘Meeting the Challenge of Media Preservation:
Strategies and Solutions’ outlines MDPI’s approach to several of the sequential actions
in the DCC Curation Lifecycle Model (Indiana University Bloomington Media
Preservation Initiative Task Force, 2011).
In 2009, the IUB Media Survey Task Force investigated the media holdings at IUB.
After analysing the degradation of the objects in combination with rapid obsolescence
of playback machines and expert knowledge, the Task Force consulted with leading
experts and specified what digitization should occur within 15 to 20 years. This time
frame was considered a maximum. For instance, they determined that some digital
objects required preservation action within as little as five years.
After the IUB Media Survey Task Force completed its work, the Media Preservation
Initiative Task Force was created to outline a concrete preservation plan, setting forth
numerous guiding principles that would influence all preservation decisions (Indiana
University Bloomington Media Preservation Initiative Task Force, 2011). These
guidelines ascribe to widely-accepted practices, such as considering long-term
preservation, as opposed to short-term or temporary, as well as establishing partnerships
on- and off-campus, assuming long-term responsibility, and prioritizing the objects to be
digitized. The Task Force also stated that items should be digitized once, with the
exception of film, to prevent undue stress to those items.
Furthermore, ‘Meeting the Challenge of Media Preservation: Strategies and
Solutions’ established the stages media would undergo to ensure long-term preservation
and access (Indiana University Bloomington Media Preservation Initiative Task Force,
2011). These include: determining ownership; selecting items for digitization; preparing
for digitization and transfer; preservation transfers under the supervision of experienced
IJDC | Peer-Reviewed Paper
102 | Media Digitization and Preservation Initiative doi:10.2218/ijdc.v13i1.502
technicians; quality control; assigning metadata to master files; describing files for
discovery and use; storing derivative files; and providing access. MediaSCORE and
MediaRIVERS (see ‘Appraise and Select’ below) assist in ranking items for
digitization. Curators of the holding institution would then review the items to ensure
selection is appropriate. Initially, only minimal metadata is attached, to increase the
speed of the mass digitization process so that audiovisual materials that are danger of
being lost forever are preserved more quickly. Later on, more complete metadata are
added to the digital files. There is also an emphasis on using software to assist with
metadata capture and quality control. Finally, the Task Force recommended a
combination of 1:1 transfers and parallel transfers (e.g., multiple:1 transfers). This
allows engineers to pay more attention to fragile items in 1:1 workflows, while other
items, with fewer preservation concerns, are digitized at higher rates (e.g., 2:1, 4:1, 8:1,
or even 16:1) to quickly digitize as many objects as possible.
We found that the preservation planning process for MDPI was iterative. In some
instances, decisions about preservation planning in ‘Meeting the Challenge of Media
Preservation: Strategies and Solutions’ needed to be modified. For example, in the
report, it was recommended that IUB digitize exclusively in-house to provide
digitization training for students and to establish IUB as a center for digital preservation.
However, due to financial and time constraints, IUB partnered with Memnon (Sony) to
expedite the process. This example is indicative of how the preservation planning
concept in the DCC Curation Lifecycle Model applies in the context of MDPI; not only
did MDPI staff thoroughly research the digitization process, they also partnered with
Memnon to further establish thorough digitization procedures and enhance MDPI’s
long-term preservation plan. It is also important to note that, when faced with obstacles
to executing their preservation plan, MDPI staff carefully re-evaluated their
preservation plan to decide what other actions could be taken, consulted the relevant
literature on what they needed to address, and ensured that any changes they made to
the initiative were calculated and methodical.
Community watch and participation
The organizational structure for MDPI includes oversight at many points from the
president and provost of IUB to a layer of co-chairs and directors responsible for
specific elements of the initiative. Direct management of the initiative is the
responsibility of two co-chairs who hold titles as Dean of University Libraries and Vice
President for Information Technologies and Chief Information Officer (CIO). A third
person who is executive director for the initiative also holds the title of Associate Vice
President and Deputy CIO.
The IUB MDPI Director of Technical Operations and the Sony Memnon director of
US operations guide day-to-day operations. Various working groups have been
convened as needed to address IT issues, library operations, development of workflows,
access, etc. Even though these working groups appear to be helpful and effective, they
come and go as needed and are not permanent parts of the operating structure.
Curate and preserve
As discussed previously (see ‘Preservation Planning’), ‘Media Preservation Survey:
A Report’ (Casey, 2009) and ‘Meeting the Challenge of Media Preservation: Strategies
and Solutions’ (Indiana University Bloomington Media Preservation Initiative Task
Force, 2011) both represent actions planned to promote curation and preservation of
IUB’s time-based media over their curation lifecycles. By partnering with Memnon for
most of the digitization work and employing a factory-style preservation workflow,
IJDC | Peer-Reviewed Paper
doi:10.2218/ijdc.v13i1.502 Donaldson et al. | 103
MDPI continues to work toward the efficient and careful preservation of audiovisual
materials at IUB. Specifically, MDPI captures content and places it in newer digital
formats before the content’s original analog formats degrade and become obsolete.
Sequential Actions
Conceptualise
Based on the 15-20 year preservation window24 defined in the preservation survey
(Casey, 2009), and the goal of preserving more digital materials in less time, MDPI staff
chose to capture minimal descriptive metadata including: format; the IUB entity that
owns or manages the original object, or unit; shelf number; collection number or title;
recording title or one-phrase description; digitization destination (e.g., IU or Memnon);
and storage location. Post-digitization, detailed metadata are attached to files allowing
researchers to reference digital files with complex content.
Corresponding metadata are attached to resources with barcodes. Specific
information contained within individual resource barcodes facilitates inventory control,
quality control, and efficiency as resources are processed through individual life cycle
phases and are moved to different physical locations.
MDPI produces lossless compressed FFV1/MKV video preservation master files
with a Matroska wrapper, 50 Mbps MPEG 2 video mezzanine files, and 24-bit and 96
kHz high-resolution audio preservation and production masters. The estimated long-
term storage for resources digitized in Phase 1 is 6.5PB.
Create or receive
MDPI has technical and digital provenance metadata collection and documentation
processes incorporated into its workflows to accurately describe each digital object that
is created. The SMARTeam helps to prepare materials for digitization by barcoding
items, organizing them, and creating descriptive and technical metadata that can later be
enhanced and used for access purposes (Indiana University Bloomington Media
Preservation Initiative Task Force, 2011). The initial descriptive metadata includes the
item title, format, physical location, unit, etc. MDPI uses the POD as a standards-based
database to contain enough metadata to allow for tracking each physical object through
the digitization process in one system. This allows the SMARTeam and MDPI staff to
describe materials in the digitization queue, and track batches and shipments of
materials throughout the process. This initiative cultivates and maintains “the collection
of a rich set of administrative metadata about digital media” to support long-term
preservation (Indiana University Bloomington Media Preservation Initiative Task Force,
2011). Additional descriptive metadata used for MDPI come from MARC bibliographic
records and archival description in XML using the EAD (Encoded Archival
Description) schema, which is used by archival institutions for the description of finding
aids and metadata. MDPI also leverages existing item-level metadata for IUB’s
Archives of Traditional Music (ATM) field collections, as well as metadata for
collections from all non-library/archives units on campus.
MDPI creates data and digital objects from physical objects. When MDPI begins the
action of Create or Receive, appraisal and selection has already occurred. The items are
transferred from the IUB unit (e.g., department, library, or school) to MDPI. Some
metadata are already in the database describing the physical object; as stated earlier,
24 This has since been modified by the IUB MDPI Director of Technical Operations to 10-15 years.
IJDC | Peer-Reviewed Paper
104 | Media Digitization and Preservation Initiative doi:10.2218/ijdc.v13i1.502
these metadata exist in IUCAT and are extracted from its database. If metadata for any
given digital object do not already exist in IUCAT, the SMARTeam creates enough
descriptive and technical metadata for it within the POD to allow for identification,
tracking, and digitization. The team processes items either by a generated pick list,
which has some metadata already for each object, or they create a new record for the
object and create new metadata. When the SMARTeam processes a pick list, they verify
that all information and metadata are correct and then include any missing data. When
they process an object, and create new descriptive and technical metadata, they also
verify that all metadata are correct for the item record. The POD contains these
descriptive, technical, and administrative metadata that are created to describe and track
the location of the physical materials that are digitized.
Appraise and select
Appraisal and selection of materials to be curated and preserved is necessary, as the
resources available to preserve materials should be allocated to those in most need of
curation into perpetuity. The DCC provides the following checklist for the Appraise and
Select sequential action:
1. Begin to appraise and select as early as possible.
2. Plan to keep what will support your findings.
3. Know the audience of the data (who you’re keeping it for).
4. Know what you need to dispose of to comply with legal policies.
5. Make sure data complies with minimum quality assurance metrics.
6. Reappraise before long-term storage.
7. Develop policies; identify realistic workflows.
8. Appraise for current needs with a mind towards what will be useful in the
future.25
We found that MDPI follows all but one of these guidelines (i.e., checklist item
two). Regarding the first checklist item, MDPI developed MediaRIVERS and
MediaSCORE software in combination with the IUB Media Survey to appraise and
select before the initiative began. Later these tools were not necessary because the
project received enough funding to digitize all audio and video considered appropriate
for long-term preservation. Checklist item two is not entirely relevant to MDPI due to
the nature of the materials preserved; MDPI preserves audiovisual recordings as
opposed to scientific research datasets. MDPI staff know the audience for the material
they are preserving – students, community users, scholars, researchers, faculty, staff,
and university administration (checklist items three and eight). They considered
copyright and access issues, and have been developing policies that will allow materials
to be removed from public access if an issue arises, therefore complying with legal
conventions (checklist items four and seven). As part of the digitization process,
materials go through quality control (and therefore are reappraised) after digitization
(checklist items five and six). Members of IUB Quality Control (QC) staff verify that
digital audio files are complete, accurate, and can be stored for the long-term.26 In
25 DCC Curation Checklists – Checklist for appraise and select:
http://www.dcc.ac.uk/sites/default/files/Select%20and%20Appraise%20Checklist.pdf
26 This function is also carried out by the post-processing system’s automated QC checks.
IJDC | Peer-Reviewed Paper
doi:10.2218/ijdc.v13i1.502 Donaldson et al. | 105
addition, MDPI’s Access Task Force Committee, including metadata and rights
subcommittees, is working to make sure that policies and realistic workflows are in
place for preserving, curating, and maintaining digitized content through databases and
the streaming platform Avalon (checklist item seven).
We found that MDPI staff looked at factors such as importance to research and
curricula, access rights and copyright. By considering what will support research and
curricula, MDPI staff adhere to appraisal for current needs as well as future research
trends by selecting items that are unique and non-commercial. MDPI staff adhere to the
DCC guideline regarding knowledge of legal policies by consulting with the Libraries
Copyright Librarian, who works with IU Legal Counsel, to determine what can be
digitized and streamed online. MDPI also digitizes commercial recordings, but keeps
them unpublished in ‘Dark Avalon,’ with the idea that at some point it will be
permissible to provide some level of access to these materials (e.g., behind firewalls of
IUB that require user authentication). In addition to collaborating with legal experts to
determine rights and legal compliance, MDPI sought the expertise and input from
librarians and collection managers who had a better understanding of what the
collections held to determine current and future use.
Developed specifically for MDPI and IUB in partnership with AVPreserve,
MediaRIVERS ranks the importance of materials based on their research and
instructional value, and it provides units and selectors of objects for digitization based
on a numerical score of importance for selection and triage (Bohm et al., 2015). Values
are assigned to asset groups, or materials grouped together based on similar
characteristics (e.g., not necessarily a collection in the archival sense, but rather things
of the same nature or subject, creating entity, etc.), regarding subject of interest, content
quality, rareness, documentation, technical quality, generation, and intellectual property
(Bohm et al., 2015). By having collection managers assign values to objects based on
research value within asset groups, whole collections of materials can be appraised or
selected at once, speeding up the process.
In addition to selecting and triaging based on subject characteristics and research
importance, there is also the factor of obsolescence when dealing with audiovisual
materials. To address this issue, MDPI partnered with AVPreserve to develop software
that could rank and score asset groups of materials based on risk factors related to
obsolescence and degradation, or “degralescence” (Casey, 2009). By including metadata
for groups of materials about tape stock and duration as well as preservation problems
such as sticky shed or vinegar syndrome for open reel tapes, delaminating lacquer discs,
or damaged 78 rpm discs, the software returns a score for groups’ risk. Table 2 describes
the range.
IJDC | Peer-Reviewed Paper
106 | Media Digitization and Preservation Initiative doi:10.2218/ijdc.v13i1.502
Table 2. Range of Risk of Obsolescence for Audiovisual Materials (Bohm et al., 2015).
Score
(Range from 0-5)
Risk Description of Risk
4.5-5 Extreme danger Digitize immediately (Action statement: “I’m
begging my director for money tomorrow”).
3.5-4.49 Danger ahead Digitize near-term (Action statement: “I’m
writing a grant in the next year”).
2.5-3.49 Caution Moderate risk—digitize soon (Action statement:
“I’m actively planning for digitization”).
1.5-2.49 Lower priority Digitize medium term.
0.6-1.49 Low priority Digitize within 10-15 years.
0-0.5 Safe Not in need of digitization.
Once materials are appraised and selected based on their scholarly importance, and
triaged based on their physical condition, they are categorized into two separate
workflow paths: items at low risk go through a cheaper, faster preservation workflow,
and items at high risk or of exceptional value go through a more expensive, careful
workflow.
Ingest
After digitization, master copies of the files are stored as preservation copies, while
access files are made available to users via the online access system MCO. With the
files from Memnon, the items are transferred to IUB with an MD5 checksum. These
data objects, alongside those created by the IUB preservation team, are then ingested
into the SDA.
Preservation action
Since the preservation planning phase, MDPI staff anticipated the need for constant
quality control. Throughout the digitization process, staff perform quality assurance and
quality control actions, ensuring that all digital objects and metadata records are valid.
Staff, including engineers, perform quality control actions. They also perform quality
control when derivative files are created, an issue they addressed by partnering with
Memnon, the third-party mass-digitization partner (Indiana University Bloomington
Media Preservation Initiative Task Force, 2011). MDPI ensured that the necessary
infrastructure and support was in place for the long-term preservation of these digital
files and their associated metadata files. SDA storage at both IUB at IUPUI is used as a
part of this long-term preservation plan.
According to staff, MDPI relies mainly on open source file formats that have a long-
term future, and IUB Libraries monitor current trends so that they can quickly migrate
file formats if needed. At MDPI, audio files are currently being created in the Broadcast
WAVE (BWF) non-proprietary format, which is a 24-bit, 96 kiloHertz (kHz) long
standing, high-quality format currently preferred among audio preservationists (Behl,
2015). In comparison with this widely accepted format, video files at MDPI are being
stored in an FFV1 codec in a Matroska wrapper. The FFV1 is a mathematically lossless
program for encoding digital streams, currently being developed and used for archiving
by repositories around the world, while Matroska is an audiovisual container and
format, with numerous flexible features, designed to store descriptive metadata in the
file, thus mitigating the risk of metadata software failure (Murray, Rice and Blewer,
IJDC | Peer-Reviewed Paper
doi:10.2218/ijdc.v13i1.502 Donaldson et al. | 107
2015). Even though this format is not as established as others, MDPI staff are currently
involved in the maintenance and development of FFV1 and Matroska to ensure that the
current and future needs of MDPI continue to be served (Media Area, 2016).
Store
After the digital objects have been ingested, the data are stored in a viable location
and file format that will persist for at least the mid-future. MDPI writes their digitized
files to two data storage centers: the Bloomington Data Center and the Indianapolis
Data Center. These centers are separated by approximately 50 miles and are built to
withstand F5 tornadoes. The second digital copy reduces the risk of human error and
general file corruption while the physical separation mitigates the potential threat of a
natural disaster critically affecting both data centers. However, as explained by MDPI
staff, a third copy, preferably housed in a location outside of the state of Indiana, would
further reduce these risks.
Access, use, and reuse
IUB Libraries has created a Task Force and subcommittees to address the issues of
metadata and rights as they pertain to access to MDPI digitized material. As materials
are digitized and pass quality control, they are stored on the SDA, with compressed
streaming derivatives stored on disk. The front-facing platform for collection managers
to preview these derivatives is ‘Dark Avalon.’ The current idea is to have a function that
will request materials to be moved from ‘Dark Avalon’ into MCO, making the materials
publicly accessible. To facilitate discoverability and use of the materials, collection
managers for each collection unit use MCO to create metadata, context, description, and
structure for the materials.
Through MCO, users can listen to audio files and view video files that have been
digitized by MDPI. Users can jump between sections of a recording based on the
structural metadata provided by a collection manager, view contextual information
either imported through IUB’s OPAC or manually entered by a collection manager, and
can add materials to personal playlists associated with their accounts. The functionality
of MCO allows for materials to have different levels of access. It can either be open and
available to all, available only to IU affiliated individuals, collection staff only, or a
specified user and/or group. There is also the option to leave materials “unpublished” so
that only the collection manager can view the record for the object. The unit that
manages the content can also apply usage restrictions into the catalog
record/bibliographic data for the object, although it is not required.
Collection managers can determine how long specific users have access to materials
via special permissions settings for objects and collections. Collection managers can
choose to provide information about restrictions to users or restrict access to materials
without explanation. Collection managers also provide context for audio and video files
by adding bibliographic information and structural metadata.
Transform
MDPI currently creates several derivative files during the preservation process
including when files are required for access and use. When MDPI digitizes an original
audiovisual object, the content within the object is saved in three separate files: a
preservation master file, a production file (called a mezzanine file for video), and an
access file. All three files are stored at the SDA at IUB and IUPUI. Another set of three
derivative files is automatically created by scripts for ingest into Dark Avalon.
Currently, collection managers upload material into MCO manually. All derivatives are
IJDC | Peer-Reviewed Paper
108 | Media Digitization and Preservation Initiative doi:10.2218/ijdc.v13i1.502
made from the production master files while the preservation file remains untouched
and acts as a “pure” copy of the original audiovisual object. In the future, MDPI staff
plans to develop their systems to enable movement of files en masse into MCO.
Occasional Actions
Dispose
MDPI is not transferring materials to other repositories or disposing of any media
materials at this point.
Reappraise
It is common for MDPI staff to reappraise resources that are found in poor physical
condition that will be rejected by Memnon. Transferring the resources to IUB’s
workflow prior to rejection saves time that can be used for other resources that will not
be rejected.
Migrate
Migrating data to different formats is a concern MDPI has attempted to pre-
emptively address by their choice of file formats. With regards to audio files, the BWF
file format is non-proprietary, ubiquitous and widely accepted, suggesting the format
will remain viable for an extended period, and will require minimal preservation
actions. Moreover, MDPI leaves these files uncompressed, which may mitigate the
effects file corruption or ‘bit rot.’
As for the FFV1/Matroska format, although currently not supported by a specific
institution, this format is currently being standardized. Moreover, as a non-proprietary
format with a strong community of developers, FFV1/Matroska should require minimal
preservation actions (e.g., migration).
Discussion
This study adds to the body of research literature aimed at performing empirical tests of
the DCC Curation Lifecycle Model. Specifically, it tests the ability of the model to
apply to different domains as its authors suggest. In contrast to prior studies where only
parts of the model were the primary focus (e.g., Whyte, 2008; Whyte, 2009), we applied
the entire model in our study. We found that the model is a useful framework for
understanding how digital curation is performed in a mass digitization project, in this
case, MDPI. We gathered empirical support for each of the components of the DCC
Curation Lifecycle Model. These findings underscore the validity of the model.
To a certain extent, the DCC Curation Lifecycle Model is intentionally generic so
that it can apply across different disciplines and digital data. Therefore, case studies are
important for elucidating the ways in which the concepts in the model can apply in
different contexts. We argue that our study provides key insights regarding how
concepts in the DCC Curation Lifecycle Model can apply to mass digitization projects
for audiovisual materials. In particular, mass digitization projects that are just beginning
or are at the planning stages could benefit from reviewing the findings of this study as a
way of understanding what they should consider as they move forward and prepare for
digital curation. For example, staff dedicated to a new mass digitization project for
IJDC | Peer-Reviewed Paper
doi:10.2218/ijdc.v13i1.502 Donaldson et al. | 109
audiovisual materials may learn key insights from MDPI based on their approach to the
Access, Use, and Reuse concept in the model, particularly if they too are responsible for
materials that have varying levels of access restrictions. For instance, staff for the new
mass digitization project may want to adopt MDPI’s approach of offering different
levels of access to digitized materials based on whether copyright restrictions apply. Or
staff may want to use the MediaSCORE and MediaRIVERS systems to help them apply
the Appraise and Select concept in the model by rank ordering the importance of
materials and digitizing them based on their priority and risk.
The DCC Curation Lifecycle Model’s relevance to new digitization efforts does not
decrease its applicability to initiatives that have already begun or have ended. This is
because our findings suggest that certain actions that are necessary for digital curation
are iterative (e.g., Preservation Planning). We found the digital curation process to be
iterative, even within individual components and subcomponents of the model. We
argue that institutions can use the DCC Curation Lifecycle Model to refine procedures
and re-evaluate practices periodically to provide the best preservation for their digital
objects. The cyclical nature of the DCC Curation Lifecycle Model is a useful reminder
that, while digitization initiatives may end when the last item has been converted, the
curation process for those materials is never-ending.
This study also advances the concept of mass digitization by providing a more
nuanced definition for the term. In addition to defining mass digitization as “conversion
of materials on an industrial scale” as Coyle (2006) suggests, we recommend
consideration of six characteristics when determining whether a digitization project is a
mass digitization project: 1) Aggregation and production, 2) Openness, 3) Business
model and cost, 4) Scope, 5) Format, and 6) Time spent digitizing. More research on
and comparison of mass digitization projects could validate our proposed definition of
mass digitization, or help to refine it.
Conclusion
Mass digitization projects require a significant amount of effort and millions of dollars
in resources. Without proper digital curation, mass digitization is all for naught. That is,
without proper data (digital objects or databases); description and representation
information; preservation planning; community watch and participation; curation and
preservation; conceptualization; creation or receipt; appraisal and selection; ingest;
preservation action; storage; access, use, and reuse; transformation; disposal;
reappraisal; and migration, mass digitization projects could waste valuable resources.
We need ways to measure the effectiveness of mass digitization projects’ digital curation
efforts. One way to do this is to compare their activities to all the actions specified in the
DCC Curation Lifecycle Model. Future studies could compare the results of this study
to the results of studies that apply the model to different types of mass digitization
projects to better understand how the model can apply to mass digitization projects.
Beyond these types of studies, we need studies focused on transforming the DCC
Curation Lifecycle Model into a measurement model. This would allow us to more
meaningfully compare any given organization or project’s adherence to or compliance
with each action that the model specifies. To facilitate this type of research, we need
formalized mechanisms for turning the DCC Curation Lifecycle Model into a
measurement model. For example, researchers could develop survey questions designed
to capture information about each of the Full Lifecycle Actions, Sequential Actions, and
IJDC | Peer-Reviewed Paper
110 | Media Digitization and Preservation Initiative doi:10.2218/ijdc.v13i1.502
Occasional Actions in the model. The surveys could be administered to staff who are
responsible for digital curation. Then survey data could be analysed to more
meaningfully compare digital curation effort across organizations and projects. This
would bring us closer to knowing if, when a staff member at an organization says “yes,
we perform digital curation activities effectively at our organization,” this means the
same thing as when someone else at another institution says it.
References
Behl, H. (2015). Audio formats: Characteristics and deterioration. In S. Brylawski, M.
Lerman, R. Pike, K. Smith (eds.) ARSE Guide to Audio Preservation (pp. 14-36).
Washington, DC: Council on Library and Information Resources. Retrieved from
http://www.clir.org/pubs/reports/pub164/pub164.pdf
Bohm, A., Casey, M., Feaster, P., Lyon, J., Moore, A., Reynolds, C., …, Shelby, J.
(2015). MediaSCORE and MediaRIVERS media preservation prioritization
software user guide. Retrieved from http://www.avpreserve.com/wp-
content/uploads/2015/03/IU_mscore_mrivers_guide.pdf
Casey, M. (2009). Media preservation survey: A report. Indiana University
Bloomington. Retrieved from https://mdpi.iu.edu/doc/survey.pdf
Coyle, K. (2006). Mass digitization of books. The Journal of Academic Librarianship
32(6): 641-645.
Donaldson, D., McClanahan, A., Christiansen, L., Bell, L., Narlock, M., Martin, S., &
Suby, H. (2018). Field notes for media digitization and preservation initiative: A
case study [Data set]. Bloomington, IN: IU ScholarWorks. Retrieved from
http://hdl.handle.net/2022/22101
Gooding, P. (2013). Mass digitization and the garbage dump: The conflicting needs of
quantitative and qualitative methods. Literary and Linguistic Computing, 28(3),
425-431.
Guidi, G., Barsanti, S.G., Micoli, L.L., & Russo, M. (2015). Massive 3D digitization of
museum contents. In L. Toniolo, M. Boriani, & G. Guidi (Eds.), Built Heritage:
Monitoring Conservation Management (pp. 335-346). Springer International
Publishing.
Indiana University Bloomington Media Preservation Initiative Task Force. (2011).
Meeting the challenge of media preservation: Strategies and solutions. Indiana
University Bloomington. Retrieved from https://mdpi.iu.edu/doc/strategies-
solutions.pdf
Hahn, T.B. (2011). Mass digitization. Library Resources & Technical Services, 52(1),
18-26.
IJDC | Peer-Reviewed Paper
doi:10.2218/ijdc.v13i1.502 Donaldson et al. | 111
Heyman, S. (2015, October 28). Google books: A complex and controversial
experiment. The New York Times, Retrieved from
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/29/arts/international/google-books-a-complex-
and-controversial-experiment.html?_r=2
Higgins, S. (2009, May). Applying the DCC curation lifecycle model. Paper presented
at the 35th Conference of the International Association for Social Science
Information Services and Technology (IASSIST 2009), Tampere, Finland.
Higgins, S. (2008). The DCC curation lifecycle model. International Journal of Digital
Curation 2(1), 134-140. Retrieved from doi:10.2218/ijdc.v3i1.48
Jihai, Z. (2008, October). Mass digitization of the collections of the academic libraries
in China. Paper presented at Pacific Rim Research Libraries Alliance Annual
Meeting (PRRLA’2008), Singapore. Retrieved from http://pr-rla.org/2008/10/mass-
digitization-of-the-collections-of-the-academic-libraries-in-china/
Lyon, L., Rusbridge, C., Neilson, C., & Whyte, A. (2010). Disciplinary approaches to
sharing, curation, reuse and preservation: Final report. Retrieved from
http://www.dcc.ac.uk/sites/default/files/documents/scarp/SCARP-FinalReport-Final-
SENT.pdf
Martinez-Uribe, L. (2008). Using the data audit framework: An Oxford case study.
Retrieved from http://www.disc-uk.org/docs/DAF-Oxford.pdf
Media Area. (2016). No time to wait: Standardizing FFV1 and matroska for
preservation. Retrieved from https://mediaarea.net/MediaConch/2016/07/26/No-
Time-To-Wait-Preservation-FFV1-Matroska-Symposium/
Murray, K., Rice, D., & Blewer, A. (2015). Improving technical options for audiovisual
collections through the PREFORMA project [Interview transcript]. Library of
Congress: The Signal. Retrieved from
http://blogs.loc.gov/thesignal/2015/09/improving-technical-options-for-audiovisual-
collections-through-the-preforma-project/
National Library of Australia. (2017). Digitisation and digital activities at the National
Library of Australia. Conference of Directors of National Libraries in Asia and
Oceania Newsletter, 90. Retrieved from
http://www.ndl.go.jp/en/cdnlao/newsletter/090/901.html
Pennock, M. (2007). Digital curation: A life-cycle approach to managing and preserving
usable digital information. Library and Archives Journal, 1. Retrieved from
http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/ukoln/staff/m.pennock/publications/docs/lib-
arch_curation.pdf
Schmitz, D. (2008). The seamless cyberinfrastructure: The challenges of studying users
of mass digitization and institutional repositories. Digital Library Federation,
Council on Library and Information Resources. Retrieved from
https://www.clir.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/6/schmitz.pdf
IJDC | Peer-Reviewed Paper
112 | Media Digitization and Preservation Initiative doi:10.2218/ijdc.v13i1.502
Sykes, J. (2008). Managing the UK’s research data: Towards a UK research data
service. New Review of Information Networking, 14(1), 21-36.
BizResearch. (2007). The million book project – 1.5 million scanned! Retrieved from
https://web.archive.org/web/20080614093014/http://lbslibrary.typepad.com/bizresea
rch/2007/11/the-million-boo.html
Vaidhyanathan, S. (2007). The googlization of everything and the future of copyright.
UC Davis Law Review, 40(3), 1207-1231.
Whyte, A. (2008), Curating brain images in a psychiatric research group: Infrastructure
and preservation issues - SCARP case study 1. Digital Curation Centre. Retrieved
from http://www.dcc.ac.uk/scarp
Whyte, A. (2009), Roles and reusability of video data in social studies of interaction -
SCARP case study 5. Digital Curation Centre. Retrieved from
http://www.dcc.ac.uk/scarp
Womack, D. (2003). Who owns history? Cabinet. Retrieved from
http://www.cabinetmagazine.org/issues/10/womack.php
Yin, R.K. (2014). Case study research: Design and methods. Fifth edition. Los Angeles:
SAGE.
IJDC | Peer-Reviewed Paper
