Contents
Contributors Preface xi
ix
Consortial Actions and Collaborative Achievements: RLG’s Preservation Program 1 Robin L. Dale I. II. III. IV. V. VI. VII. VIII. IX. X. IX.
Introduction 1 RLG’s Preservation Program 2 The 1970s: Pioneers in Collaborative Preservation 3 The Growth of Collaborative Preservation 4 Building on the Model: RLG Microfilming Projects 6 How-to Manuals: The RLG Guidelines for Preservation Microfilming 9 Beyond Microfilming 11 Needs Assessment 11 Photograph Preservation 12 Digitization and Digital Preservation 13 Conclusion 21 References 22
OCLC’s Digital Preservation Program for the Next Generation Library 25 Meg Bellinger, Pam Kircher, Taylor Surface and Leah Houser I. Introduction 25 II. OCLC and Three Generations of Digital Library Development 27 III. Digital Collection and Preservation Services 32 IV. Conclusion 46 References 47 v
vi
Contents
The Preservation of Moving Images
49
`le Valerie Cloonan Karen F. Gracy and Miche I. II. III. IV. V. VI. VII. VIII.
Introduction 49 Definition of Moving Image Preservation 50 Moving Image Media Stability and Obsolescence 52 Historical and Institutional Contexts for Preserving Moving Images 56 Short- and Long-Term Strategies for Preservation 72 Strategies for Access 79 Tensions Between Preservation and Access 83 Moving Image Preservation and the Preservation Continuum 85 Appendix I 87 References 93
Sound Preservation: From Analog to Digital
97
Michael Seadle I. II. III. IV. V. VI.
Introduction and Methodology Conversion Technology 98 Digital Standards 104 Legal Issues 109 Financial Issues 113 Conclusion 115 Acknowledgments 116 References 116
97
Funding for Library Preservation: Endowments as Income Streams 119 Whitney Pape and Eric C. Shoaf I. II. III. IV. V. VI. VII.
Preservation Funding in Libraries 119 Grant-Funded Library Preservation Projects 122 Literature on Preservation Endowments in Libraries 124 Preservation Endowments in United States Libraries 125 The NEH Preservation Endowment at Brown University 130 Establishing a Preservation Endowment 137 An Under-Utilized Preservation Funding Source 141 Appendix I 142 Appendix II 143
vii
Contents
Appendix III 147 References 157
Library Storage as a Preservation Strategy
159
Catherine Murray-Rust I. Introduction 159 II. A Brief History of Library Storage 160 III. Cycles of Growth and Construction: The Cornell University Experience 161 IV. Storage Methods 163 V. Institutional Storage Solutions 165 VI. Cooperative Storage Solutions 165 VII. Storage Conditions 167 VIII. The Relationship Between Storage and Preservation 170 IX. The Harvard Innovation 171 X. Automated Storage and Retrieval Systems 172 XI. Applying Preservation Standards, Guidelines, Tools, and Techniques to Stored Collections 174 XII. Storage as an Explicit Preservation Strategy 178 References 179
Preserving Electronic Government Information: What Role Does Policy Play? 185 M. Elizabeth Cowell I. II. III. IV. V.
Introduction 185 Changing Formats and the FDLP Pitfalls of the Access Only Model A New Model 194 Conclusion 195 References 196
186 191
Fire Recovery and Preservation of Collections at the Russian Academy of Sciences Library 199 Valerii P. Leonov, Irina M. Belayaeva and Julia P. Nyuksha I. II. III. IV.
Introduction 199 The Fire 200 Fire Recovery 201 Conclusions 217 Recommended Readings
218
viii
Contents
Partner Library Programs: The Colorado Programs
219
Nancy M. Bolt and Lisa Cole I. Origins and Implementation of the Bulgaria/Colorado Library Partnership Project, Nancy Bolt 219 II. An Evaluation Study of the Bulgaria/Colorado Library Partnership Project, Lisa Cole 237 III. What Makes a Successful Partnership, Nancy Bolt and Lisa Cole 250 Appendix I 252 References 252
Index
255
Contributors
Numbers in parantheses indicate the pages on which the authors’ contributions begin. Irina M. Belayaeva (199), The Russian Academy of Sciences Library, St. Petersburg, Russia Meg Bellinger (25), OCLC Digital and Preservation Resources, USA Nancy M. Bolt (221), Arapahoe Library District, USA Miche`le Valerie Cloonan (49), The Graduate School of Library and Information Science, Simmons College, 300 The Fens, Boston, MA 02115, USA Lisa Cole (221), Arapahoe Library District, USA Robin L. Dale (1), Program Officer, RLG, USA M. Elizabeth Cowell (185), Head, Data, Government and Geographic Information Services, Social Sciences and Humanities Library, University of California, San Diego, CA, USA Karen F. Gracy (49), Department of Library and Information Science, University of Pittsburgh, 135 N. Bellefield Avenue, Room 657, Pittsburgh, PA 15260, USA Leah Houser (25), OCLC Digital and Preservation Resources, USA Pam Kircher (25), OCLC Digital and Preservation Resources, USA Valerii P. Leonov (199), The Russian Academy of Sciences Library, St. Petersburg, Russia Catherine Murray-Rust (159), Oregon State University Libraries, 121 Valley Library, Corvallis, OR 97331-4501, USA Julia P. Nyuksha (199), The Russian Academy of Sciences Library, St. Petersburg, Russia Whitney Pape (119), Brown University Library, Box A, 10 Prospect St., Providence, RI 02912, USA Michael Seadle (97), Digital and Multimedia Center, Michigan State University Libraries, East Lansing, MI, USA Eric C. Shoaf (119), Brown University Library, Box A, 10 Prospect St., Providence, RI 02912, USA Taylor Surface (25), OCLC Digital and Preservation Resources, USA ix
Preface
As I make my last contribution as editor of Advances in Librarianship, I would like to say a few words about my twelve years’ experience with this annual. My tenure has greatly enriched my life both professionally and personally. My first association with Advances goes back to 1980 when I was asked to submit an article on library materials budgeting for volume 10. Later, in 1992 I joined Advances as a member of its editorial advisory board. At that time, Irene Godden (Colorado State) edited the volume. I owe her a great debt for her counseling and guidance. After Godden resigned in 1998, I took over as coeditor of Advances and from 2001 (volume 25) I have been its sole editor. Through all these years, I truly enjoyed working with my colleagues on the editorial board and with the many prominent librarians whose papers appeared in Advances. I am especially grateful to Nancy Allen (University of Denver), G. Edward Evans (Loyola Marymount University, Los Angeles), and Mary Jean Pavelsek (NYU), longtime editorial board members, who constantly provided encouragement and support. As editor I worked closely with the publishing staff, first at Academic and later Elsevier. I would like to single out both Marvin Yelles (Academic) and Christopher Pringle (Elsevier) and their assistants, Naomi Henning and Julie Neden, for their excellent work in turning manuscripts into the fine finished books that the reader sees. I will introduce the authors and their papers as I have in past years. Volume 27 is different in its character when compared with previous volumes of Advances since it focuses on preservation with only one article on another topic. The first two contributions come from preservation leaders at the Research Libraries Group and OCLC. The initial paper by Robin Dale, Program Officer at RLG, is about consortial actions led by RLG and their results. RLG was the first bibliographic utility to involve its member libraries in program efforts, which was especially productive in the area of preservation. RLG technology was used to record in its database all types of materials preserved, with RLG developing standards for such preservation and its description. RLG also received many grants for collaborative efforts to preserve collections. Dale’s paper records these achievements as well as its new collaboration with OCLC on digital preservation. xi
xii
Preface
The second paper by Meg Bellinger, Pam Kircher, Taylor Surface, & Leah Houser, members of the OCLC Digital & Preservation Resources Department of OCLC, outlines the past history, current efforts, and future plans of OCLC in the digital preservation area. Their article speaks about digital archiving and the importance of proper description of digital content so that the content can be fixed for the future. Their paper describes the special services that OCLC offers in this area such as archiving services and speaks about technological advances in digital preservation for which OCLC has taken a leadership role. The third paper by Karen F. Gracy (University of Pittsburgh) and Michele V. Cloonan (Simmons College) covers an area of preservation not too well explored in library literature, the preservation of moving images. Their article is a seminal one covering the history of preservation of moving image media from its beginning until the present. It names the institutions responsible for preservation of film, analog video, and digital moving images. It speaks about environmental controls, the vinegar syndrome and sticky shed syndrome, reformatting, and documenting the preservation work (media access management). Their paper also discusses strategies for making moving images collections accessible, and in the end makes a plea for a cooperative strategy. The appendices also discuss the care and handling of moving image material in detail covering motion picture film and videotapes. The fourth contribution by Michael Seadle (Michigan State University Libraries) examines preservation of sound from analog to digital. Seadle takes an anthropological approach to examining trends in this area. He discusses digital standards, including formats, metadata, and authenticity and integrity. He also covers legal issues in copying sound materials for archival purposes. Finally, he describes the financial issues in this area. He concludes that as sound technology changes the standards for its preservation must also change. The fifth article by Whitney Pape and Eric Shoaf (Brown University Library) looks at how preservation has been and can be funded through endowments. Pape and Shoaf review their experiences at Brown with a National Endowment for the Humanities matching grant for preservation. Their chapter reviews the history of preservation endowment grants, presents a survey on library preservation endowments, and provides an outline on how libraries can initiate such an endowment. The sixth chapter by Catherine Murray-Rust (Oregon State University) examines the relationship between storage and preservation. After a brief history of library storage, Murray-Rust speaks about storage methods, solutions, and cooperative storage, and focuses on storage conditions. She then discusses storage as an explicit preservation strategy. Murray-Rust cites Harvard’s storage building as the prototype preservation storage facility that
Preface
xiii
includes low level lighting, air filtration, acid-free box board trays, highly effective insulation and vapor retardance, tight building structure, and separate staff work spaces. In the seventh paper by M. Elizabeth Cowell (University of California at San Diego) the author shows how policy issues have affected preservation of government documents. Her thesis is that “policy decisions made in the early days of the shift to electronic government information changed the course of the Federal Depository Library Program, moving away from a system of deposits and distribution to one of access.” She argues forcefully for a system of multiple copies of electronic government information not centralized in one place but kept in local storage places. Otherwise, if this change is not made, she points out government information will not be preserved. In the eighth chapter, Valerii P. Leonov, Irina M. Belayaeva, and Julia P. Nyushka (Russian Academy of Sciences Library) discuss the fire recovery and preservation of collections resulting from the notable fire of 1988 at the Russian Academy of Sciences Library in St. Petersburg, the oldest research library in Russia. This fire affected close to 300,000 volumes, a massive disaster. Their paper is a primer on how to deal with a major disaster giving both practical and policy advice on dealing with a major emergency of this scope. The authors also mention steps they have taken to extend preservation to future library operations. The last article does not relate to the issue of preservation. Its authors, Nancy M. Bolt and Lisa Cole (Colorado State Library), describe a statewide library partner program with the libraries of Bulgaria. All stages of the program are covered in the article: searching for partners, mutual programs, professional exchanges, and organizational and financial matters. The last segment, written by Lisa Cole, evaluates the project to date. In summary, as Editor I could not have persevered without the constant love and support of my wife, Irina. This volume is dedicated to our granddaughter, Elizabeth Reid Peron. Frederick C. Lynden Editor, Advances in Librarianship
Consortial Actions and Collaborative Achievements: RLG’s Preservation Program1 Robin L. Dale Program Officer, RLG, USA
I. Introduction RLG is a not-for-profit international alliance of about 160 members, including universities and colleges, national and public research libraries, archives, historical societies, museums, and independent research collections devoted to improving access to information that supports research and learning. Founded in 1974 as the Research Libraries Group by four visionary library directors from Columbia, Harvard and Yale universities and the New York Public Library, the consortium formed to allow research institutions to tackle tough challenges via collaborative action. Key issues were managing the transition from locally self-sufficient and independently comprehensive collections to a system of interdependencies that would preserve and enhance the capacity for research in all fields of knowledge and improving the ability to locate and retrieve relevant research resources (RLG, 1986). At its inception, four activity areas were identified for collaborative action: cooperative bibliographic control and access; effective mechanisms for sharing information and resources among member institutions; expanded and coordinated collection development efforts; and preservation of the collections, either in the original or surrogate format. It is no surprise that preservation was one of the four cornerstone activities for the newly established Research Libraries Group. In 1974, most 1
RLG’s preservation activities have taken place under a variety of programmatic names and groups since its inception, including the Preservation Committee, the Preservation Task Force, PRESERV, and most recently, the Preservation Program To reduce confusion, this chapter refers to either the work of the first Preservation Committee or to the broad umbrella of the “RLG preservation program.”
ADVANCES IN LIBRARIANSHIP, VOL. 27 q 2004 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved ISSN: 0065-2830 DOI:10.1016/S0065-2830(03)27001-X
1
2
Robin L. Dale
large research libraries were just becoming aware of the extent and severity of the preservation problems in their collections. Surveys conducted at the time, including statistical samplings conducted by RLG member institutions, underscored the threats to collections posed by high acid content in paper, buildings with inadequate environmental controls, increasing air pollution, changes in book production techniques, and frequent use. With little preservation work underway, the wide-scale need for preservation of deteriorating research collections was both enormous and potentially prohibitively expensive. Institutions set about to meet local needs, including book repair and reformatting if repair was not an option. Many large research libraries had conservation laboratories to treat rare and special materials. A smaller number owned microfilm cameras to microfilm the contents of materials that could not be repaired, yet it was difficult for institutions to find out what had already been microfilmed to avoid duplication of effort. It was clear that institutions would need to find cooperative solutions to the enormous challenge of preserving their historical collections for future generations. With the founding of the RLG consortium, potential for collaboration in preservation activities was realized, enabling early preservation collaboration in an organized and supported manner.
II. RLG’s Preservation Program RLG’s long-standing preservation program draws on planning and analysis conducted by the first Preservation Committee in 1975. Comprised of representatives from RLG’s first four members—Pamela Darling of Columbia University, Ed Williams of Harvard University, Gay Walker of Yale University, and John Baker of The New York Public Library—the committee realized that the scale of preservation needs of most major research institutions was vast and that no inexpensive technological solutions existed. It was assumed that no single institution could mount a program comprehensive enough to preserve its entire collection. The requirement for cooperation was clear. Preservation Committee members agreed that, even as a group, they alone could not meet the preservation needs of the scholarly community. Rather, the hope was to develop model programs and establish an infrastructure that could be extended to and coordinated with the efforts of a variety of institutions and organizations. In addition, RLG members agreed “RLG libraries have a special obligation to each other and to scholars nationwide to preserve their collections…Member libraries are encouraged to establish or further support local preservation programs, and to assign personnel and resources to this area whenever the opportunity arises”
Consortial Actions and Collaborative Achievements: RLG’s Preservation Program
3
(RLG, 1986). With that charter, the committee was quick to devise the core activities the program would undertake in the coming years: cooperative storage of microform masters, joint training activities, mechanisms for sharing information about preserved items, procedures for local preservation programs, and a coordinated project for microfilming brittle materials (Williams, 1975). In choosing those core activities, the committee devised a program that would address preservation challenges plaguing all research libraries by utilizing the expertise residing in RLG member institutions. The hallmarks of RLG’s preservation program were and continue to be cooperation and collaboration. A look at the accomplishments of the last 29 years indeed shows that this collaboration has been exactly the right way to achieve collectively what no single institution could achieve on its own.
III. The 1970s: Pioneers in Collaborative Preservation Following initial planning, the Preservation Committee immediately began a series of successful activities. The group articulated a long-range preservation plan, adopted a formal microfilm pricing policy, developed plans for a cooperative filming program focused on serials and multi-volume sets, and drew up formal procedures and forms to ensure communication among the members. The group also investigated the possibilities of creating joint contracts with commercial microfilmers and jointly storing master negatives (RLG, 1986). Plans for the pilot coordinated filming program bore fruit in 1977 when RLG provided each member $15,000 for preservation microfilming. This first attempt to take existing microfilming technologies and apply it systematically to brittle materials saw each institution responsible for the selection of materials, preparation, bibliographic work, vendor selection, quality control, and microfilm storage; the RLG funds supported filming costs only. At the conclusion of this early project, 61 multi-volume titles— over 120,000 pages—had been filmed and the initial groundwork was laid for future collaborative filming projects. In 1977, several developments took place that would influence future activities. That year, RLG made an agreement with Stanford to acquire and operate the computerized library system the university had developed for local and regional use. This system, BALLOTS, was rechristened the Research Libraries Information Network (RLIN), transformed, and networked nationwide. Simultaneously, Stanford joined RLG, and what had been a small New England consortium became a partnership that spanned the nation. Membership growth translated into increasing interest in
4
Robin L. Dale
the Preservation Committee. Over the next several years, institutions participated in preservation committee meetings even if they did not have active preservation programs, leading many of them to establish programs or appoint professional staff to manage their preservation efforts.
IV. The Growth of Collaborative Preservation In 1980, RLG moved from Connecticut to California, establishing its new headquarters at Stanford University. After the move, the Preservation Committee was reconstituted and broadened to include representatives from RLG’s expanded membership, many of whom had recently established preservation programs. Critical guidance and assistance for the program came in 1981 when the National Endowment for the Humanities awarded RLG a 2 year grant supporting a full-time preservation program officer and related planning efforts.2 This grant enabled RLG to design and secure funding for three significant projects: † modification of RLIN to highlight the presence of microform records, increase the ease of searching for microform master negatives, and carry information about member decisions to film items for preservation; † retrospective conversion of master negatives records from 11 member institutions for input into RLIN; and † the first significant cooperative preservation microfilming project.
A. Modification of RLIN Very early on, RLG members committed to using RLIN to support preservation efforts. The main goal was to alleviate a problem vexing previous preservation microfilming efforts: the difficulty of finding out if a master negative microfilm already existed for a particular title. Since there is a large overlap among core collections in research institutions, the potential for duplication of effort was great. With very little money allotted for preservation and the immense scope of the problem, it was critical to avoid duplicate efforts. The RLIN system enhancements allowed for flagging to indicate the existence of preservation microfilm. 2
Nancy Gwinn served as preservation program officer until 1983. Barbara Brown served in this position from 1983 to 1984; Patricia McClung led the program from 1984 to 1992; Nancy Elkington led from 1992 to 1996; Connie Brooks led the program as a visiting associate from August to December 1996, and since 1997, Robin Dale has been program officer responsible for preservation, digital imaging, and digital preservation.
Consortial Actions and Collaborative Achievements: RLG’s Preservation Program
5
Unlike most other network-based bibliographic systems, RLIN employs no “master record.” If more than one institution catalogs the same item, the system retains, permanently and in full, a separate record for each institution. The database is “clustered” so that all records for the same item are stored together logically. In 1980, using funds from the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation made available to RLG through the New York Public Library, the RLIN record displays were revised so that the location symbols for institutions owning a microform of a particular title were flagged with asterisks surrounding a code for the microform’s generation (e.g., an p ap after an institution’s symbol indicates it holds a master negative of a title, p bp indicates a duplicate or printing negative, and pcp signals a service or use copy). These codes make it possible to quickly search for and locate the existence of a title that has been microfilmed as well as view the record and identify the agency responsible for the microfilm production. Further enhancements came in 1982 when an additional field was added to RLIN records. Called the Queuing Date or QD field, this field allows institutions to signal their intention to microfilm a particular title, decreasing the likelihood that two or more institutions would film the same title. Once titles were filmed, the records were updated to indicate the existence of a preservation master and the QD field was removed. These enhancements came at a time when the national preservation effort was growing; RLIN played a critical role in allowing institutions to share information and responsibility for microfilming hundreds of thousands of brittle, endangered materials in a coordinated, cooperative fashion.
B. RLIN and Microfilm Masters Because of the enhancements to the RLIN system, further work was undertaken to alert institutions to titles which had already been microfilmed. In 1982, again with funds from the National Endowment for the Humanities, eleven RLG members converted records for existing microfilm negatives into machine-readable form and loaded them into RLIN. During a 2 year period, more than 22,500 records for member-produced microfilm were added into the database. As a part of this project, RLG produced a microfiche edition of all microform records in the RLIN database, as well as all records that included queuing dates. Called the RLG Preservation Union List and later the RLIN Register of Microform Masters, this information was produced annually through 1990 and was made available to institutions that did not have access to RLIN. By the end of the 1980s, exchange agreements between RLG and OCLC, the British Library, and the Bibliothe`que nationale de France were in place
6
Robin L. Dale
and the scope of RLIN database increased to include virtually all machinereadable records for master negatives, thus reducing the number of tools institutions had to consult to determine whether a title exists on microfilm. In the 1990s, the scope was again expanded with the addition of European Register of Microform Masters (EROMM) records into the database. These record exchanges support the goal to build a global access point for reformatted items for preservation. C. First Cooperative Microfilming Project Capitalizing on the enhanced and expanded RLIN database, in 1983 preservation program members embarked on the first phase of its Cooperative Preservation Microfilming Project (CPMP I). With $1.35 million funded in equal parts by the National Endowment for the Humanities and the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation, eight institutions filmed and cataloged on RLIN more than 30,000 American history and literature titles. The project produced high-quality microfilm of American imprints published from 1876 to 1900, tested the RLIN system enhancements, and developed procedures and technical guidelines for future projects (McClung, 1992). The successes of these major projects helped refine and shape not only the direction future RLG preservation program activities would take, but also the process by which activities would be identified and pursued. Projects would reflect national—and increasingly, international—interests rather than local interests. Projects would tackle difficult problems in generally unexplored or under-addressed territories and would produce guidelines and/or models that could serve as guidance for future projects. Finally, projects would be shaped to rely heavily on collaboration to achieve necessary progress on behalf of the wider preservation community.
V. Building on the Model: RLG Microfilming Projects The CPMP model served RLG and other organizations well. While computers were becoming commonplace and optical technologies were being tested for preservation applications at institutions like the Library of Congress, the decision to continue using 35 mm microfilm was agreed. Microfilm was understood to be the most stable and economic way to preserve materials by producing high-quality, long-lived surrogates. Further, the decision to reformat in the national interest rather than simply making a photocopy for continued local use was pivotal. The experience of the CPMP and its adaptable model led to the successful adoption of the model by
Consortial Actions and Collaborative Achievements: RLG’s Preservation Program
7
consortia and led to a call for its use as a significant building block of the developing national preservation program. A series of cooperative projects followed CPMP’s successful conclusion, many of them sponsored by RLG. Critical to each project was the shared philosophical construct based on seven assumptions: 1. Three generations of microfilm must be created and the camera negative must be deemed capable of lasting a minimum of 500 years in appropriate storage conditions; 2. The existence of all titles filmed must be “broadcast” via one or both of the two international bibliographic networks—RLIN and OCLC—so that all potential users may gain access to descriptions of preserved materials; 3. Copyright allowing, and regardless of consortial affiliation, all institutions and individuals should be able to purchase, borrow, or use copies of the resulting preservation microfilm; 4. No single project methodology addressed all existing needs within the membership, therefore, alternatives should continue to explored and tested; 5. Strategies for selection of materials to be preserved should be developed in harmony with the ways in which scholars and seekers of information actually use the particular materials; 6. Broad participation of all interested member institutions should be encouraged; and 7. Projects should be designed to “give something back” to the library and archival communities while at the same time furthering the goals of the consortium and those of the participating institutions (Elkington, 1992a). In the end, between 1983 and 1995, RLG members worked together to preserve more than 146,000 volumes and 25 collections (1200 linear feet) of archival materials on preservation microfilm. In addition to the preserved materials, the projects also “gave back” a multitude of new tools to assist preservation administrators with future projects. The following projects generated tools such as hands-on training in project management and microfilm quality control, model contracts, training materials for support staff, cost studies, and a series of “how-to” manuals to assist future efforts. A. Cooperative Preservation Microfilming Project, Phase II (CPMP II) The second phase of the project also focused on Americana with nine institutions microfilming 15,000 volumes. With support from the NEH, this project also undertook a cost study that yielded essential data used by
8
Robin L. Dale
the Commission on Preservation and Access (CPA) and the Council on Library Resources to convince Congress to dramatically increase its funding for the national brittle books program (McClung, 1986). B. East Asian Microfilming Project (1986 –1988) This project focused on brittle materials published in China between 1880 and 1949. Funded in part by the NEH, this project provided an opportunity to expand the filming guidelines to accommodate non-Roman scripts. Participants also took advantage of RLIN’s capacity to catalog materials in Chinese, Japanese, and Korean (CJK), so titles filmed were cataloged using original (vernacular) scripts. C. Great Collections Microfilming Project, Phases I –IV (1988 –1994) In 1988, the first phase of this project was funded in part by the NEH. Based upon a new selection approach which acknowledged that research libraries each have distinguished collections that they traditionally favor over time, the Great Collections projects focused on collections whose common denominator was “collection excellence.” GCMP I involved seven institutions, preserving 27,000 volumes and producing an updated analysis of preservation microfilming costs (CPMP II had produced the first analysis). GCMP II brought together nine institutions with little preservation experience into a project which provided training in preservation microfilming and management. More than 34,000 volumes were microfilmed. GCMP III and IV continued this theme and preserved over 30,000 titles from great collections. When GCMP IV was completed, 22 institutions—many without any prior experience—had participated in the $6.7 million, multi-phase project. Almost 100,000 volumes from great collections had been preserved on preservation microfilm. During the course of the project, the microfilming guidelines underwent major revision and were published as the RLG Preservation Microfilming Handbook (Elkington, 1992b), a tool facilitating organizations worldwide. D. Art Serials Preservation Project (1990 –1992) The RLG art community spent 4 years identifying nearly 100 art-based serial titles in desperate need of reformatting for which black-and-white microfilm would be an appropriate use medium. The project was then designed to test the viability of an effort in which 11 museums and university art libraries shipped all materials to a central location for collation and filming. Begun in 1990, this project also investigated the use of new filming techniques and
Consortial Actions and Collaborative Achievements: RLG’s Preservation Program
9
continuous tone microfilm in an attempt to expand the options available for preserving illustrated materials. E. Archives Preservation Microfilming Project (1990– 1993) In a first-of-its-kind project, 13 institutions microfilmed 25 unique archival and manuscript collections comprising over 1100 linear feet of records. Although archives had been microfilming records for years, processes and procedures for microfilming archival materials had not been standardized. Concentrating on archival materials important to American history research, APMP preserved the collections while producing a cost study, training materials, and another “how-to” manual, the RLG Archives Microfilming Manual (Elkington, 1994) that would assist future efforts.
VI. How-to Manuals: The RLG Guidelines for Preservation Microfilming One of the hallmarks of the RLG’s success is its ability to serve as a source of collaboration on policies and guidelines. In this way, the best minds with the most extensive experience in a particular area can be brought together productively in a consensual process. Throughout the years, the preservation community produced a variety of educational and training materials for preservation professionals. Probably the most well known and widely used has been the series of guidelines for preservation microfilming. Prepared by members of the Preservation Committee and RLG staff, the RLG Preservation Manual (1983) was designed to support the preservation program. The publication contained three main components: information about the preservation program, including responsibilities of members; guidelines for preservation microfilming to be used by participants of the CPMP; and a set of appendices which combined to function as “A Preservation Workbook.”3 As a complete publication, the manual served as a ready reference and was a means of sharing the expertise of preservation staff in member libraries and providing mutual assistance to local preservation 3 The Preservation Workbook was prepared by committee members under the guidance of R. Gay Walker (Yale University), and Margaret Byrnes (University of Michigan), with special assistance from Philip Cronenwett (Dartmouth College), Barbara Jones (New York University), and Sherry Byrne (Columbia University). Staff from the Library of Congress Preservation Office, including Peter Sparks, Pamela Darling, and Drs Robert E. Mc Comb and Donald Sebera reviewed and revised the document for technical accuracy. The balance of the manual and general guidance were provided by Nancy E. Gwinn and Patricia McClung, both former RLG staff members.
10
Robin L. Dale
activities. As a set of microfilming guidelines, it was a starter set that allowed the project managers to take established technical guidelines and standards and adapt them for use in the research library environment. Throughout the course of the first CPMP (1983 – 1986), project managers worked together to revise and refine the microfilming guidelines in the RLG Preservation Manual. Although they were not aware of it at the time, the project managers of the first CPMP literally “wrote the book” on how to interpret and apply technical microfilming standards to produce high-quality, long-lived preservation microfilm. According to McClung (1992), until that time, there was a large gap between existing standards and actual practice and very little understanding of how to implement a large-scale microfilming project in the research library setting. Further, participants had to work out important details regarding the preparation of materials for filming, the production of targets for the film, quality control and inspection procedures, as well as issues related to effective bibliographic control and storage of master negatives, printing masters and service copies. By pooling expertise, the project managers, together with RLG staff, camera operators, lab managers, and support staff, hammered out the practical details and standardized procedures over the course of the project.4 In all succeeding projects, the preservation community benefited from the development of new tools and the improvement of existing ones. Using information and experience gathered through the cooperative microfilming projects, the microfilm guidance provided in the original RLG Preservation Manual (1983) was revised and expanded into two dedicated manuals on the topic. In 1992, the RLG Preservation Microfilming Handbook (Elkington, 1992b) was published, codifying best practice for selection, preparation, microfilming, bibliographic description, and storage of preservation microfilm. Two years later, participants of the Archives Preservation Microfilming Project combined their knowledge with microfilming experts to produce the RLG Archives Microfilming Manual. This 1994 publication applied and adapted principles of the earlier handbook to archival preservation while addressing the special problems involved in selecting, preparing, filming, and providing access to archival materials being preserved on microfilm. Even today, the RLG Preservation Microfilming Handbook (Elkington, 1992b) and the RLG Archives Microfilming Manual (Elkington, 1994) remain the foundation documents for preservation microfilming efforts globally and 4
This pioneering group of project managers included R. Gay Walker, Barclay Ogden, Don Kelsey, Carolyn Harris (followed by Sherry Byrne), Margaret Byrnes, Rosemary Cullen, and John Baker.
Consortial Actions and Collaborative Achievements: RLG’s Preservation Program
11
the de facto standards for production of high-quality preservation microfilm in the United States and beyond.
VII. Beyond Microfilming Though probably best known for its microfilming efforts, microfilming was only one part of the umbrella of RLG preservation activities. As the first Preservation Committee planned back in 1974, procedures, training, and tools for local preservation programs, and other activities were also on the longstanding agenda. The successes from the collaborative model for microfilming led to an increase in preservation program membership and participation, as well as an expansion in the preservation needs of the increasingly diverse group. Members expressed the desire to apply RLG’s cooperative model to tackle other preservation challenges they faced. At a 1989 Preservation Committee retreat in Snowbird, Utah, the RLG preservation committee created a new agenda for the 1990s in response to the changing needs of its members. In addition to large cooperative microfilming projects, the committee set plans in motion for new initiatives which would: develop tools to assess institutional preservations needs and methods for measuring the success of local preservation programs; explore options and strategies for preserving collections of photographic images; and address preservation issues related to non-traditional media, such as information stored in electronic formats (McClung, 1989). While many programs were created to address the “Brittle Books” problem through preservation microfilming, preservation administrators found their responsibilities expanding to include oversight of conservation activities, environmental monitoring, and preservation of materials beyond brittle books. This new agenda reflected and addressed the increasingly comprehensive roles that preservation programs were assuming.
VIII. Needs Assessment A key Snowbird recommendation was to develop a needs assessment tool to assist those surveying library collections in identifying preservation priorities. Over the next two years, the Needs Assessment Task Force worked to create such a tool. In 1991, having built on the work of Barclay Ogden’s manual California Preservation Needs Assessment Survey Instrument (Ogden, 1991) and other extant survey mechanisms, the task force released a tool that was tailored for the RLG environment, the RLG Preservation Needs Assessment Package (Print Materials) (1991).
12
Robin L. Dale
The RLG Preservation Needs Assessment Package (Print Materials) was designed to be useful for collections containing a wide range of printed formats, including books, scores, serials, as well as films, magnetic media, and sound recordings. Called PreNAPP, the design of this tool differed from earlier condition surveys because it focused on the weighted assessment of four factors: access and use, housing or environmental risks, condition, and value. For the first time, a needs assessment tool also included a software component to allow for statistical analysis.5 PreNAPP remained available until 1997, when CALIPR, a revised, automated version of the original California Preservation Needs Assessment Survey Instrument was released.6
IX. Photograph Preservation It was not surprising that another key Snowbird recommendation was to address the preservation of photographic materials. Research libraries have long been guardians of the pictorial record our history and experiences. By the 1970s, curators and experts had realized that the inherent problems of early photographic processes and materials had placed at risk the voluminous photographic record of the late 19th and first half of the 20th century. Citing the contributions members had made in developing model projects to preserve printed materials as well as in establishing guidelines and training materials, the preservation program members called for an initiative to explore options and strategies for preserving deteriorating collections of photographic materials (RLG, 1989). In October 1990, RLG sponsored a 2 day symposium focusing on preservation issues of large photograph collections housed in research libraries and repositories. Many libraries, archives, or repositories have responsibility for large photographic collections though few had the expertise or resources to mount large-scale preservation programs to target this material. The symposium discussed issues related to photograph collections, including bibliographic control and access, environmental standards and storage, and duplication or reformatting of photographs. It also discussed strategies for approaching preservation problems inherent in photographic collections and yielded recommendations for possible cooperative actions and projects to address the problems, including the use of “new technologies” (RLG, 1991). 5
Walter Henry, a conservator at Stanford University, served as the software consultant for the project. 6 CALIPR is still available and can be found at http://sunsite.berkeley.edu/CALIPR/.
Consortial Actions and Collaborative Achievements: RLG’s Preservation Program
13
Following the symposium, the Task Force on Photograph Preservation was launched to investigate the use of the new optical and digital technologies for photograph reformatting, storage, and retrieval. As a result, two groundbreaking projects were developed to explore the use of digital technology to address issues inherent in accessing and preserving large photograph collections, the Digital Image Access Project (DIAP) and the Technical Images Test Project. A. Digital Image Access Project and the Technical Images Test Project The DIAP was a 1 year collaborative project to explore the capabilities of digital technology for managing access to large photograph collections. Eight member institutions worked together to: (1) explore access and description issues for digitized photographs; (2) explore intellectual control; (3) develop guidelines and models to assist institutions in beginning local projects; and (4) test and display a range of digital models for photograph collections to guide institutions in meeting local needs. The project worked to capitalize on the early digital environment for improving access to collections, not just for local access, but in a shared, networked environment. In all, nearly 9000 photographs were digitized and specialized image access software was created. The Technical Images Test Project was to be a “simple” project— conducted in partnership with the Image Permanence Institute—to investigate a broad range of options for image capture, display, compression, and reproduction, and to document and demonstrate how each of those factors affected the perceived quality of the image as well as its cost. It was believed that such an investigative project would provide the kinds of information that collections managers in libraries and archives need in order to make informed decisions about the use of digital technology for preservation and access (RLG, 1995). Though the project was brief, it was able to identify some of the key technical issues and problems in the use of digital imaging for preservation.
X. Digitization and Digital Preservation The early 1990s brought the first serious discussions about the use of digital technologies for preservation purposes. Donald Waters’ From Microfilm to Digital Imagery (Waters, 1991) discussed the feasibility of a project to convert large quantities of library materials preserved on microfilm to digital images and Anne Kenney and Lynne Personius described a joint Cornell University— Xerox Corporation project to convert 1000 brittle books to digital images in Joint Study in Digital Preservation (Kenney and Personius, 1992). Preservation
14
Robin L. Dale
administrators felt a firm push to accept this new and exciting technology as a preservation option even though the preservation community was uncertain about its merits for this purpose. In June of 1992, Waters presented “Electronic Technologies and Preservation” at the RLG Annual Meeting in which he called for forums to address methods and standards for the production, storage and distribution of digital images, as well as issues of digitization quality standards (Waters, 1992). Some of these questions were being addressed by members through the DIAP and the Technical Images Test Project; other institutions also had digital image testbed projects underway. In an effort to develop a common understanding as to how digital image technology might be applied to preservation challenges, RLG sponsored a symposium in March 1994, Digital Imaging Technology for Preservation (RLG, 1994). Hosted by Cornell University, the symposium brought together more than 90 people from the preservation community for a first-of-its kind training session in digital imaging technology for preservation and library professionals. Over the course of 2 days, participants learned about specific digital image options and their use in capturing a variety of document types and became familiar with key issues such as image quality, costs, standards, access options, storage, and migration strategies. Following the symposium, preservation program members met to identify high priorities for future collaborative activities. Guided by the recommendations from the symposium and the changing needs of members, the preservation program agenda shifted focus in the mid1990s to concentrate solely on two new challenging areas: (1) providing tools and developing best practices for institutions wishing to produce and describe high-quality digital images; and (2) advancing the library, archives, and museum communities’ understanding of and competence in managing the growing body of digital materials. Both areas were problem sets that no single institutions working alone could effectively address. As with earlier efforts, working groups, consultancies, and partnerships with like-minded organizations have resulted in projects and publications that move the community ahead in digitization and digital preservation. A. Digitization The library, archives, and museum communities were quick to embrace digitization as a tool for building electronic collections. Though digitization had yet to be accepted as a preservation replacement option, many preservation administrators suddenly found scanners and digital cameras placed in their microfilm studios and labs. Still others found themselves called upon for “expert” advice by collection managers anxious to digitize materials.
Consortial Actions and Collaborative Achievements: RLG’s Preservation Program
15
The call for tools and guidance to underpin digitization projects came quickly from preservation program members. In 1997, several new initiatives moved the agenda forward in addressing the concerns and needs of its members: RLG contracted with Cornell University’s Department of Preservation and Conservation to produce a series of tools designed to assist member institutions with issues related to digital imaging projects. Specific needs identified included the development of three model documents: a Request for Information (RFI), a Request for Proposals (RFP), and a contract for digital imaging services. These documents were similar in nature to those created for contract microfilming services (that had been published in the two RLG microfilming manuals). The Working Group on Preservation Reformatting Information formed to develop best descriptive practices for high-quality digital images within machine-readable cataloging (MARC) records. The group’s final recommendations were subsequently adopted for implementation in MARC21. The Working Group on Preservation Metadata was formed to identify the descriptive data elements that should be associated with digital master files that have preservation-based intent. Its final report identified sixteen elements representing information that the working group deemed crucial to the continued viability of a digital master file. The Working Group on Digital Imaging was tasked to compile best practices for digitization. To aid in its work, RLG and the National Preservation Office (U.K.) jointly sponsored an international conference to create an opportunity for exchange of ideas on the content and focus of the guidelines and to reach consensus on purpose, scope, and practical implementation implications of the guidelines and evolving best practices. Guidelines for Digital Imaging, held in September 1998 in the United Kingdom, addressed guidelines for the selection of collections, guidelines for the preparation of materials, guidelines for digital image capture, issues and approaches to preservation metadata, and discussed progress toward evolving best practices in digital preservation (Research Libraries Group and National Preservation Office, 1998). Teaming again with Cornell University’s Department of Preservation and Conservation, the Managing Digital Imaging Projects workshop series was designed and launched in late 1997. Over the next 3 years, seven, 2 day workshops were held in the North America, Europe, and Australia and trained roughly 200 professionals in digital imaging and digital projects management. RLG DigiNews7 was launched in 1997. It is a bimonthly Web-based newsletter focused on issues of vital interest to managers of digital initiatives. 7
RLG DigiNews can be found at http://www.rlg.org.
16
Robin L. Dale
Now in its 7th year of publication, RLG DigiNews provides filtered guidance and pointers to relevant projects, improving awareness of evolving practices in image conversion and digital archiving, while featuring announcements for related publications (in any form) that will help staff attain a deeper understanding of digital issues. Other digitization-related initiatives naturally followed on to the many efforts begun in 1997. In 1998, RLG joined with the Digital Library Federation (DLF) and the Council on Library and Information Resources to review the state of the art in digital imaging of visual resources (original photographs, prints, drawings, maps, etc.). While sources for instruction in digitizing text or text and images were covered in earlier efforts, none specifically addressed the challenges of 2- and 3D, as well as color-intensive, materials. The result of this collaboration produced a set of guides that explains the science of imaging—objective measures for image qualities and how they can be controlled in various aspects of the imaging process. The Guides to Quality in Visual Resources Imaging (2000) are available online at http://www.rlg.org/visguides/. RLG’s very successful collaborative efforts with Cornell University’s Department of Preservation and Conservation led to a collaborative initiative to provide a monograph of digitization guidance for members and others. Over a 2 year period, RLG worked with Anne R. Kenney and Oya Y. Rieger, as well as more than 50 experts to produce and publish Moving Theory Into Practice: Digital Imaging for Libraries and Archives (2000). Designed to be a self-help reference for libraries and archives that choose to reformat cultural resources to digital image form, it focuses on the interdependent circle of considerations associated with digital imaging programs in cultural institutions. Moving Theory Into Practice provides guidance as a means for helping institutions to specify, create, and implement their own guidelines according to their local specifics and needs. In August 2001, the Society of American Archivists presented its Waldo Gifford Leland Award “for writing of superior excellence and usefulness in the field of archival history, theory, or practice” to Anne R. Kenney and Oya Y. Rieger of Cornell University for Moving Theory Into Practice. Most recently, RLG published guidance on an activity which blended some members’ expertise with preservation microfilming and digitization: the so-called “hybrid approach.” For several years, preservation program members requested that RLG update the microfilming guidelines to cover the hybrid approach. At the time, no large-scale, cooperative microfilming projects were underway to serve as the basis for the development of guidelines that would be accepted and endorsed by the preservation community. However, in the past few years, the culmination of institutional projects, expert advice, and cooperative learning identified a combination of factors
Consortial Actions and Collaborative Achievements: RLG’s Preservation Program
17
that contribute to the creation of preservation microfilm that can be effectively and efficiently scanned to produce high-quality digital images. In early 2003, a new guidance document addressing the hybrid approach was released. The RLG Guidelines for Microfilming to Support Digitization (2003) represent the state-of-the-art thinking on improvements to film preparation processes and certain technical microfilming specifications for high-quality microfilm that is cost-effective to scan.8 In using these guidelines, libraries and archives around the world will be able to utilize the viable option of using microfilm for preservation and digitization of the microfilm for enhanced access. B. Digital Preservation All research resources need care and attention to survive, but digital research resources need more attention, often much sooner than resources on paper. The inherent fragility of digital materials leaves only a small window of opportunity to address this problem before resources are lost on an everlarger scale. Given its collective, long history of initiatives to preserve traditional research resources, it is not surprising that RLG members recognized the need to ensure enduring access to new and important electronic resources through digital preservation. And as with traditional preservation, appropriate solutions and guidance would need to be developed collaboratively, with expertise gathered from across a range of institutions and organizations. As early as 1994, member institutions were calling for assistance and advice to help preserve for future generations the rapidly expanding corpus of digital information representing our cultural record. A great deal of information was already available digitally and even at its early stages, the World Wide Web was dramatically changing the modes of information delivery. At the end of 1994, the CPA and RLG created the Task Force on the Archiving of Digital Information and charged it with investigating and recommending means to ensure “continued access indefinitely into the future of records stored in digital electronic form. In May 1996, the 21 member task force, co-chaired by Donald Waters and John Garrett, completed their final report, Preserving Digital Information: Final Report and Recommendations. This seminal report provided an analysis of the digital landscape, “focusing on features, including stakeholder interests, that affect the integrity of digital information objects and which determine the ability of digital archives to preserve such objects over the long term” (CPA-RLG, 1996). The report 8 The RLG Guidelines for Microfilming to Support Digitization were written by Lars Meyer, Emory University and Janet Gertz, Columbia University.
18
Robin L. Dale
described the roles and responsibilities associated with the critical functions of managing digital archives, strategies for migration of digital information, and costs and financial matters. In doing so, Preserving Digital Information raised awareness of digital preservation issues, proposed general strategies for addressing them, and laid the foundation for further necessary work in digital preservation. By 1997, many RLG members had acquired large amounts of digital materials through several different channels, including purchasing digital information from publishers or distributors, legal deposit or transfer, donations, and licensing access to online databases. Institutions had also created digital information through programs or projects that converted print, photographic, and manuscript material to digital form. The size of the digital collections, combined with projected growth provoked concern from member institutions. Two years after the release of Preserving Digital Information, little widespread work was underway to address the impending digital preservation problem, especially on a local, programmatic level. To scope the problem, as well as to assess where guidance, education and training, and digital preservation services might be required, RLG commissioned a survey by Dr. Margaret Hedstrom and Sheon Montgomery (1998). Digital Preservation Needs and Requirements in RLG Member Institutions found that by 1998, two-thirds of institutions surveyed had already assumed responsibility for preserving materials in digital form and within 3 years, 98% expected to have responsibility for preserving both acquired (“born digital”) items and materials they had converted to digital form (Hedstrom and Montgomery, 1998). More worrisome were other findings, including that only half of institutions with growing digital collections had policies related to acquisitions, conversion, storage, and refreshing/migration; almost half of member institutions with digital holdings also lacked the capacity to mount, read, or access some of the storage media they had; and finally, three-quarters of respondents believed that irreplaceable information would be lost is digital preservation issues were not addressed (Hedstrom and Montgomery, 1998). Though the survey results presented a troubling, widening scope, it also yielded information which would ultimately set the stage for further collaborative work within the preservation program. There was consensus that members were looking to RLG to develop standards, guidelines, and training that would assist institutions at various stages of their evolving digital preservation programs. Among the areas identified for future work, infrastructure for long-term preservation, international coordination, and the integration of archival, museum, and special collections into the mainstream of digital preservation activities were seem as priorities. These priorities have shaped the activities of the preservation program over the last 4 years.
Consortial Actions and Collaborative Achievements: RLG’s Preservation Program
19
Several activities over the last four years have involved collaboration not only among member institutions and experts in the field, but also with key standards-building groups and other like-minded organizations. Following on the recommendations from the 1996 Task Force report, RLG has continued to work with—and on behalf of—members to advance the infrastructure-building process for digital preservation. The work done gives members a collective voice in preservation practices worldwide, helps them to expand local expertise, and fosters practical, readily applied solutions to key issues in long-term retention. Recent key activities and collaborative partners include: In 1998, RLG began working with the Consultative Committee on Space Data Systems on the development of their Reference Model for an Open Archival Information System (OAIS) (Consultative Committee for Space Data Systems, 2002). The OAIS is a conceptual framework for an archival system dedicated to preserving and maintaining access to digital information over the long term. RLG and many members of our partner organizations have played key roles in shaping the reference model and in adapting the reference model for use in libraries, archives, and research repositories. RLG’s 5 year participation in the OAIS standards-building process led to our successful collaboration with OCLC on several OAIS-related initiatives. In 2003, RLG continues to promote the OAIS reference model by hosting events and workshops, publishing papers, collaborating with other organizations on task forces and new initiatives, and providing opportunities for institutions using or adapting the OAIS model. In March 2000, RLG and OCLC announced two joint initiatives that would contribute to the creation of digital archiving infrastructure. Building on and incorporating the emerging international standard of the Reference Model for an Open Archival Information System (OAIS) and other key projects, RLG and OCLC members collaborated on two important pieces of the digital preservation puzzle: defining the attributes of a digital repository for research organizations; and developing a framework outlining the types of metadata that should be associated with an archived digital object. † The RLG-OCLC Working Group on Digital Archive Attributes, comprised international experts from member institutions and partner organizations, was charged to define the characteristics of reliable archiving services for heterogeneous research collections. Their final report, Trusted Digital Repositories: Attributes and Responsibilities (2002), articulated the framework of attributes and responsibilities for trusted, reliable, sustainable digital repositories capable of handling the range of materials held by large and small research institutions. The final report includes a definition, attributes, and responsibilities of
20
Robin L. Dale
“trusted digital repositories,” and contains recommendations for further work. † Tasked to develop community consensus on preservation metadata, the OCLC-RLG Preservation Metadata Working Group produced two important, foundational documents. The first, a white paper entitled Preservation Metadata for Digital Objects: A Review of the State of the Art, examined the “state-of the-art” in the use of metadata in support of digital preservation. It discusses the concept of preservation metadata, reviewed current thinking and practice in the use of preservation metadata, and identified the starting points for the working group’s consensus-building activities. One year later, the group’s final report addressing preservation metadata and the OAIS model was issued. A Metadata Framework to Support the Preservation of Digital Objects (2002) is a comprehensive guide to preservation metadata that is applicable to a broad range of digital preservation activities. † A final, related joint RLG-OCLC activity addressing preservation metadata is currently underway. A new working group, Preservation Metadata: Implementation Strategies has been formed to develop recommendations and best practices for implementing preservation metadata. The working group is expected to deliver its final report in early 2004. More information is available online at http://www.oclc.org/ research/pmwg/. Since 1999, RLG has shared a fruitful working relationship and strategic partnership with the Joint Information Systems Committee (JISC) in the United Kingdom. One of the key areas of partnership has been the long-term retention of research collections in digital form. RLG staff served on the advisory group of the CURL (Consortium of University Research Libraries (UK)) Exemplars in Digital Archiving (Cedars) project, as well as its follow-on project, CAMILEON (Creative Archiving at Michigan and Leeds: Emulating the Old and the New). RLG and JISC have also co-sponsored several digital preservation conferences, including Preservation 2000: an International Conference on the Preservation and Long Term Accessibility of Digital Materials (http://www.rlg.org/events/pres-2000/prespapers.html) and Information Infrastructures for Digital Preservation (http://www.rlg.org/events/ pres-2000/infopapers.html). Finally, RLG is an active, founding member of the JISC’s Digital Preservation Coalition (http://www.dpconline.org/). Since its inception, RLG has worked with the National Library of Australia on its Preserving Access to Digital Information (PADI) initiative by serving on its international advisory group and as a reviewer. The PADI initiative aims to provide mechanisms that will help to ensure that information in digital form is managed with appropriate consideration for
Consortial Actions and Collaborative Achievements: RLG’s Preservation Program
21
preservation and future access and does so through the PADI subject gateway (http://www.nla.gov.au/padi/) and a discussion list. PADI has become a highly recommended international gateway for digital preservation information. As with digitization initiatives, RLG periodically partners with the DLF on digital preservation initiatives. From 1998 to 1999, RLG and DLF cosponsored a task force on digital preservation policy and practice. More recently, RLG is participating in a new activity the DLF is currently sponsoring, the Global Digital Format Registry. A significant piece of digital repository infrastructure, the Global Digital Format Registry would provide unambiguous identifier authority control and standardized format descriptions for all digital objects while obviating the necessity for local repositories to create format registries. For operational digital repositories, this information is of great value for planning ongoing preservation activities or doing a bit of digital archaeology, if necessary in the future. This initiative began in January 2003 and will likely continue for several years. Most recently, RLG has teamed with the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) to address another critical component of digital repository infrastructure. The Task Force on Digital Repository Certification (http://www.rlg.org/longterm/certification.html) has been charged to create a mechanism for ensuring that a digital repository is capable of reliably storing, migrating, and providing access to digital collections in its care. Task force members representing libraries, archives, museums, professional organizations, and industry will design a certification framework to address the range of activities, functions, and responsibilities associated with trusted repositories. The work of the task force is expected to take 1 year and at its conclusion will have helped to advance the digital archiving infrastructure upon which all research repositories will depend.
XI. Conclusion Over the last 29 years, the RLG preservation community has worked collaboratively to achieve far more than the then-formidable list of goals identified by the original 1974 Preservation Committee. Its long-term contributions to preservation are woven into the very fabric of many preservation programs the world over. From its earliest days, the preservation program and its participants helped give shape to the growing national preservation effort and together, over time, they developed a variety of models for cooperative action against intimidating problems. Together, the preservation program has developed consortial preservation selection methodologies; developed standards for preservation
22
Robin L. Dale
microfilm; microfilmed 146,300 volumes, 1200 linear feet of archival collections ($10,092,000 spent on preservation microfilming); preserved 8000 photo images; created a collections needs evaluation tool, gathered and loaded more than 2 million RLIN records for preservation microfilm produced in North America and around the world; and documented consensus on a range of pivotal preservation issues in the past 25 years. Symposia have served to stimulate discussion around emergent themes; workshops have trained member institutions staff in preservation microfilming, digital imaging of photographs and paper media, managing digital imaging projects, and digital preservation; publications have been produced when wide community dissemination is deemed critical; and an ongoing investment in the codification of best practices leading to national and international standards has been and continues to be a hallmark of RLG preservation initiatives. RLG’s work continues to be intertwined with that of dozens of national and international organizations and hundreds of individuals, all of whom are united in their desire to move the field forward toward a single, common goal: to preserve and provide equitable access to disintegrating collections via the most appropriate technology available. Sharing of expertise and building on the successes of others is how we will collectively reach that goal. References Consultative Committee for Space Data Systems. (2002). Reference Model for an Open Archival Information System (OAIS), CCSDS 650.0-B-1, Blue Book, January 2002. http://www.classic. ccsds.org/documents/pdf/CCSDS-650.0-B-1.pdf. Digital Imaging Technology for Preservation: Proceedings from an RLG Symposium Held March 17 and 18, 1994. (1994). The Research Libraries Group, Mountain View, CA. Elkington, N. E. (1992a). Cooperation in preservation microfilming: a consortial perspective. Paper presented at the NAGARA Annual Conference, Washington, DC. Elkington, N. E. (Ed.) (1992b). RLG Preservation Microfilming Handbook. Research Libraries Group, Mountain View, CA. Elkington, N. E. (1994). RLG Archives Microfilming Manual. Research Libraries Group, Mountain View, CA. Guides to Quality in Visual Resource Imaging (2000). RLG/Council and Library Information Resources, Mountain View, CA/Washington, DC. http://www.rlg.org/visguides/. Hedstrom, M., and Montgomery, S. (1998). Digital Preservation Needs & Requirements in RLG Member Institutions, RLG, Mountain View, CA. http://www.rlg.org/preserv/digpres.html. Kenney, A. R., and Personius, L. (1992). Joint Study in Digital Preservation, Commission on Preservation and Access, Washington, DC. A Metadata Framework to Support the Preservation of Digital Objects (2002). OCLC, Dublin, OH. http://www.oclc.org/research/pmwg/presmeta_wp.pdf. McClung, P. A. (1986). Costs associated with preservation microfilming: results of the Research Libraries Group Study. Library Resources and Technical Services 30, 363–374.
Consortial Actions and Collaborative Achievements: RLG’s Preservation Program
23
McClung, P. A. (1989). Unpublished minutes of the RLG Preservation Committee Snowbird Planning Retreat. McClung, P. A. (1992). Consortial action: RLG’s preservation program. In: Advances in Preservation and Access (B. B. Higginbotham and M. E. Jackson, eds.), pp. 61–70. Meckler, Westport, Connecticut. Ogden, B. (1991). California Preservation Needs Assessment Survey Instrument. University of California, Berkeley, CA. Photograph Preservation and the Research Library (1991). The Research Libraries Group, Mountain View, CA. Preservation Metadata for Digital Objects: A Review of the State of the Art (2002). OCLC, Dublin, OH. http://www.oclc.org/research/pmwg/pm_framework.pdf. Preserving Digital Information: the Final Report of the Task Force on the Archiving of Digital Information (1996). Commission on Preservation and Access/Research Libraries Group, Washington, DC/Mountain View, CA. Research Libraries Group and National Preservation Office. (1998). Proceedings from the Guidelines for Digital Imaging Conference, 28–30 September 1998. http://www.rlg.org/ longterm/repositories.pdf. RLG Contributes to National Preservation Efforts (1989). Research Libraries Group News 20, 3– 6. RLG Digital Image Access Project (1995). Research Libraries Group, Mountain View, CA. RLG Guidelines for Microfilming to Support Digitization (2003). RLG, Mountain View, CA. http://www.rlg.org/preserv/microsuppl.pdf. RLG Preservation Manual (1986). Research Libraries Group, Stanford, California. RLG Preservation Needs Assessment Package (Print Materials). (1991). Research Libraries Group, Mountain View, CA. Trusted Digital Repositories: Attributes and Responsibilities (2002). RLG, Mountain View, CA. http://www.rlg.org/longterm/repositories.pdf. Waters, D. J. (1991). From Microfilm to Digital Imagery, Commission on Preservation and Access, Washington, DC. Waters, D. J. (1992). Electronic Technologies and Preservation, Commission on Preservation and Access, Washington, DC. Williams, E.E. (1975). Unpublished minutes of the first two RLG Preservation Committee meetings.
OCLC’s Digital Preservation Program for the Next Generation Library Meg Bellinger, Pam Kircher, Taylor Surface and Leah Houser OCLC Digital and Preservation Resources, OCLC, Online Computer Library Center Inc., Mail Code 131, 6565 Frantz Road, Dublin, Ohio 43017 – 3395, USA
I. Introduction A. Purpose of this Chapter On August 26, 1971, OCLC introduced the online union catalog and shared cataloging system. During the 1970s, OCLC focused its efforts on creating and expanding the online cataloging system and telecommunications network. It added an online interlibrary loan system in 1979. In the 1980s, OCLC began adapting distributed computing and microcomputing technologies as its product and service lines expanded to some 60 offerings. The organization also began looking at ways to move beyond bibliography by furnishing information not only to library staffs, but also to library patrons. In the 1990s, OCLC launched a new core business in reference services. (Smith, 1998, pp. 251 –252). Now, in the 21st century, OCLC is introducing tools, services and infrastructure to manage the life cycle of digital content in libraries. This chapter will describe how current developments at OCLC build upon the first generation digital library, when the OCLC cooperative learned to build and sustain a nonprofit, membership model for bibliographic information that was then unique. OCLC became the steward for this content and developed the infrastructure and processes to maintain and preserve the membership asset—WorldCat, an online bibliographic database—to ensure its viability and functionality. This vision was extended in 2001, when OCLC published a document entitled “Extending the OCLC Cooperative: A Three-year Strategy.” The document outlines a plan for libraries and OCLC to transform WorldCat from a bibliographic database and online union catalog into a globally networked information resource of
ADVANCES IN LIBRARIANSHIP, VOL. 27 q 2004 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved ISSN: 0065-2830 DOI: 10.1016/S0065-2830(03)27002-1
25
26
Meg Bellinger et al.
text, graphics, sound, and motion. The reconceptualization of WorldCat will result ultimately in a global knowledgebase supported by a set of integrated, Web-based tools and services that facilitate contribution, description, discovery, access, exchange, delivery, and preservation of knowledge objects as well as the expertise of participating institutions. This extension furthers the original vision of OCLC founder and first president Frederick G. Kilgour: Libraries must look forward to supplying information to a user when and where he needs it—an objective impossible to attain with classical library techniques. (Kilgour, 1972, pp. 141 – 147) Electronic publishing will make it possible for libraries to furnish their users with information in ways that Gutenberg technology did not make possible. (Kilgour, 1983, pp. 41 –53) By the end of the century, however, librarians, even though they surely will not have discarded bibliography and its associated printed materials, will be well out ‘beyond’ bibliography. (Kilgour, 1987, p. 46) To extend the OCLC cooperative, OCLC is developing new products and services and enhancing current offerings in its three main service areas: Cataloging and Metadata services, Cooperative Discovery Services, and Digital Collection and Preservation Services (DCPS). Formalized in November 2001, DCPS is OCLC’s newest division, whose charge is to develop the tools and services to preserve content in the digital era, and thus to extend the OCLC cooperative by meeting the challenges of creating and sustaining access to and preservation of the global knowledgebase’s contents. This chapter focuses on OCLC’s new division and how it will support preservation of the next generation digital library. Three key articles published in the first half of 2002 provide a useful overview of digital library developments and visions of the next generation of digital libraries. Besser’s (2002), Greenstein’s (2002), and Lougee’s (2002) will be referred to in the course of this chapter. In an assessment of the current state of the art of digital library development, Besser, Greenstein, and Lougee view the beginning of the 21st century as a time of coalescence and integration of the technological challenges faced by libraries in the previous four decades. These authors all identify a transitional point that has arrived in the community, where the rate of adoption of technology and experimentation has led to a readiness for the next stage of programmatic development that necessitates cooperative activity. OCLC’s current strategic plan and subsequent development priorities recognize the need to bring the strength of the OCLC cooperative to bear on the challenges faced by each of its members in developing digital library capabilities. The current development program for OCLC’s DCPS division
OCLC’s Digital Preservation Program for the Next Generation Library
27
clearly shows that OCLC will be a significant stakeholder in developing the next generation digital library.
B. Structure of this Chapter Greenstein, Besser, and Lougee use different terms to describe the developmental stages of the digital library Lougee refers to three phases covering the 1990s and the early part of the 2000s (Lougee, 2002). Greenstein speaks of the three generations of digital libraries beginning in the 1960s (Greenstein, 2002). Besser describes digital library stages as experimental, developmental, and mature (Besser, 2002). Section II of this chapter will relate the activities of OCLC’s digital library development to the ones identified by the authors. Following Greenstein’s model of three generations of the digital library, this chapter will show how OCLC has been part of the development of the first large-scale library systems and cooperative cataloging, interlibrary loan and online reference. It has also contributed to the experimentation and developments in cooperative preservation and digitization, and is now evolving its third generation digital library through the efforts of the newly formed division. Section III will provide details about the development of the OCLC DCPS including an overview of its outreach programs, services, tools, and digital archive development.
II. OCLC and Three Generations of Digital Library Development OCLC has been part of the fabric of digital library development since its inception in 1967. Thirty-six years later, OCLC continues to actively engage in research and development strategies to develop information, best practices, and services to support the needs of the “next generation digital library.” Besser, Greenstein, and Lougee identify three distinct phases of development that have led to the current state of the digital library. The earliest stage was characterized by the development of cooperative efforts for shared cataloging and the widespread adoption of technology in libraries to manage electronic bibliographic records. The next phase of development was characterized by experimentation, especially with the digitization of library collections and the development of standards and best practices. The third and current phase sees the need for the development of new models and services for sustainability and interoperability.
28
Meg Bellinger et al.
A. First Generation Digital Library In Greenstein’s model, the first stage digital library developed over a period starting in the late 1960s and ending in the early 1990s (Greenstein, 2002). This stage saw widespread adoption of library systems and the beginnings of library cooperation. The focus was on “taming the bibliographic record” by developing online catalogs. Besser notes tools such as union catalogs and services such as interlibrary loan as having produced an interoperable library network that was able to search for and deliver material from afar long before the advent of the World Wide Web (Besser, 2002). These developments institutionalized systems-wide activity and hardware/software applications in libraries while setting the stage for early library cooperatives based on technology and resource sharing. As noted above, OCLC’s development through these decades is a clear reflection of the movement in the community towards automation and resource sharing. It was also in the 1980s and early 1990s that cooperative preservation reformatting programs developed and matured, using the shared metadata in the bibliographic utilities to coordinate large-scale preservation microfilming programs and to share newly preserved resources. OCLC’s WorldCat and its management support of the Mid-Atlantic Micrographic Preservation Services (MAPS—now Preservation Resources in Bethlehem, PA), contributed significant infrastructure and services to the cooperative preservation program. In the 1980s, at the request of its founding board of research libraries, OCLC assumed control of MAPS in order to infuse the organization with the necessary capital to enable it to build infrastructure and processes to fulfill its mission of bringing high-quality, cost-effective reformatting services to the library community. B. Second Generation Digital Library Greenstein’s second generation digital library spans the 1990s (Greenstein, 2002). It has been focused around the Internet, is experimental and opportunistic in nature, primarily institution-based, and is focused on developing standards and best practices. Lougee describes this period as Phase 1: The Growth of Distributed Technologies (Lougee, 2002). In this period, the maturation of the Web and distributed computing has democratized technology by bringing it to the desktop. Importantly, this period is one in which standards are developed for the creation, structuring, and dissemination of digital content. Greenstein and Besser emphasize the importance during the 1990s of digitization projects, experimentation, and the funding opportunities for developing the base for today’s emerging digital programs. However, as Greenstein puts it, the Internet, or “the ubiquitous distribution channel, emerged for libraries as simply an additional means of
OCLC’s Digital Preservation Program for the Next Generation Library
29
delivering traditional services.” In fact, as Greenstein points out, early automation in general has been characterized as the application of new technology to old processes (Greenstein, 2002). While digitization was taking place in an experimental mode, digital library research was getting significant funding. Besser notes that significant federal funding in the 1990s engendered the adoption of the term “Digital Library,” and tended to focus pure research in computer science on issues of architecture and information retrieval. Greenstein characterizes the 1990s as the decade of the second generation digital library development that resulted in significant hands-on experiences, a maturing common vocabulary, hard-earned recommendations for best practice, a rapidly improving tool set, and a suite of frameworks, benchmarks, models, and standards. This is reflected in the publications of the decade. In 1996, a task force co-sponsored by the Commission on Preservation and Access (CPA) and Research Libraries Group (RLG) issued the seminal report Preserving Digital Information Report of the Task Force on Archiving of Digital Information to “frame the key problems that need to be resolved…to ensure continuing access to electronic records indefinitely into the future” (Task Force on Archiving Digital Information, 1996). That same year, Kenney and Chapman (1996) at Cornell published Digital Imaging for Libraries and Archives. In 1998, Greenstein and Beagrie published A Strategic Framework for Creating and Preserving Digital Resources. The Digital Library Federation (DLF) and other organizations supported important metadata initiatives for emerging preservation metadata and digital libraries best practices. During the 90s, in response to increased activity and experimentation with digitization technologies, OCLC’s renamed Preservation Resources Division took its proven processes for managing large-scale preservation microfilming projects and applied it to digitization capabilities in order to support the library community’s nascent projects to build digital collections. By 1995, Preservation Resources began to offer digitization services based on film scanning and became the primary service provider to the Library of Congress to digitize microfilm for the National Digital Library Program. Meanwhile, experiments in electronic archiving within OCLC focused on metadata required to build interoperable collections. C. Third Generation The third generation digital library is now emerging, and the community has made significant progress in adoption of best practices and standards, including guidelines for digitization and metadata, OAI for interoperability and the Open Archive Information System (OAIS), which has been approved
30
Meg Bellinger et al.
as an ISO standard as a reference model for digital archives. Library stakeholders have begun to focus on issues of sustainability, integration, interoperability, and collaboration. Lougee points out that at this stage, research libraries are positioned as knowledge organizations to become both more integral and active to supporting the campus mission for e-learning opportunities (Lougee, 2002). Greenstein believes the digital library’s third generation focuses on “fully integrating digital material into the library’s collections, and on developing (and supporting with core funding) the requisite panoply of policies, technical capacities, and professional skills.” (Greenstein, 2002). For all the three authors, best practices and standards and collaborative efforts are at the core of activities to ensure sustainability and interoperability. Best practices include developing electronic repositories, registering digital masters in internationally accessible registries, and prescribing preservation metadata. OCLC’s development team for DCPS has engaged in several key best practices and cooperative initiatives to ensure that its developments are aligned with those in the community and to openly communicate its development plans. First, the RLG– OCLC Digital Repository Certification Working Group began work in early 2001 to establish certification criteria for “trusted digital repositories,” and published Trusted Digital Depositories: Attributes and Responsibilities in May 2002. The certification criteria will lead to a firmer foundation of trust for digital preservation activities in the community and will solidify compliance with OAIS. RLG will continue the work of this group with OCLC participation in order to expand the information on certification of repositories. Second, the DLF Registry of Digital Masters (“the digital registry”) was originally convened under the auspices of the DLF), and is now a working group led by OCLC that includes DLF libraries and other interested libraries. The working group has established a best practice for MARC21 to enable the description of master copies of digitized materials and born-digital information resources. In spring 2002, the group tested their work in practice using OCLC’s Connexion online cataloging service. The results will feed into a second phase of work, which will then be used to identify changes needed to support the needs of the digital registry more fully including changes to systems, policies, and economics. Third, the DLF Format Registry is a new working group formed in January 2003 from DLF institutions and key international stakeholders including BNF (French National Library), PRO (UK Public Records Office), NARA (U.S. National Archives and Records Administration), IETF, JISC (U.K. Higher Education’s Joint Information Systems Committee), and JSTOR. The working group is currently determining requirements for
OCLC’s Digital Preservation Program for the Next Generation Library
31
a registry of data formats to support digital preservation activities. Once complete, the Format Registry will be a key element for the OCLC Digital Archive to support changes in technology affecting the various data formats represented in the archive. Both the digital registry and format registry activities are key examples of the collaborative approach OCLC continues to promote and participate in. As more organizations evolve their efforts into third generation digital libraries, the environment is becoming increasingly collaborative. Libraries have the opportunity to focus and accelerate their collective goals, whether for learning, research, or something entirely new. The multiple technical challenges alone underscore the need to share information and optimize resources in order to manage the goals of integrated, interoperable, and sustainable digital environments. Finally, the OCLC/RLG Preservation Metadata Working Group entered its second phase of development during the spring of 2003 after publishing an initial document describing an agreed-upon element set of metadata for digital preservation. In this phase, the group will refine the element set in light of implementation issues uncovered in the use of the element set in working systems. The group is chaired by Priscilla Caplan from the Florida Center for Library Automation, and includes such pioneers in the development of elements of digital repositories as the Library of Congress, the British Library, and Harvard University Library among others. The working Group is sponsored by RLG, OCLC Member Services, and OCLC Research. Liaisons from the sponsoring organizations are Robin Dale (RLG), Robert Harriman (OCLC Member Services), and Brian Lavoie (OCLC Research). Chairs are Priscilla Caplan, Florida Center for Library Automation and Rebecca Guenther, Library of Congress. Working Group members include George Barnum, U.S. Government Printing Office, Charles Blair, University of Chicago, Mikki Carpenter, Museum of Modern Art, Keigh Glavash, Dspace, Cathy Hartman, University of North Texas, Nancy Hoebelheinrich, Stanford University, Roger Howard, J. Paul Getty Museum, Pam Kircher, OCLC, John Kunze, California Digital Library, Jerry McDonough, New York University (METS), Nancy McGovern, Cornell University, Evan Owens, JSTOR, Gunter Waibel, RLG, Robin Wendler, Harvard University, and Deborah Woodyard, British Library. OCLC participates on the board of METS (Metadata Encoding Transmission Standard ). Although not yet officially sanctioned, METS is seen as an industry standard for digital archives serving the library community. It is a metadata tagging schema for encoding structural relationships between the elements of a digital object (e.g., the relationship between page images of a scanned book). The OCLC Digital Archive uses
32
Meg Bellinger et al.
METS to encode digital objects being submitted and disseminated to/from the archive. OCLC is on the editorial board for METS and actively participates in the METS-L listserv discussions.
III. Digital Collection and Preservation Services The ubiquity of the World Wide Web, and the increasing availability of quality content through Web resources, has brought the library to the desktop of the individual researcher. As a result, libraries are increasingly under pressure to share their resources more broadly, with content supplied by a wide variety of resource providers. Some 90% of end-users go to the Web to begin their search for information. However, the more that users find available on their desktop, the greater their expectation that everything will be available, thus putting increased pressure on libraries, museums, and other cultural heritage institutions to provide access to their collections in digital, as well as physical form, and to extend their walls virtually through Web access. The challenge is complex. Libraries are digitizing their analog, physical collections to make them available over the Web, as well as providing search-and-access tools for the increasing amount of “born-digital” materials. In addition, the expectation is that libraries will be able to maintain access to these digital materials over time, just as the expectation was that they would preserve their analog collections in perpetuity. Meeting these expectations will be difficult and expensive, dramatically altering the way libraries and other cultural heritage agencies do business. As part of its 3-year strategic plan, OCLC has determined that it will play a major role in assisting libraries and other institutions to create, preserve, manage, and store digital collections. To accomplish this objective, OCLC has created the OCLC DCPS division with three business development units: † The Digital and Preservation Outreach Service † The Preservation Service Centers † Content Management Services (including the Digital Archive) These services complement each other and provide a complete digital collections management and preservation solution. In each area content management tools will be developed and made available to libraries and other institutions. The services will be integrated to support cooperative approaches, leverage investment and expertise, and provide flexible options for a cross section of library types. Together, they position OCLC as a partner in building digital libraries.
OCLC’s Digital Preservation Program for the Next Generation Library
33
A. Digital and Preservation Outreach Services Currently digitization and preservation projects are emerging throughout the world with varying degrees of coordination to provide networked research accessibility to a worldwide community To further efforts towards cooperative activity, an education and planning group was developed in 2003 called “The Digital and Preservation Outreach Service.” This group assists libraries and other cultural institutions in forming alliances that support their goals, and also serves as an administrative or logistical hub for coordinating activities and identifying support to digitize, preserve and publish collections. This service also provides a community forum for cooperative digital collection development, preservation program management, coordinated access to grants, education and training, and collaborative program and project implementation. All Digital and Preservation Outreach Service participants benefit from the results of collaborative implementation through education and development of standards and best practices, and through access to a growing body of networked digital collections worldwide. OCLC, as a membership organization with over 30 years’ success in facilitating cooperation and providing cost-effective solutions for its member libraries, is positioned to provide leadership in this effort, and to develop tools and services to make that collaboration more effective for all. Digital and Preservation Outreach services will address the needs of these libraries: † For larger academic and public libraries, the services will provide focus and coordination to serve the world’s scholars in a broad range of subject content areas by bringing together digitization and preservation projects based on theme, format of material, time period, and other topics. † For smaller libraries and other cultural heritage institutions, the services will provide leverage, education, coordination, tools and services to help them share their unique collections more broadly and cost-effectively. B. Services Digital preservation takes place along a continuum of actions, ideally starting from the point of digital-object creation and continuing through the processes involved in long-term retention of those objects. That continuum requires strategic integration of infrastructure, metadata, and processes. If any of these three elements does not extend from one entity to
34
Meg Bellinger et al.
another, preservation cannot occur. This assertion assumes a distributed, interoperable environment—probably the only viable approach to digital preservation. Libraries and other cultural institutions are seeking services that will allow them to undertake large-scale conversion of analog materials efficiently and without having the investment and ongoing re-investment in conversion facilities, equipment (scanners, cameras, labs), and specialized staff training required to prepare materials and perform the work. In the emerging field of digital content preparation, only the largest and most active facilities will be able to invest and adapt to the evolving technology, standards, and practices. Currently, OCLC has three regional preservation centers. The original center in Bethlehem, PA has expanded to a regional center in the Pacific Northwest in Lacey, WA. In August 2002, the final agreement was signed between the Koninklijke Bibliotheek and OCLC for the joint ownership and operation of Strata Preservation in The Hague, The Netherlands, which offers microfilming and digitization services. The Preservation Service Centers offer libraries, archives, and museums long-term preservation strategies by providing options for preserving collections and enhancing access to collections. Institutions can create surrogates of special collections and unique items through preservation microfilming or through digital image creation. For items that are microfilmed, the Preservation Service Centers can provide microfilm storage. For items that are digitized, the OCLC Digital Archive provides long-term preservation capabilities. It is this archiving capability, with its managed processes and infrastructure and developing format preservation plan, that allows OCLC to offer a digitization preservation strategy-not just increased access through digitization. The Preservation Service Centers are production facilities processing a much higher volume of work than most individual institutions are capable of. OCLC is able to re-invest and keep abreast of the effective combinations of technology, standards, and practices and relieve individual institutions of this noncore, production activity. Services from the Centers will: † Save institutions money on their digitization projects by reducing the initial investment in facilities and training, as well as the continuing costs of software/equipment upgrades and ongoing training required to undertake a large production project. † Save institutions time by providing an outsourcing service with predictable results.
OCLC’s Digital Preservation Program for the Next Generation Library
35
† Increase institutions’ stature with their funding authority by allowing them to show direct results from outsourced production. † Increase institutions’ production/preservation options by providing access to highly specialized reformatting facilities for odd-sized materials and access to highly specialized curatorial preservation services. Preservation filming is the process of selecting, preparing, filming, processing, performing quality assurance, duplicating, cataloging, and storing library and archival materials. Documents are filmed in order to save the intellectual content of a deteriorating original or to save the original by providing a surrogate/user’s copy. Strict adherence to national and international standards distinguishes preservation-microfilming activities from other microfilming venues and is required to produce microfilm and fiche of high technical and bibliographic quality. This high quality ensures that the intellectual content of the filmed material is available for many generations to come. Properly created and stored preservation microfilm for either high contrast (black and white) or continuous tone (grayscale) exposure has a life expectancy of at least 500 years, while properly processed and stored color microfilm has a life expectancy of 300 years. Digitization is the process of selecting, preparing, and capturing content in a digital format, then adding metadata, providing archival and derivative formats, performing quality assurance, and delivering files. Digitization, in contrast to film services, makes the intellectual content more accessible as multiple users can view the same image at the same time, while the viewing audience of a reel of archival microfilm is limited to a few. Digitization can occur from film, or from the source material, and can occur in 1 bit (black and white), 8 bit (grayscale), or 24 or 36 bit (color) capture. The archival format is usually a tagged image file format, or “*.tif” file, which is an uncompressed file format. This format saves all the information that was originally captured unless specifically changed by a user. Archival files tend to be very large, and are not easily used through an Internet connection or access method. Derivative formats may be compressed formats, such as “JPEG” (Joint Photographic Experts Group), where each time the file is saved the data is further compressed, or a format such as Mr. Sid that allows for viewing a large uncompressed file more easily. Derivative formats tend to be much smaller than archival formats, and are much better suited for use in an Internet environment. The services of the DPR Centers are designed to meet various needs, from the simplest to the most complex. More than just reformatting services, the Centers provide institutions with long-term preservation strategies.
36
Meg Bellinger et al.
Type of collection
DPR Center Services
Collections in analog formats
Preservation services that convert the physical collection to digital images or microfilm. The Centers will convert to digital from film intermediates or directly from original collections.
Collections can include retrospective newspapers, books, pamphlets and journals, manuscript collections, archival records, scrapbooks, photograph collections, maps and other large-format graphic items, glass plate negatives, slides, and transparencies.
For microfilmed collections, the Centers can provide microfilm storage, duplication, and distribution services. For digitized collections, The OCLC Digital Archive will provide long-term preservation.
Digitized collections
Access Enrichment services that increase the collection’s search accessibility and the ability of the collection to be re-purposed through the Digital Archive Digitized collections can be enriched with metadata, full-text conversion with mark-up, and prepared for Web publication with CONTENTdm software (special collections), Olive Software (newspapers), and other Web-based content access software. The collections can be stored on the collector’s Website or on the site of an Application Service Provider (ASP), including the OCLC Digital Archive.
To support the work of the DPR Centers, OCLC will form partnerships with third-party vendors to provide the software foundation for the text conversion and Web-development services of the Centers. Currently two projects have been initiated with partners: 1. Web-based Historic Newspaper Service (Olive). This service is to convert paper-based or microfilmed newspaper archives into searchable, navigable, Web-based newspaper exhibits. The exhibits can be hosted on a local server or on a Web server at OCLC but under the control of the library. 2. Web-based Digital Collection Service (CONTENTdm). This service will help libraries and other institutions convert physical objects (books,
OCLC’s Digital Preservation Program for the Next Generation Library
37
manuscripts, pictures, realia) into Web-based, digital special collection exhibits. The exhibits can be stored either on the collector’s Website or an OCLC site. The services will be provided through coordination of production staff in Bethlehem, operations staff in Dublin, and staff at any new Centers. C. Tools Digital Content management Services provide the software and systems infrastructure needed to support the development of digital library collections from analog resources Initially, the focus has been on increasing the number of accessible digital collections and providing for their long-term preservation. Starting in mid-2003, Digital Content Management Services will introduce or investigate new services that leverage the existence of digital collections online. The new services will provide libraries, museums, archives, and historical societies new abilities to collaboratively share their digital resources. These developments will begin to support access to the highly unique, distributed special collections by leveraging WorldCat as a discovery tool and support for coordinated collection development, spurred by collaborative activities of OCLC members. 1. Content Tools As part of its strategy to support the digitization of library collections, OCLC has developed partnerships for the development and marketing of two highly functional software tools CONTENTdm supports digital special collections while OliveSoft is a state-of-the-art tool for the conversion and access to historical collection of newspapers. The purpose of pursuing digital content management tools is to provide guidance and advocacy for stateof-the-art tools to digitize and manage the complex characteristics of library collections. As part of its digital initiative, OCLC has entered into agreements with digital content management software developers to provide digital collection management tools at reduced rates (through economies of scale) so that libraries and other knowledge organizations (for example, archives, historical societies, and museums) involved in digitization projects may affordably and confidently purchase digital collection management tools they need to implement their projects. OCLC has entered into such an agreement with DiMeMa, Inc., developers of CONTENTdm, to market, sell, train, and support CONTENTdm as a digital collection management tool to library, archive, historical society, and museum markets.
38
Meg Bellinger et al.
CONTENTdm couples Dublin Core metadata with still images, postcards (recto/verso), manuscripts, 3D objects (up to six linked views), documents, video clips, and sound files. The Software Suite consists of an Acquisition Station for preparation and editing of metadata and digital objects, the CONTENTdm Server for managing collections of digital objects, two Web-based user interfaces for end-user access to collections (one in HTML and the other in JAVAw), and the Query Builder Tool for creating customized HTML end-user interfaces. CONTENTdm software is a complete digital content management system that can import, index, store, query, and display digital collections. CONTENTdm allows an institution to quickly get its special digital collections on the World Wide Web. It includes a basic searching interface for end-users, a librarian module—the Acquisition Station—for library and other historical cultural organizations’ workers to manage the collection, storage and indexing applications to house the collections, and a Query Builder tool that allows creation of customized searches of the collections for integration into Websites. CONTENTdm may be used for small collections (500 – 2000 objects); and it is scaleable to handle large collections (1,000,000 þ objects). CONTENTdm is integrated into the strategy of the services by providing a tool for assembling and publishing digitized collections on the World Wide Web. In addition, harvesting of metadata into WorldCat from CONTENTdm collection will expand access to collections through WorldCat, and potentially ensure long-term retention of digital collections with the Digital Archive. Historical Newspaper Services, Powered by Olive Software. Although historical newspapers have served as a primary social record for centuries, until recently, public access to their wealth of information has been limited to millions of microfilm reels. Olive Software’s unique TIFF (Tag Image File Format)-to-XML (Extensible Markup Language) conversion process, or distillation, and its ActivePaper Archive application now enable page-by-page browsing, word-level searching, and retrieval of historical newspapers and individual articles in their original editorial form via the Web. The Olive process begins with digitization of content from either the original newspaper or microfilm for TIFF input into Olive’s PipeX software application, a digital “factory” which provides a highly automated method for handling the massive quantities of data contained in microfilmed newspapers. PipeX segments each page into its respective paragraph, ad, and image entities; plots the coordinates of each entity; “reads” the content with sophisticated optical character recognition technology; marks up the content in XML; and indexes every word in the XML repository for retrieval via the Verity search engine. A site license for Olive’s ActivePaper Archive server
OCLC’s Digital Preservation Program for the Next Generation Library
39
application enables researchers to access historical newspapers over the Web via any popular browser. The ActivePaper Archive application includes patent-pending technologies for optimizing search and retrieval. OCLC also offers collection owners a hosted service for the ActivePaper Archive. In addition to providing global access to the gargantuan wealth of historical newspaper data owned by countless libraries and other cultural heritage organizations, the Olive solution also yields TIFF images and XML repositories, which are significant steps toward application-independent digital preservation. OCLC also plans to enable Olive to exchange data with WorldCat, CONTENTdm, netLibrary, and key integrated library systems. D. The Digital Archive Construction of a Digital Archive was a logical extension of OCLC organizational strengths: research, software development, services implementation and cooperative efforts to support cultural heritage organizations with their critical preservation mission. The Digital Archive infrastructure builds on OCLC’s existing resources, staff expertise and a significant computing environment. OCLC’s decades of experience in media migration will continue to keep the bits alive as technology changes, and extensive experience with periodic record conversions well-positions OCLC to maintain the viability of both content and metadata. OCLC has three major goals for the Digital Archive: 1. To build a general purpose digital repository for libraries, archives, and museums that may be used to store a variety of types of information and upon which various products and services can be built 2. To identify workflows for capturing and managing digital object for specific communities (addresses the distinction between a “general repository” and the need for OAIS compliance by serving “specific communities”) 3. To implement a viable, shared metadata set for the archived objects In 2003, OCLC has a general purpose repository in place and has developed and introduced two workflows for getting digital content into the repository (a) harvesting Web-based documents for government agencies and others and (b) batch loading of collections of digitally reformatted documents and images. Libraries and other agencies are now engaged in collection management of content that exists on the Web but are ephemeral. Some content is born-digital and exists only in the format available on the Web; others are assets that may have originated in print and were converted to PDF (Portable Document Format) or html, either at the time of print publication or afterward.
40
Meg Bellinger et al.
For the last decade, libraries been engaged in large-scale digital conversion projects of content originally in analog formats (e.g., books, newspapers, photographs, maps, architectural drawings) that the institution has itself, or has had a third party convert to digital form. Libraries need to ensure that the digital content that they harvest or create will be accessible many years into the future, despite the many inevitable intervening changes in hardware and software platforms. Technological obsolescence of the rendering hardware, but most importantly, of the software systems for accessibility to digital formats poses the greatest ongoing threat to the long-term viability of digital content. To provide access, storage, and long-term preservation of digital content, OCLC has developed a digital archive based on ISO standard 14721:2002, “Reference Model for an Open Archival Information System (OAIS)” as shown in Fig. 1. In addition, OCLC has developed two services that allow users to deposit digital content into this archive: a Web-archiving toolset and a batch ingest service. An administration module has been developed to enable all users to access and manage their assets once they have been deposited into the archive, regardless of which service was used to deposit them. As currently implemented, digital content consisting of files in html (with accompanying .js and .css files), PDF, JPEG, GIF (Graphic Image File
Fig. 1. The OAIS model has seven functional areas and three types of information packages (ISO 14721:2002, 2002).
OCLC’s Digital Preservation Program for the Next Generation Library
41
Format), ASCII text files (American Standard Code for Information Interchange) and Bit mapped images can be ingested into the archive. The list of ingestible formats will expand as OCLC develops its services. The conceptual relationships of the seven functional areas, along with the three variations of information packages, are shown in Sawyer (2002), Fig. 1. The sequence proceeds as follows: 1. A Submission Information Package (SIP) is provided by a Producer to the Ingest entity. 2. An Archival Information Package (AIP) is created and delivered to Archival Storage. 3. Related Descriptive Information is provided to Data Management. 4. A Consumer searches for and requests information using appropriate Descriptive Information and access aids. 5. The appropriate AIP is retrieved from Archival Storage and transformed by the Access entity into the appropriate Dissemination Information Package (DIP) for delivery to the Consumer. 6. Activities are carried out under the guidance of the Administration entity. 7. Preservation strategies and techniques are recommended by Preservation Planning and put in place by the Administration entity. The three types of Information Packages are also shown in Fig. 1: 1. A Producer submits a SIP to the OAIS 2. The OAIS holds and preserves the information using AIPs 3. In response to Consumer queries and resulting orders, DIPs are returned 1. Web-Archiving Toolset The initial release of this service, in September 2002, consisted of a set of tools that enabled the harvesting of Web-based digital assets, the ingest of those assets into the archive, the creation of preservation metadata about them, the dissemination of them, and the assignment to them of various administrative properties (including preservation service level, copyright statements, selection of users authorized to view the assets, and organization of the assets into content groups). The DIPs that users receive when they disseminate their assets from the Digital Archive include metadata packaged in compliance with the Metadata Encoding and Transmission Standard (METS), an emerging standard. Access to the harvest, ingest, preservation metadata creation, and dissemination tools is initiated from within the OCLC Connexion service. Once ingested into the archive, assets can be viewed by clicking on a Digital
42
Meg Bellinger et al.
Archive URL—a persistent, unique identifier. This URL may be made available in numerous places: e.g., in a bibliographic record in WorldCat (through OCLC FirstSearch or Connexion); in a bibliographic record that has been exported from WorldCat to an OPAC or created in an OPAC; or from a portal or other Web page. 2. Batch Ingest Service The Batch Ingest service allows institutions to have collections of digital assets automatically deposited into the Digital Archive. While ingesting the assets, the service also creates a Digital Archive record (containing descriptive and preservation metadata) for each object. To initiate the batch ingest process, institutions send their digital assets to OCLC on CD or tape, along with one or more SIPs containing METScompliant metadata. They create these SIPS using the Submission Builder, a small executable file available to them via FTP. The Submission Builder takes a tab-delimited file of metadata, a manifest (list) of content object file names, and some user-keyed data and converts them into a SIP. 3. Preservation Service Levels The Digital Archive is designed so that institutions can designate the kind of archival treatment they would like their assets to receive on an asset-by-asset basis. This designation is called a preservation service level, and to date two levels have been implemented: Local and Bit Preservation. Local, which was designed in response to user input at the pilot stage, allows an institution that has constructed its own digital archive but has no metadata creation tool, to ingest its assets into the OCLC Digital Archive on a temporary basis. Soon after ingest, the institution disseminates and deletes its asset from the OCLC Archive. The DIP they receive from OCLC can be modified for use as a SIP and ingested into their local archive. The advantage of this for them is OCLC’s creation and packaging of the descriptive and preservation metadata into a standard format (METS) that can be readily accepted by their archive. The second implemented service level is Bit Preservation. This service level guarantees that an archived asset can be disseminated to the institution at any time in a bit stream identical to that originally archived. Copies of the archived assets and the associated metadata are stored both in OCLC’s environmentally controlled computer rooms in Dublin Ohio, and in secure, offsite, underground facilities outside Ohio. As part of the harvesting process, all objects are virus checked prior to ingest and have a fixity check established. Throughout the life of an asset in the archive, quality control procedures
OCLC’s Digital Preservation Program for the Next Generation Library
43
regularly repeat virus and fixity checks to ensure the viability of the bit stream and metadata. Full Preservation will be introduced in 2004. Assets designated for full preservation will receive bit preservation treatment and an additional guarantee that their significant properties will remain renderable and accessible over time, regardless of changes in hardware and software platforms. E. Rationale for Starting with Web Documents The decision to focus initially on Web documents was influenced by earlier work with the U.S. Government Printing Office (GPO) on a previous digital project. Having expressed the need to improve capture of Web-based government documents for long-term retention, the GPO was willing to work closely with OCLC to define high-level user requirements for this data format. As the project progressed, OCLC involved other interested parties, mostly state libraries with the same need as the GPO. Since 2001, the GPO was joined by Ohio’s Joint Electronic Records Repository Initiative (JERRI—includes the State Library of Ohio, the Ohio Historical Society, the Ohio Supercomputing Center, and the State of Ohio Department of Administrative Services); the Connecticut State Library; the Library of Michigan; Arizona State Library, Archives, and Public Records; and the University of Edinburgh, Scotland. Staff members from these institutions met with OCLC staff, commented on prototypes and workflows, provided input regarding the metadata element set, and participated in interface usability testing. Preservation metadata. At its broadest, preservation metadata is any metadata used by an institution that is carrying out some form of digital preservation. It could include discovery, administrative, and structural metadata. Structural metadata should be sufficiently detailed to allow reconstruction of the sequence of the original artifact. More commonly though, the term preservation metadata is applied to metadata serving either of these two functions: 1. Enabling preservation managers to take appropriate action to preserve a digital object’s bit stream over the long term. 2. Ensuring that the content of the archived object can be rendered and interpreted. Integrating the continuum of digital preservation activities into the larger digital information lifecycle and its associated workflows depend heavily on creating preservation metadata early in the process. Digital masters for digitally reformatted monographs and serials must have descriptive,
44
Meg Bellinger et al.
structural, and administrative metadata, and the metadata must be made available in well-documented formats. OCLC will likely adopt the METS and create tools to apply METS in Preservation Service Centers at the point of digital-object creation. Authentication. The library and museum community has much work ahead of it in order to develop processes at the point of digital-object creation that will support persistence. One area OCLC is investigating is the high-volume, low-cost application of an authentication process at the point of creation. OCLC may define authentication as a means for ascertaining that the digital material is what it purports to be and remains unaltered since its creation. Without data security, preservation is compromised. However, with the powerful flexibility of digital formats comes the ability to alter the original with ease and without detection. OCLC is considering how to cost-effectively implement an authentication mechanism and is presently in discussions to license and adapt third-party authentication software to our community’s requirements. Preservation metadata for the Digital Archive. Characteristics of objects and user groups are major factors in metadata decisions and in the tools created to support the metadata-creation process. For the most part, Phase 1 users are viewing objects created by others. As a result, they may not know or be able to obtain preservation metadata elements such as the recommended hardware for rendering an object. Also, users want to integrate workflows in order to select, capture, catalog, and archive in a streamlined fashion. Moreover, users need this integrated workflow to be as easy as possible so current staff can ingest or bring in objects and their preservation metadata into the archive efficiently. Consequently, OCLC has created new tools to make metadata creation easier, using as our foundation Connexion—OCLC’s tool set for creating descriptive metadata for electronic objects. As a result, Connexion now supports a preservation metadata record that can be populated with data from a bibliographic record and updated with preservation data extracted from objects by the archive. Users may also enter data manually. OCLC has also created a new harvester that launches from Connexion and that uses tools within Oracle9i FS (a software tool) to extract technical information about the object. OCLC staff kept these factors in mind when determining what preservation metadata elements would be needed in the first phase of the Digital Archive: † User requirements † Object types † Tools
OCLC’s Digital Preservation Program for the Next Generation Library
45
Some of the questions staff asked themselves were: † What metadata is needed for these object types? (i.e., Web documents) † When is the metadata available and to whom? † How is metadata captured, extracted, or created—by humans or by machine? † How are the objects going to be accessed and by whom? In answering those questions, OCLC has sought a balance among three elements: † Preservation and maintenance of access to an object † What users can create practically † What the archive can extract or create The Digital Archive’s preservation metadata set is being developed by an OCLC team whose work is informed by the OCLC/RLG Working Group (April 2002) on Preservation Metadata as well as other digital preservation initiatives. The OCLC/RLG recommended preservation metadata set is available for review and comment from http://www.oclc.org/research/pmwg/ pres_desc_info.pdf. As might be expected, when the OCLC preservation metadata set is compared with other elements sets such as CEDARS or METS, the convergences and issues for discussion are similar to the OCLC/RLG Working Group’s findings in its first white paper. To summarize those findings: 1. Convergences † Based on the Open Archival Information System (OAIS) reference model † Prescribes metadata for preservation † Able to extend the use of the archive to other object types 2. Issues for discussion † Scope: born-digital Web documents—other projects are dealing with converted materials or other formats. † Granularity: determining at what level to the metadata needs to be assigned whether logical object or file, or both. † Interoperability: an open question, but OCLC is using an XML wrapper; communication with other groups is key. † Implementation: While differences in implementation may not change how well the object is preserved, they may drive what tools are created for an archiving workflow or for accessing an object.
46
Meg Bellinger et al.
As with WorldCat and other OCLC databases, copies of the Digital Archive’s content and metadata will be stored securely in multiple, offsite, underground facilities in other states. Every digital archive must plan for the day when vendors no longer support the tools with which it was built and is maintained, and for when the inevitable technological advances require a new system architecture altogether. Consequently, the digital archive itself, just as with the data it holds, must have a planned migration path. In the plan for the Digital Archive, OCLC will extract objects and metadata from the repository in a system-neutral format to allow reloading into a new architecture. For significant system upgrades, support staff may be required to move data around, thus demonstrating their ability to do so in the event of completely new system architecture. Another technical issue for the archive will be maintenance of appropriate reader software for various journal data formats. This technical issue is no greater than the already apparent issue of maintaining reader software for any archived data format. Preservation. Closely associated with the technical issue of reader software maintenance is that of editorial presentation. Should the archive attempt to retain the original editorial presentation of the material (look-and-feel), or simply present the author’s material? Different preservation techniques will support different policies. Because of OCLC’s history of supporting online access, it will likely retain multiple versions of each journal issue: a current access version (the PDF) and a longer-term preservation copy in some other format.
IV. Conclusion OCLC has been part of the digital library development since the beginning of technological adoption in the middle of the last century. Current trends in information technology and the emerging capabilities with which to build a global knowledgebase offer unparalleled opportunities and challenges for libraries. Toward this end, OCLC is actively working with the members of its worldwide cooperative to create the advanced tools and services libraries need in order to provide economical preservation of and access to materials for the maturing digital library environment. The continued expansion of Preservation Resources into Preservation Service Centers around the world and the multi-phase construction of a large-scale, OAIS-compliant Digital Archive are tangible evidence of that work. The magnitude of this task, however, exceeds matters of hardware and software. OCLC is aware of the need to build collaborative channels
OCLC’s Digital Preservation Program for the Next Generation Library
47
through which its members and the broader community can conveniently inform and immediately benefit from our ongoing work. Toward that end, OCLC has launched and will continue to sponsor the Outreach Services to serve a growing membership of diverse organizations and individuals who are part of the OCLC Cooperative and setting the stage for the exploration of new directions and opportunities in digital preservation. OCLC takes as a profound responsibility the need that libraries and other organizations have to preserve cultural memory over the long term. It is imperative that it demonstrates not only its technical ability to provide a sustainable approach to long-term digital preservation, but also its commitment to do so with and for the community. The authors have described in this Chapter a methodology for expanding existing offerings and building new ones under a proven cost-recovery model. While these offerings will certainly undergo planned transformations, we are building them with the hope that users in centuries to come will find our early collaborative efforts in digital preservation to have been worthwhile.
References Besser, H. (2002). The next stage: moving from isolated digital collections to interoperable digital libraries. First Monday 7(6). Available at: http://firstmonday.org/issues/issue7_6/besser/ index.html. Greenstein, D. (2002). Next Generation Digital Libraries. Available at: http://www.vala.org.au/ vala2002/2002pdf/01Grnstn.pdf. ISO 14721:2002 (2002). CCSDS 650. 0-B-1. Reference Model for an Open Archival Information System (OAIS). Blue Book. Issue 1. January. ISO, Geneva, Switzerland. Kenney, A. and Chapman, S. (1996). Digital Imaging for Libraries and Archives. Dept. of Preservation and Conservation, Cornell University Library, Ithaca, NY. Kilgour, F. G. (1972). Evolving, computerizing, personalizing. American Libraries 3, 2. Kilgour, F. G. (1983). OCLC: origins, today, and tomorrow. Journal of Library and Information Science 8(1). Kilgour, F. G. (1987). EIDOS and the transformation of libraries. Library Journal, 112(16), 46–49. Lougee, W., (2002). Diffuse libraries: emergent roles for the research library in the digital age. CLIR. Available at: http://www.clir.org/pubs/reports/pub108/contents.html. Metadata Encoding and Transmission Standard. http://www.loc.gov/standards/mets/. OCLC, Online Computer Library Center, Inc. (2001d). Extending the OCLC Cooperative: A Three-Year Strategy, OCLC Online Computer Library Center, Inc. OCLC Online Computer Library Center, Inc. (2002). A Recommendation for Preservation Description Information: A Report by the OCLC/RLG Working Group on Preservation Metadata, RLG Working Group. OCLC Online Computer Library Center, Inc, Available from: http://www.oclc.org/research/pmwg/pres_desc_info.pdf.
48
Meg Bellinger et al.
Sawyer, D. M. (2002). FRAMEWORK for Digital Archiving: OAIS Reference Model. Presentation delivered at the OCLC “Steering by Standards” teleconference on “The OAIS Imperative: Enduring Record or Digital Dust?” April 19, 2002, Columbus, Ohio. Smith, K. W. (1998). OCLC: yesterday, today and tomorrow. OCLC Thirty Years of Furthering Access to the World’s Information. The Haworth Press, New York. Task Force on Archiving Digital Information (1996). Preserving Digital Information: Final Report and Recommendations, Commission on Preservation and Access, and The Research Libraries Group, Mountain View, CA, Washington, DC, Available at: http://www.rlg.org/ ArchTF/.
The Preservation of Moving Images `le Valerie Cloonanb Karen F. Gracya and Miche a
Department of Library and Information Science, University of Pittsburgh, 135 N. Bellefield Avenue, Room 657, Pittsburgh, PA 15260, USA b The Graduate School of Library and Information Science, Simmons College, 300 The Fenway, Boston, MA 02115, USA
I. Introduction Moving images represent a category of material which has historically received short shrift in most libraries and archives. Film, video, and now digital images form a significant part of many library and archival collections, however, and can be found in many formats and genres. Despite the ubiquity of such media in cultural institutions, the majority of libraries and archives owning collections of moving images have neglected these holdings—with the specific exception of those few archives devoted primarily to the care and preservation of moving images. One can probably trace the unfortunate state of moving image preservation in most cultural institutions to a combination of several factors: a lack of the appropriate equipment needed to inspect and view such material, a lack of qualified personnel to care for and maintain both the materials and the equipment, limited resources for engaging in moving image preservation and reformatting activities, and an absence of sufficient description of these materials (outside of title listings in an institution’s catalog). In the case of the last reason, better documentation might spark increased use, which would then prompt a larger investment in the maintenance and increased access to moving image materials. In their recent report The Evidence in Hand, written for the Council on Library and Information Resources, Stephen Nichols and Abby Smith note that for moving image materials, “despite the enormous collections of printed materials that have been amassed, entire categories of primary sources have disappeared before collecting institutions and their users understood their value. … Given that the materials that have vanished were not well documented at the time of their creation, the full extent of this loss will never be known” (Nichols and Smith, 2001, p. 5).
ADVANCES IN LIBRARIANSHIP, VOL. 27 q 2004 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved ISSN: 0065-2830 DOI:10.1016/S0065-2830(03)27003-3
49
50
`le Valerie Cloonan Karen F. Gracy and Miche
Unless librarians and archivists begin to address these notable deficiencies, we face a potential calamity in our attempts to secure the moving image heritage for future generations. With the assumption that “knowledge is power,” this article offers a sort of moving image preservation primer to librarians and archivists so that they may be inspired to reflect upon the current and future status of moving image collections in their own institutions. The authors aim to provide the following: historical and institutional context for the development of moving image archives and the field of moving image preservation, up-to-date information about current theory and practice in the profession, a review of the ethical and legal issues which shape the decision-making process, tensions between preservation and access, and last, a number of short- and long-term strategies to consider as models for accomplishing preservation and access objectives.
II. Definition of Moving Image Preservation Moving image preservation is a complex and multi-faceted concept, encompassing many processes and practices that have developed over several decades as archivists have learned to deal with issues such as physical deterioration, format obsolescence, and increased demand for access to materials. Moving image preservation has roots in and ties to the preservation movement, a phenomenon which aims to find and safeguard tangible objects of cultural heritage, those artifacts which are representative of human endeavor. Moving image preservation has had a parallel history to the preservation movement for paper-based library and archival holdings, although it is a latecomer—it is only when film, video, and most recently, the newer digital moving image media began to be considered part of “culture” that they were deemed worthy of preservation (the emergence of popular culture and media studies as legitimate fields of research has greatly added to the legitimacy of moving images as part of our cultural legacy). As with the nascent field of library and archival preservation fifty years ago, in recent years moving image archivists have publicized the key issues and developed an infrastructure to support preservation work. Because moving image preservation is tied to the larger cultural heritage movement, it has certain similarities in terminology and practice with other preservation traditions in libraries, museums, and archives. A comparison of several definitions of preservation in those traditions shows how a concept such as preservation can be re-shaped to fit the needs of a particular group. Feather, Matthews, and Eden define preservation as “the managerial, financial, and technical issues involved in preserving library materials in all
The Preservation of Moving Images
51
formats—and/or their information content—so as to maximize life” (Feather et al., 1996, p. 5). Bellardo and Bellardo give a similar definition, describing preservation as “the totality of processes and operations involved in the stabilization and protection of documents against damage or deterioration and in the treatment of damaged or deteriorated documents. Preservation may also include the transfer of information to another medium, such as microfilm” (Bellardo and Bellardo, 1992, p. 3). Feather’s definition of preservation comes from the field of library and information science, while the Bellardo definition is taken from traditions of archival science. These definitions convey the idea that preservation sustains the life and usefulness of cultural objects. Differences between the two definitions concern the ultimate objective of preservation; for Feather et al., preservation strives to preserve materials “so as to maximize life,” while the Bellardo and Bellardo definition refers to preservation as a method to avoid “damage and deterioration” of materials. The latter also mentions “treatment” of the physical objects, which could, in fact, be considered a secondary definition of preservation: the first being preservation as a complex of many practices and policies, and the second being the actual physical work done on the object. Having reviewed two definitions of preservation in these related fields, we now turn to the concept of moving image preservation. As an example, how is preservation defined within the field of film archiving? The literature of film preservation reveals that the definition of preservation has actually been a subject of debate in the last two decades. The word “preservation” once meant solely the physical process of preserving: “In casual language and traditional practice, ‘preservation’ has been synonymous with duplication. ‘Has the film been preserved?’ a question still often asked of film archivists, is understood to mean, ‘Has the film been copied onto newer film stock?’” (Redefining Film Preservation, 1994, p. 5). This early definition was modified as film archivists began to refine that initial idea (while still focusing on the physical procedures associated with preservation): “While preservation can be thought of as any effort to keep a film in a viewable form, most archivists consider a film preserved only when it is both (1) viewable in its original format with its full visual and aural values retained, and (2) protected for the future by ‘preprint’ material through which subsequent viewing copies can be created” (Film Preservation 1993, p. 5). Mary Lea Bandy of the Museum of Modern Art in New York suggests a definition of preservation that more closely approximates the library and archival definitions, in that she sees preservation as a collection of activities, not just the physical preservation techniques themselves. She states, “preservation is a complex process. It requires great research and
52
`le Valerie Cloonan Karen F. Gracy and Miche
planning to locate and acquire film materials; inspect and analyze their condition; catalog historical and condition data; assemble materials for copying or restoration in labs and supervise the various stages of work; provide proper storage, handling, and access; and make prints for public viewing. That is what preservation is all about” (in McGreevey and Yeck, 1997, p. 115). This definition provides a cue to changing attitudes towards film preservation in general. In 1993, the Library of Congress conducted a national survey of film preservation with the aim of providing a national plan for action. When the national plan was published, it was entitled “Redefining Film Preservation,” thus formally codifying a shift within the field from a narrower to a broader meaning of the process. Although the aim of the plan was prescriptive as well as descriptive, evidence shows that the field has come to see preservation as a holistic process, rather than just a particular activity. This evolution in fact echoes similar changes in the library, museum, and archival worlds. Two related terms, “restoration” and “conservation,” are often confused with preservation. Restoration goes beyond the physical copying of surviving material into reconstruction of the most authentic version of a film. Ideally, this requires comparing of all surviving material on a given title, consulting printed records of the production and exhibition history, and then making decisions regarding the film’s “original” state (Film Preservation 1993, p. 6). Also distinguishable from preservation is conservation, which requires no physical copying, only the decision to treat film material with greater care because of its perceived use as a future preservation source (Film Preservation 1993, p. 6). Conservation is also sometimes called “passive preservation.” Storing film in temperature- and humidity-controlled conditions and disallowing screening or other reference use represent the most common actions taken to conserve a film. Henceforth, when we use the term “moving image preservation,” we mean the multiple processes, both physical and intellectual, that are used by archives and libraries to maintain access to a film: collection, physical preservation techniques, cataloging, transfer to film and video, and exhibition.
III. Moving Image Media Stability and Obsolescence A. Film Despite its legendary reputation for deterioration, motion picture film is in fact the most robust of the three moving image media types (film, analog
The Preservation of Moving Images
53
video, and digital video). It is just over a century old, having been invented by scientists working for the Eastman Kodak company in 1889 as a support system to carry moving images. The first commercial format, or gauge, to be invented was 35 mm, which is still in use after over 100 years.1 Other popular formats are: 16 mm (1923), used largely for industrial and educational filmmaking (and also by some independent filmmakers); 8 mm (1935) and Super8 (1965), introduced by Kodak for the home filmmaker. Rarer small gauge formats include Pathe´’s 9.5 mm (also known as “Neuf-Cinq” or “Pathe´-Baby”) and 28 mm, which were more prevalent in Europe but may still be found in small quantities in the United States. In the beginning, film was made out of nitrocellulose, a material which was highly flammable but which recorded images beautifully. Because of the flammability of nitrate film, the film manufacturing industry developed an acetate-based film and introduced it first to the amateur filmmaking community in 1923 (for 16 mm), makers of home movies in 1935 (for 8 mm), and finally the professional community, a.k.a., “Hollywood,” in 1954 (for 35 mm). Being organic substances, both nitrate and acetate film will deteriorate unless kept under the appropriate storage conditions—low temperature and low humidity. Because of the chemical instability of most films, many of them have been lost over the last century. It has been estimated that less than 20% of American silent films and 50% of all American films made prior to 1950 no longer exist (Film Preservation 1993, pp. 3 – 4). The primary method of preserving films is to transfer the images to a newer stock. In the past, the only choice was triacetate film, but archivists use a new polyester-based film stock, ESTAR, which is less susceptible to high humidity and thus does not deteriorate under less than ideal storage conditions. B. Analog Video The proliferation of such magnetic media as audio and videotape in recent decades has provided a great challenge to preserve. Videotape, a recording medium first introduced in 1956 by Ampex, has evolved over the last 50 years into over 100 analog and digital tape formats. The analog formats with which most libraries and archives are likely to be familiar include the consumer systems of 1/2 in. VHS (1976), 8 mm (1984), and Hi8 (1989), as well as the more common industrial and educational formats of 3/4 in. 1 Kodak manufactured 70 mm unperforated roll film for still cameras, but Edison Laboratories asked Kodak to make a roll of film of 1 38 in. (or 35 mm) so that it could be used in their motion picture experiments. The 35 mm gauge soon became the first standard film format. See Theisen (1967) for more historical background on early film bases.
54
`le Valerie Cloonan Karen F. Gracy and Miche
U-Matic (1971) and 1/2 in. Betacam (1982). Among the many professional formats to come and go over the last five decades, some of the most widely used have included 2 in. Quadruplex (1956) and Helical (1963), 1 in. SMPTE (Type A, 1965; Type B, 1975; and Type C, 1978), and 1/2 in. Betacam SP (1987). Some institutions, particularly those with archival and other special collections such as television news, may hold other more obscure formats, such as 1/2 in. EIAJ, an important early format for artists and other amateur filmmakers.2,3 The most endangered formats tend to be the older, open-reel formats such as Quadruplex and EIAJ, which do not have the protection of a cartridge housing or many machines on which to play them. C. The Transition to Digital Moving Images With the transition from motion picture film—the last “eye-legible” format for recording visual information—to analog video, and now to digital moving images, the prospects for preservation grow ever more uncertain. If the lack of standards for video preservation makes conservation-minded information professionals uneasy, the state of digital preservation is likely to incite a fullfledged panic attack. No longer are we merely coping with the chemical instability of the recording media; the obsolescence of the recording formats takes precedent as the new preservation challenge. And in the last twenty years, we have seen a staggering array of digital formats—with more being developed on what seems like a weekly basis. 1. Digital Video On the digital front, there have been dozens of proprietary formats of consumer and professional quality in the last fifteen years since the introduction of the D1 format by Sony in 1986. The primary manufacturers of digital video thus far have been Sony and Matsushita (Panasonic). In many cases the line between consumer and professional quality has blurred, the main difference being that the more expensive, professional-grade formats have better sampling rates, and thus are of “broadcast quality.” In general, however, consumers have adopted the MiniDV (1996) and Digital-8 (1999) formats, while professionals use a wider range of formats, the most common being Digital Betacam (1993), DVCAM (1996), DVC/DVCPRO (1996, also known as D-7), as well as the high-definition, progressive scan D-5 HD 2 The Association of Moving Image Archivists maintains a list of both current and obsolete tape formats on its website, as part of its Videotape Preservation Fact Sheets. See Wheeler (2001b). 3 Laserdiscs, first introduced as a consumer format in 1977 but now largely superseded by DVDs, also exist in significant quantities in many libraries, particularly academic institutions.
The Preservation of Moving Images
55
(1999) format, currently used primarily by Hollywood filmmakers such as George Lucas. 2. A Preservation Format for Video? A running joke among many video archivists is that there is no such thing as video preservation, since there is no reliable format which can be trusted to be playable for more than a couple of decades. Despite this quandary, many video archivists have adopted Betacam SP (first introduced in 1987 as the professional version of Betacam) as a preferred format for storing analog video, due largely to its high recording quality and continuing popularity rather than to any particular long-lasting qualities of the tape itself. There is evidence, though, that soon it too will pass into the annals of video format history, as have most video formats over time. Sony recently announced that it would stop manufacturing Betacam SP cameras, although it plans to continue supporting the format and ease the transition to its replacement, Digital Betacam, by selling video tape recorders (VTRs) for the SP format for several years. Sony has announced that it will continue to provide service for camcorders and tape decks for at least seven years, by which time the archival community hopes that a reliable digital format for archiving video will present itself. As indicated above, video preservation is something of a misnomer—the extremely short life expectancy for most magnetic tapes (anywhere from 10 to 30 years, according to the Image Permanence Institute), combined with the growing obsolescence of most analog video formats, makes the concept of preserving content by preserving the original physical container even more doubtful than it is with film. Finding and maintaining machines to play outdated formats is a short-term solution for a long-term predicament. We know of many archivists who practice technology preservation, hoarding old Quad and 1 in. machines so that they may raid extras for parts, but it is only a matter of time before the last machine gives out. Reduced temperature and relative humidity, combined with regular “tape exercising,”4 will buy increased time for preservation, but the only real solution for preserving video in either analog or digital formats lies in the strategies of refreshing content and, eventually, migrating to newer formats.5 4 “Exercising” involves fast-forwarding and rewinding tapes regularly, every 6 months to 1 year. See Lindner (n.d.). 5 Many experts in the area of digital moving images predict that we may soon have the capability to store uncompressed video using high-density hard drives. Although this development would solve the problem of deterioration of the carrier, it still would not resolve issues of obsolete formats.
56
`le Valerie Cloonan Karen F. Gracy and Miche
IV. Historical and Institutional Contexts for Preserving Moving Images A. Film Archives and the Origins of the Film Preservation Movement In the United States, film preservation work is accomplished in a variety of institutions and organizations, by for-profit corporations and nonprofit cultural institutions such as libraries, archives, and museums. Among all these institutions and organizations, a small subset refers to as “film archive.” The first film archives did not actually call itself that, instead coining terms such as “cinematheque,” “filmoteca,” or by merely appending the word film to institutional monikers, creating entities such as the film library, film museum, or even film institute. These different designations were joined under the general category of film archive when the International Federation of Film Archives (FIAF) was formed in 1938. Following the creation of FIAF, as national and regional archives were founded and sought acceptance as members of the organization, the use of the word “archive” became more common, although most of the French- and Spanish-speaking institutions preferred to call themselves cine´mathe`ques or filmotecas, perhaps due to their emphasis on exhibition, as well as collection and preservation.6 By calling themselves archives, many of these newly created institutions were apparently trying to associate themselves with other kinds of archives. However, the definition of “archives” provided by Bellardo and Bellardo shows that film archives do not have much in common with manuscript and document repositories. They state that archives are “the documents created or received and accumulated by a person or organization in the course of the conduct of affairs, and preserved because of their continuing value. Historically, the term referred more narrowly to the noncurrent records of an organization or institution preserved because of their continuing value” (Bellardo and Bellardo, 1992, p. 3). As Slide (1992) has correctly pointed out, “quite obviously, film meets no such definition, unless one is willing to define the entire motion picture industry as a corporation or organization.” In many ways, commercially produced films defy classification as merely documents—they are not the by-products of the process of
6 Readers seeking an in-depth history of the film archive movement may consult Slide (1992) and Houston (1994).
The Preservation of Moving Images
57
filmmaking in the same way as are paper and electronic records. Films are usually manufactured commodities whose value can be multi-faceted.7 Ernst Lindgren, first curator of Britain’s National Film Library, objected to the use of the word “archive,” saying that it “rings with a deathly sound in the world of cinema, which is so young and vital and dynamic, eager for the future and impatient of the past; …there is no reason why a film archive should be a mausoleum” (Lindgren, 1948, p. 47). However, despite Lindgren’s misgivings about using the term, it was appropriate for the tenor of the times. Houston remarks that “to maintain an often precarious and difficult relationship with the film industry, the archives had to demonstrate their distance from the profit motive, from any suggestion that they might intend to lend out films for money. They chose a name which suggested solidity and safe-keeping” (Houston, 1994, pp. 2 –3). The term “film archive” arose more from a desire to create an image of stability than from an aspiration to describe an institutional mission. The creation of FIAF contributed to that image of stability, due to its strict edict against commercial use of films held by member archives (FIAF, 1968, p. 3). FIAF also fostered a spirit of international cooperation, which helped unify archives behind the common purpose of film preservation. A film archive must consider preservation to be its top priority, and thus, if an organization does not preserve films, it is not an archive (Gracy, 1994). This distinction sets film archives apart from other types of organizations that have film holdings, such as film libraries and collections of moving images in all types of libraries and traditional archives.8 The emphasis on preservation, in rhetoric and practice, sets film archives apart from other cultural institutions such as libraries, museums, and traditional archives. Although these three institutions strongly emphasize preservation as a part of their regular activities, film archives have come to view preservation as their raison d’eˆtre, perhaps because much of the material in their collections is on deteriorating nitrate or acetate film stock. Historically, nitrate has made its own imperative—if untended, nitrate 7 It can be argued that filmic artifacts received in archives and special collections as a part of larger collections of papers and other media should be treated as archival records in the Bellardo definition of the word, but institutions must be careful so that these moving images are in fact “by-products” and not “products” in their own right. To use a somewhat silly example: would an archive receiving the papers of a “widget” factory consider the widgets themselves as archival records? Probably not, although many archives have nonetheless accepted such products in their collections with great regularity. 8 The term “film library” is often used in the commercial sector to denote either studio or stock footage collections. In the noncommercial sector, the term is usually used to denote circulating collections, e.g., the Museum of Modern Art’s Circulating Film Library.
58
`le Valerie Cloonan Karen F. Gracy and Miche
decomposes into a red powder which retains no trace of what it once contained. The more recent recognition that acetate-based film, which was originally invented as a non-flammable replacement for nitrate, also deteriorates under adverse conditions lends even more urgency to the preservation imperative. Acetate decomposition is commonly known as “vinegar syndrome.” Many films once considered “preserved” when they were first transferred from nitrate to acetate must now be re-transferred to the more stable ESTAR (polyester-based) stock if the acetate copies show signs of deterioration. In 1993, the Library of Congress report on the state of film preservation in the United States said that “the defining problem for public archive [film] preservation programs is funding. … While the federal institutions support most preservation copying internally, MoMA [Museum of Modern Art], UCLA, and GEH [George Eastman House] are heavily dependent on outside fund-raising and piece together their preservation budgets from many sources…. With federal grants and state arts council support decreasing, these archives are increasingly turning to high profile preservation projects to generate income for more routine work” (Film Preservation 1993, p. 24). Smaller, “specialist” archives and other institutions which may have holdings in moving image formats do not have even those “high profile” projects to depend upon for preservation funding, since they collect rare nonfeature material on small gauge stock (8 mm and super 8 mm, much of it on reversal stock9 or independent and avant-garde titles that have dropped out of distribution. Last, there are untold numbers of public institutions, including public libraries, historical societies, museums, and nonprofit associations, which have collections of film. Besides not having the technical knowledge necessary to preserve film, these institutions rarely have the funding to support preservation efforts (Film Preservation 1993, p. 30).
B. Moving Image Archiving and the Road to Professionalization Among the information professions, film archiving currently ranks as one of the most esoteric. In the United States today, there are fewer film archivists than librarians, archivists, or museum professionals, and much of the recondite work of film preservation is accomplished only in
9
Reversal stock is a type of film which is often used in 8 and 16 mm filmmaking. Unlike regular camera stock, when reversal stock is developed the result is a positive print ready for projection, not a negative.
The Preservation of Moving Images
59
a few key locations such as Los Angeles, New York, and Dayton, Ohio, the last-named city being where the film laboratories of the Library of Congress and the National Archives and Records Administration are located.10 – 12 Much film preservation work is centered in major metropolitan areas because a large proportion of film production work occurs in those cities.13 Film archives also need more staff with an adequate background to accomplish film preservation. Historically, budding film archivists have not learned their craft from books or academic programs. Instead, they have entered an apprenticeship at a film archive, learning preservation techniques from experienced professionals. Until recently, the prevailing attitude was that this sort of knowledge could not be grasped solely through formal education; rather, archivists had to learn preservation by sharpening their sensory perceptions of the material and machinery involved, and through a progressive absorption of complex techniques. As a report by the Library of Congress pointed out, however, “preservation has matured and technology [has] grown more complex, [thus] ad hoc instruction is no longer adequate” (Redefining Film Preservation, 1994, p. 18). The report recommended that a master’s degree program in film preservation be established, and since that time, UCLA has launched such a program, sponsored through the Department of Film, Television, and Digital Media Studies, the Department of Information Studies, and the UCLA Film and Television Archive. In addition, the Tisch School of the Arts at New York University to offer a Master of Arts in Moving Image Archiving.14 The L. Jeffrey Selznick School of Film Preservation, located at the George Eastman House Inernational Museum of Photography and Film in Rochester, New York, also offers a certificate in film preservation 10 In the United States and Canada, film archivists number fewer than 1000 practitioners, according to 2002 membership statistics from the Association of Moving Image Archivists (Association of Moving Image Archivists, 2002). 11 Statistics gathered by the Bureau of Labor Statistics indicate that in 2000, approximately 21,000 individuals held jobs as archivists, curators, or museum technicians; roughly 149,000 were employed as librarians. See United States, Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics (2002). Authors obtained information from the World Wide Web version of the Occupational Outlook Handbook: 2002–03, found at http://stats.bls.gov/oco/ocos065.htm (data on archivists and curators) and http://stats.bls.gov/oco/ocos068.htm (data on librarians). 12 In 2004, the laboratory and storage facility for the Library of Congress will be relocated to the National Audio-Visual Conservation Center in Culpeper, Virginia. 13 Several of the larger archives, such as at the Museum of Modern Art and the Library of Congress, have built or used storage facilities outside metropolitan areas due to municipal regulations barring the storage of nitrate film within city limits. 14 For more information about the UCLA and NYU programs, consult the following websites: http://www.mias.ucla.edu/ and http://www.nyu.edu/tisch/preservation/.
60
`le Valerie Cloonan Karen F. Gracy and Miche
to students possessing a bachelor’s degree. The program has been in existence since 1996. Despite this progress on the educational front, information about the profession of film archiving has been sparse and hard to obtain until recently, aside from the occasional mention in the general press or in scholarly film journals. Anyone seeking information about moving image archiving and preservation issues should consult The Moving Image, a journal established by the Association of Moving Image Archivists which began publication in 2001. The AMIA Newsletter is also a valuable resource which conveys information about association activities and provides updates on current issues of interest, such as cutting-edge technological developments, current research projects, and legal issues affecting preservation and access to moving images. C. Participants and Interests in the Field of Film Preservation The field of film preservation can be seen as part of a larger sphere of activity known as the preservation of cultural heritage. Although the roots of film preservation can be found in the philanthropic deeds of public sector organizations and altruistically minded private individuals and organizations, the commercial sector grows increasingly interested in participating in film preservation activities. What is at stake for these varied commercial and public interests? The wide range of interests in film preservation mirrors the infrastructure of the network of cultural institutions in the United States, and it reflects the structure of the film industry itself. As film archives become concerned with not only the physical preservation of the object at hand, but also access to that object through cataloging, distribution, and exhibition, they begin to step on the toes of an industry that claims its exclusive right to distribute and exhibit (and profit from) its property. What film archivists call “cultural heritage,” copyright holders call intellectual property, and those films are, to the dismay of many film archivists, fully protected under copyright law. In the following discussion, we have identified the participants, both major and minor, in film preservation. We have cast our net widely in identifying the significant players in order to include any organizations that have influence over film preservation through their institutional and economic practices. As a starting point, we have consulted the 1993 report by the Library of Congress on the state of film preservation in the United States, which identified the major players in the field. These participants include
The Preservation of Moving Images
61
commercial and nonprofit organizations. To this list, we have added several additional stakeholders who also play an important role. 1. Studios with Large Film Libraries (Including Disney, MGM/UA, Paramount, Republic, Sony, Turner, Twentieth Century Fox, Universal, and Warner Bros.) The interest of studios in film preservation is a relatively recent phenomenon, which can be traced directly to the establishment of ancillary markets such as home video and DVD sales and rentals, as well as cable television and pay-per-view. When studios saw that their products could have a commercial use beyond the initial and second-run distribution cycle, their interest in film preservation was considerably heightened. With the recent successful re-releases of restored titles (such as the Star Wars trilogy, which netted revenues equal to summer blockbuster totals), the studios received bottom-line proof that film preservation could be immensely profitable.15 Even though studios seem to have embraced the rhetoric of cultural heritage preservation in their public dealings, it remains to be seen whether the commitment of the private sector to film preservation will be extended in the future to protect less profitable titles (Film Preservation 1993, pp. 19 – 20). 2. Independent Producers and Distributors In comparison to studios, the independents have few or no resources to deal with preservation needs and concerns since the costs of preservation and restoration work are quite high. The Library of Congress points out that the major problems in preserving independent films include a lack of education among filmmakers about the preservation needs of their work, and a lack of “the resources and organizational continuity to mount the aggressive asset protection programs of the larger studios” (Film Preservation 1993, p. 20). Yet, the list of U.S. film heritage practitioners would not be complete without the inclusion of the work of independent filmmakers. Several distributors, such as Kino and Milestone Films, have specialized in the distribution of important independent films. Still, many independent films remain out of reach to the public because there is no distribution mechanism and without any revenue stream to provide for their “care and feeding,” their owners cannot afford to care for them. 15 For an overview of profits made on re-releases of classic Hollywood films in the 1990s, consult Gracy’s (1999) work on the “recycling” of film heritage.
62
`le Valerie Cloonan Karen F. Gracy and Miche
3. Stock Footage Libraries Stock footage houses often own unique industrial, educational, or advertising films, and although their interests are primarily commercial, many of these companies are conscious of the rarity of their material and make some effort towards preservation (although their standards of preservation may differ from those of nonprofit institutions). The LC report notes that “stock footage libraries have, in some cases, the only known copy of films of historical interest and fill a special niche by their documentation of regional lifestyles, popular pastimes, and daily and work activities generally considered too ordinary for national newsreels but whose documentation has increased in value over time. As market-driven operations, such businesses pay for their own preservation work and generally give priority to the most salable footage” (Film Preservation 1993, p. 22). In the stock footage sector, selection of films for preservation is more often directed by perceived potential for re-use than by cultural imperatives. 4. Large Public Archives (Comprising Four Institutions: The Museum of Modern Art, the International Museum of Photography at George Eastman House, the UCLA Film and Television Archive, and the Library of Congress) Although nonprofit film archives embrace the notion of film as cultural heritage, they cannot avoid legal and economic realities, mainly because the material in their possession is not always their own to duplicate, distribute, and exhibit as other cultural institutions do. The edicts of copyright law tightly control the disposition of most feature films produced in the last 75 years. Often, archives must pay exhibition fees to copyright owners in order to show films that they themselves have preserved. Most American nonprofit archives find themselves in the unfortunate situation of not being allowed even partially to recoup the costs of preservation through exhibition fees (as other nonprofit cultural institutions do through admission fees). Coupled with the continually shrinking pool of federal monies for film preservation, the situation is difficult for nonprofits. However, some archives have learned to play the copyright game to their own advantage with films that are either in the public domain or films for which they have gained the copyright. Many archives have made good use of such resources by establishing archival footage units—licensing certain film materials to studios, independent production companies, and television networks. For example, the UCLA Film and Television Archive, which owns the copyright to the Hearst Metrotone Newsreel Collection, has licensed footage from that collection since 1984. Many archives have also released
The Preservation of Moving Images
63
preserved public domain films on videotape, laser disc, and DVD, although these releases have netted minimal profits. 5. Specialist Archives Specialist archives “acquire and preserve films relating to a specific subject, region, ethnic group, or genre” (Film Preservation 1993, p. 28). Included in this category are such institutions as the American Archives of Factual Film, Anthology Film Archives, the Human Studies Archive at the Smithsonian, Northeast Historic Film, and the Pacific Film Archive. Specialist archives collect independent, documentary, ethnographic, and avant-garde films, and they gather source materials in support of film and cultural studies. Preservation is not always the highest priority for these institutions because of their emphasis on access activities such as exhibitions to the public and screenings for scholars and artists; however, they are an invaluable source for noncommercial films. 6. Public Institutions with Small Film Collections The LC report says that “hundreds of government offices, historical societies, museums, universities, libraries, and nonprofit associations hold films scattered among their own organizational records or among collections of personal papers and educational resources. Just how many public institutions hold the best surviving copies of films of historic or cultural interest is difficult to say” (Film Preservation 1993, p. 29). Yet these institutions may be the best source for amateur footage, locally produced films, and other moving images not easily accessed through other sources. The National Film Preservation Board has recommended that future preservation funding target these nonfiction holdings, which have little or no commercial value, but significant cultural and historical value (Redefining Film Preservation, 1994, pp. 25 – 26). 7. Collectors Collectors are the most difficult-to-define players in the field of film preservation. Are they pirates (as the studios see them), hoarders (as many archives see them), or last-minute saviors of films thought lost forever? Many archives have their roots in the passionate commitment of a collector—the Cine´mathe`que Franc¸aise, founded by Henri Langlois, and the film collection at the George Eastman House, founded by James Card, being the two most famous examples.16 Paolo Cherchi Usai, senior curator of the motion picture collections at the George Eastman House, notes that 16
For more information on these archive founders, consult Roud (1983) and Card (1994).
64
`le Valerie Cloonan Karen F. Gracy and Miche
“collectors are a secretive breed. They do not trust publicity and prefer sometimes to die with their possessions rather than abandon them to what they consider to be an impersonal structure, lacking the enthusiasm and the protective instinct which made it possible to save the films. Consequently, all the surviving silent films are not to be found exclusively in the organizational structures called film archives: these are only the relatively better-known sector of a vast, mostly unexplored corpus” (Usai, 1994, pp. 23 –25). The case of the collector who donated a copy of Richard III (1912—now the earliest extant feature film) to the American Film Institute in 1996 shows that even today collectors can play an important—if erratic—role in film preservation (Preservation projects…, 1997, p. 2). 8. Foreign Archives (Which May Hold Films of United States Origin) Foreign archives often own copies of American films from the silent era and early sound period that no longer exist in any form, print or pre-print, in the United States. These archives would like to negotiate with American archives for repatriation of these films to the United States, but fear legal action from corporate copyright holders because the films are usually illegal copies (Film Preservation 1993, pp. 16 –32). To this initial list, we would add the following participants: 9. Cable Television Networks, Especially Those Whose Programming Relies Largely on “Classic” Movies (Such as American Movie Classics or Turner Classic Movies) Cable television, with its voracious appetite for material to fill its programming schedules, has a strong interest in continuing access to America’s film heritage. As the public becomes more sophisticated about the visual and sound qualities of films shown on television, cable networks to see the benefits of supporting film preservation efforts (Sapan, 1993). AMC has associated itself closely with film preservation activities. Since 1993, it has held an annual telethon to raise funds for preservation. The proceeds from the telethon go to the leading U.S. film archives, including George Eastman House, the Library of Congress, the Museum of Modern Art, and the UCLA Film and Television Archive. Slide describes the lackluster results of the first telethon as “abysmal,” raising only $120,000 of the hoped for $300,000.17 In 17
It was hoped that the public and the film industry would each contribute $150,000, but the industry fell far short of this goal, with only $5000 in contributions in comparison to $115,000 from the public (Slide, 1995, p. 280).
The Preservation of Moving Images
65
subsequent years, however, AMC has raised over $2 million for film preservation through festivals and other activities (King, 2000, p. F2). These figures show the strong commitment of AMC to supporting film preservation activities and increasing public awareness of the subject. 10. The United States Government, Particularly the National Endowment for the Arts, the National Endowment for the Humanities, and the National Film Preservation Foundation The federal government has had a limited but crucial role in supporting film preservation in the United States in the last three decades. The American Film Institute/National Endowment for the Arts Film Preservation Program, a peer-reviewed subgrant program of the NEA, subsidized laboratory costs for copying deteriorating film onto new stock for a number of years. To qualify for support, applicants needed to meet stringent requirements. Archives were asked to “demonstrate the cultural value and rarity of the films proposed for copying, give evidence of a sound implementation plan (including laboratory estimates), and match the federal money with local funds on at least a one-to-one basis” (Film Preservation 1993, p. 33). Between 1968 and 1978, the AFI-NEA program allocated over $3.7 million to preservation. During this period, allocations increased steadily from only $168,592 in 1968 to $630,000 in 1978. Between 1979 and 1992, however, the program suffered from underfunding and was subjected to frequent cuts, despite the seemingly unassailable value of such a program. The total amount allocated to the program was frozen at $500,000 in 1985, and was cut to $350,000 by 1992. This amount might appear to be adequate, but when one considers that a single black-and-white feature-length film can cost anywhere from $25,000 to $50,000 to preserve, the amount seems paltry. In addition, laboratory costs have more than doubled in the last two decades, making the same grant amount achieve half as much as it once did.18 In 1995, federal funding for film preservation was cut off completely by Congress as a result of the severe budget cuts inflicted upon the National Endowment for the Arts. The outcry from the archival community was such that the NEA allowed archives to apply directly to the program for grants. Nevertheless, many archives were forced to scramble for funding from other sources, mostly private. The one bright spot in federal funding was the
18 Mann (2000) gives a comprehensive review of federal funding for film preservation before the establishment of the National Film Preservation Foundation.
66
`le Valerie Cloonan Karen F. Gracy and Miche
National Endowment for the Humanities, which in 1993 began to give grants to preserve nonfiction film.19 To provide a new source of funding for nonprofit film archives, in 1996 Congress passed the National Film Preservation Act. In addition to providing funding to implement of the recommendations of the National Film Preservation Plan, the law established the private sector National Film Preservation Fund. This foundation, modeled on the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, uses a limited amount of federal matching funds as leverage for raising private sector funds, both of which are used to fund grants for film preservation activities. Unfortunately, the appropriations made by Congress (a maximum of $250,000 annually) did not actually begin until 2000 (Leggett, 1996, p. 1). Professionals in the archival community who felt that film preservation had unfairly been caught in the crossfire of the furor over controversial NEA grants considered establishing the National Film Preservation Foundation as an attempt to redress the damage inflicted by the NEA cuts. Nevertheless, with the large proportion of federal funding going to those films in the public domain, the government has decided to push the responsibility for preserving most of America’s film heritage onto its creators and copyright holders. As the national plan for film preservation states, “Profit-making entities have the primary responsibility to preserve their own product and should contribute to public institutions for work done on their behalf” (Redefining Film Preservation, 1994, p. 22). 11. The American Public The public has little direct control over film preservation, except through governmental representation, but the indirect effects of the public on film preservation are quite powerful. The public supports film preservation activities through donations, ticket sales, video and DVD rentals, and purchases of preserved and restored films. In fact, the burgeoning DVD market seems to be spurred in part by an increased interest in older films (approximately 40% of all DVD releases are “library titles”) (Zone, 2000, p. S9). The public also reaps rewards from film preservation funded by federal monies. The LC report states that “expenditure of tax dollars on film preservation implies a wide public benefit from the activity. And indeed those 19 Nonfiction film includes such genres as avant-garde and art films, documentaries, news and newsreels, educational or academic films, and ethnographic films. Generally speaking, nonfiction films are those works made outside the Hollywood mainstream and usually have different distribution methods from those of feature films.
The Preservation of Moving Images
67
benefits are significant, because public funding assures that at least a portion of what is saved as collective visual memory is not purely determined by commercial markets” (Film Preservation 1993, p. 52). For the most part, film and television archives in the United States lack sufficient funding, staff, facilities, and equipment to accomplish the gargantuan task to which they have dedicated themselves. Film and video preservation are many times more expensive than preservation of other cultural material. When one considers that large archives in the United States such as the Library of Congress and the UCLA Film and Television Archive hold 400,000 and 225,000 titles, respectively, the costs for preserving the feature films holdings alone are staggering. Even smaller institutions such as the George Eastman House (22,000 titles) and the Pacific Film Archive (9000 titles) have many more titles to preserve than current funding will permit them to save.20 In addition, a number of large and small archives, hold unique films such as newsreels, amateur films, documentaries, avant-garde films, and other nonfeature material that also demand attention from the preservation staff and funding for laboratory work. Nichols and Smith note that there are many libraries and archives outside the mainstream of film archiving which also contain unique material. In 1999, the Association of Research Libraries reported that 103 member institutions owned 1,335,441 film and video items, which gives a preliminary indication of the vast quantity of moving image material outside those institutions most closely affiliated with the film and television archive community (Nichols and Smith, 2001, p. 100). Print materials have received the lion’s share of interest and funding in most research institutions, most likely because books, journals, and other paperbased items are seen as most central to their institutional missions. It is difficult to justify the added expense of film preservation to budgets that are already stretched to the limit by the costs of preserving paper-based collections, not to mention the amounts being invested in digitization projects. However, as university professors embrace new media in their teaching and research, and as today’s students are increasingly more visually literate, libraries are beginning to focus increasing attention on moving image holdings. D. Participants and Interests in the Field of Television and Video Preservation We have focused this discussion thus far on the field of film preservation; however, television and video preservation is another crucial category of 20 Figures taken from the AMIA Compendium of Moving Image Cataloging Practice (Martin, 2001), pp. 187 –215.
68
`le Valerie Cloonan Karen F. Gracy and Miche
which institutions must be aware. We urge readers to consult the 1997 Library of Congress report for a more comprehensive picture of television and video preservation in the United States (Television and Video Preservation 1997). Television archives include not just programs on videotape, but a significant quantity of material shot on film as well, which means that archivists are dealing with a variety of formats and genres. Given the vast quantity of footage, particularly for news and documentary collections, what represents the best choice for transfer of material? As we have noted above, videotape is a problematic format at best. Adding to the lack of a true archival format, the sheer quantity of material needing preservation has made appraisal crucial in appraisal to the forefront of moving image archiving. The players in the field of television and video preservation range widely among the public and private sector. On the corporate side, major studios, television networks, and public television are the primary stakeholders, while in the nonprofit sector there are a number of public archives and private museums which play a significant role, including the Library of Congress, UCLA Film and Television Archive, the Museum of Television and Radio, and the Museum of Broadcast Communications. A number of smaller public archives hold significant specialized collections in such areas as television news, advertising, public affairs, documentaries, home movies, and video art. Television and video preservation have received far less attention—and far less funding—than have film preservation efforts. Federal funding has been limited largely to grants from the National Historical Publications and Records Commission and the National Endowment for the Humanities to preserve television news collections. In the private sector, the Museum of Television and Radio has been quite successful in raising funds. E. The Next Wave: Preparing for the Digital Revolution in Moving Image Preservation At this writing, most film archivists in the nonprofit sector have little or no practical experience with preserving digital formats. Television archivists are just beginning to deal with digital video as they look ahead to the eventual phasing-out of most, if not all, analog videotape formats. Some organizations may be beginning to collect some materials stored digitally (on magnetic disks or tape or on optical media), but preservation actions have largely consisted of trying to keep those materials stored in the correct environmental conditions. If they want to continue to take an active role in saving moving image cultural heritage, however, must film archivists familiarize themselves with the myriad difficulties of preserving digital
The Preservation of Moving Images
69
moving images. Few film archives have any sort of long-range plan for the preservation of digital materials, outside of those commercial organizations, which are trying to put in place digital asset management systems. But asset management is not in and of itself preservation—preservation is part of asset management. Digital moving images represent new challenges for film archivists. Besser (2000) has identified five difficulties to ensuring the longevity of digital objects: problems of viewing, scrambling, inter-relation, custodianship, and translation. It is interesting to look at these problems as they affect the future of digital film preservation. 1. The Viewing Problem (Obsolete Formats) Film archivists, unlike television archivists, have had the luxury of fairly stable image formats until now. 35 mm film has been the industry standard for 100 years, and 16 and 8 mm, though not as available as they once were, are still accessible formats because viewing equipment is still widely available for them. The hardware to view 35, 16, and 8 mm film is uncomplicated and inexpensive, and it is readily available. Digital formats show no such signs of stability, however. In the last fifteen years there have been dozens of professional, industrial, educational, and consumer digital moving image formats. The rate of obsolescence for these formats guarantees that most of the moving images captured with earlier technology (such as the D1, D2, and DCT formats) will be lost unless they can be migrated to another more recent format. 2. The Scrambling Problem (Compression and Encryption Formats) Because of storage constraints and narrow bandwidth, most moving image file formats promoted commercially use compression schemes to reduce the size of data files. For the purpose of preserving moving images, most archivists do not approve of lossy compression, in which some image data interpreted as redundant are discarded during the compression process. Unfortunately for archivists, many digital moving images have been stored using lossy compression. Another problem is encryption, used by commercial firms to protect files from being accessed without authorization. Without the key to the encryption scheme, future users may be unable to access many moving image files. As Besser points out, “It’s difficult to believe that all the pieces of a complex container architecture (which rely both on encryption and on the continuing existence of an authority that can approve a payment transaction and release the appropriate key to decrypt the file) will survive long enough
70
`le Valerie Cloonan Karen F. Gracy and Miche
to ensure access to a digital file for more than a decade” (Besser, 2000, pp. 158 –159). Compression and encryption present barriers to moving image preservation. 3. The Inter-Relation Problem Motion pictures are composite artifacts. Filmmakers combine shots into sequences, then add soundtracks, titles, and special effects. The production and distribution of film entail many inter-related elements; camera negative, work prints, sound negatives, fine grains, duplicate negatives, answer prints, and projection prints are just a few. Archivists are familiar with these many generations and pieces of film, because they are always in search of the earliest generation of material to preserve. Digital filmmaking will add even more components to the filmmaking process since the digital operations will be additional to the others; so the relationship among these components will not be as easy to discern as with film. To identify the different pieces that make up the final version of a film, and place them in context with other parts, archivists will need to create systems that use metadata (data about data). To take a classic example that illustrates the importance of metadata, consider when production companies began to use videotape for the post-production of television series. These companies aired final versions of episodes on tape, and never bothered to cut the negative of the original film to match the editing of the taped version. They also did not bother to keep their editing decision lists (EDLs). Today, the videotapes of the final versions are deteriorating, but when the companies went back to the film to preserve the episodes, they realized that they had no idea how to reconstruct them from the uncut negatives. This kind of problem will continue unless metadata that encompass such information as EDLs are kept. There are many types of metadata needed to support the preservation of digital objects, ranging from structural data such as the above described EDLs, to descriptive data—which most librarians will recognize as a close cousin to the bibliographic information found in our catalogs—to technical specifications, which will help librarians and archivists track the particulars of systems and software for accessing digital files. Readers, who wish further information on the suggested metadata framework for digital object preservation, should consult the most recent report of the OCLC/RLG Working Group on Preservation Metadata (2002). 4. The Custodial Problem Who should care for digital moving images? Copyright holders are now expected to take responsibility for the preservation of their motion pictures.
The Preservation of Moving Images
71
Given the proprietary attitude displayed by copyright holders in the digital realm (for example, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act), it is unlikely that most mainstream Hollywood films will ever become a large part of noncommercial archive collections in digital form (unless “hard copies” of the films are placed there on deposit as part of a strategy of geographic separation).21 Noncommercial archives may likely be repositories for the “orphans” of the digital world— films which have been abandoned by their copyright owners. Moving image archivists need to be much more proactive in developing and maintaining digital collections than they have had to be with film collections because of the difficulties of ensuring the authenticity of digital files. Besser says that “when works are subject to repeated acts of refreshing as most approaches to digital longevity propose…, these traditional ways of ensuring authenticity break down. Files repeatedly copied to new strata face the likelihood that changes will be introduced into these files, and we know little about how to control mutability across repeated refreshments” (Besser, 2000, p. 161). Film archivists who want to restore a particular version of a film will want to know that they have “uncorrupted” versions of the digital files used to make the film, and thus they must devise ways to guarantee that the chain of custody has not been broken, and that they are working with authentic materials.22 5. The Translation Problem Film archivists have been dealing with the problems of translating film to other formats for many years. When videotape became a widely used consumer format, many film archivists and scholars roundly condemned its use as a substitute for the original films because of its degradation of the original image and its inability to reproduce the colors of the original accurately (Belton et al., 1991). Friend (1995) has commented that Preservation is not just a technical activity. Although the primary element of preservation work is the film, archivists are also concerned with the context, the culture of cinema. Film preservationists must be concerned not just with the absolute quality of the image, but with its authenticity, with the presentation of the film image in conditions which approximate the ideal viewing ambient of the historical motion picture. Therefore, film preservation is not just the retention of an image, or an acceptable or approximate image, but requires the production of a historical image (the original image, as a correlate of the original viewing experience and medium). While new media such as video are extremely important tools for 21
Gracy defines geographic separation as the process “whereby the studios keep negatives and master positives of their films in different locations to protect against the loss of films because of natural or man made disaster” (2001, p. 212). 22 We assume that archivists would not be interested in “bootleg” copies of films (a presumption that may be incorrect).
72
`le Valerie Cloonan Karen F. Gracy and Miche access and increasingly for preservation, the motion picture archivist must be able to show film, in a theater, to an audience (Friend, 1995, p. 44).
Archivists are likely to have the same reaction to films migrated to digital formats that they did to video. And even for films that originate in a digital format, one must consider the purpose for which the film was created. For example, feature films are usually made to be shown in a theater. Although archivists understand the importance of digital formats for increasing access to rare films that may otherwise never be seen, they also remain committed to preserving the context in which they must be seen.
V. Short- and Long-Term Strategies for Preservation A. Environmental Controls Ideally, moving image material should be kept at a low temperature and humidity, lower than the levels generally suggested for print materials. For medium-term storage (up to 10 years), film will do well at 508F (or even cooler, for color material) and between 20 and 30% relative humidity (RH), while magnetic media can survive at a somewhat higher temperature of 688F and 20 –30% RH. For long-term storage (100 years or more), temperatures should be dropped lower, to near freezing for film (368F) and to 468F for magnetic tape.23 Humidity levels should not fall below 25% RH when stored at lower temperatures, however, because low RH may affect tape lubrication and the acclimatization of the tape for playback. To minimize damage from condensation or lack of lubrication, film and video material should always be allowed to acclimatize to viewing conditions before being played. B. Keeping the Enemy at Bay: Vinegar Syndrome and Sticky Shed Syndrome 1. Vinegar Syndrome Many legacy collections of acetate-based film display mild to moderate symptoms of acetate deterioration, also known as “vinegar syndrome.” Vinegar deterioration—like its more notorious relative, nitrate deterioration—is a hydrolysis reaction whereby water present in the air interacts with 23
Recommendations for film storage are based on ANSI IT9.11-1992 (Book of Film Care, 1992, p. 17). Recommendations for videotape storage are based on the ANSI standard IT9.231998, and can be found on the Association of Moving Image Archivists website at http://www. amianet.org/publication/resources/guidelines/videofacts/environment.html (accessed December 23, 2003).
The Preservation of Moving Images
73
the base of the film stock and breaks down the chemical bonds. The initial symptoms of acetate deterioration include off-gassing of acetic acid vapor (hence the name vinegar syndrome), increased embrittlement (loss of flexibility), and shrinkage of the base, which will lead to buckling as the bonds between base and the emulsion weaken. As deterioration progresses, the film will become increasingly brittle and buckled, leaving it useless—fit for neither projection nor even reformatting onto film or videotape. The Image Permanence Institute research on film longevity shows that acetate film kept at 708F and 60% RH will have reached significant levels of acidity after about 40 – 45 years of storage.24 Given the age of most institutions’ collections and the possibility that films were probably stored in adverse conditions at some time in their lives, even if conditions are now at or near ideal, it is not surprising that many of the films from the 1930s to 1950s now show elevated acidity levels. The best way to control further acetate deterioration is through environmental control—monitoring and adjusting temperature and relative humidity—and by implementing a regular inspection program to identify and isolate films which have reached what the IPI calls the “autocatalytic point” of acidity. One can track acidity in collections by using an A-D strip, a simple device which works on a principle similar to pH indicator strips and testing pens.25 Although ideal storage conditions for the conservation of photographic material are 508F or cooler, and between 25 and 30% RH, reducing temperature and RH to these levels may not be affordable. Reducing RH to 50% and the temperature to 688F, however, will effectively double the life expectancy of a moving image collection. Control of temperature and relative humidity is the most cost-effective method of preservation, allowing archivists time to decide what measures one can take to copy or transfer material that may have already begun to deteriorate. 2. Sticky Shed Syndrome Just as less-than-ideal storage conditions will lead to deterioration in motion picture film, so will high relative humidity and temperature result in deterioration of magnetic media. In the case of videotape, high RH causes the binder (usually made of polyester urethane) to absorb moisture from the air 24
See Fig. 6 in “Time Contours for Vinegar Syndrome,” (Reilly, 1993, p. 7). The strips, placed inside the film container, measure acidity levels, changing color from their original blue to blue–green, to green, to yellow–green, and finally to bright yellow (indicating that the film has reached critical levels of acidity and is near the end of its useful life). A-D strips are available from the Image Permanence Institute (at http://www.rit.edu/ ,661www1/sub_pages/8page9.htm, accessed December 23, 2003), or from many preservation supplies vendors. 25
74
`le Valerie Cloonan Karen F. Gracy and Miche
and deteriorate to the point where it migrates to the surface of the tape in a gummy or powdery residue. When played, a tape exhibiting such signs of binder breakdown will cause the heads of the playback equipment to become clogged with the residue. Once a tape has begun to exhibit signs of sticky shed syndrome, it should not be played because of the potential for damage to both the tape and the playback equipment. At best, the institution will have multiple copies of the tape (preferably a master and submaster) in cold storage, from which a new use copy can be made. If a deteriorating tape is the only copy of the material, it should be sent to experts in magnetic media restoration who will be able to perform restoration measures (either cleaning or “baking” to remove the residue long enough to copy the material). For more information on sticky shed syndrome and tape care, see Appendix I. C. Reformatting Reformatting allows fragile or damaged material to be copied onto a more stable format, allowing the library to preserve the content of the original item and to provide access without exposing the original to potential damage (beyond the damage that the original is subjected to in the reformatting process). A VHS copy of a film or video is probably the most common medium to provide access, and may be the ideal solution if a library does not have film-viewing equipment on-site. It must be remembered, however, that video has a limited shelf life of 5 –10 years unless kept in cold storage. Thus, institutions may want to make a video master on Betacam SP, keep the master in cold storage at all times, and create VHS use copies from the master as needed.26 Since Betacam SP may be phased out in the next 5 –8 years, however, mastering material for DVD or copying to another suitable digital format may be the only option available. 1. Refreshing, Migration, and Emulation Although it is outside the scope of this article to discuss in detail the relative merits of migration versus emulation as long-term solutions for digital moving image preservation, whatever strategy will be chosen ideally must conform to archival requirements for authentic representations of the content and appearance of the images as they were originally recorded. This requirement may seem to be a fairly straightforward request, but it is much more complex to execute than one might envision, for technical and legal 26
Ideally, the institution will want to create a submaster from the master tape to reduce the use of the master as the source for duplication. Creating submasters will increase the costs of preservation, of course.
The Preservation of Moving Images
75
reasons. The preservation metadata framework proposed by the OCLC/RLG Working Group on Preservation Metadata (2002) is a good start. This framework supports a complete structure of preservation descriptive information that includes the categories of reference, context, provenance (including rights management), and fixity; is applicable to moving images. 2. Working with Laboratories and Other Service Providers Reformatting films onto video requires that they be sent to either a laboratory or a post-production facility, which will use a piece of equipment called a “telecine” to do the conversion. Archival video can be duplicated onto a newer format at a post-production house or at one of the number of companies that specialize in magnetic media restoration. The institution should choose a company which has a good reputation for treating archival film and video with care and respect, a trait which unfortunately is rare in a business largely geared to the production of new-release prints and videos. The library may need to send moving image material to New York, Washington, DC, or Los Angeles, where there are laboratories with experience appropriate. Preservation of motion picture film is expensive, particularly with the expenses of instituting environmental controls and of laboratory work (either copying films onto polyester stock or making access copies). Thus, the library must decide which moving images merit preservation. Libraries and archives should invest in rare or unique archival material, and then carefully consider the value of the other films in their collections in relation to their institutional mission. Many films and videos in university collections, originally acquired by audiovisual departments to support teaching needs, do not contain information which reflects the most up-to-date research in a given field (particularly in the sciences, where researchers and students are more apt to use the Internet to find current information). These older educational films are likely to be more valuable as historical and cultural documents. If an institution decides that it does not have the budget to support such a collection, it may choose to deaccession some of the films and offer them to another institution that collects educational films or to a stock footage house. (Any deaccessioning is, of course, subject to library policy or donor agreements.) 3. Copyright Considerations Libraries owning 16 mm copies of films originally purchased to support educational objectives can justifiably and legally reformat deteriorating films
76
`le Valerie Cloonan Karen F. Gracy and Miche
onto video or DVD, as long as those copies are used solely on-site in the library or in a classroom as per the guidelines of the 1976 Copyright Act. Such “fair use” is perfectly legal. But libraries wanting to digitize films for Internet access should be cautious since copyright law does not provide the same fair use protection unless the film is in the public domain. If a library wants to digitize a film (a rather expensive endeavor for most libraries at this time), it must do a thorough copyright search to determine the film’s status. Researching copyright for motion pictures can be difficult and frustrating, particularly for films produced outside the Hollywood mainstream. Although an educational film may have been initially registered for copyright, the company that made it may not have renewed the copyright after it had expired (for films produced before 1978). Thus, many educational films have fallen into the public domain. Staff can do initial searches on the database of the United States Copyright Office to see if a copyright was registered or renewed from 1978 onward (available at http://www.copyright. gov/records/). Even if a film is not in the database, it may still be under copyright. Given the recent changes in copyright law (in particular, the Copyright Term Extension Act of 1998 and the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998), it is unwise to assume that a particular film has fallen into the public domain; one should consult someone with expertise in copyright clearances for motion pictures. For noncommercial moving images which were never distributed (i.e., “published”) and which may never have been registered for copyright—including many films and videos in archives and special collections—copyright status will depend on whether or not it was made as a “work-for-hire.” The copyright of works made-for-hire belong to the individual or organization who hired the filmmakers to make the work, not to the creators themselves. The 1976 Copyright Act assures protection to all unpublished works made after 1978; however, “unpublished” moving images made before 1978 may not be protected if a copyright was not registered. In all cases, it is advisable to check the donor agreement to determine who originally owned the rights and whether those rights were transferred to the institution upon donation. D. Documenting Film Collections and Preservation Work (Media Asset Management) As we have noted above, high levels of temperature and relative humidity can have a devastating effect on the longevity of motion picture film and videotape. They will increase the rate of deterioration and, in the case of film, will accelerate color fading. Sadly, the effects of inappropriate long-term storage have already wrought havoc among many collections across the
The Preservation of Moving Images
77
country. The fluctuations of temperature and relative humidity over the course of a year, particularly in humid areas such as the Northeast, South, and Midwest, have left many institutions with a diminished legacy consisting of faded films and unplayable videotapes. And because many institutions could not do a thorough survey of their moving image collections, they are now facing the same sort of “slow fires” crisis which has imperiled print collections. Librarians and archivists must now arm themselves with information— not just the technical information about how to store this material, but information about their own collections. A few of the hard questions which an institution needs to answer are: † † † † † † † † † †
What does the library own? Why was an item originally acquired? What is its provenance? What is its access history? What is its repair history? What is its preservation status (state of deterioration)? What is its copyright status? What is its condition? (What deterioration does it display?) Is it worth keeping? If so, what would it take to keep it? (re-house? re-store? restore? re-format?) † What would it cost to do so? † Who will pay for it? Only when an institution has gathered such information on its moving image collections can it decide how to preserve items of value and maximize the preservation resources of the institution. Although it will take time, effort, and funds to answer these questions, it will ultimately allow the institution to identify the items truly meriting preservation funding. As with endangered print collections, institutions should conduct a collection condition survey of moving image holdings, and repeat them annually to provide cumulative data for analyzing the relationship between the materials, their condition, and the environment in which they are housed (Book of Film Care, 1992, pp. 26, 28). Ideally, archival information on moving image collections should be stored in an information system designed to exercise control over this sort of material. Although many institutions are already committed to an automated catalog (most likely one which uses MARC for encoding bibliographic data), that most OPACs are not sufficient for the task— unless the institution wishes to make major modifications, such as the implementation of many note fields for specific data coding. And for
78
`le Valerie Cloonan Karen F. Gracy and Miche
those needing access at a more micro-level than simply by film title (e.g., television newsfilm, which will be retrieved on a shot or story basis), an entirely different system may be necessary. In the digital realm, moving image components may be equally complex, consisting of backgrounds, sketches, special effects, and other parts. Because controling moving images is complex, many institutions have adopted a media asset management (MAM) system (or a digital asset management system, for purely digital collections). There are many advantages to using an MAM system, as it will support the collection of metadata at the administrative, structural, and descriptive levels, and will enable the retrieval of moving images at several levels (e.g., by production, segment, or single frame).27 Institutions should choose MAM systems which comply with the Open Archival Information System (OAIS) information architecture standard. OAIS, which recently became an official ISO standard, provides a generic framework for archiving data, incorporates long-term preservation requirements, and has been embraced by the library and archival community as the blueprint for the design of digital libraries and archives (OCLC/RLG, 2002). Another standard to which institutions will probably want their MAM system to adhere is the Metadata Encoding and Transmission Standard (METS). METS works in concert with OAIS as the primary method by which data are submitted to, archived in, and disseminated from the archive. Last, institutions should explore two pertinent MPEG standards: MPEG-7 and MPEG-21. MPEG-7, or the Multimedia Content Description Interface, is a standard for describing multimedia content data. It supports multiple levels of abstraction (syntactic and semantic), multiple levels of granularity, and it allows for domain specialization (e.g., by audience, function, genre, or content) (Martinez, 2002). MPEG-21 is an emerging standard that aims to “define a multimedia framework that will enable transparent and augmented use of multimedia resources across a wide range of networks and devices used by different communities. The intent is that the framework will cover the entire multimedia content delivery chain encompassing content creation, production, delivery and trade” (Ruskin, 2001). Because MPEG-21 is still under review and continues to be refined—and still lacks a number of components which 27
For “born-digital” moving images, metadata collection can be automated, i.e., the metadata can be generated routinely when the moving images are created, and then the video can be analyzed using speech recognition and image processing to generate descriptive metadata to be used for subject access points (the latter step could also be used to create a description of digitized video) (Wactlar and Christel, 2002).
The Preservation of Moving Images
79
would fully support library and archival requirements for long-term preservation of digital objects—it is not quite “ready for primetime.” It does, however, bear watching as a potentially powerful standard for the creation, acquisition, and sharing of information among institutions and individual users.28
VI. Strategies for Access Given the great investment of time, resources, and energy that the preservation of moving images requires, all preservation work should be accomplished with the goal of improving access to the material. Access encompasses many activities, including: † creation of use copies (in the form of projection prints, high-quality video or DVD transfers, and/or digitization); † provision of a space for screening and/or viewing, which will include well maintained equipment and trained technicians; † creation of cataloging records, finding aids, and other descriptive metadata which will allow users to discover the existence and learn the contents of moving image material in an institution; † outreach activities to advertise the availability of moving image resources. A. Use Copies In the past, many films were preserved (i.e., duplicated to new stock) without thought to making use copies—either projection prints or high-quality video transfers. Part of the blame for this can be traced to the past policy of federal grant programs whose grants covered laboratory costs for making new preservation pre-print elements (i.e., fine grain positives or duplicating negatives), but not the transfer of the film onto video.29 Nowadays, the main federal grant program, administered by the National Film Preservation Foundation, allows for the making of video use copies with federal funds, as long as the institution also makes a copy on film. In the current funding environment, which views preservation and access to be equally important, making viewing copies is essential. There is no point in preserving a film or video, which no one is allowed to see because of 28 For a cogent analysis of the suitability of OAIS, METS, and MPEG-21 to support archival requirements, consult the recent work by Smart (2002). 29 The national policy was to discourage archives from transferring films to video for the purposes of preservation.
80
`le Valerie Cloonan Karen F. Gracy and Miche
conservation. Every preservation project should include a line in its budget for the creation of use copies. B. Space, Equipment, and Personnel30 For obvious reasons, it is pointless to preserve and maintain a collection of moving images if there is no place to show them, no equipment for screening them, and no one trained to operate such equipment. The investment in viewing equipment and the time needed to learn how to use it may be one of the more daunting tasks for libraries and archives to undertake, but it will ultimately be rewarded by a significant increase in the use of moving image collections. For researchers and catalogers, the library can provide access to film collections using automatic viewers, which come as either table-top or standalone models (RTI’s Cinescan is quite popular). Automatic viewers will be used by catalogers as well as researchers since the former need to screen films to gather descriptive information. It is also possible to provide access using flatbed viewers (common models include Steenbeck, CTM, and KEM), which are widely used by archives worldwide in preservation work. Note that projection of film elements is not recommended for research or cataloging work due to risk of damage and the inability to stop and start the film easily (a requirement for researchers and catalogers). Access to videotapes requires two basic pieces of equipment: a monitor and a videocassette player/recorder (VCR). Since VCRs are format-specific, institutions need to own tape decks for each type of tape for which they would like to provide access. The most common formats for access in library and archival environments are VHS and 3/4 in. U-Matic; institutions may also own tapes in 8 mm or some of the more common professional formats as well (see Sections III.B and III.C). An institution may choose to provide access copies in a single format, transferring from older, obsolete formats into a newer, more stable one. By making one format the “standard,” the institution avoids the headaches of supporting multiple formats, at least in the area of access. The most recent option to appear is to transfer analog video to DVD, which appears to be a viable format for access as it is approaching saturation of the market and will probably overtake VHS in the next decide as the viewing format of choice. Any facilities for access to either film prints or videotapes must be staffed by individuals who have received proper training in the care and handling of film and magnetic media, as well as some rudimentary instruction in the use and maintenance of viewing equipment. 30
For more details on equipment, see Murphy (1997) and Davidson (1997).
The Preservation of Moving Images
81
An employee who does not know the threading pattern of an automatic viewer or flatbed viewer can easily damage a print. In a similar vein, the heads of videotape machines must be cleaned regularly to keep build-up from damaging videotapes. Possible training on proper use and maintenance of machines may come from: an institution’s audiovisual or instructional media services department, a local library consortium which offers workshops on audiovisual archiving and preservation, or the Association of Moving Image Archivists annual conference, which usually offers a basic training workshop in moving image preservation.
C. Intellectual Control of Moving Images31 Access to collections will be greatly enhanced by having full, complete and widely accessible records which are part of a widely accessible database. In the past, many film archives were loathe to divulge the contents of their collections because many of them had 35 mm prints which they did not have the legal right to possess. They also did not want to expose any donors to scrutiny, which could occur if the legal owners chose to pressure archives to reveal the source of the prints. This attitude of secrecy is slowly changing, as archives have begun to work cooperatively on preservation projects and it makes much more sense to share information among institutions. And as access to moving images increases, a number of film archives have made their holdings publicly available so that researchers may ascertain the contents of collections (without having to make an on-site visit or rely upon the reference staff). The manner in which moving images are described depends upon the nature of the institutions in which they reside. On the whole, moving images found in library collections are more likely to be cataloged on an item-by-item basis, while those found in archival collections will probably be described on a collection basis, using four different levels of description: record groups, series, file units, and documents/items. Sometimes, archives will describe individual items in more detail, such as when a reel of television news film or videotape contains multiple stories. When preparing electronic versions of cataloging records and finding aids, be sure to choose formats which easily lend themselves to the sharing of bibliographic data. For cataloging records, if an institution would prefer not 31 For a more thorough treatment of cataloging and describing moving images, see Johnson (1997) and Whitson and Yeager (1997).
82
`le Valerie Cloonan Karen F. Gracy and Miche
to use MARC or Dublin Core because these do not provide the levels of description desired, the system chosen should at least be translatable into these formats so that the institution can participate in consortial digital library projects in the future, if it chooses.32 Archival institutions may choose to implement EAD for the description of their moving images; those that would prefer to design their own DTD should still use XML as an encoding standard. D. Outreach An important, often overlooked, aspect of providing access to moving image collections involves outreach to the community which may find collections of interest. Even if an institution’s primary constituency is researchers, it can be tremendously beneficial to showcase a collection to other staff members, administrators, donors, at professional conferences, and to members of the general public. As Karen Sheldon, archivist at Northeast Historic Film puts it, outreach can † foster enhanced public perception of the value of the materials in which you have invested so much time and effort to preserve; † increase understanding of 20th century history and culture; † Serve and build constituencies (public, academic, professional); † further involve people, including your board and volunteers, in your organization; † get feedback on your preservation work and the meaning of your collections; † gain recognition for your unit or institution (Sheldon, 1997). Outreach activities can take many forms, including screenings, public exhibitions of moving image materials in conjunction with exhibitions of other objects of material culture, distribution of material on videotape or DVD for sale or loan, mounting of material on the World Wide Web, creating print or electronic publications relating to your collection, papers given at professional conferences, tours of the facility, and publicity about any of the above events in newsletters, press releases, listservs, websites, and other public relations venues. One of the most important outcomes of outreach is the opportunity to contextualize archival moving images within a particular historical period or culture, or as part of an individual or institutional history. Providing context 32
For example, the Association of Moving Image Archivists has launched a consortial digital library project, called Moving Image Collections (MIC), which aim to provide a gateway for Internet users to search the databases of member libraries and archives.
The Preservation of Moving Images
83
often requires archivists and librarians to research the history of a film or a collection. Moving images are shaped by social, economic, and cultural forces, however, and librarians and archivists can bring these resources to life to constituencies outside the academic research community by showing them the circumstances under which they were created and disseminated. In doing so, an institution will help people to understand the value of its collections and the need to support preservation work.
VII. Tensions Between Preservation and Access Currently, where reformatting is often seen as the most logical option for retaining access to moving images threatened by deterioration or obsolescence, it can be difficult to make the case for retaining the original artifact after its content has been transferred. Nevertheless, there are a number of reasons for thinking twice before jettisoning original or unique elements. Archivists have learned from mistakes made in the name of reformatting. During the 1950s –1970s, a number of film archives and libraries launched massive duplication programs to transfer films from nitrate to acetate stock. Nitrate was seen as increasingly troublesome and expensive to store, due to its flammability and susceptibility to deterioration.33 Often, these nitrate films were destroyed after they had been duplicated, or in the case of a number of studios, dumped into the Pacific Ocean. In some situations, noncommercial archives who did not have this aversion to nitrate became the recipient of certain collections (particularly print libraries) from studios which had no use for the nitrate. In later years, when the original owners of the nitrate films reviewed the quality of their acetate preservation masters—duplicated quickly and often with varying degrees of quality—they found that the acetate copies were often unacceptable. Thus the hapless studio executives and archivists, who had given away, destroyed, or otherwise divested themselves of those high-quality nitrate prints and negatives, found that they had become the owners of inferior, or even unusable copies of those films. In many cases, the nitrate negatives (which studios made a better effort to retain) had deteriorated to the point at which it could not be transferred to new stock. As luck would have it, the prints that survived in the noncommercial archives ended up being the best surviving copies of many studio films. When studios 33 Many municipalities enacted strict laws banning the storage of nitrate film within city limits.
84
`le Valerie Cloonan Karen F. Gracy and Miche
wanted to restore some of these films, they realized that they no longer owned the film. And ironically, archivists would soon discover that by controlling environmental conditions, they could greatly extend the life of original elements, even those which were on 70- and 80-year-old nitrate stock. If the studios had invested in cold storage earlier, the large-scale purge of nitrate from their libraries might not have been necessary. (To be fair, the economic incentives of the many secondary markets now available, which would offer a justification for greater investment in storage facilities, did not emerge until the 1970s and 1980s). The decision of a particular moment not to try to save the nitrate films, seemingly informed by compelling economics, became short-sighted in hindsight. We can take a lesson from this tale, however. Analog objects often have intrinsic value, which cannot easily be separated from the medium in which they are manifest, and archivists who re-format such material without a careful consideration of the potential loss involved in the transfer do so at their own peril. The standards for reformatting are likely to change over time, and will emerge only after a period of experimentation. Archivists will need to ask themselves the following questions. † Is our goal to make equivalents, near-equivalents, or “good enough” access copies? † What standards will we use to judge the quality of the reformatted copies? † Are those standards likely to change over time? † What will happen to the original analog material once digitization has taken place? † What will happen to the digitized version? The stakes are too high not to contemplate the results of our wellintentioned actions. Another issue to consider involves the representation of moving images as they are migrated from one format to another, and from the analog to the digital environment. In the last 25 years, the market for moving image consumption has been marked by the shift from film to video, and now DVD, in the educational and home viewing environments. The 16 mm rental market, once the primary method of showing films in a nontheatrical setting, has become almost extinct within the space of 15 years. Many educators, particularly media studies, have bemoaned the irony of studying film on videotape, emphasizing that the projected image embodies different aesthetic and informational qualities than the electronic image; the latter is not considered an acceptable substitute (Belton et al., 1991). Nowadays, as we embrace new digital technology and call for the digitization of moving images in the name of access, we must consider this claim of incomparability once
The Preservation of Moving Images
85
again. Are we substituting apples for oranges when we migrate from film to video, or from analog to digital video? Are we in fact doing a disservice to the users of moving image material by, in a manner, “misrepresenting” it? Ultimately, these questions bring us back to issues of authenticity and integrity, neither of which provides easy solutions to our dilemmas. There is no doubt that the DVD format and the Internet will provide much more convenient ways of providing access to moving images than will film. For most institutions, it would be ludicrous to insist that film will be presented only on film, analog video on videotape, and so on. But protectors of moving image materials still must deal with the dilemma which has been presented to them: they want to provide access to these resources, yet they need to ensure that the integrity and authentic nature of the artifact is not compromised. Some institutions may be primarily interested in retaining the content, i.e., the information contained in the film. Others such as archives may emphasize the importance of maintaining the validity of the moving images as a record of events or as a manifestation of authorial intent. Unfortunately, we do not yet have a universally acceptable archival standard for preserving or presenting moving images in the digital environment.34 There is not an ideal, universal solution to this quandary. At this point, each institution must chart a course for preservation and access, which not only takes into account the end result, i.e., accessible films and videos, but also decides what is the primary value of the material for that institution. Consulting with experts in the areas of moving image archiving and digitization will provide the most up-to-date opinions and best practices, and is strongly encouraged.
VIII. Moving Image Preservation and the Preservation Continuum The preservation of moving images is part of a broader preservation framework in which librarians, archivists, and museum curators try to maintain control over cultural materials for as long as possible, in a variety of settings, and for different uses. Although film has been around for over a 100 years, and although it is now collected by many types of institutions, the cultural and educational values of film (and of all moving images) were largely 34
Although the library and archival communities have made many strides in the drive to establish digitization standards for most printed materials and still photographs, there are no such standards at this time for the digitization of moving images in film or analog video formats. Several institutions have suggested some “best-practice” guidelines; however, it seems premature to accept these as archival-quality standards.
86
`le Valerie Cloonan Karen F. Gracy and Miche
overlooked until recently. Even in the short history of the moving image preservation movement, however, it is possible to draw some parallels to the field of library preservation. In both preservation movements, clarion calls went out in the 1980s to alert the public to the perils of deterioration. The library world dubbed their concern “the brittle book problem” while the film community coined the slogan “nitrate can’t wait.” In both cases the warnings were called for: nitrate film is combustible and if paper is brittle enough it will crumble. But both fields exaggerated these perils in the interest of public engagement and, ultimately, federal funding for preservation.35 Attempts to deal effectively with these problems were not always successful. Film archivists transferred nitrate films onto triacetate film, which has now been replaced by the more stable polyester-based film. Early library preservation administrators also made mistakes by laminating brittle paper or by copying it onto Diazo or Vesicular, rather than silver – gelatin, microfilm. In both instances the severity of the nitrate and brittle book problems led preservationists to embrace “solutions” fraught with new problems. On the other hand, both preservation movements have been largely successful at educating the public about “the imperative to preserve,” and both movements have managed to secure federal and private funding not only for reformatting, but also for conservation and restoration projects. A Gallup poll taken in the 1990s showed that Americans generally believe that preservation is an important function of museums, libraries, and historic houses.36 The creation of new multi-media information objects has led to a blurring of genre distinctions. Museums, libraries, and archives not only collect new media, they also create them. This new interconnectedness will enable preservationists across disciplines to approach their work more holistically. Library preservation has moved away from the book/nonbook duality that characterized the field in the past. It is practical to join forces among librarians, museum personnel, archivists, and others, saving rather than reproducing efforts, and sharing knowledge. Joint projects may also increase the likelihood of federal funding opportunities. Cooperation yields results, good public relations, and a recognition that each institution’s mission is like that of the others. Film preservation is not the provenance of a single kind of institution. All organizations that hold films are in this together. 35
For a colorful, though not always accurate, account of the brittle book movement, see Baker (2001). 36 This 1996 Gallup study is discussed in Cloonan’s (2001), “W(h)ither Preservation?”
The Preservation of Moving Images
87
Appendix I Additional Recommendations for Care and Handling of Moving Image Materials A. Motion Picture Film 1. Inspection First, never project a film or view it on a flatbed or Moviola without inspecting it, in order to identify any pre-existing damage. A seemingly minor problem such as broken perforations may become a major repair if the film is subjected to the stresses of projection. It is also a good idea to inspect a film after it has been projected to record and repair any new damage that may have been inflicted during use. Brittle film (A-D level 2 or higher) should not be projected, as it no longer has the plasticity required to withstand projection. Film no longer suitable for projection may still be a candidate for reformatting, however, since film printers are easier on film than is projection equipment. A regular inspection program allows the library or archive the opportunity to track the condition of the film collection over time. Inspection tasks include: † opening the can and examining it for evidence of deterioration such as a vinegar odor (indicating acetate deterioration) or rust rings on the interior of the can (also evidence of deterioration); † checking the film roll itself for obvious signs of deterioration (such as powder or viscous foam, in the case of nitrate film, or crystalline deposits, in the case of acetate film); † using A-D strips to measure levels of deterioration (may be used to sample a large collection in addition to tracking the deterioration of an individual film over time); † time permitting, winding through each reel to look for signs of embrittlement, stickiness, ferrotyping, stains, dirt, and mold. 2. Repair Simple film repair on material with no special enduring value can be done by in-house library staff with relatively inexpensive inspection and splicing equipment and materials. Ideally, materials used to repair moving image materials should not deteriorate, should help extend the life of the item, and should not cause further damage. Unfortunately, many of the materials used in film preservation, such as cleaners and tape adhesives, do not meet the same
88
`le Valerie Cloonan Karen F. Gracy and Miche
stringent criteria as those used in repair of books since most film repair supplies were adopted from the production community. Thus, it is worth examining film occasionally where splices and repairs have been made for evidence of deterioration of adhesives. Splices which have begun to ooze adhesive residue should be redone, preferably using a tape splicer so that no footage will be lost in making the splice (most cement splicers will require one to trim at least one frame off either end of the film). The most important consideration in making repair decisions should be how to determine the value of the collections. Being able to identify rare or unique material will help you determine what items staff can treat versus what a film preservation specialist should repair. Some material should not be repaired by staff members, but should be fixed by a specialist or sent to a film laboratory that specializes in preservation work. An institution will probably not want to invest significant resources in major repairs unless it plans to reformat the film (i.e., copy it onto new stock, or onto videotape or DVD), or if projected usage will merit the expense. Currently available staff and budget will help an institution decide what is the most cost effective and appropriate. Selection of materials for repair or reformatting will be most likely to occur during routine inspection or inspection prior to projection. An institution may choose to repair only those materials that it feels are likely to be used. Such a use-based process is a good one, for it is more cost-effective to repair only the materials being used; thus, it is important to keep records of film use. It is important to train the staff who deal with the film collection about procedures for identifying damaged material, providing them with clear guidelines for decision-making. The authors direct readers to Davidson (1997) and The Book of Film Care (1992) for additional tips on care and handling of motion picture film. B. Care and Handling of Videotape The following tips are reproduced from the Videotape Preservation Fact Sheets, a web resource published by the Association of Moving Image Archivists, with the kind permission of Jim Wheeler, principal author, and the Association (Wheeler, 2001a,c). 1. Common Tape Problems a. Sticky-Shed Syndrome The binder is the weak point of most videotape. In the late 1960s, polyester urethane became a popular binder for videotapes because of its durability and low cost. Unfortunately, polyester urethane is subject to hydrolysis. It can absorb moisture from the atmosphere, and as a result the water changes its molecular structure. High temperature and relative humidity encourage and
The Preservation of Moving Images
89
accelerate this chemical reaction. The rate at which chemical deterioration occurs varies depending on the chemical formulation used by the media manufacturer. Chemical formulation information, however, is considered proprietary and therefore rarely disclosed by manufacturers. The identification of tapes with polyester urethane binder is not easy, so it is recommended that all tapes be stored in a low humidity environment in order to prevent hydrolysis. The first sign of binder breakdown is usually the presence of a powder or a gummy residue on the surface of the tape. When the tape is played, this residue attaches to the playback heads, resulting in poor playback at best, or a jammed machine at worst. If this situation occurs, the tape should be ejected and all affected tape path parts should be cleaned with isopropyl alcohol and cotton-tipped swabs. The tape can be made playable by using a tape cleaning machine to remove the powder from its surface or by “drying” the tape over a period of time in a controlled environment. b. Poor Playback Signal Sometimes the video playback is poor despite attempts to adjust the tracking control. This problem can often be corrected by cleaning the tape guides and adjusting the tape tension. Other times playing the tape on another machine resolves this problem. Poor playback signal may result from the use of a machine that is not fully compatible with the tape. Some tape formats have several, improved versions that were developed and introduced during the life of the format. For example, High-Band Quad is not compatible with the earlier Low-Band Quad. While some Quad machines can accommodate both high-band and low-band formats by the flip of a switch, many cannot. If the video image tears, rolls vertically, or jiggles as it is played, a video processor or a time base corrector (TBC) may be employed to make the video image stable. c. Demagnetization Contrary to what many people believe, demagnetization of a tape recording is an infrequent occurrence. Because of the high coercivity of most magnetic tapes, a very large magnetic field is required to erase the recording. Such a large magnetic field is produced by the erase head on tape recorders. When the “record” button is pressed, the erase head is turned on, and the portion of tape in contact with the erase head will be erased. To prevent accidental erasure of archival tapes, it is recommended that all tapes or tape recorders in the archive be modified so that the record function is disabled or can be activated only by authorized personnel. The magnetic fields of motors, transformers, and television sets pose a very slight risk of erasing magnetic tape. These fields are self-contained by design, so a tape would have to be located within approximately 1 in. of the
90
`le Valerie Cloonan Karen F. Gracy and Miche
coils of these devices for them to have a noticeable effect on the tape. Quad tapes are the most susceptible to erasure since they have a magnetic strength of only 300 oersteds. A magnetic field of 20– 30 oersteds may adversely affect a Quad tape, however, fields of that strength do not commonly occur in an archives setting. A recommended best practice for archives dictates that a tape can be stored safely in a magnetic field with a maximum strength of 1/10 of the tape’s coercivity. A more conservative figure of 1/20 provides a safer margin of error. To determine a tape’s coercivity, refer to the product’s specification sheet available from the manufacturer. Some metal particle tapes will lose a small percentage of their magnetization if exposed to high temperatures for several months. Tests of the metal particle pigment (not the tape) indicate that the particle has an estimated life of 150 years if stored at 218C (708F) and 60% RH. The same metal particle has an estimated life of 700 years if stored at 108C (508F) and 60% RH (Okazaki et al., 1992). These data illustrate the effect of temperature on the life of the metal particle itself. d. Edge Damage or Warped Tape The polyester base film of videotape can be stretched or otherwise deformed, which may result in playback difficulties. A poor tape pack (see Fig. 1) leaves the tape edges, and therefore certain tracks, susceptible to damage. Poor storage conditions can cause tape to deform as well. However, polyester is an extremely resilient material and it can usually be returned to its original shape, and hence a playable condition, by a person knowledgeable in the restoration procedure known as “baking.”37 First, the tape should be fast forwarded to the end. Then it should be rewound to the start and played to the end. Carefully observe how the tape is packed on the take-up hub. If the pack is flat, then it can be baked. If the tape pack is not flat after playing it, rewind it again and play it on another tape recorder. The tape may pack correctly on the second tape recorder. 2. Tape Inspection A comprehensive plan for the inspection of magnetic tape is essential to prevent damage to the tape itself and the machinery on which it is transported for playback. Tapes should be inspected thoroughly before 37 Baking is a somewhat controversial procedure which temporarily restores tape to a playable condition. It should be carried out only by someone familiar with the process and the risks associated with it, such as introducing skew and mistracking into helical scan recordings. See DeLancie (1990).
The Preservation of Moving Images
91
Fig. 1. Illustration courtesy of John W. C. Van Bogart.
every major change in status, such as before or after shipment, playback, or placement in storage. Periodic inspection during storage also is essential to prevent premature loss of materials. See standards AES 221997 and ISO 18923 for information regarding inspection as it relates to storage of magnetic tape. At a minimum, the following physical inspection routine is recommended. While this examination may not identify all the problems that can occur, if a tape fails any one of these inspection criteria, it can be considered to be in danger and in need of further attention. Attempts to play back such tapes before treatment place the tapes and the playback machinery at risk. The following inspection procedure shall be performed in the order listed. 1. The physical container (box, case, and/or cassette) shall be examined for damage that compromises the structural integrity of the container itself. Breakage is a strong indication of improper handling. If the container, reel or cassette is damaged, the tape inside also is likely to have suffered damage or contamination. 2. The tape shall be inspected for odor as soon as the container is opened. If a musty odor is detected, the inspection shall be terminated as this inspection may indicate the presence of fungus. Hydrolytic breakdown of polyurethane binder creates esters that have distinctive odors but dissipate quickly. The most common odors can be
92
`le Valerie Cloonan Karen F. Gracy and Miche
characterized as “waxy,” “dirty socks,” “astringent” or “pungent,” depending on the binder. Tapes with binder hydrolysis are in the process of self-destruction and can stick in the machine during playback, causing additional damage. Some early tapes made with acetate will emit a vinegar odor if the base film is afflicted with “vinegar syndrome,” a serious form of decay. 3. The container and the edges of the tape shall be inspected for patterned black, brown, or mustard-colored contamination and for fuzzy or thread-like growths that indicate the presence of fungus. Fungus can grow on magnetic tape and tape containers after exposure to high humidity. Tapes with fungus should be isolated and treated by professionals as soon as possible. Mold can present a health hazard: if an outbreak is suspected, routine inspection procedures should not be continued until the scope of the outbreak is understood. 4. With a light source above and slightly behind the inspector, the tape should be tilted edge-on at an angle of approximately 458 away from the light source. In this position the tape pack shall be inspected for spoking, popped strands, stepped pack, flange pack, pack slip, edge damage, cinching, and gaps in the pack. These terms, defined below, refer to irregularities in the way the tape is wound onto the hub and are indications of improper handling, improper storage, or a badly adjusted machine. † Spoking describes a distinctive pattern of lines radiating out from the hub, like the spokes on a bicycle wheel; this condition results from improper tension. † Popped strands and stepped pack (also known as slipped pack or pack slip) refer to individual or groups of tape wraps that stick up from the edge of the pack (see Fig. 1). † Flange pack occurs when the whole tape pack rests against the flange. † Gaps in the tape pack are caused when the tape is loosely wound on the hub. Often a gap indicates an area where the tape is folded back over on itself, a condition known as cinching. Torn, worn, or folded tape often shows up as an area of greater light reflection in the pack. If these conditions are found, document the condition of the tapes and contact a restoration expert. 5. The tape edge and the reel/cassette/cartridge shall be inspected for particulate contamination and for signs of staining that may indicate liquid contamination. Any visible contamination is an indication of poor storage or handling. Particulate contamination can block the signal during playback and can scratch the tape and the playback
The Preservation of Moving Images
93
heads. Liquid contamination may accelerate tape decay and often results in tape wraps sticking together. 6. The tape edge shall be examined for white powder or crystalline residue and the interior of the container shall be examined for black or brown flakes of oxide. These symptoms are caused by a variety of conditions and indicate that the tape has started to degrade. If this condition is identified, the tape may be treated by drying. 7. With open reel tapes, a loose vertical stand shall be inspected for surface contamination, physical distortion, and binder/base adhesion failure. Dust, dirt, or other foreign deposits on the tape indicates surface contamination. Physical distortion caused by improper tension of the tape wind often appears as wavy or “scalloped” edges. Sections of tape which appear to have a different color may indicate binder/base failure, where magnetic pigment material has separated from the backing.
References Association of Moving Image Archivists (2002). Membership Directory, AMIA, Hollywood, CA. Baker, N. (2001). Double Fold: Libraries and the Assault on Paper, Random House, New York. Bellardo, L. J., and Bellardo, L. L. (1992). A Glossary for Archivists, Manuscript Curators, and Records Managers, Society of American Archivists, Chicago. Belton, J., et al. (1991). Statement on the use of video in the classroom by the Society for Cinema Studies Task Force on Film Integrity. Cinema Journal 30(4), 3– 6. Besser, H. (2000). Digital longevity. In: Handbook for Digital Projects: A Management Tool for Preservation and Access (M. Sitts, ed.), Northeast Document Conservation Center, Andover, MA. The Book of Film Care (1992). 2nd ed. Eastman Kodak, Rochester, NY. Card, J. (1994). Seductive Cinema: The Art of Silent Film, Knopf, New York. Cloonan, M. V. (2001). W(h)ither preservation? Library Quarterly 71, 231–242. Davidson, S. (1997). Videotape issues and concerns. In: The Administration of Television Newsfilm and Videotape Collections: A Curatorial Manual (S. Davidson and G. Lukow, eds.). American Film Institute/Louis Wolfson II Media History Center, Los Angeles. DeLancie, P. (1990). Sticky shed syndrome: tips on saving your damaged master tapes. Mix 14(5), 148–155. Feather, J., Matthews, G., and Eden, P. (1996). Preservation Management: Policies and Practices in British Libraries, Gower, Aldershot, U.K. Film Preservation 1993: A Study of the Current State of American Film Preservation (1993). Vol. 1. Library of Congress, Washington, DC. Friend, M. (1995). Film/digital/film. Journal of Film Preservation 50, 36–49. Gracy, K. F. (1994). Film and television preservation concerns come of age: an in-depth report on the second Preservation Intensive Institute. Library Hi-Tech News 117, 1–6. Gracy, K. F. (1999). Coming again to a theater near you: the lucrative business of recycling American film heritage. Stanford Humanities Review 7(2), 180–191. Gracy, K. F. (2001). The imperative to preserve: competing definitions of value in the world of film preservation. Dissertation, Department of Information Studies, University of California, Los Angeles.
94
`le Valerie Cloonan Karen F. Gracy and Miche
Houston, P. (1994). Keepers of the Frame: The Film Archives, British Film Institute, London. International Federation of Film Archives (1968). Statuts et Re`glement Inte´rieur [Constitution and Internal Rules ]. FIAF, n.p. Johnson, J. D. (1997). Cataloging. In: The Administration of Television Newsfilm and Videotape Collections: A Curatorial Manual (S. Davidson and G. Lukow, eds.). American Film Institute/ Louis Wolfson II Media History Center, Los Angeles. King, S. (2000). Gaining ground in film’s reel war. In: Los Angeles Times (Home ed.), 16 June 2000 sec. F, 2. Leggett, S. (1996). Landmark film preservation bill becomes law. AMIA Newsletter 34, 1 see also p. 21. Lindgren, E. (1948). The importance of film archives. Penguin Film Review 5, 47 –52. Lindner, J. (n.d.). The proper care and feeding of videotape. Conservation OnLine website: http://palimpsest.stanford.edu/byauth/lindner/lindner3.html (accessed December 23, 2003). Mann, S. Z. (2000). American moving image preservation, 1967–1987. Thesis, University of Texas at Austin. A. L. Martin (ed.) (2001). AMIA Compendium of Moving Image Cataloging Practice, Association of Moving Image Archivists/Society of American Archivists, Los Angeles/Chicago. J. M. Martinez (ed.) (2002). MPEG-7 overview (version 8) International Organisation for Standardisation. http://www.csai.unipa.it/ardizzone/tdem0203/archivio/Lezioni/MPEG/ mpeg-7_2002.pdf (accessed December 23, 2003). McGreevey, T., and Yeck, J. L. (1997). Our Movie Heritage, Rutgers University Press, New Brunswick, NJ. Murphy, W. T. (1997). The preservation of news and documentary film. In: The Administration of Television Newsfilm and Videotape Collections: A Curatorial Manual (S. Davidson and G. Lukow, eds.). American Film Institute/Louis Wolfson II Media History Center, Los Angeles. Nichols, S. G., and Smith, A. (2001). The Evidence in Hand: Report of the Task Force on the Artifact in Library Collections, Council on Library and Information Resources, Washington, DC. OCLC/RLG Working Group on Preservation Metadata (2002). Preservation Metadata and the OAIS Information Model: A Metadata Framework to Support the Preservation of Digital Objects, OCLC, Dublin, Ohio. http://www.oclc.org/research/pmwg/pm_framework.pdf (accessed May 14, 2003). Okazaki, Y., Hara, K., Kawashima, T., Sato, A., and Hirano, T. (1992). Estimating the archival life of metal particulate tape. IEEE Transactions on Magnetics 28(5), 2365– 2367. Preservation projects, discoveries, and rereleases (1997). AMIA Newsletter 35, 2. Redefining Film Preservation: A National Plan (1994). Library of Congress, Washington, DC. Reilly, J. (1993). IPI Storage Guide for Acetate Film, Image Permanence Institute, Rochester, NY. Roud, R. (1983). In: A Passion for Films: Henri Langlois and the Cine´mathe`que Franc¸aise (Hopkins Paperbacks Johns, ed.), Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, MD. Ruskin, P. (2001). MPEG-21—Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) Ver 1.0, International Organisation for Standardisation, http://www.chiariglione.org/mpeg/faq/mp21.htm (accessed December 23, 2003). Sapan, J. (1993). Statement (Film Preservation 1993: A Study of the Current State of American Film Preservation), Vol. 4, Library of Congress, Washington, DC, pp. 12–19. Sheldon, K. (1997). Outreach. In: The Administration of Television Newsfilm and Videotape Collections: A Curatorial Manual (S. Davidson and G. Lukow, eds.). American Film Institute/ Louis Wolfson II Media History Center, Los Angeles. Slide, A. (1992). Nitrate Won’t Wait: A History of Film Preservation in the United States, McFarland, Jefferson, NC.
The Preservation of Moving Images
95
Slide A. (1995). The challenge of film preservation in the 1990s, In: Advanes in Preservation and Access (B. B. Higginbotham, ed.) (Advances in Preservation and Access), Vol. 2, Learned Information, Medford, NJ. Smart, L. J. (2002). OAIS, METS, MPEG-21, and archival values. The Moving Image 2(1), 107–129. Television and Video Preservation 1997: A Report on the Current State of American Television and Video Preservation. (1997). Vol. 1. Library of Congress, Washington, DC. Theisen, E. (1967). The history of nitrocellulose as a film base. In: A Technological History of Motion Pictures and Television (R. Fielding, ed.). University of California Press, Berkeley, Reprinted from Journal of the SMPE 20 (March 1933). United States, Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics (2002). Occupational Outlook Handbook: 2002– 03, GPO, Washington, D.C, http://stats.bls.gov/oco/ocos065.htm and http://stats.bls.gov/oco/ocos068.htm. Usai, P. C. (1994). Burning Passions: An Introduction to the Study of Silent Cinema, British Film Institute, London. Usai, P. C. (1996). First school of film preservation opens. AMIA Newsletter 34, 10– 11. Wactlar, H. D., and Christel, M. G. (2002). Digital video archives: managing through metadata. (Building a National Strategy for Digital Preservation: Issues in Digital Media Archiving), Council on Library and Information Resources and the Library of Congress, Washington, DC. Wheeler, J. (2001a). Fact sheet #6: common tape problems. (Videotape Preservation Fact Sheets), Association of Moving Image Archivists, Los Angeles. http://www.amianet.org/publication/ resources/guidelines/videofacts/commonprobs.html (accessed December 23, 2003). Wheeler, J. (2001b). Fact sheet #7: reformatting for preservation: understanding tape formats and other conversion issues. (Videotape Preservation Fact Sheets), Association of Moving Image Archivists, Los Angeles. http://www.amianet.org/publication/resources/guidelines/videofacts/ reformatting.html (accessed December 23, 2003). Wheeler, J. (2001c). Fact sheet #9: tape inspection. (Videotape Preservation Fact Sheets), Association of Moving Image Archivists, Los Angeles. http://www.amianet.org/publication/ resources/guidelines/videofacts/inspection.html (accessed December 23, 2003). Whitson, H., and Yeager, G. (1997). Arrangement and description. In: The Administration of Television Newsfilm and Videotape Collections: A Curatorial Manual (S. Davidson and G. Lukow, eds.). American Film Institute/Louis Wolfson II Media History Center, Los Angeles. Zone, R. (2000). Films with a future. The Hollywood Reporter, 20 November 2000, sec. S, 9–10.
Sound Preservation: From Analog to Digital Michael Seadle Digital and Multimedia Center, Michigan State University Libraries, East Lansing, MI, USA
I. Introduction and Methodology The simplest part of sound preservation involves technology and its application. The real complexities lie in a mix of social legal, and financial issues. The social issues include how archivists, curators, librarians, historians, or anyone with limited engineering, computing, and other technical training can evaluate competing claims and risks. The legal issues include copyright and the risks that an institution may choose to take about what constitutes fair use and preservation copying. The financial issues include how much of what quality of preservation an institution can afford, and for how many of the items in its collection. This chapter relies largely on anthropological theory for its methodology and structure. Readers who want to understand more of the theoretical basis for an anthropological analysis of library and archival issues can consult Nardi and O’Day’s (1999) Information Ecologies: Using Technology with Heart, or my own articles on “project ethnography” (Seadle, 2000a,b). This approach involves recognizing the variety of micro-cultures that need to interact in order to accomplish the technical task of preserving any significant amount of recorded sound. The word micro-culture refers to units of shared meaning as small as professions, departments, interest groups. The language and assumptions of members of one micro-culture can seem so opaque and incomprehensible to members of another that key information is missed or misunderstood in ways that undermine the preservation process. The use of the first person in anthropological articles has always been fairly common, and I will follow the practice here on occasion to remind readers that my own background and micro-cultures necessarily color my judgments, even about technical subjects. I was, for example, a computer
ADVANCES IN LIBRARIANSHIP, VOL. 27 q 2004 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved ISSN: 0065-2830 DOI:10.1016/S0065-2830(03)27004-5
97
98
Michael Seadle
professional who worked on large corporate systems and mainframe operating systems. This experience gave me a hands-on experience with preserving and recovering digital information that is unusual for members of the other micro-cultures to which I belong: historians and librarians. As a result my approach to digital solutions treats those solutions less as new and unproven technology than as a well-established part of institutional life, though a part of institutional life often unseen by members of the academic community. If readers take away only one idea from this chapter, it should be that sound preservation is a large and complex social and organizational project, not a set of universally applicable technological fixes, whose effects will endure for all time. Nonetheless the technology and people’s reaction to it is important, and will be discussed in Section II of this chapter, not only to give answers but also to provide a shared vocabulary and set the stage for some of the issues about how sound preservation should be carried out. Sections IV and V will discuss the legal and financial aspects.
II. Conversion Technology A. History Audio recording technology lacks a stone age. Thomas Edison made the earliest recordings in 1877 on vulnerable wax cylinders—a medium less durable than the worst acidic paper. Shellac discs began to be used in 1897, improved hard wax discs appeared in 1902, and RCA started using vinyl in 1929. (See Schoenherr, 2003a, for a detailed chronology.) Each was an improvement, but all these disc-based media suffered from a destructive playback process that used hard (generally steel) needles, which wore away at the subtle grooves with each performance. Valdemar Poulsen patented a magnetic wire recorder, first in Denmark in 1898, then in the United States in 1902. It never sold well, however, and after the patents expired, Marvin Camras reinvented wire recording in 1939. Meanwhile German scientists had started working with magnetic tape. Dr. Fritz Pfleumer patented the basics for making magnetic tape in 1928 and demonstrated its use as a recording device in 1935. Americans took an interest in this technology after World War II. While the quality and durability outstripped disc-based systems, tape remained somewhat inconvenient for consumer-use until compact audio cassettes entered the market in the 1960s. (See Schoenherr, 2003b, for further reading about early recording history.) Magnetic tape became the preservation standard for recorded sound not so much because of its virtues as because of the glaring problems of
Sound Preservation: From Analog to Digital
99
contemporary pre-digital alternative. (For standards, see Conservation OnLine, 2002.) Tape did suffer some wear with each use, but far less than discs. It was also reasonably inexpensive, lighter and easier to store than discs (which tended to warp when left on their sides), and offered quality so good that it was hard to distinguish from a live performance. Any magnet could erase it, of course, and only machines designed to read that width of tape at its correct recording speed could recover the sound. In other words, magnetic tape remained significantly worse as a preservation medium than the printed book: Because access to magnetic tape is dependent upon rapidly changing hardware and software, its long-term viability as a physical medium is a moot question. The need is therefore for information on its short-term life expectancy and particularly on how to determine when the contents should be migrated forward to avoid loss of data. To put it another way, even though it is agreed that magnetic tape is not now a long-term storage medium, we need to understand the mechanisms driving its physical and chemical deterioration in order to develop the best possible strategies for the preservation of its content. Child, 1993.
The vulnerability of tape is also emphasized through the preservation recommendations of the Cutting Corporation, which specializes in the preservation and restoration of sound recordings. Analog tape should be kept away from magnetic fields and heat sources at all times. For long term storage, metal reels with an unslotted hub should be used. They should be stored with the end of the program or “tail” of the tape on the out side of the reel. This practice is referred to as “tails out” and is done to reduce audio degradation known as print through. Print through causes a delayed or echo sound in the program.…The tapes should also be stored tightly or evenly packed in a sturdy, dust-proof tape care box. A tightly packed tape is a tape that is spooled tightly and evenly around the hub and reduces the damage to the edges of the tape.…The room chosen to store reels in should be at a constant temperature of 508F to 708F and a relative humidity of 40% to 60%. Cutting Corporation, 2000.
There are other problems with tape. Sticky shed syndrome, where the tape binder deteriorates leaving gummy deposits and the magnetic coating comes off, plagued some tapes manufactured in the United States from 1975 to 1985 (Master Digital, 2002). Tape quality also deteriorates slowly over time, and analog-to-analog copying involves a significant enough quality loss that the deterioration is audible even after several generations of high-quality copying. The point is simply that magnetic tape is not and never has been a viable long-term preservation medium for recorded sound. (For a summary of the preservation issues, see Dale et al., 1998.) For decades it was, however, the best alternative, and represented a reasonable short-term solution. The problem was that a generation of audio preservation specialists grew up so accustomed to tape that any departure from it felt risky. When the American
100
Michael Seadle
Library Association held a pre-conference on digital sound in 1998, it became clear that the speakers felt unready to recommend any new standards that would change how sound recordings were preserved. Four years later the situation has changed, at least for most large sound archives at major institutions. Digital preservation has become an accepted method, if not always a comfortable one for those with responsibility for the contents. Some of the key issues will be discussed in the following. B. Media One commonly expressed concern about digital preservation is the longevity of the media on which the information is stored. A great deal has been written about how long a compact disk (CD) will survive with its data intact. CDs are so new that no actual historical information about their long-term performance is available. Manufacturer laboratory testing of CDs under conditions that stress them in ways that resemble aging suggest that the best quality CDs, even read –write CDs (CD-Rs), may reliably retain their data for significant periods (Hartke, 2001). Those periods cannot, however, translate reliably into days or years. They are measured in terms of error or failure rates, and any mention of specific safe duration periods would be highly misleading. Such studies have done little to persuade audio preservation specialists or others that CDs can be treated as the digital equivalent of microfilm (Hedstrom, 1998). In fact, it does not matter, and neither do the long-term preservation qualities of digital audio tape (DAT), hard disks, back-up tape, or any other single medium for digital storage. This is a message that preservation specialists of every sort find perplexing. It goes against all their training, which emphasizes halting or reversing the aging effects of particular media types, and it seems potentially like an attack on their professional micro-culture. It is in fact a principle from a foreign micro-culture. Computer centers have known for decades that all digital storage media fail eventually, some sooner than others, some more predictably than others. For them the key to preserving digital data lies in keeping multiple copies on a variety of media, and having a plan for moving that data to fresh media before all the copies expire. In this paradigm, the predictability of failure matters far more than longevity. The best medium for digital preservation is arguably the hard disk, not because hard disks last longer, but because testing is easy and can be automated so that problems with one copy become apparent almost immediately after they occur. The use of RAID (redundant arrays of
Sound Preservation: From Analog to Digital
101
independent disks) and mirrored disks means that at least two copies exist. Daily, weekly, and monthly back-up tapes provide three additional copies of everything over a month old. Nonetheless, vulnerabilities remain without some geographic diversity. The premise of the LOCKSS (lots of copies keeps stuff safe) project from Stanford University Library is as true for a durable medium like microfilm as it is for digital sound (Stanford, 2002). Copies matter, and digital copies have the advantage that they can be made quickly, remotely, and without loss. For computing professionals this argument seems so overwhelmingly reasonable that it can be difficult to understand how fragile the whole interlocking system of duplicate copies and anticipated failures sounds to those schooled in the common sense principle that valuable materials should be stored on durable media. It is not unusual to see high-quality “gold” CDs (which were once actually made with an actual gold reflective layer) filling the role in today’s grant proposals that reel-to-reel analog tape would have had several years ago as the true archival form. The media-based preservation mindset is hard to break. In the end, however, as Elizabeth Cohen (2001) wrote: “[t]here is no choice but to accept that data migration is the only intelligent policy.” Analog tape has essentially already been abandoned. No one except CD manufacturers really believes that they represent a long-term solution. Digital copies on multiple media with anticipated failure rates and regular refreshing is the only way to save sound recordings across the centuries. Once that is accepted, the question becomes how to do it right. C. Conversion Process The process of converting analog sound to digital is based on sampling. Analog sound is a continuous wave pattern that captures the movement of air caused by the larynx, lips, strings, wings, or any other object vibrating within a set of frequencies that the ear can perceive. Human ears are definitely not the highest quality receptors in the animal kingdom, but they tend to define our conventional notions of sound. This is important because of the debate between those who want to capture all the sound that a human can hear, and those who want to extend the capture process significantly beyond human range to save information which, at some future point, computers might use to determine the shape of the room, the number of people in it, and other information that trails rapidly into the realm of science fiction (Seadle, 2001). The advocates for the latter tend to be historians and other end-users with vivid imaginations, rather than engineers or computer professionals who have a prosaic awareness of the limits of known tools. Some preservationists also tend
102
Michael Seadle
to want to save every possible nuance of sound, and prefer over-sampling, even gross over-sampling, as a way of compensating for what they view as the loss of detail in having only samples rather than the whole continuous analog wave. Theoretically, sampling permits an exact reconstruction of any waveform with frequency less than half that rate. Since this theoretical result cannot be implemented precisely, the usual practice is to over-sample slightly to compensate for the practical realities. Sampling at 44.1 kHz, e.g., theoretically assures perfect reconstruction of all frequencies up to 22.05 kHz. This is well above the normal hearing range of most people. Sound engineers probably have in mind an extreme upper frequency range in the neighborhood of 20 kHz, requiring a theoretical upper sampling rate of 40 kHz. The extra 4.1 kHz is to compensate for the practical realities. Over-sampling may in fact have no value at all. The wave functions of audible sound do not shift so rapidly or radically that any perceptible difference exists between 96 and 44.1 kHz. The latter sampling rate gives a faithful representation of the shape of the sound wave, and if it did not, interpolation between the samples could reasonably fill in the missing values precisely because the wave is continuous. If over-sampling has any value, it lies in a future beyond current engineering or auditory abilities. The bit depth is in fact more important, because it determines the resolution of samples, i.e., the “granularity” with which the colors or brightnesses of an image are divided up, or (in rough terms) values representing sound energy. A bit depth of 1 would only indicate whether or not sound exists above the sampler’s threshold level: a beep or a silence, e.g., roughly equivalent to black and white color. A depth of 24 gives about 17 million amplitude levels, much like 24 bit color, whose content is visibly more precise than 8 bit color. The current audio CD standard for stereo music is 44.1 kHz, 16 bit. This level of quality sounds perfect even to very sophisticated listeners. Existing analog television broadcasts generally have far lower quality sound, and the typical oral history recordings, made on monaural tape with poor-quality microphones and cheap recording devices that introduce machine noise into the recording, are worse still. Sampling these recordings at 96 kHz and 24 bit is the equivalent of taking a color photo with an old no-focus, cheap lens camera, letting it fade for 20 or 30 years, and then scanning the result in 600 dpi 24 bit color. The scan will certainly capture every nuance, but they are nuances that reproduce the faded, poorly focused print. The original scene is gone for good. Even if the original image were in perfect condition, it serves no useful purpose to sample the image in space and resolution beyond measures which capture all the visual information that the human eye can perceive.
Sound Preservation: From Analog to Digital
103
A number of archives are using, recommending, or at least making provision for 96 kHz 24 bit digital recordings. These include Harvard (2001) and the Library of Congress (2001b). For very high quality original recordings of complex sounds made under studio conditions with musical content whose audio range tests human capacity, some over-sampling could make sense, but the chief consequence of over-sampling as a standard for all recordings is an increase in costs because of extra processing time and extra storage. In a time of tight budgets for even the richest institutions, this almost certainly means a reduction in the numbers of recordings that can be digitally reformatted and preserved. What does matter enormously to the conversion process is having good analog playback equipment and sound cards that minimize extraneous noise during the conversion process. The hum of a tape deck, a sound card that rattles, the whir of a computer fan, the subtle sound of tape rubbing against a plastic reel all contribute to the degradation of sound before it reaches digital format. Most preservation-aware sound archives already have quality equipment. If not, the equipment is worth spending money on. Getting that single digital reformatting playback right will do more to preserve the original sound than any increase in the sampling rate will ever do. For the same reason, head-cleaning and other equipment maintenance matters, as does the cleaning and handling of the originals. Advice about both is available from the Library of Congress (2002a). One of the most complex parts of the digitization process involves managing the recording levels as the signal goes from the analog playback device to the computer card. If the recording range is set too high, it can clip off the tops or bottoms of the sound wave and introduce squawks that sound harsh and distorted. If the recording level is set too low, it will reduce the overall dynamic range and the signal-to-noise ratio. A good sound engineer will use a mixer to apply the right amount of compression and limiting to help control levels, optimize the dynamic range, and reduce the chances for clipping (Peiffer, 2002). The software tools for digital conversion vary with the operating system and the price that an institution is willing to pay. Happily even inexpensive software like Syntrillium’s Cool-Edit (http://www.syntrillium. com/cooledit/) can do a good job of handling the reformatting process, which is largely a matter of taking digital output from the sound card and saving it. Generally experienced preservation specialists have a lively sense of the importance of not adjusting the archival version of a digital sound file, once it has been created. Less experienced people can, however, be seduced by advertisements from restoration companies that promise crisp, clear, digitally improved recordings that are free from any tape whir or vinyl
104
Michael Seadle
disc pops. This represents the opposite extreme from those who fear that digitization implies quality loss. Restoration can be useful on derivative copies that will be used in settings where the whirs and pops will distract the audience, but those sounds are generally removed at the cost of some variability and richness. Removing unwanted noises involves excising some part of the recorded sound and perhaps interpolating between remaining samples to fill the gap. Removing whirs and constant background noises is particularly troublesome, since it can affect every part of analog sound wave if it occurred during the initial capture. Whole frequencies of sound can be lost. Some companies are of course more responsible and reliable than others, but none should be trusted to alter the archival original, if for no other reason than the possibility that better tools will come along in the future.
III. Digital Standards A. Formats The standards for formats vary with the discipline and purpose. Libraries and archives tend to use uncompressed “.wav” files, which are essentially a pulse-code modulated (PCM) bit-stream with headers for some basic information such as file type, sampling and quantization rates, file size, duration, and whether the recording is monaural or stereo. Engineers tend to prefer “raw” files that are pure PCM without the headers. For most engineering purposes, the sound must also be down-sampled drastically to as little as 8 kHz. End-users and the digital playback systems popular today tend to use either compressed formats, such as “MP3” or QuickTime, or streaming versions such as RealAudio. MP3 is an audio technology using Motion Picture Experts Group (MPEG) specifications that compress CD quality sound by a factor of 12. Quicktime is a Macintosh product for both audio and video, and Real Audio comes from Real Networks. These formats are definitely non-archival, because the compression is so high that they lose quality, but they are small enough to travel easily over contemporary bandwidth. Napster famously used MP3 files, as do its more decentralized successors KaZaa and Gnutella, and radio stations now often “webcast” using streaming audio. None of these formats should be regarded as enduring. Some may last for 5 years, others for 50 or more, but eventually they are likely to need migration to some new form of digital encoding. This is another troubling fact for traditional preservationists, whose training warns them
Sound Preservation: From Analog to Digital
105
away from the ephemeral. Computer professionals, however, take the inevitability of this kind of transformation for granted. A significant part of my own professional computing life was spent transforming digital data from one format to another, and occasionally back again when the new format did not work out as planned. The data survived unscathed, equally useful and complete regardless of format. Migration is expensive, which is why it matters so very much to use formats that others have accepted as actual or de facto standards, because then standard conversion tools will keep the costs to a minimum. The biggest cost comes from adopting an excellent but idiosyncratic format where a small number of institutions must create their own unique conversion tools. Tool making is expensive. Running the tools is (comparatively) cheap. B. Metadata The metadata for digital sound is as important as the sound itself, because without some description of what it is, where it comes from, what formats it is in, and what restrictions it has, the sound file is just a stream of bits that may be obvious and intelligible if it represents a famous speech, such as President Kennedy’s inaugural address, but more likely is an unknown voice speaking in an unfathomable context, or an unknown song by an unrecognized performer. No single standard exists for the ideal digital sound metadata, but four versions have some significant following among sound archives: MachineReadable Cataloging (MARC) from the Library of Congress, Dublin Core (DC) from OCLC, Encoded Archival Description (EAD) from the Society of American Archivists, and Metadata Encoding and Transmission Standard (METS) from the Digital Library Federation. In general their proponents come from different micro-cultures, and they serve different needs. MARC is the oldest, and METS so new that its first version is only just available from the Library of Congress (2001a, 2002b). Some archives want to know which standard is best for sound preservation. Any answer to that question depends on the contents of the archive, how they will be used, and constraints from existing software. For some archives, MARC is the only choice because their automation system only handles MARC records, and their catalogers know nothing else. It is certainly a reasonable choice for smaller archives that belong to larger libraries. MARC has fields that can describe every possible medium on which digital sound is stored, and AACR2 (Anglo-American Cataloging Rules, 2nd edn.)-based MARC records can give a rich description of the intellectual contents of any sound file. Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH)
106
Michael Seadle
provide enhanced access, and essentially all contemporary online catalog systems use MARC records. The Vincent Voice Library (VVL) at Michigan State University used to catalog its 40,000 voice recordings in MARC. The problem was the expense. While cataloging copy exists for commercially produced recordings, many sound archives including the VVL specialize in unique noncommercial materials, such as local speeches, oral histories, or even news broadcasts, which libraries may legally capture and hold (17 USC 108). Unique items require costly original cataloging, especially when each item is treated as if it were a separate work, the intellectual equivalent of a whole monograph. This often makes little sense when the sound bite is only 30 seconds long. The question is, whether a library or archive has too many recordings to afford that approach. The other metadata options all use XML (Extensible Markup Language). While XML-based metadata are generally simpler than MARC, some of the technical language used to describe them may be less familiar to librarians. XML metadata may have document type definitions (DTDs) that define each tag or attribute within a tag, or “schemas” that define how the components of a document fit together (see Sperberg-McQueen and Thompson, 2003). XML has the preservation advantage that it is composed only of pure ASCII characters, the lowest common denominator of the computing world. MARC now has an XML version too. Although EAD is encoded in XML, it has been around in archives for a long time in its pre-digital form as “finding aids.” More recently it has gained a following in the library community as well. EAD works well as a means of collecting related materials together into a single intellectual unit. It makes sense in particular for the collected records of a single speaker, multiple speakers at a single event such as a conference, or multiple speakers at related events such as a series of readings by local authors. While these recordings could be cataloged separately to match them with the author’s books, the cost would be prohibitive, just as it would be to catalog each of an author’s articles separately. EAD has features to encode access restrictions, physical descriptions, and abstracts at the collection and item levels. Because EAD allows large numbers of sound files to be collected and described in one place, it is relatively less expensive than MARC. The biggest problem with EAD at present is that most browsers cannot display native XML. This is expected to change in the future, and in the meantime tools exist to convert to HTML either on-the-fly, such as Cocoon from Apache (Apache, 2002), or in batch mode, such as Saxon (Kay, 2001). Dublin Core records can also be used to describe recorded sound. While Dublin Core describes item level materials, its format is much
Sound Preservation: From Analog to Digital
107
simpler and more flexible than MARC, and the rules for what goes in each element are so broad that inconsistency has become one of its major drawbacks. Dublin Core records the same types of information as an EAD or MARC record, but is less specific. One advantage of Dublin Core is its use in Open Archives Initiative Protocol Metadata Harvesting (OAIPMH), which promises to make large numbers of previously hidden digital collections accessible. The Institute of Museum and Library Services has a project to use OAI-PMH to provide access to collections digitized through its awards. Some state-wide digitization projects (e.g. Colorado and Michigan) use Dublin Core for oral histories as well as for other digital materials, because the records are easy for non-librarians to understand and create. The inconsistency of the descriptions makes it relatively hard to convert Dublin Core into reliable MARC or EAD, but the reverse process is fairly simple for archives wanting to take advantage of OAI-PMH. METS is almost too new to be used, except experimentally, for recorded sound materials. The principle behind METS is somewhat different than the metadata types above. It is designed less for description than to collect all the kinds of information that are necessary for the long-term archiving of any digital object. It can serve as a useful checklist for archives already deeply committed to other formats. METS uses XML schemas that allow it to incorporate MARC or EAD or virtually any kind of existing metadata into, e.g., its descriptive section. It also has some unique features, such as the structural map section which “outlines a hierarchical structure for the digital library object, and links the elements of that structure to content files and metadata that pertain to each element” (Library of Congress, 2001a). It also has a behavior section that explains the way an object can be expected to act when activated. These sections provide a place to record information that people take for granted when dealing with traditional analog materials like a book or a tape. One of the real preservation concerns of many archivists is that people in the future will not know how to use a digital recording, even though the file itself survived unscathed. This is important information, but it can also become very repetitive for data that use consistent formats, open standards, and moderately informative names or headers.
C. Authenticity and Integrity It is more difficult to guarantee authenticity and integrity in the digital than the analog world, precisely because of the ease with which digital
108
Michael Seadle
objects can be manipulated. Abby Smith (2000) expressed the concern felt by many: Looking ahead, we can reasonably expect that some digital objects will warrant greater skepticism than their analog counterparts. It took centuries for users of print materials to develop the web of trust that now undergirds our current system of publication, dissemination, and preservation. Publishers, libraries, and readers each have their own responsibilities to keep the filaments of that web strong. Making the transition to a trusted digital environment will require much conscious reexamination of what we take for granted in the print and audiovisual media on which we rely.
Integrity and authenticity are separate but related issues. An object can have a measurable form of integrity by being complete and unaltered without being authentically what it claims to be; and it is conceivable that an object could be authentic but with some parts missing. The goal of preservation is, however, clearly to have both, and some technologies contribute to that goal. Watermarking is often used to prove the origin of copyright-protected materials: Digital watermarking refers to the process of embedding an imperceptible signal (the watermark) into a copyrighted host signal (the coversignal). The result is called a stegosignal. The unmarked coversignal is never released [to] the public, and the means for separating the watermark from it are known only to the copyright-holder. When copyright questions arise, the watermark is recovered from the stegosignal as evidence of title. A watermarking scheme generally derives its security from secret codes or patterns, called keys, that are used to embed the watermark. Public knowledge of a watermarking technology should not lessen its security. Deller et al., 2001.
Knowing the origin is a key component of establishing authenticity, and the recovered watermark may also be useful for establishing some aspects of integrity, since attempts to alter the digital sound could affect the watermark image. It might not, however, show whether whole sections had been excised. Other technologies can help too. Even old-fashioned check-digit routines can be useful for integrity checking, even though they are intended only to catch accidental bit changes, not deliberate alterations. Nonetheless one of the best guarantees of the authenticity and integrity is metadata that records all the characteristics of the digital object. Such metadata needs to have an enduring relationship to the object, and both the object and its metadata should reside in multiple repositories whose security and integrity are unimpeachable. Multiple repositories are important. They represent a significant difference in the handling of necessarily unique analog objects. Digital objects can have multiple originals, each perfectly identical down to the timestamp. Algorithms can compare the originals against each other to guard
Sound Preservation: From Analog to Digital
109
against either intentional or inadvertent damage. This is one of the important features of the LOCKSS project (Stanford, 2002). Multiple originals and security through consistent exposure are such oxymorons in the analog world that they sound unappealing compared, say, to an underground storage facility with perfect temperature and humidity control and a single identifiable original object that cannot be tampered with because no one can get to it. Yet a LOCKSS-like system should be significantly safer than the current situation for many unique originals. Even when these analog originals sit behind closed doors, a large number of sound archives cannot vouch completely for their integrity and authenticity. The reality of most archives is that janitors, assistants, and sometimes students (or student workers) have complete access to originals, sometimes even to the metadata describing them, and could alter, replace, or outright steal items at any time.
IV. Legal Issues A. Copyright Protection The chief legal issue for sound preservation is copyright, and it gives rise to three questions. One is whether a work is protected. Another is when and whether the law permits creating digital preservation copies. The third is when and whether the law permits access to a digital preservation copy of sound recording. The U.S. copyright law is complex and ever-changing, and the full details of how to determine whether a work is protected are too complex to discuss fully here. As a rule of thumb, it is safe to assume that all works published in the United States from 1923 to the present are likely to be protected. The only major exception is for works created by U.S. Federal employees in the course of their work, such as the President’s State of the Union address. The same exemption does not cover speeches by a candidate for the presidency, and may not even cover speeches by a sitting President who is campaigning for reelection. State documents do not fall under this exemption, nor do works created by non-Federal employees, even when found on Federal web sites. International copyright treaties mean that libraries and archives with non-U.S. materials must also know enough about the law of the country-oforigin to determine the legal status of the work. Berne treaty signators have agreed to treat works from other Berne countries as protected, if they would be protected in their country-of-origin, but protected only under local rules. This means that an audio recording made in Germany in 1920 by someone
110
Michael Seadle
who did not die until 1950 would still be protected in the United States until after 2020 (the life of the author plus 70 years), even though it would be in the public domain if it had been made in the United States. None of the German moral rights legislation would apply, however, and U.S. “fair use” rules would. Because the law is complex, interpretations will vary from institution to institution. Some institutions are more willing to take risks than others. Micro-cultures within an institution are also likely to have strongly differing opinions about how strictly to interpret the copyright law. Nothing in this section constitutes legal advice. It is information only. B. Preservation Copies The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (1998) updated the U.S. copyright law to permit digital preservation copies of a work under certain conditions. For unpublished works, libraries with collections accessible to the public may make: three copies or phonorecords of an unpublished work duplicated solely for purposes of preservation and security or for deposit for research use in another library or archives…if…the copy or phonorecord reproduced is currently in the collections of the library or archives; and any such copy or phonorecord that is reproduced in digital format is not otherwise distributed in that format and is not made available to the public in that format outside the premises of the library or archives. 17 USC 108.
Unpublished works would, e.g., include most oral histories. “Unpublished works” mean any work that does not meet the strict legal definition of publication: “Publication” is the distribution of copies or phonorecords of a work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending. The offering to distribute copies or phonorecords to a group of persons for purposes of further distribution, public performance, or public display, constitutes publication. A public performance or display of a work does not of itself constitute publication. 17 USC 101.
The last sentence is particularly important because it excludes many works that people think of as published. One example is a recording of speech that was made to a large audience. The act of giving the speech constitutes a performance of the words on the page, not a publication of those words in the legal sense. Libraries may also make up to three copies of published works when the work was: duplicated solely for the purpose of replacement of a copy or phonorecord that is damaged, deteriorating, lost, or stolen, or if the existing format in which the work is stored has become obsolete, if the library or archives has, after a reasonable effort,
Sound Preservation: From Analog to Digital
111
determined that an unused replacement cannot be obtained at a fair price; and [if] any such copy or phonorecord that is reproduced in digital format is not made available to the public in that format outside the premises of the library or archives in lawful possession of such copy. 17 USC 108.
The definition of “obsolete” is so important that it is included in the same section: For purposes of this subsection, a format shall be considered obsolete if the machine or device necessary to render perceptible a work stored in that format is no longer manufactured or is no longer reasonably available in the commercial marketplace. 17 USC 108.
Of course the definition of “reasonably available” also matters, but that has been left to the courts, and thus far no case law exists. Many archives now treat disc-based “record players” as obsolete, since the prices on turntables have risen substantially, and since the playback process invariably damages the original, which can no longer be replaced in the same format. The conditions of the law clearly forbid making digital copies of a current best-selling audio CD. They may well also forbid making a digital copy of a commercially produced cassette that is no longer sold commercially, but is readily available in second-hand stores. For preservation purposes the problem is that any copy in a second-hand store would likely have seen significant use, and would have lost some of the quality of a well-preserved (little used) archival version. The law is deliberately ambiguous, and sound archives need to decide for themselves how literally they wish to interpret the law. As a practical matter, making a digital preservation copy does the rights holder no harm until it is used as a substitute for the original. Because of that, many libraries and archives reconcile themselves to digitizing almost any endangered items that are no longer being sold new, on the theory that no one will know or care. One of the important restrictions on digital preservation copies is the phrase limiting use to the “premises of the library or archives…” Premises could mean only within the physical space where users would ordinarily be allowed to play the analog copy on a institutionally owned machine. In large institutions that might just be a single department. The word “premises” more often is interpreted to mean the physical building which houses the sound archive. It could also mean the part of the library with public reading/listening rooms, even if the recordings are not ordinarily physically there. A more aggressive interpretation might include all the buildings that belonged to a library on a single campus, or perhaps even all the libraries on all the campuses of a university system, on the grounds that the analog copy might be held at any of those locations. Clearly making the
112
Michael Seadle
digital copy generally available on the Web is forbidden. Multiple simultaneous uses of copies of the same protected work are also probable violations. C. Access While the U.S. law tolerates fairly broad use of digitization for preservation, restrictions on access are much more limited. For materials protected by copyright, there are generally three ways in which they may be made available off the premises. The safest way is to get a permission from the rights owner for Web or other public use. Institutions should strongly encourage any oral historians and anthropologists who use recording equipment to obtain specific consent forms from their subjects. The same is true for speakers who are being recorded at public events. Permissions from commercial produces can cost money, but those from other sources tend to be free. Changes to the copyright law from the “Technology Education and Technology Harmonization Act” (TEACH Act), which President Bush signed into law on 2 November 2002, enable the use of recorded sound materials in distance education teaching settings. The act permits the “display of a work in an amount comparable to that which is typically displayed in the course of a live classroom session” under certain circumstances without seeking permission (TEACH Act, 2002). There are important restrictions and definitions, such as the meaning of “session” in a distance education context, which must still be worked out (Crews, 2002). For example, does class session in distance education: (a) take place at a particular time; (b) take place for a particular length of time; or (c) encompass any time during whole semester to adjust to each student’s own pace and schedule? There is no agreement on this. The requirements for institutions are also significant. They include not only providing information about copyright, but applying “technological measures that reasonably prevent…retention of the work in accessible form…for longer than the class session…” (TEACH Act, 2002) Not everyone will want to use the TEACH Act. As Georgia Harper writes: This statute’s complexity provides a new context within which to think about fair use: compared to the many conditions and limits contained in Section 110(2), the four factor fair use test seems, well, simple and elegant. Harper, 2002.
Fair use (17 USC 107) offers the main legal exception for using copyrightprotected materials. While the prologue to the fair use section suggests broad access for educational purposes, courts have invariably focused on the tests:
Sound Preservation: From Analog to Digital
113
1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for non-profit educational purposes; 2. the nature of the copyrighted work; 3. the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and 4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work. A great deal has been written about how to apply fair use safely, and institutional policies vary widely. The House Subcommittee on Courts and Intellectual Property, Committee on the Judiciary adopted a non-legislative report that provided fair use guidelines (U.S. House of Representatives, 1996). The guidelines are not law, and can be seen as overly restrictive, but they provide a relatively safe harbor for multimedia users. For “motion media” they suggest 10% or up to 3 minutes. For music it is 10% or up to 30 seconds. While these limits are short, they may suffice to give something of the flavor of a work. At the Folk Heritage Collections in Crisis conference (Library of Congress, 2001c) in December 2000 a significant number of people argued in favor of levels of access to digital sound recordings that would imply massive copyright infringement. Many belonged to a micro-culture that had strong feelings about the importance of their own educational mission, and little active sympathy for commercial recording studios. Ignoring the law is a potentially expensive position that no institution can afford to adopt. Some old-time preservationists are fond of saying that digitization is good for access, but it is not preservation. The truth is almost the opposite. While digitization is the only viable long-term preservation method for recorded sound, it does little to enhance access without permission from the rights owner.
V. Financial Issues Understanding the costs of digital preservation is important, but the costs are hard to measure for several reasons. One is that prices for computers and digital storage continue to fall, while prices for computing professionals continue to rise. Another is that the media refreshing and format migration rates depend on estimates that vary wildly. It is easy for critics of digital preservation to impute impossible costs by calculating the staff time for checking each archival medium and allocating the whole of the programming time for format conversion to every institution. In fact the automated checking of a LOCKSS-type system costs
114
Michael Seadle
little more than a $1000 machine that needs replacement at most every couple of years, and the programming costs for reformatting tools can be shared across thousands of institutions when standard formats are broadly used, so that format conversion might cost only a couple of hundred dollars every 5 or 10 years. The cost of running an automated tool in batch mode against sound files already in digital form is trivial. Conservative sites may want to build in some random checking to make sure the process worked, but that too can be automated and shared. Electricity, disk storage replacement, and some maintenance time to keep systems running need to be included on an ongoing basis. These costs will also vary widely. For a substantial data center, maintaining one more server represents a marginal cost, say 3 days effort or roughly $1000 per year for a mid-level computer professional making $60,000 plus benefits. Electricity costs vary widely across the country, but $300 per year should more than suffice. The cost of storage has fallen dramatically. A half terabyte of storage including rack and computer can be bought today for less than $15,000. Replacing 20% of that storage per year would total $3000. By these estimates the cost of long-term preservation for digital sound adds up to about $5100 per year for about 3000 hours of sound at 44.1 kHz, 16 bit (Table I). Naturally an argument can be made about each of these costs. They could well be off in either direction by 50%, perhaps even 75%, but the order of magnitude is probably correct. For most large institutions, this is a fairly manageable amount. The largest cost of digital preservation comes in the conversion from analog formats. Michigan State University Libraries has 3 years of experience with largescale conversion of spoken word sound materials from analog to digital formats. During that time the number of hours of staff time needed to convert
Table I Annual costs for digital preservation of 3000 hours of sound LOCKSS machine replacement every 2 years Storage replacement (20% per year) Programming maintenance time (3 days per year) Future format conversion software (over 5 years) Conversion time (amortized over 5 years) Spot checking (amortized over 5 years) Electricity per year Total
$500 $3000 $1000 $100 $100 $100 $300 $5100
Sound Preservation: From Analog to Digital
115
1 hour of sound has fallen from over three to slightly over one. The largest factor in the improved speed was establishing networked storage and automating the process of loading sound files to it. One staff member can in fact manage the conversion of more than one tape at a time, depending on the length (longer tapes are easier because they just keep running). At $10 per hour for student labor (no benefits), and at an average of 2 work hours per hour of sound, the labor cost of converting 3000 hours of sound is about $60,000. Equipment costs are lower, but can be substantial if additional analog playback units are needed. Most places wanting to preserve sound recordings should have them already. A computer will cost about $1000, a good sound card about $400, a mixing station perhaps $2000, and software less than $300. In other words, the hardware cost is under $3000, not including the analog playback units.
VI. Conclusion If the 100 year cost of preserving 3000 hours of sound in digital form is around $5,200,000 in constant dollars (100 years at $5100 per year for preservation, plus $63,000 for a one-time analog-to-digital conversion), the cost of the alternative is losing the content altogether. Analog tape, the old pre-digital archival standard, is increasingly expensive and hard to find, and the machines to play it are becoming museum pieces. But even if they could be obtained, the deterioration from copying, wear, and time itself would leave only a shadowy record of today’s sound. This is a troubling message for many collectors, archivists, librarians, and sound engineers. Often they belong to micro-cultures whose acceptance of computers has been slow, often limited to e-mail and word processing, and whose personal experience with computers includes disk crashes, software problems, costly upgrades, and a maddening dependence on arrogant outsiders who sometimes fix and sometimes ignore their problems. The message is troubling also because so many important factors, such as the dramatic drop in disk storage prices and the LOCKSS-type experimentation, have come so recently as to be unfamiliar, even a bit unbelievable. It may be as unbelievable as the first Edison recording seemed to the public in 1877. Sound recording is a modern machine-dependent technology. Unlike text, sound cannot be marked on a clay tablet, etched in stone, or written on any flat absorbent surface (vellum, papyrus, rag paper, pulp paper) and subsequently played back with the aid of human senses alone. As technologies change, sound recording must change, and those who wish to preserve recorded sound must change with it.
116
Michael Seadle
Acknowledgments This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Cooperative Agreement No. IBIS-9817485. Opinions, finding, or recommendations expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of NSF or others in the research team. Special thanks go to Professor J. R. Deller, Jr., Michigan State University College of Engineering and Mr. Rick Peiffer, Digital and Multimedia Center, Michigan State University Libraries, for their generous assistance with technical issues. References 17 USC 107, United States Code, Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 107. Available at: http://www4. law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.html. 17 USC 108, United States Code, Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 108. Available at: http://www4. law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/108.html. Apache Software Foundation (2002). What is Cocoon?. Available at: http://xml.apache.org/ cocoon/. Child, M. (1993). Directory of Information Sources on Scientific Research Related to the Preservation of Sound Recordings, Still and Moving Images, and Magnetic Tape (CLIR Publication 40), Available at: http://www.clir.org/pubs/abstract/pub40.html (September 1993). Cohen, E. (2001). Preservation of Audio (Folk Heritage Collections in Crisis, CLIR Publication 96), Available at: http://www.clir.org/pubs/reports/pub96/preservation.html (May 2001). Conservation OnLine (2002). Preservation of Audio Materials: Standards, Guidelines and Best Practices. Stanford University Library, Stanford, CA, Available at: http://palimpsest.stanford. edu/bytopic/audio/ (23 August, 2002). Crews, K. (2002). New Copyright Law for Distance Education: the Meaning and Importance of the TEACH Act. American Library Association, Chicago, IL, Available at: http://www.ala.org/ washoff/teachsummary.pdf (30 September, 2002). Cutting Corporation (2000). Sound Preservation FAQ. Cutting Corporation, Bethesda, MD, Available at: http://www.cuttingarchives.com/head/faq.html. Dale, R., Gertz, J., Peek, R., and Roosa, M. (1998). Audio Preservation: A Selective Annotated Bibliography and Brief Summary of Current Practices, American Library Association, Chicago, IL, Available at: http://www.ala.org/alcts/publications/audiopress.pdf. Deller Jr., J. R., Gurijala, J., and Seadle, M. (2001). Audio watermarking techniques for the National Gallery of the Spoken Word. Proceedings of First ACM/IEEE-CS Joint Conference on Digital Libraries, IEEE, Roanoke, VA, June 24–28, 2001. Harper, G. (2002). The Teach Act Finally Becomes Law. (Copyright Crash Course), University of Texas, Austin, TX, Available at: http://www.utsystem.edu/ogc/intellecutalpropery/teachact. htm (13 November, 2002). Hartke, J. L. (2001). Measures of CD-R Longevity. Media Sciences Inc, Marlborough, MA, Available at: http://www.mscience.com/longev.html#CONCLU (17 July, 2001). Harvard University Library (2001). Library Preservation at Harvard. Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, Available at: http://preserve.harvard.edu/about/programoverview.html (May 2001).
Sound Preservation: From Analog to Digital
117
Hedstrom, M. (1998). Digital Preservation: A Time Bomb for Digital Libraries. University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY, Available at: http://www.uky.edu/~kiernan/DL/hedstrom.html. Kay, M. H. (2001). Saxon: Anatomy of an XSLT Processor. IBM, White Plains, NY, Available at: http://www-106.ibm.com/developerworks/library/x-xslt2/ (February 2001). Library of Congress (2001a). METS: An Overview and Tutorial. Library of Congress, Washington, DC, Available at: http://www.loc.gov/standards/mets/METSOverview.html (30 August, 2001). Library of Congress (2001b). Audio-Visual Prototyping. Library of Congress, Washington, DC, Available at: Project.http://www.loc.gov/rr/mopic/avprot/audioSOW.html (23 March, 2001). Library of Congress (2001c). Folk Heritage Collections in Crisis. Library of Congress, Washington, DC, Available at: http://www.clir.org/pubs/reports/pub96/contents.html (May 2001). Library of Congress (2002a). Cylinder, Disc and Tape Care in a Nutshell. Library of Congress, Washington, DC, Available at: http://lcweb.loc.gov/preserv/care/record.html (19 July, 2002). Library of Congress (2002b). Metadata Encoding and Transmission Standard. Library of Congress, Washington, DC, Available at: http://www.loc.gov/standards/mets/ (19 February, 2002). Master Digital Corporation (2002). Analog Tape, Master Digital. New Orleans, LA, Available at: http://www.masterdigital.com/24bit/analogtape.html. Nardi, B. A., and O’Day, V. L. (1999). Information Ecologies: Using Technology with Heart. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. Peiffer, R. (2002). Digital Audio Specifications: MSU Digital and Multimedia Center. Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, Available at: http://www.lib.msu.edu/vincent/. Schoenherr, S. E. (2003a). Recording Technology History. University of San Diego, San Diego, CA, Available at: http://history.acusd.edu/gen/recording/notes.html (March 2003). Schoenherr, S. E. (2003b). [Recording Technology History] Sources and Suggested Readings. University of San Diego, San Diego, CA, Available at: http://history.acusd.edu/gen/recording/ sources.html (March 2003). Seadle, M. (2000a). Project Ethnography: An Anthropological Approach to Assessing Digital Library Services. Library Trends 49(2). Seadle, M. (2000b). Spoken Words, Unspoken Meanings: A DLI2 Project Ethnography (D-Lib Magazine), Available at: http://www.dlib.org/ (November 2000). Seadle, M. (2001). Sound Practice: A Report of the Best Practices for Digital Sound Meeting, 16 January 2001 at the Library of Congress. RGL DigiNews 5(2). Available at: http://www.rlg. org/preserv/diginews/diginew5-2.html#feature3 (15 April, 2001). Smith, A. (ed.) (2000). Authenticity in a Digital Environment. CLIR, Washington, DC, Available at: http://www.clir.org/pubs/reports/pub92/contents.html (May 2000). Sperberg-McQueen, C. M., and Thompson, H. (2003). XML Schema (W3C.org), Available at: http://www.w3.org/XML/Schema. Stanford University Libraries (2002). Lots of Copies Keeps Stuff Safe: Permanent Publishing on the Web. Stanford University Library, Stanford, CA, Available at: http://lockss.stanford.edu/. TEACH Act. (2002). Technology, Education, and Copyright Harmonization Act. Available at: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c107:S.487.ES: (2 November, 2002). U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Courts and Intellectual Property (1996). Fair Use Guidelines for Educational Multimedia, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA, Available at: http://www.libraries.psu.edu/mtss/fairuse/ guidelines.html (27 September, 1996).
Funding for Library Preservation: Endowments as Income Streams Whitney Pape and Eric C. Shoaf Brown University Library, Box A, 10 Prospect St., Providence, RI 02912, USA
Public and private institutions, governments, and societies have invested billions of dollars in libraries over the years. Beyond providing a building in which to house the materials, however, little was done to protect, conserve, and preserve these materials consistently until the 1970s. Books and other materials that had been selected, ordered, cataloged, bound, and circulated had little more than a shelf to sit on, and the conditions surrounding that shelf were seldom optimal for storing these materials. We now know that proper stewardship means recognizing the tremendous investment in acquiring and making available books and other materials, taking steps to preserve their content and artifactual attributes, and publicizing those stewardship efforts. Protecting the investment through preservation activities should be a given, but that has often not been the case.
I. Preservation Funding in Libraries Preservation activities have existed in libraries since the early days of librarianship, but these efforts were mostly decentralized and buried in the work of many different departments. Not until the 1970s did library organizations begin to add preservation to organizational charts on a departmental or middle management level, along with its new administrative costs. At that time, libraries were struggling with early efforts at automation and the many changes it would bring to their organizations. Preservation department functions, formerly decentralized from an administrative and budgetary standpoint under the headings of commercial binding, book repair, special collections, or circulation, were now identified as a budget line forced to compete for funds with newly formed library systems departments as well as other traditional library functions. This was particularly difficult given that a large portion of the costs of a comprehensive preservation department were
ADVANCES IN LIBRARIANSHIP, VOL. 27 q 2004 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved ISSN: 0065-2830 DOI:10.1016/S0065-2830(03)27005-7
119
120
Whitney Pape and Eric C. Shoaf
new and additive (Fasana and Baker, 1992, p. 132), yet provided few immediately evident benefits. A burgeoning library systems unit could place libraries on the cutting edge of technology; automated card catalogs could improve productivity and efficiency for staff, and also provide for better patron access to collections. Needless to say, systems departments were much better funded than preservation units at this time. As preservation departments were developed, they were funded generally from acquisitions budgets under the rationale that taking steps to ensure long-term access to research materials was a natural extension of the process of acquiring them. Results of an early survey of large college and university libraries, published in 1957, show that library commercial binding budgets generally comprised 17% of the materials acquisitions budget in larger libraries, slightly less in smaller ones (Harrer, 1957, p. 113). Beyond that figure, there was no universally accepted funding benchmark available for library preservation efforts. Indeed, one participant noted at a 1983 conference on preservation planning that “there is no ideal budget for establishing a conservation program, although more is always better” (Merrill-Oldham and Smith, 1985, p. 60). An unfortunate by-product of the absence of a standard allocation for preservation was that when budgets got tight, administrators often were quick to cut the commercial binding budget. In addition to the immediate cost savings, there was the illusion of no harm done: if it isn’t possible to finance binding today, the books can always be bound tomorrow. Budgets of recently formed preservation departments were also easy to cut since there was usually no veteran preservation administrator among senior staff to champion the cause or serve as an advocate for preservation. A review of the Association of Research Libraries’ (ARL) expenditures for binding statistics from 1963 to 2001 show that no library has been immune to binding budget cuts during that time period. Most show a pattern of increases followed by cutbacks that, when graphed, reflect the roller-coaster ride of efforts to defend preservation budgets. A walk through the stacks in any library that adopted this shortsighted practice shows the aftermath in the form of dog-eared and worn books that now need replacement rather than binding. In 1985, the ARL published its Guidelines for Minimum Preservation In ARL Libraries, which stated that libraries should allocate at least 10% of acquisitions funds or 4% of their total budget to preservation activities (Association of Research Libraries, 1985). This provided a baseline budget to establish preservation efforts encompassing much more than just commercial binding. At this time, ARL also began tracking expenditures through an annual preservation statistics survey. These annual reports provide another source of information about preservation funding in libraries—how dollars are allocated and where they are spent.
Funding for Library Preservation: Endowments as Income Streams
121
The ARL funding model for 10% of acquisitions dollars to be set aside for preservation activities worked well for larger libraries as their preservation departments grew. Unfortunately, smaller libraries had few or no resources to pursue preservation with any sort of consistency. As expectations rose, there were calls for federal assistance and soon libraries began to receive grant funding—shared among large and small libraries alike—specifically for preservation projects. These funds were key to the completion of projects to save the content of brittle books, examine deacidification options, rehouse collections, and investigate the suitability of digitization as a preservation tool. Many libraries were able to establish viable preservation programs through grant-funded projects that might not have been completed otherwise. Funding levels peaked in the early 1990s and have dropped steadily since. As grant money has evaporated over the past decade, libraries are finding it harder to budget for appropriate preservation of their collections. The impact of ever-rising serials costs, electronic products and other new media, as well as continued demand for print has left library administrators strapped for funds to operate traditional, but still necessary, preservation programs. In the new century, funding for library preservation is again being crowded by new library budget demands as patron expectations and library programs and services change. Digitization is a strong competitor that particularly complicates matters because many administrators see digitizing as a new method of reformatting, traditionally a preservation function. For the majority of library materials, digitizing is solely an access function that creates a surrogate copy for wide distribution and use via computer. This certainly helps preserve research materials since original copies can remain undisturbed, but the mere act of digitizing a printed work does nothing to ensure that future scholars will have access to the material. Digitized files can be considered preserved only when the hardware and software used to create it are either permanent or easily migrated to a new platform once they are superseded or become obsolete. In addition, systematic protocols must be in place to ensure data migration. At present, several groups are working on creating standards for creating and preserving electronic formats; a good starting place to review digital preservation efforts is the RLG DigiNews newsletter (http://www.rlg.org/ preserv/diginews/). Until standards for such parameters as resolution, integrity of digital objects, file compression routines, and file system migration are in place, however, digital data remain at risk for loss. Other new competitors for library funding include electronic journals, storage facilities for overcrowded stacks, electronic reference products, and enhancements to existing electronic products. Each of these needs—and all are legitimate—has led to a partial marginalizing of preservation. It is no longer uncommon to hear library administrators again call for scaling back commercial binding expenditures in an effort to meet tight budgets.
122
Whitney Pape and Eric C. Shoaf
II. Grant-Funded Library Preservation Projects Many preservation programs began in the 1980s when grant-funded microfilm projects were a main source of funds for reformatting brittle collections. Most libraries carved funds for their preservation departments out of acquisitions budgets, using the ARL model, and many continued to receive grant money for project-based preservation treatment programs into the early 1990s. During this period, preservation programs in libraries flourished. Much of the grant money is gone now (Child, 2000, p. 80), because of cutbacks in federal funding through the National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH), and because the funding models for microfilm were not transferable to projects for which digital archiving was the primary preservation tool. It is difficult for libraries to use the digital model as a main preservation feature since there were (and remain) no standards for preservation of digitized material comparable to the Research Libraries Group’s (RLG) preservation microfilm standards. Consensus on protocols and best preservation methods for digital objects (emulation, migration, persistent object preservation) is still developing. Some granting agencies are providing money to institutions experimenting with digitization project management (e.g., The Library of Congress National Digital LibraryAmeritech Competitions, Cornell’s Mellon Foundation grant to study the preservation of electronic scholarly journals, the Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS) grants), but the IMLS is at present the only federal agency with legislated authority to support digitization. There is no agreement among librarians overseeing preservation programs about using grant-supported funds for preservation projects. One view is that federal funding is good for start-up but cannot be counted upon for continued preservation support (Merrill-Oldham and Smith, 1985, p. 95). Two corollaries are that federal funding is ephemeral—sources can dry up as governmental policy changes or when budgets are cut—and that federal funding should not displace library funding in the important area of preservation of library materials. It is easy for library administrators to become accustomed to not allocating funds for preservation activities, thereby delaying or avoiding a true long-term commitment to the preservation of the collections they are charged with developing and protecting. Another view is that grants can be a solid source of support for preservation activities (Higginbotham and Wild, 2001, p. 7) and should be used when feasible. This view assumes that funding from some source, even if not permanent, is better than no funding at all. One complication of grant funding is that there can be conflicts between a particular institution’s
Funding for Library Preservation: Endowments as Income Streams
123
preservation priorities and what the funding agency, whether a foundation or governmental body, is interested in preserving and why. Any institution accepting funds must abide by the policies or control apparatuses that accompany the award. Some foundations can attach stringent parameters to selection, treatment options, or even access availability. Governmental funding—particularly from NEH, on the other hand, usually has few restrictions beyond quality control issues or duplication of work among institutions treating like collections. The role of NEH in library preservation funding cannot be overstated. NEH established a separate Office of Preservation in late 1985, and in 1988 was asked to develop a plan for dealing with brittle books. The plan had several elements, among them the National Newspaper Project to preserve newspapers of lasting value on a state-by-state basis, and book microfilming projects (Higginbotham and Wild, 2001, p. 49). Congress approved the plan, and in 1989 NEH announced $3.2 million for library preservation activities aimed at preserving scholarly resources. NEH continued to make awards into the 1990s, though funding was cut and the amounts grew smaller. Current opportunities through NEH include the Preservation Assistance Grants, Preservation Education and Training grants, Preserving and Creating Access to Humanities Collections grants, as well as ongoing support of the U.S. Newspaper Project and Save America’s Treasures program, among others. The number of institutions and diversity of projects funded by the NEH has had a remarkable impact on spreading preservation efforts in the United States. Action among libraries that are members of consortia has also been a useful source of funding for preservation activities. RLG sponsored the Great Collections Microfilming Projects. These unique projects were initiated with the creation of a national microform union catalog to prevent the duplication of efforts in preserving collection materials. If one institution filmed a book, the others could verify it had been preserved and could then focus attention on other volumes in their collections. Libraries would focus on areas of their collecting strengths, the “Great Collections,” and would be able to spend scarce preservation dollars on their unique and notable materials. More than 250,000 volumes have been microfilmed and recorded in the union catalog. The Southeastern Library Network (SOLINET) has also managed consortium-based preservation projects for member libraries including some of the Great Collections microfilming projects, as has Amigos Library Services for its southwestern U.S. membership. But while these consortia offer useful preservation services, their ability to attract funds has been limited to grants for projects. Private foundations such as the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation, the Rockefeller Foundation and the Charles E. Culpepper Foundation have
124
Whitney Pape and Eric C. Shoaf
funded several preservation initiatives. In fact, some of the highest profile projects have been supported by private funds, including the preservation of electronic scholarly journals studies at New York Public Library, Cornell, Harvard, MIT, Pennsylvania, Stanford, and Yale, the $1 million award from the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation to Indiana University to purchase equipment for a preservation laboratory and establish an endowment to support preservation staff positions, and the “Save Our Sounds” audio preservation project at the Library of Congress. These grants have often been instrumental in furthering preservation research and investigation, but are conferred less consistently than government agency awards. Now that grant-funded projects are on the wane, and competition for library budgets is high, other outside sources of income may be necessary to meet preservation program objectives. Endowments are attractive because they provide an income stream from the investment of principal dollars. The principal remains untouched while interest is used to fund activities. In this way, endowments create permanent funding. One might think that endowments would be popular for preservation funding, but the library literature contains surprisingly little information about them.
III. Literature on Preservation Endowments in Libraries Besides reports of grant-funded programs, there is little discussion about library preservation funding in recent library literature. In fact, funding for preservation seems to be less well documented than the preservation activities themselves. One library director noted back in the early 1980s, “The published literature on current and projected library expenditures for preservation activities is nearly non-existent” (Merrill-Oldham and Smith, 1985, p. 90). While the literature on preservation activities did grow with the profession as it gained size and status during the 1980s and 1990s, there is little published information specifically about preservation endowments. Reports on the acquisition of a preservation endowment at Brown University Library (Shoaf, 2000, p. 593; Taylor, 2001) are the most recent. Much of the information obtained about preservation endowments has come from the institutions that responded to a questionnaire, the results of which are presented here for the first time. Other information is anecdotal. It is well known, for example, that Harvard has endowed the salary of its Malloy-Rabinowitz Preservation Librarian position. Not much is available in the recent library literature concerning library funding for preservation. Though much was published in the 1980s as preservation programs were starting out, less information is available from the past 10 years. Libraries tend to advertise grant awards and exceptional
Funding for Library Preservation: Endowments as Income Streams
125
donations in publications aimed at their user communities and Friends of the Library groups rather than in the professional literature. Many of the key texts published on preservation programs have already been cited here and appear in the references at the end of this document. Other useful articles include an interview with Pat Battin, then President of the Commission on Preservation and Access, in which she calculates the cost of preserving one brittle book as $95.68, a sobering prospect particularly in 1989 dollars (Turock, 1989, p. 4). Reports of NEH funding (NEH Awards, 1988, p. 16) and passage of the Permanent Paper Act (ALA Midwinter, 1990, p. 21) highlight early governmental response to the library profession’s call for action. In an analysis of funding options for using digitizing as a preservation tool, Gwinn notes, “We have been down this road before back in the days of microfilming” (Gwinn, 1998, p. 143). The preservation community needs standards for the work and a master plan for controlling which works are digitized in order for governmental funds to be made available. For the foreseeable future, however, libraries cannot depend on governmental funds for specialized preservation projects. Other options will need to be identified and developed. The possibilities and flexibility presented by a library preservation endowment are manifold.
IV. Preservation Endowments in United States Libraries The dearth of information about specific preservation funding strategies inspired an investigation into the types of preservation endowments in existence for United States Libraries. Information about the various ways in which endowments were established and the range of budget needs met by endowment income can help raise awareness of endowment possibilities among library administrators and development personnel. Consideration of endowments as a potential funding mechanism can provide institutions an alternative method of funding existing preservation activities or expanding their preservation programs. A. Methodology for Data Gathering A message was posted June 25, 2002 to the ALCTS Preservation Administrators’ Discussion Group electronic discussion list asking members of institutions with preservation endowments to e-mail Whitney Pape with the contact information for the appropriate person to complete a questionnaire about the endowment. Electronic correspondence was sent to the people who responded or to those who were indicated as contacts for
126
Whitney Pape and Eric C. Shoaf
institutions with endowments—eighteen in all—with the Internet address of an online version of the questionnaire and an offer to mail a paper copy of the questionnaire if preferred by the respondent. A copy of the paper questionnaire is included as Appendix II. Seven completed questionnaires were received, a 38.8% response rate. The questionnaire responses represent only a portion of the preservation endowments that exist in the United States today. Some people had difficulty obtaining the information requested, others had difficulty receiving authorization to share endowment information, and many did not express willingness to respond to the questionnaire. Respondents were encouraged to send partial responses if all information was not available or not distributable outside their institution. It is hoped that more complete information may be shared with the preservation community in the future. Although the responses represent only a portion of existing endowments, interesting and useful information can be gained from them. A summary of the questionnaire results appears in Table I. B. Institutional Profiles Three of the institutions responding to the questionnaire are private; four are public. All have annual budgets over $1,000,000. Most have preservation budgets over $250,000, although one each falls in the $10,000 – $50,000, $50,000 – $100,000 and $100,000 – $250,000 ranges. Most have library endowments totaling more than $1,000,000, with one in the $100,000 – $500,000 and one in the $500,000 –$1,000,000 range. C. Preservation Endowment Figures The amounts of the preservation endowment principals vary, with one in the $50,000 –$100,000 range, two in the $100,000 –$500,000 range, and three in the $1,000,000 –$5,000,000 range. These endowments generate interest incomes ranging from less than $5,000 to more than $100,000 annually. Only three of the endowments are receiving ongoing contributions; all three receive contributions of less than $50,000 annually. Three of these endowments are dedicated solely to preservation activities; three are not. The other activities funded are acquisitions, cataloging, manuscript processing and exhibits. D. Expenditures Three of the institutions spend endowment income to fund personnel expenses; three do not. The types of personnel funded are administrative professional, technician, administrative support, interns, and students.
Table I Questionnaire Results Summary Institutional profiles Public (4) Preservation budget $250,000 þ (4) Library endowments $10,000,000 þ (3)
Private (3) $100 – 250,000 (1)
$50– 100,000 (1)
$1– 5,000,000 (2)
$500,000 – $1,000,000 (1)
$10 – 50,000 (1) $100 – 500,000 (1)
Preservation endowment figures Principal $1– 5,000,000 (3) $100 – 500,000 (1) Preservation endowment income $100 – 300,000 (3) $50 – 100,000 (1) Ongoing Contributions (3) No Ongoing Contributions (2) Annual increase in endowment principal $5,000 – $50,000 (1) $ , $5000 (2) Income dedicated solely to preservation Yes (3) No (3)
$50– 100,000 (1) $5– 50,000 (1) Blank (2)
Blank (1) , $5000 (1)
Blank (1)
Equipment (3)
Other (3)
Blank (1) Expenditures
Personnel (5)
Treatments (6)
Supplies (3)
127
128 Table I (Continued) Institutional profiles Activities Reformatting (5) Deacidification (4)
Special Collections Conservation (5) General Collections Conservation (3)
Fund specific activities or projects? Yes (3) No (3) Fund treatment of specific collections? Yes (3) No (2)
Protective Enclosures (4) Commercial Binding (2)
Blank (1) Blank (2) Fundraising
Sources Alumni (4) Campaign scope Preservation-specific (2) Staff involvement Development Primary (4) Fundraising goal established? Yes (3)
No (5)
Friends of the Library (3)
General Public (2)
Granting Agencies (2)
Library-wide (1)
Institution-wide (1)
Other (2)
Development Support (2)
Development Exclusive (1) Goal Reached? Yes (3)
Library Primary (3) Timeframe 5 þ Years (1)
Numbers indicated refer to the number of institutions providing a given response to questions.
Library Support (4) 2– 5 Years (2)
Funding for Library Preservation: Endowments as Income Streams
129
Only one institution indicated that it does not use endowment income to fund treatments. The preservation activities funded by the other institutions—in descending order of frequency—are reformatting, special collections conservation, protective enclosures, deacidification, general collections conservation, commercial binding, special projects and relocation of lowuse materials to off-site storage. One institution has a specific portion of the income dedicated to deacidification; no other endowments are designed to fund specific activities. Three institutions use endowment funds for preservation supplies and equipment, including book cloth, acid-free tissue, end sheets, storage boxes, conservation tools, pH pens, bookends, disaster supplies, special collections conservation equipment, digital preservation and imaging equipment, scientific equipment, workbenches and furniture, preservation display cases, folders and photo sleeves, presses, and binder’s board. Three institutions are committed to using a specific portion of their endowment income to preserve specific collections, subject areas or disciplines. These areas include classics, the history of medicine, archives, Judaic studies, western history, art and architecture, music, ethnomusicology, manuscripts, and special collections. E. Fundraising These institutions raised funds for their endowments from alumni, Friends of the Library, granting agencies, the general public, advisory councils and parents of currently enrolled students. The endowments were established from fundraising of various scopes—from institution-wide to library-wide to preservation-specific to donor-specific. For the institutions where preservation was only one component of a fundraising campaign, preservation composed 20% or less of the overall campaign. The office of development played a role in fundraising for the endowments at all of the respondents’ institutions, in four cases as the primary fundraiser with library staff support, in three cases as support to library staff with primary responsibility. Library staff had a support role for endowment fundraising at four institutions, the primary role at three. Three institutions had set goal amounts for their fundraising; all reached their goal amounts in fewer than 5 years. Most institutions attribute the success of their fundraising efforts at least in part to the work of their development teams. Other factors include strong, clear case statements, ongoing cultivation and stewardship, tours of preservation facilities for donors and prospective donors, an active Friends of the Library group, a grant proposal emphasizing preventive conservation, dedicated alumni, and an emphasis on preservation within the library. Results from the survey provide an overview of the range of possibilities for preservation endowments. However, such endowments appear to be
130
Whitney Pape and Eric C. Shoaf
uncommon. For a better understanding of the positive impact an endowment can have, the specific details about the development and activities of one preservation endowment are presented in Table 1.
V. The NEH Preservation Endowment at Brown University A. Origins As Brown’s participation in NEH’s Great Collections Microfilming Project neared completion, library management evaluated various means to continue and expand preservation efforts. A working group looked at several possibilities including donor-funded approaches, private and federal grants, and the library’s base budget. Group members felt that an endowment for preservation activities would best ensure a continuing funding stream and maintain adequate levels of commitment for proposed treatments. In order to build an endowment substantial enough to fund both preservation activities and the additional staff necessary to carry out those activities, Brown University Library decided not to apply to the NEH Preservation and Access program but, rather, to seek funding from NEH’s Challenge Grant arm. Challenge grants require the institution to raise funds to match the NEH contribution at either a 3:1 or 4:1 rate. Brown University Library has had a successful history of meeting NEH Challenge Grants, having been awarded a grant in 1978 to renovate the John Hay Library and another grant in 1986 for the acquisition and processing of humanities research materials. A new challenge grant seemed the best strategy to build ongoing preservation funding. The university’s development office was nearing the end of a large capital campaign, and undertaking an NEH challenge grant provided means of keeping the library a fundraising priority for development staff. Instead of requesting funding for a specific, discrete project, Brown proposed to match NEH grant monies 4 – 1 and build an endowment for the broad purpose of preserving the university’s humanities research materials. At the time, few institutions had sought funding for a preservation endowment from the challenge grant program. The endowment would allow Brown to build on the 1978 grant to improve the environment of the John Hay Library, the first step towards developing a comprehensive preservation program. Since the 1978 grant, Brown had established a preservation department and specific budget lines for staffing, commercial binding, and book repair and conservation materials to prolong the useful life of research materials in all disciplines. The endowment was viewed as the next logical stage in the evolution of the department. Among the many advantages to establishing
Funding for Library Preservation: Endowments as Income Streams
131
an endowment rather than receiving one-time funds to implement specific preservation goals are long-range planning opportunities, comprehensive strategizing across collections, staff continuity, and the flexibility to implement new preservation technologies. Brown, like most other research libraries, had made treating existing collections a priority for existing preservation efforts. New acquisitions were identified as a group of materials that seldom receive preservation attention beyond commercial binding programs. Traditional preservation models assume new acquisitions to be ready for use and basically sound in terms of paper quality, bindings, and relative permanence of content. Test surveys of new acquisitions at Brown, however, revealed that as many as 20% of newly acquired books are printed on acidic paper. Further, the percentage of gift collections processed into library holdings at Brown was higher than expected. These gift books are added to the collection in “used” condition and often require substantial care. These facts formed the basis of Brown’s new approach to preservation of library materials: to survey and treat all new acquisitions for preservation needs, and to survey and treat existing collections over time. Another important feature of Brown’s proposal was a provision for full use of advanced preservation methods such as digitizing and paper deacidification when appropriate, and also for the future use of other new preservation technologies as they develop. It was important to provide for the use of new preservation technologies because the endowment would fund preservation activities in perpetuity. In addition, the Brown plan emphasized that steps would be taken to preserve humanities research materials in all formats. Not only were books and other paper-based materials to receive treatment, but also recordings on audiotape, vinyl, compact disc, videotape, and computer disks. After evaluating existing preservation programs and practices, Brown proposed a unique approach to preservation. In addition to surveying and treating important humanities collections already housed in the libraries, Brown planned to survey and treat new humanities acquisitions, more than 4500 items annually. Recognizing that even the establishment of an endowment would not provide adequate funding to survey and treat all existing humanities materials at Brown, the proposal focused retrospective collection evaluation and treatment on eight humanities collections of national and international importance: Old World Art and Archeology, Music and Ethnomusicology, Ancient Studies and Classics, the Harris Collection of American Poetry and Plays, History of Mathematics, the H. P. Lovecraft Collection, Egyptology, and the McLellan Lincoln Collection. For new acquisitions, the preservation endowment would detect and address the inherent vices of library materials—acidic paper, inadequate physical support, inappropriate housings—at the point of acquiring them, thereby prolonging
132
Whitney Pape and Eric C. Shoaf
the useful life of those materials to the greatest possible degree. All materials, regardless of format, would be evaluated, extending the proactive preservation strategy to audiotape, vinyl, videotape, compact discs and other digital data storage media as well as books, manuscripts and broadsides. B. Fundraising Once the library staff had developed the grant idea and preservation plan, they approached the university’s development office for fundraising guidance and commitment. The library had successfully completed fundraising for two previous challenge grants and was confident that a third was achievable, but it was important to consult with development staff since they would be doing the bulk of the fundraising work. They accepted the library’s challenge, and assisted with writing parts of the grant proposal. The proposal was completed in April 1996 following the printed guidelines provided by the NEH challenge grant program. In December 1996, word was received that Brown’s proposal had been funded for $625,000. Together with Brown’s portion of the match, the challenge grant would create a $3.2 million endowment for preservation of humanities collections, providing $160,000 per year in permanent funding for preservation activities. The challenge to Brown was to match the $625,000 from NEH with its own fundraising in the amount of $2.5 million by July 31, 2000. The Development Office at Brown University both exceeded the matching pledge amount and met this goal more than 1 year ahead of schedule. A team of 10 – 12 development staff members was devoted specifically to challenge grant fundraising, coordinated by a senior development officer who consulted regularly with the University Librarian, the library’s development liaison, and the Head of Preservation. Many factors contributed to the success of the development office’s campaign. Library staff presented an overview of the abundant challenges in preserving research materials to the development staff working on the NEH grant, including a viewing of the Terry Sanders film Slow Fires: On the Preservation of the Human Record. Tours of the library’s preservation facilities were provided for development staff and potential donors. Educating development staff and donors provided them with an understanding of preservation issues, which allowed for both intellectual and emotional appeals for support of Brown’s preservation efforts. Development staff steered donors who had not yet decided how to support the university to the opportunity to participate in the challenge grant. The challenge grant was also advertised to donors through a yearly development publication honoring those who have given past financial support to the libraries. The 1998 issue of this publication, Preserving
Funding for Library Preservation: Endowments as Income Streams
133
the Library’s Resources for Today and Tomorrow: A Report Honoring Those Who Have Given to the Brown University Library and the John Carter Brown Library, focused on preservation activities at Brown and efforts to meet the NEH challenge. Many donors took advantage of the opportunity at that time to have a fund in their name for a $15,000 minimum donation. One contributor to the challenge grant pledged money for preservation of a specific collection and also established a separate fund for acquisitions in that same subject area, broadening the positive outcomes of the fundraising efforts beyond preservation activities. A key component to Brown’s fundraising was the challenge from one longtime library and university benefactor to the Friends of the Library in celebration of the 60th anniversary of the Friends organization. A minimum of $200,000 was pledged if contributions from 100% of the Friends of the Library Board members totaled at least $200,000 and another $250,000 was pledged if 100% of the dues-paying Friends of the Library membership contributed to the challenge grant and also pledged a total of $250,000 for library acquisitions. A list of all donors to the challenge grant match was published in the 1999 publication Developing and Managing the Library Collections: A Report Honoring Those Who Have Given to the Brown University Library and the John Carter Brown Library. Other details of the fundraising strategy for this challenge grant are outlined in Merrily Taylor’s contribution to Successful Fundraising: Case Studies of Academic Libraries. C. Expenditures Brown proposed using the endowment income to preserve humanities collection materials, in a two-pronged approach: evaluating and treating new acquisitions in humanities subject areas and concentrating on eight particularly significant humanities collections for existing materials. In addition to the eight collections specified in the grant, other subject areas receive special attention because the donors created named funds designated to preserve research materials for specific subject areas. These subject areas include Classics, Old World Art and Archaeology, the History of Medicine, Judaic Studies, University Archives, and manuscripts. Funds were also designated specifically for materials from the McLellan Lincoln Collection and Music and Ethnomusicology, two of the eight important collections targeted by the grant. The specific expenditures that were proposed in the budget for the dual action plan included: † Deacidification—Brown has been working with Preservation Technologies, L. P., developers of the Bookkeeper paper deacidification system. Recent condition surveys at Brown indicated that nearly 50% of
134
†
†
†
†
Whitney Pape and Eric C. Shoaf
the existing paper-based collections were printed on acidic paper, but not yet brittle. This figure is similar to that obtained from surveys at other research libraries and represents library materials for which an intervening process, such as deacidification, can greatly lengthen useful life and accessibility to scholars. New print acquisitions were also surveyed and some 20% were found to have acidic paper that was not yet brittle. Conservation Treatment and Repair of Collections—Brown University Library has extensive book and paper treatment facilities including a Conservation Lab, Fine Binding Studio, and Repair Unit. Staff expertise has been developed following years of training and hands-on experience. As part of the intensive testing and selection procedure, both materials in existing collections and newly acquired items needing repair receive any conservation procedures deemed necessary. Rehousing—Much of the non-book material at Brown had been stored inappropriately and was in need of rehousing. Maps, broadsides, manuscripts, sound recordings, and motion pictures are all represented within humanities collections. Surveys show that over 50% are improperly housed and in need of attention. Archival quality boxes and other materials are being used and treatments to flatten, dismount, clean, and protect the materials have expanded. Reformatting—Over a fifteen-year period, nearly 20,000 volumes from Brown Library collections were reformatted through microfilming projects such as the NEH Great Collections Microfilming Project. Brown has more recently been investigating digital imaging technology as a preservation tool and expects a hybrid system of digital access and microfilm surrogate to become the standard in this area. A significant number of humanities collection volumes were printed on paper that has become brittle and is in need of reformatting. Surveys show that of the items, which form Brown’s core humanities collections, many have inherent value as artifacts that must be maintained. Surrogate copies for content and use provide a means to keep original materials protected for future generations of scholars. The library expects to begin using digital storage and retrieval systems and other new preservation technologies as standards and best practices develop; Brown is committed to leadership in using new technologies as they are adapted for both librarianship and scholarly communication. Staffing—Two additional permanent staff members have been hired to oversee administration and implement expenditure of endowment funds. The NEH Preservation Librarian is responsible for prioritizing projects, consultation with subject specialists and other stakeholders, planning the expenditure of each year’s endowment income, and developing policies and practices for preserving humanities collection materials at Brown.
Funding for Library Preservation: Endowments as Income Streams
135
The NEH Preservation Assistant helps conduct surveys, tracks statistics, collates materials for reformatting, searches bibliographical databases for reformatting decision making, prepares inventories of items undergoing treatment, and provides protective packaging for deacidification and other treatment shipments. There is also a student assistant to support the various Endowment activities. The Preservation Librarian reports to the Head of Preservation and coordinates with other Preservation units to ensure an integrated approach to the assessment and treatment of humanities collection materials. The work of the NEH Preservation Endowment at Brown University complements the preservation work performed by the Bindery Unit and Conservation Lab. Each of these units has historically prioritized treatment decision-making based on patron or exhibit use because of limited time and financial resources. The addition of Endowment personnel provides the opportunity to take a collection-based approach to prolonging the useful life of library materials, working in conjunction with acquisitions staff and gift selectors as well as faculty to make preservation selection decisions for humanities materials, and focusing particularly on the eight collections of distinction. D. The Preservation Endowment in Action Brown’s dual action plan provides for the following. 1. Surveying and treating important humanities collections already owned which account for nearly one million items, including a wide array of formats such as monographs, journals, broadsides, manuscripts, sheet music, sound recordings, and leaflets. 2. Surveying and treating all new acquisitions for these humanities collections, amounting to over 4500 items annually. Each new purchase or gift in these subject areas is scrutinized, tested, and treated if necessary. Preservation of newly received materials is simultaneous with retrospective preservation work on collections held. This new approach—providing preservation treatment to both materials held in the collection and new acquisitions—has received considerable publicity and may become a model for preservation programs at other major institutions. Income from the endowment has thus far been used to fund these preservation activities. † An NEH Preservation Librarian has been hired and a full-time support staff position has been filled. The permanent nature of endowment funding means that these are permanent positions.
136
Whitney Pape and Eric C. Shoaf
† Surveys of new acquisitions are proceeding and at-risk materials are pulled and treated. Of the volumes surveyed over the past three years, 15% received some sort of preservation attention. Treatments include repair and rebinding, mold removal, deacidification, reformatting, and rehousing. † Deacidification of “at risk” collections is proceeding. Nearly 6000 volumes from humanities collections have been deacidified over the past three years. The bulk of these treated volumes have 2000 and newer publication dates; treating the newest materials maximizes the benefits of the deacidification process. Endowment staff will select increasing numbers of existing materials from the eight collections of distinction and subject areas with designated funds for deacidification treatment as the number of new acquisitions on acidic paper decreases. † Conservation treatment, aside from deacidification, has included rebinding, minor repairs, and mold removal from manuscript collection documents, ledgers and printed ephemera. Over 10,000 volumes have been repaired or rebound using NEH Preservation Endowment funds. † Some 3000 items have been rehoused, most in custom-designed boxes, over the past three years. Rehousing efforts have focused on the eight collections and designated subject areas, including custom boxes for books, prints, and photographs from the McLellan Lincoln Collection, housings for compact discs, audiotapes, scores, and record albums, commercial binding for existing soft cover Classics and Judaic Studies materials passed over because of past binding budget restraints, and mats and boxes for manuscript and printing specimen leaves and cuneiform tablets and cones dating from 2000 þ B .C .E . † Reformatting—including digital technology—is used to preserve access to the intellectual content of research materials. Reformatting projects have included digitization of more than one dozen deteriorating audiotapes from the Harris Collection of American Poetry and Plays, converted to CDROM storage. More than 1000 monographs have been reproduced as preservation facsimiles on acid-free paper. It is Brown’s practice to retain original materials whenever possible. If items deteriorate to the point where they can no longer be used without causing them harm, a surrogate is created, and the source materials are placed in protective enclosures for safe storage. Digitizing materials will most likely be one component of a hybrid approach to reformatting combining microfilm, digitization, and print facsimiles in the future, taking into consideration the nature of patron use of materials. The impact of this work is still being analyzed, but it is clear that Brown’s ability to survey and treat humanities collections has been greatly enhanced. The value of the preservation endowment created by the challenge grant
Funding for Library Preservation: Endowments as Income Streams
137
amounts to a nearly 15% increase in the library’s annual spending for preservation activities and staffing. Brown University has enjoyed intangible as well as tangible benefits from establishing the NEH Preservation Endowment. During the fundraising period, there was an intense focus on key humanities collections as they were promoted to donors as treasures worth preserving. The Harris Collection of American Poetry and Plays, the McLellan Lincoln Collection, classics, ethnomusicology, history of medicine, Judaic Studies, and art history materials all received specialized funding from donors. Internally, efforts to publicize the grant resulted in greater awareness of humanities collections on the part of faculty, students, and staff at the university. Though difficult to document, it is believed that some collections may be receiving more use directly from preservation efforts funded by the endowment. The reformatted audiotapes mentioned previously are but one example. Surveying new acquisitions provides the opportunity for staff to highlight new receipts in ways not previously available. Not only may these items be treated, their existence in the collection can be noted to subject specialists in the library and to faculty outside the library. Publicity is important in any fundraising exercise, and Brown has used many forums to acknowledge NEH support in the form of the challenge grant since notification of the award. The University issued a press release in 1996 when the original award was made, and a discussion of the challenge grant has been published in several on-campus publications. Interest in the challenge grant program among preservation administrators has been high since few had considered using this program as a way to raise funds for preservation. Staff at Brown have been invited as speakers to other library groups, and expect to provide future updates to the preservation and library community on how the different survey and treatment efforts are progressing. The endowment name and staff position titles refer to NEH in recognition of the origins of the NEH Preservation Endowment funds.
VI. Establishing a Preservation Endowment Planning for a preservation endowment is not vastly different from planning any other fundraising activity. There are, however, differences in planning for a discrete grant-funded project and planning for an endowment that lasts, by its nature, in perpetuity. Fundraising and development activities draw from a unique body of information that includes educational programs, specialized journals, language, and processes. The intent here is not to provide expertise in fundraising, since such expertise usually exists at most institutions,
138
Whitney Pape and Eric C. Shoaf
but rather to provide specific information on developing an idea that can lead to a preservation endowment. Libraries seldom receive enough funding from one source to create an endowment. The nature of the endowment model is that the principal dollar amount is invested and the institution receives proceeds from the investment only. The principal must remain untouched. This requires that endowments be rather large: a conservatively managed $100,000 endowment principal may generate about $5000 per year whereas a $1,000,000 principal would generate $50,000 per year. When planning for endowments, it pays to think big. This means that the institution will most often need to undertake substantial fundraising efforts to develop the endowment. In the case of an NEH Challenge Grant, the institution must raise funds on a 3:1 or 4:1 ratio. Other funding institutions often require matching funds to be raised. Researching where to apply for funds is an important step in establishing an endowment. Lists of endowment and granting agencies are available in many forms and will not be reproduced here. But it is important that any endowment proposal be directed to an appropriate funding agency, individual donor or group of donors. There is much more chance of success if the proposal is compatible with the funding body’s mission and interests. Knowing as much as possible about funding sources’ stated purposes and past granting practices will yield fruitful results. Any endowment’s performance is tied to economic factors which are beyond institutional control. It is important, therefore, to manage the endowment draw on an annual basis. For many institutions this means limiting the amount of funds released each year even when the returns are much higher. For example, at Brown the draw on endowment is just over 5%, and any income beyond this percentage is added back to the endowment principal. This means that in good economic years the principal grows larger. For the decade ending in 2000, Brown averaged a return of over 15% on investment, but released only 5%, so endowments grew by 10%. A byproduct of this sort of endowment management is that it provides a stable budget figure from which to plan expenditures. A. Library Preservation Needs Proper planning requires knowing the library’s collection preservation needs and being able to communicate these needs in a meaningful way to funding agencies and potential donors. Some forms of need assessment include condition surveys, circulation statistics, budgets and spending levels, age of collections, and special needs. The results of the need assessments should be articulated as clearly as possible to help create the want list and to develop the idea hook for the proposal.
Funding for Library Preservation: Endowments as Income Streams
139
B. Desiderata A “want list” outlines tangible goals and helps define the scope of fundraising efforts. The needs assessment often identifies items appropriate for the want list. The list may include the preservation basics, such as book presses, workstations, tools, materials, or a board shear. Items may also be much larger in scope such as a well-equipped conservation lab, deacidification chamber, or professional conservator position. Perhaps the library needs to fund outsourcing services such as book repair, mold treatment, deacidification, reformatting or digital imaging. The want list should be complete with cost figures for proposed goods and services. Realistic budgeting helps to shape the idea hook for the proposal and provides a guideline for spending once the endowment is in place. Having a list of needs and a want list will provide context for choosing how to ask for funding. C. The Hook Creating a strategic “hook” is an effective way to make a proposal stand out from the myriad of applications received. Funding bodies and donors respond more readily to an idea that is new and different. Any endowment request or justification should be shaped to emphasize the uniqueness of the proposal. The hook need not be complicated or particularly unusual, but it needs to be different and unique. Sometimes it is surprisingly simple. In the Brown library example, the unique element was treating both older collections and new acquisitions. This dual action plan simply combines existing functions with a new focus, but was viewed positively by the NEH and by peer reviewers, based on the feedback received. It is not enough to just ask for a conservation lab. Consider ways to use a lab that are different from traditional uses. For example, if the number of acidic but not yet brittle books in an institutional condition survey justifies a dedicated facility, one might propose the establishment of a satellite deacidification center. Perhaps the number of distinctive publisher’s bindings in a collection warrants establishing a fine binding studio to accommodate appropriate conservation treatment. D. Local Support As the need, scope, and hook for the preservation endowment are defined, it is important to coordinate plans with the library’s administration and the development office, if these two bodies are separate. Substantial resources may be necessary to compose a grant proposal, educate development staff and potential donors in preservation issues, develop a target group for
140
Whitney Pape and Eric C. Shoaf
fundraising efforts, communicate with donors, track the progress toward fundraising goals, and report on that progress to donors, administrators, and granting agencies. It is important to verify that the necessary resources will be available and ready to work on implementing the proposed plans. E. The Proposal Once the idea is in place, the proposal must be drafted. Different funding bodies have varying application procedures, and nearly all have printed instructions available by mail or on a website. Be sure to note application return dates and any information needed from sources outside the institution such as supporting documentation or letters from constituents. Some funding agencies welcome contact prior to receiving final proposals, providing the opportunity to give guidance on submitting applications most likely to be successful. Most funding bodies require information on the institution in the form of history, size, accomplishments, administration, and personnel. If the library exists as part of a larger institution, this information will be required about the institution and the library itself. The need statement is used to frame the problem and introduces the hook. An elaboration includes how the money generated by the endowment will be applied to library needs in new and interesting ways. Specifically, it should present a specific problem with a unique proposal for a solution to be funded with the endowment funds. A detailed budget should be included to show how the proposed annual income would be spent. An explanation of how the proposed endowment will be used to further the institution’s and/or library’s mission is necessary, as is a fundraising plan where matching funds are required. The funding plan is necessary for matching fund grants to detail how the institution will raise the match. F. Submitting the Proposal Follow the application rules closely and submit the proper number of copies of the proposal on time. Be sure to include all institutional information, constituent references, budget, fundraising plan, and other relevant data. A follow-up telephone call to the agency to ensure that all was received is expected. After that it is a matter of waiting to be notified. The evaluation process can take from 3 to 9 months. If the proposal is accepted, an offer will be made. It may be lower than the amount that was requested, or require a different set of matching parameters. Proposals that are not funded generally include feedback from the funding body and/or the evaluators. Read the comments carefully; they will be useful in the process of rewriting and resubmitting the proposal or seeking alternate funding sources.
Funding for Library Preservation: Endowments as Income Streams
141
VI. An Under-Utilized Preservation Funding Source In the current economic climate, many institutions will be searching for ways to reduce spending, including library budgets. Since preservation is in great part an invisible service from a user perspective, it is highly vulnerable to budget trimming. Preservation professionals can take two approaches to combat this phenomenon: communicating the importance of preservation activities and enhancing the visibility of preservation for users and library administration, or ensuring that preservation activities have ongoing funding apart from the institution’s annual budget. Establishing an endowment provides a continuing funding stream to underwrite ongoing preservation activities, supplies, equipment, and personnel or to target specific collections or new activities. The fundraising process can lead to endowments to fund other library functions— acquisitions, for example. Fundraising also raises awareness of preservation issues within the larger institution, among potential donors, and among library staff. Endowments are not without drawbacks, however. Careful endowment management is necessary to avoid the effects of negative economic performance. Institutions that rely solely on endowment funding can face a genuine crisis if investment return is reduced because of a downturn in the economy. Ironically, the same budgetary forces that lead to the establishment of an endowment—a lack of funds—can also make maintaining an established endowment more difficult as income from investment drops. The effects of an economic downturn can be minimized; these are cyclical phenomena, which can be managed. The fundamental benefit of establishing an endowment for preservation activities is its perpetual funding. The keys to building an endowment are evaluating the preservation needs of the collection, developing an idea that can be conveyed effectively to granting agencies or donors, and rallying the resources to implement the fundraising plan. The benefits are increased funding and stability of the preservation program, and the insurance that income will be provided to care for the library’s collections in perpetuity.
142
Whitney Pape and Eric C. Shoaf
Appendix I Request for Questionnaire Respondents Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2002 13:20:01 -0400 To:
[email protected] From: Whitney Pape,
[email protected] Subject: preservation endowments As I alerted those attending the PADG meeting in Atlanta, I’m writing to you for some help. I am gathering information about U.S. institution-based endowments funding preservation work. If your institution or one you know of has any such endowment, I would love an e-mail with this information, including the appropriate person to contact at that institution. I’ll be contacting those institutions with a questionnaire to find out more about what the sources of the endowment were and how the endowment income is used. I’m hoping to present this information to the preservation and broader library community in an article that Eric Shoaf and I will submit for publication in Advances in Librarianship. Please respond with any endowment information you’re aware of and help me provide information and inspiration to institutions wishing to build endowments, as well as fresh ideas for institutions with existing endowments. Thanks! Whitney Pape Whitney Pape NEH Preservation Librarian Brown University Library
[email protected]
Funding for Library Preservation: Endowments as Income Streams
Appendix II Preservation Endowment Questionnaire July 2002 Name: Email: Please select the appropriate responses. Institutional Profile 1. Is your institution: public 2. Annual library budget (all lines): $50,000 or less $50,001 to $100,000 $100,001 to $500,000
private $500,001 to $1,000,000 $1,000,001 þ
3. Preservation budget (all lines) excluding endowment income: $10,000 or less $100,001 to $250,000 $10,001 to $50,000 $250,001 þ $50,001 to $100,000 4. Total value of library endowments, including preservation endowments: $100,000 or less $1,000,001 to $5,000,000 $100,001 to $500,000 $5,000,001 to $10,000,000 $500,001 to $1,000,000 $10,000,001 þ Preservation Endowment Figures 5. What is the amount of the principal for your institution’s preservation endowment(s)? $50,000 or less $500,001 to $1,000,000 $50,001 to $100,000 $1,000,001 to $5,000,000 $100,001 to $500,000 $5,000,001 þ 6. What is the amount of annual investment income? $5,000 or less $100,001 to $300,000 $5,001 to $50,000 $300,001 to $500,000 $50,001 to $100,000 $500,001 þ 7. Are contributions ongoing? Yes
No
143
144
Whitney Pape and Eric C. Shoaf
7a. If so, how much is being added to your endowment principal yearly? $5,000 or less $100,001 to $300,000 $5,001 to $50,000 $300,001 to $500,000 $50,001 to $100,000 $500,001 þ 8.
Is the investment income dedicated solely to preservation expenditures? Yes No 8a. If the endowment finances non-preservation activities, what are the other components? Acquisitions Facilities or Infrastructure Cataloging Other 9. If the endowment funds multiple activities, what percentage of the investment income is dedicated to preservation expenditures? Expenditures 10.
How is the investment income spent? % personnel % treatments % supplies % equipment % other Please specify “other”
10a. What categories of personnel are funded? (Please check all that apply.) None Administrative Professional Conservation Professional Technician Administrative Support Other Please specify “other” 10b. What types of activities are funded? (Please check all that apply.) None Reformatting Commercial Binding Other Protective Enclosures General Collections Conservation Special Collections Conservation Deacidification
Funding for Library Preservation: Endowments as Income Streams
Other Please specify “other” 10c. What supplies and equipment are funded? 11.
Is the endowment designed to fund specific preservation activities or projects? Yes No
11a. If so, is a specific portion of the income is devoted to these activities/projects? Yes No 11b. What portion? A/P 1: A/P 2: A/P 3: A/P 4: A/P 5: 12.
% % % % %
Is the endowment designed to fund treatment of materials in specific collections, subject areas or academic disciplines? Yes No
12a. If so, is a specific portion of the income devoted to these collections/subjects? Yes No 12b. What portion? C/S 1: C/S 2: C/S 3: C/S 4: C/S 5:
% % % % %
Fundraising 13.
What were the funding sources for the endowment? (Please check all that apply.) Granting agencies Friends of the Library Alumni General public Other Please specify “other”
145
146 14.
Whitney Pape and Eric C. Shoaf
What was the scope of the fundraising leading to your preservation endowment? Preservation-specific campaign Library-specific campaign Institution-wide campaign Other Please specify “other”
14a. If part of a larger fundraising effort, what percentage of the campaign was devoted to preservation? 5% or less 20% to 50% 5% to 10% 50% to 75% 10% to 20% 75% þ 15.
What role did your institution’s development office play in fundraising? None Exclusive Primary, with library staff support/collaboration Support to library staff with primary responsibility
16.
What role did library staff play in fundraising? None Exclusive Primary, with development office support Support to development office
17.
Was there a goal amount for the fundraising effort for preservation? Yes No
18.
Did you meet that goal? Yes
No
19.
How long did it take to raise the goal amount? 0 to 6 months 2 to 5 years 6 to 12 months 5 years þ 1 to 2 years
20.
To what do you attribute the success of your fundraising efforts?
Funding for Library Preservation: Endowments as Income Streams
147
Appendix III Questionnaire responses Response 1 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 7a. 8. 8a. 9. 10. 10. 10. 10. 10. 10. 10a. 10a. 10b. 10b. 10c. 11. 11a. 11b. 11b. 11b. 11b. 11b. 11b. 11b. 11b. 11b. 11b.
Institution type?: Public Annual Library Budget: 1mil þ Preservation Budget: 250K þ Total Library Endowment Value: 1mil –5mil Preservation Endowment Principal: 50K –100K Annual Investment Income Amount: , 5K Contributions ongoing?: Yes Annual Endowment Principal Increase: , 5K Investment income dedicated solely to preservation?: Yes Other non-preservation components: Percentage of Endowment Income for Preservation: % income spent on personnel: % income spent on treatments: 75 % income spent on supplies: % income spent on equipment: 25 % income spent on other items: Other investment income spending: Personnel funded: None Other personnel funded: Funded activities: Special Collections Conservation Other funded activities: Supplies/equipment funded: Special collections conservation equipment Endowment designed to fund specific preservation Activities/ Projects (A/P)?: Yes Specific portion of income devoted to A/P?: No A/P1: A/P1%: A/P2: A/P2%: A/P3: A/P3%: A/P4: A/P4%: A/P5: A/P5%:
148
Whitney Pape and Eric C. Shoaf
12b. 12b. 12b. 12b. 12b. 12b. 12b. 12b. 12b. 12b. 13. 13. 14. 14. 15. 16.
Collections/Subjects (C/S)1: C/S1%: C/S2: C/S2%: C/S3: C/S3%: C/S4: C/S4%: C/S5: C/S5%: Funding sources: Friends of the Library Other funding sources: Scope of fundraising: Other Other Scope of fundraising: a bequest Fundraising role played by development office: Primary Fundraising role played by library staff: Support to development office 17. Was there a goal amount for the fundraising?: No 20. Reasons for Success: Response 2 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 7a. 8. 8a. 9. 10. 10. 10. 10. 10. 10.
Institution type?: Private Annual Library Budget: 1mil þ Preservation Budget: 250K þ Total Library Endowment Value: 10mil þ Preservation Endowment Principal: 100K –500K Annual Investment Income Amount: 5K –50K Contributions ongoing?: Yes Annual Endowment Principal Increase: , 5K Investment income dedicated solely to preservation?: Yes Other non-preservation components: n/a Percentage of Endowment Income for Preservation: 100 % income spent on personnel: % income spent on treatments: 80 % income spent on supplies: % income spent on equipment: % income spent on other items: 20 Other investment income spending: treatment is mainly reformatting. Other is protective enclosures and other special projects 10a. Personnel funded: None 10a. Other personnel funded: 10b. Funded activities: Reformatting Other Protective Enclosures
Funding for Library Preservation: Endowments as Income Streams
10b. 10c. 11. 11a. 11b. 11b. 11b. 11b. 11b. 11b. 11b. 11b. 11b. 11b. 12. 12a. 12b. 12b. 12b. 12b. 12b. 12b. 12b. 12b. 12b. 12b. 13. 13. 14. 14. 14a. 15. 16. 17. 20.
149
Other funded activities: special projects Supplies/equipment funded: n/a Endowment designed to fund specific preservation A/P?: No Specific portion of income devoted to A/P?: No A/P1: A/P1%: A/P2: A/P2%: A/P3: A/P3%: A/P4: A/P4%: A/P5: A/P5%: Endowment designed to fund treatment of specific collection materials?: No Portion of income devoted to specific collections?: No C/S1: C/S1%: C/S2: C/S2%: C/S3: C/S3%: C/S4: C/S4%: C/S5: C/S5%: Funding sources: Friends of the Library Alumni Other Other funding sources: Advisory council for University Libraries membership Scope of fundraising: Institution wide campaign Other Scope of fundraising: institution-wide campaign w/ library component and preservation-specific “asks” Percent of campaign devoted to preservation: , 5 Fundraising role played by development office: Primary Fundraising role played by library staff: Support to development office Was there a goal amount for the fundraising?: No Reasons for Success: Question 19: Last campaign: 1994 –2000. Library goal was met, University goal was exceeded. University is now in silent phase of new campaign.) Question 20: Close collaboration btw. Univ. development and the libraries. Strong, clear case statements. Ongoing cultivation and stewardship.
150
Whitney Pape and Eric C. Shoaf
Response 3 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 8. 8a. 9. 10. 10. 10. 10. 10. 10.
10a. 10a.
10b.
10b. 10c.
11. 11a. 11b. 11b. 11b. 11b. 11b. 11b. 11b. 11b.
Institution type?: Private Annual Library Budget: 1mil þ Preservation Budget: 100K –250K Total Library Endowment Value: 1mil– 5mil Preservation Endowment Principal: 100K –500K Annual Investment Income Amount: 50K – 100K Investment income dedicated solely to preservation?: No Other non-preservation components: Percentage of Endowment Income for Preservation: % income spent on personnel: % income spent on treatments: 90 % income spent on supplies: 2 % income spent on equipment: 8 % income spent on other items: Other investment income spending: NOTE: this is a rough estimate of how the funds have been used over time. It can vary radically from year to year. Personnel funded: Other Other personnel funded: Personnel not regularly funded, but summer interns for preservation/conservation have been paid from the preservation endowment. Funded activities: Reformatting Other Protective Enclosures General Collections Conservation Special Collections Conservation Deacidification Other Other funded activities: Relocation of low-use materials to offsite storage. Supplies/equipment funded: Materials for housing archives (boxes, folders, photo-sleeves). Occasional conservation lab equipment (bookpresses) and supplies (bookcloth, board), but such materials are routinely purchased with operating funds. Dataloggers. Endowment designed to fund specific preservation A/P?: No Specific portion of income devoted to A/P?: No A/P1: A/P1%: A/P2: A/P2%: A/P3: A/P3%: A/P4: A/P4%:
Funding for Library Preservation: Endowments as Income Streams
151
11b. A/P5: 11b. A/P5%: 12. Endowment designed to fund treatment of specific collection materials?: Yes 12a. Portion of income devoted to specific collections: Yes 12b. C/S1: There are 2 preservation endowments; one is specifically for Special Collections. 12b. C/S1%: 55% 12b. C/S2: 12b. C/S2%: 12b. C/S3: 12b. C/S3%: 12b. C/S4: 12b. C/S4%: 12b. C/S5: 12b. C/S5%: 13. Funding sources: Alumni 13. Other funding sources: 14. Scope of fundraising: Other 14. Other Scope of fundraising: One was generated from a institution-wide capital campaign—the donor chose to establish a fund for library preservation; the second was result of the head of Special Collections working directly with the donor over a number of years. 14a. Percent of campaign devoted to preservation: , 5 15. Fundraising role played by development office: Support to library staff 16. Fundraising role played by library staff: Primary 17. Was there a goal amount for the fundraising?: No 20. Reasons for Success: Alumni dedication to the College, an active Friends of the Library group that works closely with library staff, and the fact that preservation is given a high priority within the library. The College development office also does a tremendous job matching donors to different departments seeking funds. Response 4 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 7a.
Institution type?: Public Annual Library Budget: 1mil þ Preservation Budget: 250K þ Total Library Endowment Value: 10mil þ Preservation Endowment Principal: 1mil –5mil Annual Investment Income Amount: 100K – 300K Contributions ongoing?: Yes Annual Endowment Principal Increase: 5K –50K
152
Whitney Pape and Eric C. Shoaf
8. 8a. 9. 10. 10. 10. 10. 10. 10.
Investment income dedicated solely to preservation?: Yes Other non-preservation components: Percentage of Endowment Income for Preservation: 100 % income spent on personnel: 40 % income spent on treatments: 16 % income spent on supplies: 7 % income spent on equipment: 28 % income spent on other items: 9 Other investment income spending: Books, travel, telephone, display case for preservation Personnel funded: Administrative Professional Other personnel funded: Funded activities: Reformatting General Collections Conservation Special Collections Conservation Deacidification Other funded activities: Supplies/equipment funded: Digital preservation and imaging; preservation and conservation supplies, scientific equipment and instruments, furniture and workbenches Endowment designed to fund specific preservation A/P?: No A/P1: A/P1%: A/P2: A/P2%: A/P3: A/P3%: A/P4: A/P4%: A/P5: A/P5%: Endowment designed to fund treatment of specific collection materials?: No C/S1: C/S1%: C/S2: C/S2%: C/S3: C/S3%: C/S4: C/S4%: C/S5: C/S5%:
10a. 10a. 10b. 10b. 10c.
11. 11b. 11b. 11b. 11b. 11b. 11b. 11b. 11b. 11b. 11b. 12. 12b. 12b. 12b. 12b. 12b. 12b. 12b. 12b. 12b. 12b.
Funding for Library Preservation: Endowments as Income Streams
13. 13. 14. 14. 14a. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20.
153
Funding sources: Alumni General public Other funding sources: Scope of fundraising: Library-specific campaign Other Scope of fundraising: Percent of campaign devoted to preservation: 10 –20 Fundraising role played by development office: Exclusive Fundraising role played by library staff: Primary Was there a goal amount for the fundraising?: No Did you meet that goal?: Yes Time to raise goal amount: 5 þ yrs Reasons for Success: Key to our success was to work with the library administration and library development to ‘‘tell our story’’—educating them of our needs. And equally important to our success was to have donors or prospects meet with the preservation staff in the preservation facility to ‘‘show off’’ what is currently happening and discuss possibilities. Response 5
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 8a. 8a. 9. 10. 10. 10. 10. 10. 10. 10a.
Institution type?: Private Annual Library Budget: 1mil þ Preservation Budget: 250K þ Total Library Endowment Value: 10mil þ Preservation Endowment Principal: 1mil –5mil Annual Investment Income Amount: 100K – 300K Contributions ongoing?: No Investment income dedicated solely to preservation?: No Non-preservation components: Acquisitions Cataloging Other non-preservation components: Percentage of Endowment Income for Preservation: 98 % income spent on personnel: 59 % income spent on treatments: 24 % income spent on supplies: 17 % income spent on equipment: 0 % income spent on other items: 0 Other investment income spending: Personnel funded: Administrative Professional Technician Administrative Support Other 10a. Other personnel funded: student 10b. Funded activities: Reformatting Commercial Binding Other Protective Enclosures General Collections Conservation Special Collections Conservation Deacidification 10b. Other funded activities:
154
Whitney Pape and Eric C. Shoaf
10c. Supplies/equipment funded: bookends, pH pens, bookcloth, acid free tissue, acid free endsheets, storage boxes, conservation tools, disaster supplies 11. Endowment designed to fund specific preservation A/P?: Yes 11a. Specific portion of income devoted to A/P?: Yes 11b. A/P1: deacidification 11b. A/P1%: 20 11b. A/P2: 11b. A/P2%: 11b. A/P3: 11b. A/P3%: 11b. A/P4: 11b. A/P4%: 11b. A/P5: 11b. A/P5%: 12. Endowment designed to fund treatment of specific collection materials?: Yes 12a. Portion of income devoted to specific collections: Yes 12b. C/S1: classics 12b. C/S1%: 1.3 12b. C/S2: lincoln 12b. C/S2%: 1.0 12b. C/S3: history of medicine 12b. C/S3%: 2.0 12b. C/S4: archives 12b. C/S4%: .70 12b. C/S5: judaic studies 12b. C/S5%: .55 13. Funding sources: Granting agencies Friends of the Library Alumni 13. Other funding sources: 14. Scope of fundraising: Preservation-specific campaign 14. Other Scope of fundraising: 15. Fundraising role played by development office: Primary 16. Fundraising role played by library staff: Support to development office 17. Was there a goal amount for the fundraising?: Yes 18. Did you meet that goal?: Yes 19. Time to raise goal amount: 2 –5yrs 20. Reasons for Success: new approach to preventive conservation proposed with grant; development office dedicating team of people to project
Funding for Library Preservation: Endowments as Income Streams
155
Response 6 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 8a. 8a. 9. 10. 10. 10. 10. 10. 10. 10a. 10a. 10b. 10b. 10c. 11. 11a. 11b. 11b. 11b. 11b. 11b. 11b. 11b. 11b. 11b. 11b. 12. 12a.
Institution type?: Public Annual Library Budget: 1mil þ Preservation Budget: 10K – 50K Total Library Endowment Value: 100K – 500K Preservation Endowment Principal: 1mil –5mil Annual Investment Income Amount: 100K – 300K Contributions ongoing?: No Investment income dedicated solely to preservation?: No Non-preservation components: Cataloging Other Other non-preservation components: manuscript processing, exhibits, training Percentage of Endowment Income for Preservation: 15 % income spent on personnel: 75 % income spent on treatments: % income spent on supplies: % income spent on equipment: % income spent on other items: 25 Other investment income spending: exhibits, training/travel, conservation Personnel funded: Other Other personnel funded: all conservation activity is outsourced Funded activities: Reformatting Commercial Binding Other Protective Enclosures Special Collections Conservation Deacidification Other funded activities: Supplies/equipment funded: none Endowment designed to fund specific preservation A/P?: Yes Specific portion of income devoted to A/P?: No A/P1: conservation of materials from the Western History Collection A/P1%: 100 A/P2: A/P2%: A/P3: A/P3%: A/P4: A/P4%: A/P5: A/P5%: Endowment designed to fund treatment of specific collection materials?: Yes Portion of income devoted to specific collections: Yes
156
Whitney Pape and Eric C. Shoaf
12b. 12b. 12b. 12b. 12b. 12b. 12b. 12b. 12b. 12b. 13. 13. 14. 14. 14a. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20.
C/S1: Western History Collection C/S1%: 100 C/S2: C/S2%: C/S3: C/S3%: C/S4: C/S4%: C/S5: C/S5%: Funding sources: Granting agencies General public Other funding sources: Scope of fundraising: Preservation-specific campaign Other Scope of fundraising: Percent of campaign devoted to preservation: 5 –10 Fundraising role played by development office: Primary Fundraising role played by library staff: Support to development office Was there a goal amount for the fundraising?: Yes Did you meet that goal?: Yes Time to raise goal amount: 2 –5yrs Reasons for Success: Tenacity. High profile for the department in the community. Response 7
1. 2. 3. 4. 8a. 9. 10. 10. 10. 10. 10. 10. 10a. 10b. 10c. 11b. 11b. 11b.
Institution type?: Public Annual Library Budget: 1mil þ Preservation Budget: 50K – 100K Total Library Endowment Value: 500K –1mil Other non-preservation components: Percentage of Endowment Income for Preservation: % income spent on personnel: % income spent on treatments: % income spent on supplies: % income spent on equipment: % income spent on other items: Other investment income spending: Other personnel funded: Other funded activities: Supplies/equipment funded: A/P1: A/P1%: A/P2:
Funding for Library Preservation: Endowments as Income Streams
11b. 11b. 11b. 11b. 11b. 11b. 11b. 12b. 12b. 12b. 12b. 12b. 12b. 12b. 12b. 12b. 12b. 13. 14. 14a. 15. 16. 17. 18. 20.
157
A/P2%: A/P3: A/P3%: A/P4: A/P4%: A/P5: A/P5%: C/S1: C/S1%: C/S2: C/S2%: C/S3: C/S3%: C/S4: C/S4%: C/S5: C/S5%: Other funding sources: Other Scope of fundraising: Percent of campaign devoted to preservation: , 5 Fundraising role played by development office: Support to library staff Fundraising role played by library staff: Primary Was there a goal amount for the fundraising?: No Did you meet that goal?: No Reasons for Success: The institution does not do adequate fundraising for preservation and is thus not successful
References ALA Midwinter (1990). New Emphasis for Basic Issues: Preservation. Wilson Library Bulletin 64(March), 21. Association of Research Libraries (1985). Guidelines for Minimum Preservation Activities in ARL Libraries, Association of Research Libraries, Washington, DC. Child, M. (2000). Programs, priorities, and funding. In: Preservation: Issues and Planning (P. Banks and R. Pillette, eds.), pp. 63– 81. American Library Association, Chicago. Fasana, P. J. and Baker, J. P. (1992). Preservation’s place in the library’s organization and budget. Advances in Preservation and Access 1, 124–134. Gwinn, N. (1998). Mapping the intersection of selection and funding. Collection Management 22(3–4), 143–149. Harrer, G. A. (1957). Library expenditures: an examination of their distribution. College and Research Libraries 18, 113– 125. Higginbotham, B. and Wild, J. (2001). The Preservation Program Blueprint, Library Association, Chicago.
158
Whitney Pape and Eric C. Shoaf
Merrill-Oldham, J. and Smith, M. (1985). Library Preservation Program: Models, Priorities, Possibilities: The Administrative Challenge: Proceedings of a Conference, April 29, 1983, Washington, DC, American Library Association, Chicago. NEH Awards over $3.2 Million to Preservation Projects (1988). Wilson Library Bulletin 62(February)., 16. Shoaf, E. (2000). Brown University Library meets the preservation challenge. College and Research Libraries News 61(7), 593–595. Taylor, M. (2001). Rising to the challenge: The Brown University Library’s NEH challenge grant for preservation 1996–2000. In: Successful Fundraising: Case Studies of Academic Libraries (M. Butler, ed.), pp. 38–50. Association of Research Libraries, Washington, DC. Turock, B. (1989). Preserving our Crumbling Collections. The Bottom Line 3(4), 4–5.
Library Storage as a Preservation Strategy Catherine Murray-Rust Oregon State University Libraries, 121 Valley Library, Corvallis, OR 97331-4501, USA
I. Introduction Library storage is traditionally viewed as a space management strategy, a way of dealing with overcrowded buildings and growing collections. Storage also is implicitly a preservation strategy: an alternative to weeding, cramming books tightly on shelves, stacking them on the floor, or not purchasing them in the first place. Among its obvious preservation benefits, storage provides security from theft and vandalism, and protection from spills and pests caused by increasingly prevalent food and drink in library buildings. Although transfer to storage may be risky for fragile materials, leaving them in stacks that are constantly being shifted is likely to be more damaging. Many storage facilities provide better environmental conditions for collections than old or poorly maintained modern library buildings. In the United States, the 1902 proposal by Harvard University President Eliot to relegate books to storage started a debate that raged in the library community throughout the 20th century. Administrators and librarians argued for decades about storage as a solution to an economic problem while research and discussion focused primarily on which methods of storage provide the cheapest accommodation for library materials with minimal disruption to users. A few librarians and researchers raised the issues of weeding and sharing collections as cost-effective methods for dealing with the overabundance of research collections. As necessary, librarians dealt with the cycles of growth and construction through their own institutional and cooperative arrangements. The Harvard Depository, opened in 1986, transformed the relationship between preservation and storage from an implicit to an explicit preservation strategy. Design teams of architects, engineers, warehouse consultants, and preservation specialists at Harvard University, Yale University, and other
ADVANCES IN LIBRARIANSHIP, VOL. 27 q 2004 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved ISSN: 0065-2830 DOI:10.1016/S0065-2830(03)27006-9
159
160
Catherine Murray-Rust
research libraries, created storage facilities in the United States and Canada that offer outstanding environmental conditions to prolong the useful life of paper and film. Now that 25 research libraries have adopted and adapted the Harvard model, the preservation benefits of storage are being promoted to wary librarians and users, and high-quality storage has become a key concept in the growing national discussion of cooperative repositories.
II. A Brief History of Library Storage For centuries, librarians have used storage as a means of coping with collections that should be retained, but have outgrown available space. The modern history of library storage began in the United States in 1902 with the famous dead books controversy. Charles William Eliot, President of Harvard University, alarmed by an extraordinary increase in the quantity of library books and frequent demands for new buildings to house them, recommended that books could be stored more economically if they were stored according to use. “I am not proposing a crematory for dead books but only a receiving tomb. Neither am I proposing that the bibliophile or the antiquarian should be absolutely deprived of his idols, but only that his access to them should be made somewhat less convenient and attractive” (Elliot, 1902, p. 55). When Eliot proposed to move little-used books to storage, rather than discard them or build new libraries to house them, he framed the debate about storage for most of the 20th century. William Coolidge Lane, Harvard’s Librarian, held an opposing viewpoint. He publicly worried about how relegating less-used books to storage would affect users in a large research institution. In his 1903 paper to the Niagara Conference of Librarians, he argued that access to a classified collection of all materials is crucial to a scholar’s progress, and faculty and students should not have to rely on catalogs and bibliographies when they prefer the opportunity for first-hand examination of materials on the shelves (Lane, 1903). Unfortunately, Eliot’s use of the phrase “dead books” quickly embroiled him and Librarian Lane in a “profession-wide brawl” (Orne, 1960, p. 16). Passionate arguments against sending little-used books to storage appeared in the library literature of the day, as respected librarians weighed into the controversy. James Kendall Hosmer, Librarian of the Minneapolis Public Library, claimed that librarians were “quite aghast” at Eliot’s proposal and sternly reminded the Niagara Conference that the criterion of use is completely unsatisfactory. “It should be borne in mind that in the case of the dead book, as of the human soul, there is always the possibility of a resurrection” (Hosmer, 1903, p. 4).
Library Storage as a Preservation Strategy
161
James Canfield, Librarian of Columbia University, insisted that the principles of classification and the unification of the collection should not be sacrificed (Niagara, 1903). Ernest Burton (1903), Librarian at the University of Chicago, described a plan to create and enhance departmental libraries to house heavily used books and place less frequently used materials in the central library. The dead book debate died down thanks to several librarians, among them George Harris of Cornell University, who cautioned that storage was not an imperative for most libraries because land was not worth a million dollars an acre anywhere in the country and no library had as yet a million volumes (Niagara, 1903). In 1912, the debate was rekindled when Andrew Carnegie, H. L. Koopman of Brown University, and others tried to raise the issue of what to do with little-used books. Interviewed by the New York Tribune, Carnegie, who that year distributed more than $6.6 million for new libraries and extensions of existing ones, declared that there were thousands of volumes that should be “reverently interred in the basement where they can be visited by the curious pedant who wishes to search for something of the past to be produced as a curio” (Carnegie, 1912, p. 74). Despite the rhetoric at Harvard and elsewhere, construction of new buildings and the development of departmental libraries in universities made it possible to avoid transferring collections to storage for many years to come. Research library collections continued to grow dramatically in the prosperous 1920s and construction for the most part kept up with demand. The collapse of the U.S. economy in the Depression of the 1930s and World War II halted library construction and renovation, as librarians struggled to shelve collections in overcrowded buildings. Predictably, space for collections again emerged as a burning issue in the literature in the late 1940s and early 1950s. Although new library construction and renovation continued apace throughout the 1960s and 1970s, collection growth generally outstripped shelving capacity. By the 1980s and 1990s many research librarians could no longer avoid dividing their collections between main libraries and storage facilities.
III. Cycles of Growth and Construction: The Cornell University Experience A brief history of Cornell University’s use of storage illustrates the cycles of growth and construction. The Cornell collections expanded rapidly in the early years of the 20th century and by the early 1930s, the director of libraries was reduced to writing witty, desperate pleas in his annual reports about
162
Catherine Murray-Rust
the need for space. Otto Kinkeldey lamented the lack of an addition to the main library because of the financial depression. He ruefully wrote, “In the meantime we may console ourselves with the thought that the Library has proved itself entirely modern in its failure to conform to the accepted laws of physics. In these days of non-Euclidean geometry, non-Aristotelian logic and non-Newtonian physics it is not surprising to find that a space fully occupied could absorb a substantial addition to its contents…The relativity theorists will have to find a place in their system for the concept of complete fullness. We are demonstrating the theorem that two bodies when they take the form of books or of library workers, can occupy the same space” (Cornell University, 1933, p. 3). The available shelving capacity for library collections was less than 100,000 volumes from 1900 until the Law School library was built in the early 1930s. The next major addition did not occur until the early 1950s when the construction of Mann Library increased the space available for collections to over 200,000 volumes. By 1961, Cornell had 22,000 titles, roughly estimated at 65,000 volumes, in the Area Collections, a classification scheme created by Felix Reichmann, Director of Technical Services, to store back files of serials, older editions, and little-used monographs and pamphlets. The situation improved dramatically when Stephen McCarthy, who became director in 1948, and University President Mallott succeeded in building a modern research library on central campus. John M. Olin Library, opened in 1962, was designed to house two million volumes in social sciences and humanities. As collections continued to grow faster than shelf space, Cornell’s solution was to open the Library Annex in 1978. An industrial style storage facility on the edge of campus, the Annex provided better environmental conditions and tighter security than several older libraries on campus. The Annex filled to capacity in 1986, and by that time, Cornell librarians were once again calling for space—new libraries on central campus, expansions and renovations of existing buildings, and increased storage space off campus. A mandate from the trustees in 1991 to contain the growth of central campus libraries by 2000 was preceded by a thorough study of all library space campus-wide and a lively debate on the likelihood that digital technologies would obviate the need for new construction (Seznec et al., 1991). Recalling the mixed history of microfilm as a space-saving strategy, Matier and Sidle noted in their report on the planning process, “The establishment of a highly electronic library that is also user-friendly will be an enormous, complicated undertaking. It will challenge the very foundation of how university libraries are used and the very nature of intellectual property… We concluded that there is so much uncertainty regarding the development of technology, that it would be imprudent to develop a planning strategy with technology as the linchpin”
Library Storage as a Preservation Strategy
163
(Matier and Sidle, 1993, p. 14). Cornell opened a Harvard style highdensity warehouse facility in 1998. The first module will be filled before the predicted date of 2007, and planning is underway for additional modules. As the Cornell example shows, university administrators, trustees and others who finance library construction and renovation, like Harvard’s President Eliot before them, regard storage as a necessary collection management solution for research libraries. In their view, storage is a way to save space in existing buildings for newer collections and services, and avoid costly expansion and renovation or construction of full-service libraries. Librarians, however, continuing the tradition of Harvard’s Librarian Lane, view storage as a last resort to be agreed to only when all other means of persuading, cajoling, or begging for new and renovated space are exhausted. “Who among us wouldn’t prefer to build spacious new libraries with perfect climate control and adaptable infrastructure for future technological requirements right on campus? And once we adopt high-density off-site shelving the probability of ever seeing such libraries constructed on campus becomes remote” (Nitecki and Kendrick, 2001, p. 1).
IV. Storage Methods Calling the problem of severely overcrowded research libraries one of economics, Lane (1903) outlined ways to save space and cost, including compact shelving arrangements, transferring books to other libraries (now better known as cooperative storage), and improvements in methods of construction. All have been addressed in library literature in the past 100 years, but library research heavily focuses on the cost of various shelving alternatives. Interestingly, Lane’s wish that construction might provide a solution came true at the Harvard Depository 80 years later. Several authors have investigated methods of shelving library materials compactly and many have attempted to put dollar figures on the savings from using storage rather than shelving in conventional book stacks. One of the earliest and most entertaining is Fremont Rider’s (1949) treatise on his favorite methods of compact storage. Rider, whose interests ranged from subject headings for military science to questions about the dead being alive, describes an “outrightly fantastic” example of traveling crane storage in which people travel horizontally and vertically in aisle canyons that are tall and long. A similar system is operating today in most high-density warehouse facilities, which feature 30 ft industrial shelving and a custom-made shelving unit attached to a mobile mechanical lift.
164
Catherine Murray-Rust
Hopp (1961) reported that most of the discussion about book storage was concerned with the physical requirements and economics of various methods of storage. Muller (1965) analyzed the economics of three methods of compact shelving and concluded that all involve a reduction in access and therefore would have to show significant cost savings to be acceptable to librarians. Simon (1967) assessed the comparative costs of storage versus having research materials close at hand. He proposed a list of variables for library directors to allow them to estimate the value of several storage alternatives. In a study commissioned by the Association of Research Libraries (ARL) in 1969, Ellsworth (1969) studied two questions: is it economic for librarians to select little-used books for storage and is cost the only factor that should be considered? He investigated 12 systems of storing more books per square foot than is typical in conventional book stacks and concluded that storage cannot be justified on the basis of cost alone. Stayner (1983) provided a model to determine the most efficient allocation of library materials to different storage solutions based on storage and retrieval costs that include variables such as compact shelving and microforms. Cooper’s (1989) economic analysis, which takes into account construction costs, selection, processing, transportation, circulation, and user delays, shows that the best alternative is a compact, open stack facility located on campus rather than open stack facility off campus, local storage, or regional storage. Following up on the same themes, Cooper (1991) wrote that the most important cost driver in the choice of how to store material is the number of times a book circulates. One of the sub-themes of library research on storage is weeding as an alternative—a kind of anti-preservation strategy. For most librarians, storing library materials is a more acceptable solution to space problems than weeding collections, but researchers have tried to quantify the economics of the choices nonetheless. Lawrence (1981) proposed a model to compare the cost of keeping a title in the library, sending it to storage or discarding it. He asserts that although librarians and library users view new construction as the most desirable solution to a space crisis, storage and weeding are more likely solutions because the space problem libraries face essentially is an economic one. Lee (1993) offered a model that tries to bring together earlier research on the cost alternatives for storage with predictions of future use. He compares the costs of taking no action, discarding, and sending material to storage. He concludes that if time is short or the cost of housing is especially high, weeding is a more economic solution than sending items to storage. The value of preserving material for future generations is not part of his analysis.
Library Storage as a Preservation Strategy
165
V. Institutional Storage Solutions While researchers debated the economics of storage and librarians worried about the impact of storage on user services, a number of academic research libraries responded to local space crises by creating their own storage facilities. As early as 1941, Iowa State College constructed a storage facility on its campus to house little-used books (Friley and Orr, 1951). DePauw University created a storage collection in 1945 (Orne, 1960). In 1957, Rutherford Rogers, chief of the reference department at New York Public library, felt the need to explain his library’s decision to adopt fixed location shelving because “American librarians (are) nourished from birth on the principle that books should be classified and arranged by subject” (Rogers, 1957, p. 435). The University of Michigan created a facility designed for book storage in 1956 (Orne, 1960). Michigan consolidated its stored collections in the Buhr Shelving Facility, a converted factory building in 1980 (Lougee, 1992). Princeton University opened its Library Annex in 1968 (Conger, 1970). In 1977, the Association of Research Libraries (ARL, 1990) reported that 45 of 97 member libraries stored parts of their collections. By 1999, ARL estimated that 80 of its 122 member libraries were using secondary storage, including the University of California, Cornell University, University of Florida, Harvard University, University of Michigan, Ohio University, Yale University, University of Texas, University of Western Ontario, University of Minnesota, University of Missouri, Columbia University, and the University of Washington (ARL, 1999).
VI. Cooperative Storage Solutions The primary motivation for cooperative storage, what Harvard’s Lane (1903) called transferring books to other libraries, is to reduce local space pressures and at the same time guarantee users access to library materials. By contributing copies and in some rare cases purchasing books and journals with the purpose of sharing one or a few among a group, librarians decrease local demand for new and renovated space. During times of severe space crises in libraries such as the years following World War II, and the present, the cooperative ideal resurfaces within the library community. In the dead books controversy, Elliot (1902) proposed depositories for little-used books not only in Eastern Massachusetts, but also in Washington, New York, Chicago and later in the Pacific Coast and Rocky Mountains. At a 1975 conference sponsored by the Associated Colleges of
166
Catherine Murray-Rust
the Midwest and enticingly called “Touching Bottom in the Bottomless Pit,” Gore (1976) made an impassioned plea for no-growth libraries on campus that rely on a network of regional storage centers for humanities, social sciences, and science, where economies are achieved by discarding duplicates. Now at the beginning of the 21st century, librarians are again calling for shared solutions to space crises. Although the idea of regional cooperative storage facilities is attractive, there are few examples of successful arrangements. Most group storage facilities operate on the basis of institutions renting space in a storage facility and buying circulation services; there are a few notable exceptions including the Center for Research Libraries, the Northern and Southern California Regional Library facilities, the Washington Regional Library Consortium, and the Minnesota Library Access Center. A. Examples of Cooperative Storage The New England Deposit Library serving Harvard University, Boston Public Library, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and other institutions in the area opened in 1942. The main achievement of the New England Depository was low cost storage of little-used books and a demonstration that storing books at a distance is “not an unbearable burden on scholars” (Metcalf, 1954). Another notable cooperative effort was the Hampshire Interlibrary Center established in 1951 by Amherst, Smith and Mount Holyoke colleges. Although this group had shared storage as one of its goals, the center also achieved some measure of success in cooperative acquisitions and cataloging (Orne, 1960). This cooperative program, now called the Five College Library Depository, continues with five institutions, the three original members plus Hampshire College and the University of Massachusetts. The members are actively seeking funding and planning for a shared storage facility in a former military base in Massachusetts. Their goal is to move beyond the usual space rental form of agreement to joint ownership of the stored collections for the four private colleges and the elimination of duplicates (Bridegam, 2001). The most widely known cooperative library organization in the United States began as the Midwest Inter-Library Center (MILC) in 1949, and changed its name to the Center for Research Libraries (CRL) and its focus from a regional to a national organization in the mid-1960s. The initial participating institutions, 10 major universities, concentrated on establishing a storage facility to eliminate the expense of new buildings and the burden of maintaining local collections (Naru, 1998). When the first building opened in 1951, the preservation benefits included fire protection and environmental control (CRL, 2002a). CRL’s members approved a strategic plan for
Library Storage as a Preservation Strategy
167
2002 – 2006 that reaffirmed its commitment to cooperative collection development and resource sharing, and declared its intention to support preservation of print and digital scholarly materials (CRL, 2002b). In California, the Northern Regional Library Facility opened in 1982 followed by the Southern Regional Library Facility in 1987. Both are supported by the University of California system and have clear policies on collections and services. There are five cooperative storage facilities for 13 state university libraries in Ohio, built between 1994 and 1996 and funded by the Ohio legislature. The Washington Regional Library Consortium (WRLC), a successful program of storage and cooperative collection management in the Washington DC area, recently branched out into digital library services (Payne, 2000). The Preservation and Access Service Center for Colorado Academic Libraries (PASCAL), a public – private partnership of four universities, opened a high-density warehouse facility in 2000 that was funded by the Colorado legislature. Building on the success of the Minitex consortium, the state of Minnesota funded the construction of the Minnesota Library Access Center (MLAC) in a cave under the Elmer L. Andersen Library at the University of Minnesota. Space in MLAC, which opened in 2000, is shared 40 – 60% between the University of Minnesota and the Minitex libraries. The Orbis Cascade Alliance, a consortium of private and public institutions in the Pacific Northwest, is proposing to build a regional library services center, which will provide cooperative high-density storage as well as other services including preservation and digital library programs.
VII. Storage Conditions Running parallel to the debate about storage is a long history in libraries and other cultural institutions of concern about methods of housing and handling materials to prolong their useful life. The damaging effects of light, heat, humidity, air pollution, and pests are well known. In the classic, Enemies of Books, William Blades names gas and heat along with water, fire, and vermin among the dangers. He advises “The surest way to preserve your books in health is to treat them as you would your own children who are sure to sicken if confined in an atmosphere which is impure, too hot, too cold, too damp, or too dry” (Blades, 1902, p. 32). The vexing questions for librarians are precisely what are the conditions that prolong the life of paper and film and how well do library buildings, including storage facilities, achieve these conditions. Before the post-World War II building boom, most library buildings did not have conditioned air and most were subject to large variations in temperature and humidity throughout the year. Air pollution caused by dust
168
Catherine Murray-Rust
and smoke was a serious threat to collections, especially in large city libraries. In a survey of storage conditions, Kimberley and Hicks (1931) compared 13 libraries against the standard for an ideal library in which external agents of deterioration—daylight, polluted air, variations in temperature and humidity, and pests—are eliminated. They reported that the libraries surveyed were able to minimize the effects of dust and light, but none was able to keep temperature and humidity within the limits (65 – 758F and 45 – 55% RH) needed for preservation and none controlled acidic pollutants in the air. Wessel (1970) summarized the research on environmental conditions and identified those most important to libraries—atmospheric factors including pollutants and water, radiant energy, and biological dangers. Williams (1970) pointed out that librarians did not know enough about paper deterioration to prescribe optimum conditions for storage environments. Rogers (1985, p. 15) noted that environmental control is “an area of concern that is least often addressed by the preservation field because of its financial implications and lack of involvement of engineers and architectural planners in the profession. Although some conferences have addressed this issue, it has not benefited by collective action or national planning.” Answering Roger’s lament, the works of Paul Banks, William Lull, Donald Sebera, and James Reilly stand out as major contributions to understanding the relationship between environmental factors and the longevity of library collections. Lull and Banks’s Conservation Environment Guidelines for libraries and Archives is a foundation document on the standards for housing library and archival material. The basic premise Lull and Banks offer is that “almost all objects will last longer when kept at lower temperatures, stable relative humidity, and in air free of particulate and gaseous contamination” (Lull and Banks, 1990, p. 2). A. Temperature and Relative Humidity The value of cold temperatures in library storage has long been understood and appreciated. Williams (1966) in his ARL commissioned study recommended storing one copy of every book in cold, central storage. However, the relationship between temperature and relative humidity was not well articulated until Donald Sebera of the Library of Congress developed the Isoperm Theory to describe and quantify the relationship between environmental temperature and relative humidity in the deterioration of water-absorbing materials such as paper. An isoperm is a graphical representation of these relationships (Sebera, 1994). James Reilly and his colleagues at the Image Permanence Institute at the Rochester Institute of Technology made clear in their analysis that temperature and relative humidity are the “primary rate-controlling factors
Library Storage as a Preservation Strategy
169
in chemical decay, mechanical damage, and bio-deterioration, as well as other forms of deterioration. Every treatise on preservation and conservation advises that cooler (and within limits) drier conditions are better for collections” (Reilly et al., 1995, p. 2). They demonstrated the cumulative effects of changing temperature and humidity, and extended the concepts in Sebra’s work to film materials. Reilly and his colleagues proposed two new measurements, the Preservation Index, which evaluates combination of temperature and relative humidity, and the Time-Weighted Preservation Index (TWPI) that evaluates the cumulative effect of these relationships over time. They offer a table of Preservation Index values that shows predicted life spans at various combinations of temperature and relative humidity. For example, if shortlived organic materials are stored at a constant 678F and 50% RH, the predicted life expectancy is 47 years. If stored at a constant 528F and 35% RH, the predicted life span is 210 years (Reilly et al., 1995, p. 7). B. Light Librarians and researchers have known for many years that light, especially ultraviolet light, is damaging to library materials. The basic recommendation from library architects going back to the 1950s is to keep light levels as low as possible (Lull and Banks, 1990). Recent research shows that light damage is cumulative because the chemical reactions initiated by light continue after materials are placed back in the dark (Ritzenthaler, 1993). Banks (2000) notes that reducing intensity of light and the length of exposure are necessary to protect collections from damage. C. Particulates and Indoor Air Pollution Kimberley and Hicks (1931) were especially concerned about indoor air pollution in an era when libraries had windows that could be opened. Lull and Banks (1990) noted that most particulates fall into two categories, dust generated by the collection itself and fine black soot typically found in urban areas. Vacuuming may control the first, but the second requires special filtration systems. To protect collections from gaseous contamination and indoor air pollutions, Lull and Banks recommend reducing or eliminating contaminants to levels well below both outdoor conditions and guidelines established by environmental protection agencies. Conway (2001) notes that in the past 30 years little agreement has been reached among experts about recommended levels of protection from gaseous and particulate contamination in libraries, but the National Archives and Record Administration for its new buildings chose to set the levels at 0.4 parts per billion (ppb) for sulfur
170
Catherine Murray-Rust
dioxide, less than 1.0 ppb for ozone, and “the best available technology” for nitrogen dioxide.
VIII. The Relationship Between Storage and Preservation Between the dead books debate in 1902 and the founding of the Midwest Inter-Library Center in 1949, librarians rarely mentioned preservation in the literature as a reason for moving collections to storage, except during World War II. To protect the collections of the Library of Congress and prevent the loss of unique materials, books were moved to depositories in remote areas and returned to Washington at the end of the war. All pre-1800 books from the National Library of Medicine (NLM) were sent to a depository in Cleveland and returned when NLM’s new building was completed many years later (Orne, 1960). In 1965, ARL unanimously adopted in principle a plan of action for preservation based on a report by Gordon Williams, Director of the Center for Research Libraries. The report recommended that libraries seek to preserve one copy of every book in its original form, depend on film copies for everyday use, rely on a central agency to coordinate local programs, and store books deposited by research libraries at the lowest temperature possible (Williams, 1966). Despite little progress toward implementation in the 5 years after its adoption, Williams (1970), former chair of ARL Committee on the Preservation of Research Library Materials, called the plan the most significant step American librarians had taken to deal with the deterioration of library collections. In 1976, the Library of Congress issued a proposal for a national preservation program for libraries. The recommendations called for preserving the intellectual content of collections published since 1800, by microfilming and storage at low temperatures in warehouses or underground caves (National Preservation, 1981). Little progress has been made on these initiatives at a national or regional level in the past quarter century, although there are hopeful signs such as the Five-College Depository discussed earlier and the JSTOR project. Conceived by the Mellon Foundation, JSTOR provides subscriptions to digital copies of journals and promises to archive and preserve them for the long term. JSTOR is making arrangements with CRL and a few research universities to hold the paper archives (Center for Research Libraries, 2002c). This strategy offers libraries the option of storing or discarding local copies. JSTOR reports in its most recent bound volume survey that 56 institutions have moved JSTOR titles to remote storage and 29 plan to do so.
Library Storage as a Preservation Strategy
171
Twenty-seven institutions have or plan to enter into group storage projects with other JSTOR libraries (JSTOR, 2002). Other hopeful signs are two library task force reports that call for cooperative storage facilities for preservation purposes. The Evidence in Hand: Report of the Task Force on the Artifact in Library Collections recommends the creation of repositories for original materials shared by several libraries (Nichols and Smith, 2001). The Report of the Collections Assessment Task Force of the Center for Research Libraries outlines the reasons for retaining paper copies of library materials—for items that have not been digitized, as safety copies for digitized collections, and because the material has artifactual value. The report calls on CRL to “begin to provide leadership for a national program for the coordination of the future archiving of traditional materials” (Atkinson et al., 2001, p. 10).
IX. The Harvard Innovation The Harvard Depository, opened in 1986, offered an innovative storage solution for low-use library materials from Harvard and other libraries. It combined the latest research on preservation environments for the long-term survival of paper and microfilm and cost-effective high-density warehouse shelving techniques. And, more important, the Harvard Depository elevated library storage to an explicit preservation strategy. Designed by university facilities staff and outside consultants, the Harvard Depository extended the work of Paul Banks, conservator at the Newberry Library in Chicago, who designed the first modem library storage facility. An addition to the stacks of the Newberry, the storage area is a 10 story, double shell, windowless building with tightly controlled and monitored security, fire safety, and environmental systems (Cullinson, 1984). Banks later noted, “The Harvard facilities people accomplished what seems to me to be a brilliant piece of system analysis, engineering, and design, which was also based on thorough understanding of the mechanisms of records” (Banks, 1999, p. 4). The Harvard Depository successfully offers cost-effective construction and a preservation quality environment built to expert specifications. The high volume-to-area ratio in the warehouse, which features long aisles and 30 ft high rack shelving, reduces the per volume cost to a fraction of the expense of building on campus library buildings. Added preservation enhancing qualities are highly effective insulation and vapor retardance, tight building structure to reduce the loss of conditioned air, and separated staff work spaces and collection storage areas. Other preservation advantages of the Harvard design include air filtration to remove
172
Catherine Murray-Rust
particulates and indoor air pollutants. Lighting in the storage area is sodium vapor designed to provide low but sufficient light for retrieval. Lights are kept off in the shelving area when it is not in use. Books are stored in acid-free boxboard trays. In its high-density facility, Yale added another preservation feature, a vacuuming system for cleaning all materials before accession (Conway, 2001). In the early days of the Harvard Depository, the temperature and relative humidity were allowed to fluctuate from 608F and 50% RH in the summer to 558F and 35% RH in the winter. Harvard now maintains constant set points and switched to a turn key-environmental systems for its two storage modules completed in 1999 (Harvard University, 2002). Most new Harvard style facilities feature desiccant dehumidification, which significantly increases the life of stored collections although it increases both construction and operating costs (Scott, 2001). Many of the storage facilities built in the past 10 years in the United States and Canada are based on the Harvard Depository model in varying degrees of faithfulness (Chepesiuk, 1999). All feature high-density shelving, but not all offer state-of-the-art preservation environments. In addition to Harvard, at last count there were 25 operating or under construction including facilities at Cornell University, Yale University, the Princeton – New York Public –Columbia (ReCAP) facility on the Princeton campus, Northeastern Ohio Cooperative Regional Library Depository, Northwest Ohio Regional Book Depository, the Ohio State University Book Depository, Southeast Ohio Regional Library Depository, Southwest Ohio Regional Library Depository, Duke University, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, University of South Carolina, PASCAL in Colorado, Indiana University, Washington Research library Consortium, Library of Congress Fort Meade Facility, University of Minnesota, University of Missouri, University of Texas, University of Pennsylvania, Johns Hopkins University, University of Virginia, West Virginia University, University of Alberta, Stanford University, and Arizona State University. Many of the planners of these storage buildings made improvements such as redesigned workspaces, custom processing equipment, more sophisticated inventory control systems, and new delivery services based on digital technologies.
X. Automated Storage and Retrieval Systems In his 1949 study of compact storage, Freemont Rider identified traveling crane storage as a fanciful, but potentially cost-effective method. In the 1960s and 1970s, libraries experimented with automated systems at the same time as
Library Storage as a Preservation Strategy
173
designers in private industries were seeking warehousing techniques that did not rely on manual labor. An early commercial product was the Randtriever developed in the late 1960s (Kountz, 1987a). By the early 1980s, advances in computer inventory techniques and electronic controls enabled industrial engineers to develop automated storage and retrieval systems (AS/RS) that could be applied to book storage. John Kountz, Associate Director for Library Automation for the California State University system, proposed a mini-load AS/RS as a highly efficient method of storage and retrieval for libraries. Kountz’s (1987a) extensive study of the costs and benefits of AS/RS systems resulted in the installation of a prototype at California State University Northridge. The mini-load system features an enclosed shelving area in which books, sorted by size, are stored in metal bins and retrieved by a robotic crane. Typically, AS/RS installations in libraries house up to about 600,000 volumes in about 4000 ft2 (Kountz, 1987b) and form a section of on-campus library. The bin is sent to an operator located outside the shelving unit, who selects the correct volume and delivers it to the user through normal circulation processes. Because AS/RS systems are located on-site, special shipping and handling equipment and procedures are not needed. In existing library installations, environmental conditions in the shelving areas are the same as the surrounding library environment. Because the AS/RS does not have its own HVAC system, the set points are not as low in terms of temperature and relative humidity as in many Harvard-style storage facilities. However, it is possible that an AS/RS could be built within a larger warehouse space that has an HVAC system designed for long-term storage of paper and film. Dust and particulate contaminations are minimal in the enclosed shelving area. Because the retrieval process is robotic, there is no need for lights except for system maintenance. AS/RS installations provide better protection from theft, vandalism, and other forms of damage than general stack areas. The January 17, 1994, Northridge Earthquake jolted almost the entire California State University Northridge open stack collection off the library’s shelves, but all the books in the mini-load system remained in their bins. HK Systems, an industrial warehouse systems vendor, markets the HK Automated Library Storage System (ALSS), which includes automated storage and retrieval machinery and inventory control software. HK Systems has installed its mini-load system in several libraries including Eastern Michigan University, University of Nevada Las Vegas, Sonoma State University, and Chicago State University. They recently signed a contract with Valparaiso University. Most of these installations are part of major renovation and expansion projects.
174
Catherine Murray-Rust
XI. Applying Preservation Standards, Guidelines, Tools, and Techniques to Stored Collections Advances in preservation science and commitment to stewardship of traditional library collections are significantly changing approaches to storage. Instead of relegating materials to available shelving outside the library and providing minimal maintenance and service, librarians are applying preservation standards, guidelines, tools, and techniques to ensure long-term access to stored collections. The growth of strong preservation programs in many large and small libraries (Kenney and Stam, 2002), new preservation leadership in the library community, and a growing awareness of the artifactual value of paper and film collections are all contributing to changing practices at every stage of the storage process—selection, accessioning, storage conditions, and access. A. Standards and Guidelines Preservation guidelines and standards have been published in recent years that bring together sound advice on temperature, relative humidity, light, air quality, and security. The U.S. National Information Standards Organization (NISO) makes available publications on library bindings, guidelines for preservation products, environmental conditions for exhibits, and most important ANSI/NISO standard Z39.48 on the permanence of paper. NISO also published William K. Wilson’s Environmental Guidelines for the Storage of Paper Records (Wilson, 1995). The Northeast Document Conservation Center (NEDCC) provides an extensive collection of leaflets published on its website. These publications cover most aspects of the preservation of stored collections including guidelines for temperature, relative humidity, light and air quality. In addition, the preservation departments of several large research libraries such as the Library of Congress and Stanford University publish their guidelines and recommendation online. B. Selection Traditionally, libraries transferred low-use general stack materials and archival boxes to storage. Today, a small but growing number of libraries fortunate enough to operate storage facilities with high-quality preservation environments are also selecting materials based on their physical condition and need for protection. Yale University Library’s storage selection policy states, “The new facility will accommodate those library materials that will most benefit from the facility’s singularly optimal environmental and security
Library Storage as a Preservation Strategy
175
conditions” (Yale University, 2000). Additionally, Yale established policies for vulnerable materials (Powell, 1998). Indiana University Bloomington includes rare and fragile items as candidates for storage. ReCap, a shared facility for Columbia University, Princeton University and the New York Public Library, accepts special collections materials. Cornell University has a program to select at-risk materials for storage (K. Reagan, private communication, 2002). Libraries often provide guidelines for the kinds of materials that cannot be transferred to storage. Typically, storage facilities exclude materials that are moldy or contaminated, severely damaged, or dangerous. For example, nitrate film is usually not permitted because of the risk of combustion. Some facilities do not allow microfilm materials because the facility lacks the necessary fire protection for materials that burn quickly in high heat. Motion picture film, which requires extremely low temperature and relative humidity, is usually accepted only if the facility has a purpose-built storage area. C. Accessioning Regardless of the method by which materials are shelved, most storage facilities have accessioning procedures. Some include preservation-minded routines for shipping and handling. In large projects, materials usually are shipped in custom-made book carts made of wood or metal with enclosed backs that protect the books. Carts may be shrink wrapped or covered to provide additional protection from theft, loss, and weather damage. In small projects, items may be shipped on standard book trucks or in tubs. Libraries may request that books be shipped spine side down to prevent damage to the text block from vibration. Fragile items may need to be shipped and later stored in preservationquality envelopes, protective enclosures, or shrink-wrappers. Institutions may clean or dust transferred materials prior to shelving. Yale University Library and Indiana University Bloomington have purpose-built vacuuming rooms in which all incoming collections are cleaned to ensure that the storage environment remains free of dust and particulates. Collection assessment is often conducted as part of the accessioning process in order to screen out items that are damaged, contaminated, or dangerous. D. Storage Conditions As noted earlier, the most significant determinant of the long-term survival of library materials is stable temperature and relative humidity. Several facilities built since the mid-1990s are designed to store materials at 508F and 30 – 35% RH, and others operate with slightly higher temperatures and humidity levels (55 – 658F and 40 – 50% RH). For example, the Minnesota Library Access
176
Catherine Murray-Rust
Center (MLAS), which benefits from geothermal conditions because it is located in a cave, is set at 628F and 50% RH. Many new storage buildings have sophisticated HVAC systems that allow only minor fluctuations of 2 – 38F and 2 –3% RH. Unfortunately, most library administrators do not have the opportunity to build new storage facilities with state-of-the-art preservation environments. The 1999 ARL Spec Kit reported “In contrast to the excellent environmental conditions in newly constructed and renovated facilities, 12 libraries (21%) that use storage facilities noted that these buildings are not equipped with environmental control systems” (Merrill-Oldham and Reed-Scott, 1999, p. 1). A large number of libraries in the United States store collections in older and often poorly maintained buildings on or off-campus, or in leased warehouses. In addition to campaigning for new or improved storage areas, library administrators in these situations are well advised to develop strong ties with local HVAC personnel, enact procedures for close monitoring of stored collections, and sign leases that assign clear lines of responsibility for environmental conditions in storage buildings. Possibly the gravest danger for collections stored remotely in buildings lacking adequate HVAC systems is mold caused by high relative humidity. Other factors such as poor air circulation, fluctuating temperature, and light may exacerbate the situation. Because storage facilities often are not staffed or visited on a daily basis, a mold outbreak may progress significantly before anyone notices, especially when there are absent or minimal HVAC controls and no water alarms. East Carolina University discovered “rain forest conditions” inside its storage facility that caused a mold bloom affecting 80% of approximately 65,000 volumes. The owner of the building blamed the problem on an extinguished pilot light in the heating system while the staff wondered if the system successfully made the transition from airconditioning to heat after a warm autumn. Calling in a professional moisture control company and moving the cleaned materials back to the main library building solved the problem (Smith, 1999). Oregon State University Libraries was not so fortunate. As part of a regional cooperative, Oregon State began housing library materials in 1979 in a leased facility at a former military base a few miles from campus. The OSU Conservation Committee expressed concern in 1982 about the environmental conditions, especially the temperature and humidity. In 1992, library staff discovered a mold outbreak that spread rapidly. The cause was reported to be a flood in the basement of the building coupled with poor ventilation. A commercial firm was hired to assist in the cleanup. Many volumes could not be salvaged, but the ones that survived were moved to a better storage environment on campus (Oregon State University, private communication, 2003).
Library Storage as a Preservation Strategy
177
As noted earlier, light, especially ultraviolet light, is damaging to library materials. New and renovated storage facilities often feature low lighting and use light only when necessary for accessioning and retrieval. Sodium vapor lamps are preferred, but some institutions use UV shields on fluorescent fixtures. In many older facilities, existing windows are covered and staff turn off the lights when the space is not in use. Newer and renovated storage facilities generally have better security systems than older buildings. Intrusion alarms, camera security, and other features may be available. Often campus or local police departments will be notified automatically if problems arise. In older facilities, especially those shared with other campus organizations, access control may be problematic and collections may be in danger of pilfering and vandalism. The best a library administrator can do under these circumstances is work with other campus departments to limit the number of people authorized to enter the storage building. In high-density storage facilities, fire protection may be a major issue during construction depending on the local jurisdiction. Even though books do not burn readily, a fire in a warehouse may spread rapidly in certain conditions. The University of Alberta Library was required to install perforated shelving in its high-density facility to comply with the local fire code. The fire marshal stipulated double shelving uprights in the ReCap facility to ensure adequate protection. Larger facilities may be required to be surrounded by a fire perimeter and have access to a large on-site water supply. Older, retrofitted buildings may not be equipped with sprinklers or smoke detectors although managers of these facilities should insist that they be installed and monitored by the local fire department. A variety of storage containers are used in high-density and traditional storage facilities. Materials are housed in acid-free cardboard trays in Harvard-style facilities and in metal bins in AS/RS installations. Microfilm usually is housed in boxes or trays and archival collections are stored in preservation-quality boxes. Materials may be shrink wrapped (Kellerman, 1993) or stored in preservation-quality bags if they are brittle or crumbling. The PASCAL facility in Colorado requires bags for flaking leather bound volumes. Cornell University sends loose issues of journals in gray boards with archival film looped over the ends. Harvard stores maps and other large, single sheet materials in map cases; other libraries use more traditional tubes. A growing number of libraries are transferring unbound journal issues, especially JSTOR journals, to storage. The primary reason is cost saving, but the added preservation advantage is that not binding avoids cutting the inside margin of the pages.
178
Catherine Murray-Rust
E. Access Access to stored collections is generally managed with policies or guidelines that may or may not closely align with an institution’s circulation policies. Some institutions such as Cornell University allow general circulation of all stored materials except archival collections. Others like ReCap house general stack collections and materials that may circulate only under specific conditions. Newer and renovated facilities may have a supervised reading room on-site where users may consult large amounts of material or restricted collections. Material shipped to a user through the library circulation or interlibrary loan service may be carried by hand, loaded onto book trucks, or sent in custom-made containers. Storage crates with lids keep out rain, snow, and debris. Foam blocks added to the packed shipping crates prevent books from shifting during transit. A few storage facilities use containers designed for shipping audio and video equipment because they are well padded, crushproof, and lockable. Fax, Ariel, and photocopying are common methods of delivering content to users from stored collections. In unstaffed facilities, materials usually are returned to main libraries for processing. In larger storage facilities with staff on the premises, these services are handled on-site. Sometimes for preservation reasons, staff members photocopy items to avoid the risk of shipping or rough copying and handling by users. Electronic delivery is an increasingly popular method of delivering materials from storage. Both copyright policy and item condition generally are assessed prior to copying or scanning. Staff may decide to ship the original rather than deliver the content electronically if the original is too fragile or in poor condition. A number of libraries and consortia are discussing new services that might be provided through storage facilities. The Washington Research Library Consortium currently is involved in a grant-funded project to house digitizing operations in their facility to benefit their members (Washington Research Library Consortium, 2003). The Orbis Cascades Alliance in the Pacific Northwest is considering digital library and preservation services as well as high-density storage in its plans for a Regional Library Services Center.
XII. Storage as an Explicit Preservation Strategy For most of the 20th century, the debate raged about storage as an economic problem. University trustees and other providers of library construction dollars viewed storage as a way of saving money while librarians resisted,
Library Storage as a Preservation Strategy
179
arguing that relegating collections to storage harms research and teaching. Little mention is made in general library or preservation literature of storage as a low-cost method of preserving original materials. Harvard University was the first research library to base its design process on environmental research and use preservation as a means of selling storage to reluctant librarians and faculty. Other research libraries followed suit. At the same time preservation philosophy was moving away from overdependence on technology toward “simpler, less expensive, and less invasive” methods and preventative measures (Foot, 1996, p. 111). Librarians and archivists began to focus on storage conditions, physical environment, and handling. As the popularity and availability of digital resources diminishes the use of paper and film materials, and cost-effective preservation-quality storage facilities, tools, and techniques become more common, preservation may become the primary reason to store collections. The cost and demand for main library space continues to shift away from collection housing to user services, at least in the minds of those who fund library construction and renovation. Librarians who understand these changes are calling for cooperative repositories to preserve collections and guarantee access for future generations of library users. These trends argue for strategic planning in libraries that includes local and cooperative storage as cost-effective methods of providing access to older materials in an environment designed to prolong their useful life and preserve them as artifacts.
References Atkinson, R., Barry, R., Lynch, B., Nadler, J., Shreeves, E., Trevvett, M., and Wilberly, S. (2001). Report of the CRL Collection Assessment Task Force. Center for Research Libraries, Chicago, IL, Available at: http://wwwcrl.uchicago.edu/info/collassmtrpt.htm. Banks, P. N. (1999). Overview of Alternative Space Options for Libraries and Archives. US National Archives and Records Administration, Washington, DC, Available at: http://www.archives. gov/preservation/conferences/overview_alternative_space.html. Banks, P. N. (2000). Environment and building design. In: Preservation Issues and Planning (P. N. Banks and R. Pilette, eds.), pp. 114–144. American Library Association, Chicago, IL. Blades, W. (1902). The Enemies of Books, Elliott Stock, London. Bridegam, W. E. (2001). A Collaborative Approach to Collection Storage: The Five-College Library Depository. Council on Library and Information Resources, Washington, DC, Available at: http://www.clir.org/pubs/reports/pub97/pub97.pdf. Burton, E. (1903). The treatment of books according to the amount of their use. III. Relation of departmental and group libraries to the main library. Library Journal 28, 9–17. Carnegie, A. (1912). Andrew Carnegie on dead books. Library Journal 37, 74. Center for Research Libraries (2002a). The Center for Research Libraries: Historical Background to 1980. CRL, Chicago, IL, Available at: http://wwwcrl.uchicago.edu/info/hist.htm.
180
Catherine Murray-Rust
Center for Research Libraries (2002b). The Center for Research Libraries Strategic Plan for 2002– 2006. CRL, Chicago, IL, Available at: http://wwwcrl.uchicago.edu/info/strategicplan.pdf. Center for Research Libraries (2002c). CRL/JSTOR Print Archive Project. CRL, Chicago, IL, Available at: http://wwwcrl.uchicago.edu/info/JSTOR/CRLJSTOR.htm. Chepesiuk, R. (1999). Reaching critical mass: off-site storage in the digital age. American Libraries 30, 40–43. Conger, L. (1970). The Annex Library at Princeton University: the development of a compact storage library. College and Research Libraries 31, 160–168. Conway, P. (2001). In: The preservation environment, Library Off-Site Shelving: Guide for HighDensity Facilities (D. A.Nitecki and C. L. Kendrick, eds.), pp. 89–118. Libraries Unlimited, Englewood, CO. Cooper, M. D. (1989). A cost comparison of alternative books storage strategies. Library Quarterly 59, 239–260. Cooper, M. D. (1991). The sensitivity of books storage strategy decisions to alternate cost assumptions. Library Quarterly 61, 414–428. Cornell University (1933). Librarian’s Report for 1932 –1933. Cornell University Official Publication 25, 3–16. Cullinson, B. J. (1984). The ideal preservation building. American Libraries 15, 703. Elliot, C. W. (1902). The division of a library into books in use, and books not in use, with different storage methods for the two classes of books. Library Journal 27, 51–56. Ellsworth, R. E. (1969). The Economics of Book Storage in College and University Libraries. Association of Research Libraries/Scarecrow Press, Metuchen, New Jersey. Foot, M. J. (1996). Housing our collections: environment and storage for libraries and archives. IFIA Journal 22, 100 –114. Friley, C. E. and Orr, R. W. (1951). A decade of books storage at Iowa State College. College and Research Libraries 12, 7–10. See also p. 19. Gore, D. (1976). Farewell to Alexandria: the theory of the no-growth, high-performance library. In: Farewell to Alexandria: Solutions to Space, Growth, and Performance Problems in Libraries (D. Gore, ed.), pp. 164–180. Greenwood Press, Westport, CT. Harvard University (2002). Harvard Depository: About the Facility. Available at: http://hul. harvard.edu/hd/about-hd.html. Hopp, R. H. (1961). Problems of storing university library materials. College and Research Libraries 22, 435– 437. Hosmer, J. K. (1903). Some things that are uppermost: address of the president. Conference of Librarians, Niagara Falls, New York. Library Journal 28, 3–8. Indiana University. AFL Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) About the ALF Selection Process. Available at: http://www.indiana.edu/~libweb/alf/selectionfaq.htm. JSTOR (2002). Bound Volume Survey 2002, Available at: http://www.jstor.org.about/bvs.html. Kellerman, L. S. (1993). Moving fragile materials: shrink-wrapping at Penn State. Collection Management 18, 117–128. Kenney, A. R., and Stam, D. C. (2002) The State of Preservation Programs in American College and Research Libraries: Building a Common Understanding and Action Agenda. Council on Library and Information Resources, Washington, DC. Available at: http://www.clir.org/pubs/reports/ pub111/contents.html. Kimberley, A. E. and Hicks, J. F. G. (1931). A Survey of Storage Conditions in Libraries Relative to the Preservation of Records (US Bureau of Standards, Miscellaneous Publication 128), US Department of Commerce, Washington, DC. Kountz, J. (1987a). Industrial storage technology applied to library requirements. Library Hi-Tech 5, 13–22.
Library Storage as a Preservation Strategy
181
Kountz, J. (1987b). Robots in the library: automated storage and retrieval systems. Library Journal 112, 67–70. Lane, C. E. (1903). The treatment of books according to the amount of their use. Library Journal 28, 9–17. Lawrence, G. S. (1981). A cost model for storage and weeding programs. College and Research Libraries 42, 139– 147. Lee, H. (1993). The library space problem, future demand and collection control. LRTS 37, 147–166. Library of Congress. Care, handling and storage of books. Available at: http://www.loc.gov/ preserv/care/books.html. Lougee, W. P. (1992). Remote shelving comes of age: storage collection management at the University of Michigan. Collection Management 16, 93–107. Lull, W. P. and Banks, P. N. (1990). Conservation Environment Guidelines for Libraries and Archives in New York State, State Library of New York, Albany, NY. Matier, M. and Sidle, C. C. (1993). What size libraries for 2010? Planning for Higher Education 21, 9–15. Merrill-Oldham, J. and Reed-Scott, J. (1999). Library Storage Facilities, Management, and Services. (ARL Spec Kit 242), Association of Research Libraries, Washington, DC. Metcalf, K. D. (1954). The New England Deposit Library after thirteen years. Harvard Library Bulletin 8, 313 –322. Muller, R. H. (1965). Economics of compact book shelving. Library Trends 13, 433–447. Naru, L. A. (1998). The role of the Center for Research Libraries in the history and future of cooperative collection development. Collection Management 23, 47–58. National Information Standards Organization. Preservation and storage. Available at: http:// www.niso.org/standards/std_preserv_store.html. National Preservation Program for Libraries (1981). Abbey Newsletter 5 Available at: http:// palimpsest.stanford.edu/byorg/abbey/an/an05/an05-6/an05-605.html. Niagara Conference of Librarians (1903). College and Reference Section. Library Journal 28, 170–175. Nichols, S. G. and Smith, A. (2001). The Evidence at Hand: Report of the Task Force on the Artifact in Library Collections. Council on Library and Information Resources, Washington, DC, Available at: http://www.clir.org/pubs/reports/pub103/contents.html. Nitecki, D. A. and Kendrick, C. L. (2001). The paradox and politics of off-site shelving. In: Library Off-Site Shelving: Guide for High-Density Facilities (D. A. Nitecki and C. L. Kendrick, eds.), pp. 1–7. Libraries Unlimited, Englewood, CO. Northeast Document Conservation Center. Leaflets. Available at: http://www.nedcc.org/ leaflets/leaf.htm. Orne, J. (1960). Storage warehouses. In: State of the Library Art III (R. R. Shaw, ed.), 3, 3–49. Graduate School of library Science, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, New Jersey. Payne, L. (2000). Library storage facilities and services. In: International Yearbook of Library and Information Management 2000 –2001 (C. E. Gorman, ed.), pp. 291–306. Scarecrow Press, Lanham, MD. Powell, M. K. (1998). Approaching clairvoyance: notes toward selection for off-site shelving. Against the Grain, 23–24. See also p. 28. Reilly, J. M., Nishimura, D. W., and Zinn, E. (1995). New Tools for Preservation: Assessing LongTerm Environmental Effects on Library and Archives Collections. Commission on Preservation and Access, Washington, DC. Rider, F. (1949). Compact Book Storage: Some Suggestions Toward a New Methodology for the Shelving of Less Used Research Materials. Hadham Press, New York.
182
Catherine Murray-Rust
Ritzenthaler, M. L. (1993). Preserving Archives and Manuscripts. Society of American Archivists, Chicago, IL. Rogers, R. (1957). Shelving books by size. ALA Bulletin, 435–437. Rogers, R. (1985). Library preservation: its scope, history, and importance. In: The Library Preservation Program: Models, Priorities, Possibilities (J. Merrill-Oldham and M. Smith, eds.), pp. 7– 18. American Library Association, Chicago, IL. Scott, B. M. (2001). Design and construction process: an architect’s perspective. In: Library OffSite Shelving: Guide for High-Density Facilities (D. A. Nitecki and C. L. Kendrick, eds.), pp. 59– 72. Libraries Unlimited, Englewood, CO. Sebera, D. K. (1994). Isoperms: An Environmental Management Tool. Commission on Preservation and Access, Washington, DC. Seznec, A., Atkinson, R., Murray-Rust, C., Hoffmann, J. A., Curtis, H. W., Lynn, S. L., Personius, L. K., Sidle, C. C., and Matier, M. W. (1991). A Strategic Plan for Library Space Needs Through 2010: Cornell University Ithaca Campus. Cornell University, Ithaca, NY. Simon, J. L. (1967). How many books should be stored where? An economic analysis. College and Research Libraries 28, 92–103. Smith, E. H. (1999). Mold abatement in a remote storage facility. Library and Archival Security 15, 75–82. Stanford University. CoOL. Conservation online. Available at: http://palimpsest.stanford.edu/. Stayner, R. A. (1983). Economic characteristics of the library storage problem. Library Quarterly 53, 313– 327. Steel, V. (1990). Remote Storage: Facilities, Materials Selection, and User Services. (ARL Spec Kit 164), Association of Research Libraries, Washington, DC. Washington Research Library Consortium (2003). WRLC Digital Collections Production Center (DCPC). Available at: http://www.wrlc.org/dcpc/dcpc.html. Wessel, C. J. (1970). Environmental factors affecting the permanence of library materials. In: Deterioration and Preservation of Library Materials (H. W. Winger and R. D. Smith, eds.), pp. 39– 84. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL. Williams, G. (1966). The preservation of deteriorating books. Library Journal 91, 51–56. See also pp. 189– 194. Williams, E. E. (1970). Deterioration of library collections today. In: Deterioration and Preservation of Library Materials (H. W. Winger and R. D. Smith eds.), pp. 3–17. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL. Wilson, W. K. (1995). Environmental Guidelines for the Storage of Paper Records. (NISO TR011995), NISO Press, Bethesda, MD, Available at: http://www.niso.org/standards/resources/tr. 01.pdf. Yale University Library (2000). Library Shelving Facility Selection Policy, Available at: http:// www.library.yale.edu/Administration/Shelving/selection.html.
Further Reading Harvard Style High-Density Storage Facility Websites Cornell University: http://www.library.cornell.edu/newannex. Duke University: http://www.lib.duke.edu/lsc. Harvard University: http://hul. harvard.edu/hd. Indiana University: http://www.indiana.edu/~libcirc/alf/. Johns Hopkins University: http://www.library.jhu.edu/access/moravia/. Northeastern Ohio Cooperative Regional Depository: http://web. neoucom.edu/~jscalf/. Ohio University, Southeast Ohio Regional Library
Library Storage as a Preservation Strategy
183
Depository: http://www.library.ohiou.edu/libinfo/depts/circ/annex.htm. Preservation and Access Service Center for Colorado Academic Libraries (PASCAL): http://www-libraries.colorado.edu/ttp/iaa/pascal.htm. Research Collections and Preservation Consortium (ReCAP) (Princeton University, Columbia University, New York Public Library): http://www.columbia.edu/ cu/libraries/inside/projects/offsite. Southwest Ohio Regional Depository: http://www.sword.org. Tri-University Group of Libraries: http://www. tug-libraries.on.ca/info/annex/. University of Alberta: http://www.library. ualberta.ca/bard/index.cfm. University of Minnesota: http://kinglear.lib. umn.edu/mlac. University of Pennsylvania: http://www.library.upenn.edu/ storage/storage.about. University of South Carolina: http://www.sc.edu/ library/annex.html. University of Texas: http://www.lib.utexas.edu/exhibits/ preserve/lsf.html. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University: http:// www.lib.vt.edu/services/circ-reserve/storage.html. Washington Research Libraries Consortium: http://www.wrlc.org. West Virginia University: http://www.libraries.wvu.edu/depository/index.htm. Yale University: http:///www.library.yale.edu/lsf. Automated Storage and Retrieval System Websites California State University Northridge: http://library.csun.edu/asrs.html. Chicago State University: http://www.csu.edu/library/newlibfactsheet.htm. Eastern Michigan University: http://www.emich.edu/halle/fachandbook. html. Sonoma State University: http://libweb.sonoma.edu/about/ars.html. University of Nevada Las Vegas: http://library.nevada.edu/info/newlib/ photos/liee0400.html. Valparaiso University: http://www.valpo.edu/clir/ floorplans.html.
Preserving Electronic Government Information: What Role Does Policy Play? M. Elizabeth Cowell Head, Data, Government and Geographic Information Services Social Sciences and Humanities Library, University of California San Diego, CA, USA
I. Introduction The Federal Depository Library Program (FDLP) is a very significant program and is worth defending. Unique in its purpose to keep citizens informed of the workings of government, the Government Printing Office (GPO), along with the network of Federal Depository Libraries, provides access to information that helps keep our democracy open and accountable. Threats to this program have surfaced over the years, with political justifications ranging from budget woes to separation of powers to technology. As this chapter goes to print, a new policy pushed through by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) once again threatens to undermine the FDLP (Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and Budget, 2002). Long-term dissatisfaction over Congressional oversight of Executive Branch printing is behind the OMB plan to decentralize government printing. Currently, Executive agencies are required to send their printing jobs through the GPO, a Congressional agency. GPO then includes additional copies to the print orders that create the volumes sent to depository libraries. The OMB memo will change this requirement and allow agencies to seek their own printing and not be required to go through the GPO. No explicit provision for additional depository copies exists in the OMB plan. Since the enabling legislation for the FDLP has not been changed, these copies are still required in theory, but as we have seen since the mid-1990s, the move to electronic publishing has already changed the program dramatically. This chapter will examine how policy decisions made in the early days of the shift to electronic government information changed the course of the
ADVANCES IN LIBRARIANSHIP, VOL. 27 q 2004 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved ISSN: 0065-2830 DOI: 10.1016/S0065-2830(03)27007-0
185
186
M. Elizabeth Cowell
FDLP, moving away from a system of deposits and distribution to one of access. In this move, the very essence of the program and the roles of the players were changed. Three major questions that will be discussed in this chapter are: † What will happen to permanent public access to government information when the FDLP does not deposit anything? † Why are libraries’ depositories in the “digital age”? † What has been the effect of the GPO Access Act on permanent public access? Is it the cause of the shift from distribution to access? Problems raised by the GPO’s preservation strategy including mirror sites, partnerships with vendors and partnerships with depository libraries will be discussed. Finally some possible solutions to the issue of long-term preservation of government information will be presented, including what libraries can do now and how we can advocate for a more secure depository program for the future. A. The Federal Depository Library Program Why is the depository library program such a positive program? In the 19th century, in an effort to keep voters informed, legislators such as Wisconsin’s progressive Robert La Follette distributed copies of key government publications such as the Congressional Record at their own expense to constituents. It was La Follette’s and others’ philosophy of participatory democracy and belief that voters need to know what they are voting about that drove legislators’ largesse. The depository library program, codified by Title 44 of the United States Code in 1895, put this philosophy into law and provided for at least one depository library per Congressional district. Participating libraries were and still are required to provide access to their federal depository collections to all interested citizens. Depositories do not own the publications, but are required to provide public service and to house the collections. To ensure permanent public access to print publications, approximately one library per state is designated as the regional depository and mandated to retain and not weed their collections. The result today is over a 1000 robust collections of government publications that not only aid citizens in making decisions about current issues, but provide an invaluable primary resource about the legislative, executive and judicial history of the United States.
II. Changing Formats and the FDLP Changes in publishing formats—including micro formats, digital information and the Internet—have all affected the way depositories house and provide
Preserving Electronic Government Information: What Role Does Policy Play?
187
public service for their collections. Of these formats, the Internet has most profoundly changed the depository library program. Since the advent of electronic publishing, the depository library community, among others has made a distinction between tangible media (print on paper, microfiche, CDROMs) and non-tangible media, such as data living on a remote server. In making this distinction, we have allowed the information itself to be treated differently. This distinction has caused a variety of changes in government publishing, which in turn have affected the roles of the depository libraries. At the onset of the trend toward electronic publishing, depository libraries were concerned that they could not accommodate information in digital format. “Face it,” some of us thought in the early 1990s, “it’s only the rich big libraries that have computers for public use.” How were the rest of us to provide access to this new type of information? The Depository Library Council, established in 1972 as an advisory group to the Public Printer and Superintendent of Documents, advises on matters relating to the FDLP. Changes in formats have spurred many recommendations from the Council over the years, to which the GPO responds. The GPO developed minimal technical guidelines for public workstations providing access to government information in depository libraries in response to a Council request in 1991. In 1993, in response to another Council recommendation, the GPO suggested voluntary rather than mandatory compliance to these technical guidelines, citing concern that making compliance mandatory will drive depository libraries out of the program (GPO, 1993). The Council favored a mandatory approach, recommending that compliance with the technical guidelines be inspected like all other rules for depository libraries. The beginning of the transition to more electronic formats in government publishing brought about a tension between the need to provide access to these formats and the need to have libraries in the depository program. The GPO responded to the Council’s recommendation that “making technical requirements mandatory may result in driving less prosperous libraries out of the program, resulting in underserved groups among the public” (GPO, 1993). While the GPO feared losing depository libraries from the program, it also provided a potentially exciting new role for the GPO to take on roles that they were concerned that depository libraries did not have the expertise or budgets to carry out. A. Congress Responds to the Trend Toward Electronic Publishing and Access The GPO Access Act of 1993 first codified the approach of narrowing the depository program to a single point for access to electronic government
188
M. Elizabeth Cowell
information. Upon its passage, the public was required to pay for access to the GPO databases, which provided online access to such government publications as the Federal Register and the Congressional Record. Eventually, one free access point per depository library was provided, but the idea of local depository collections of electronic government information was not addressed. At the time the GPO Access Act was passed, there was much concern about easy access and distribution of digital information as well as concern that the government not compete with the private sector in providing access to information. In 1985, before GPO Access, in an effort to more clearly delineate the role of federal agencies in the creation, management and distribution of information resources, OMB published the first version of Circular A-130 in response to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (Smith, 1994). One of the most important mandates of this circular in relation to the FDLP was that federal government agencies’ information systems not compete with the private sector in the distribution of electronic government information. The Information Industry Association (IIA), making the distinction between distribution and access in terms of electronic information, warned that competition with the private sector was any “dissemination” of any federal information not required by law (Nyren, 1986). In the words of the IIA, distribution could potentially lead to a violation of A-130, assuming that electronic information was not part of the FDLP. Discussions about the belief in the mandate to protect the public’s right to know through the FDLP, in the face the lack of technology, ring clear in all the testimony and discussion by librarians (U.S. Congress, 1985). By 1992, the discussion of the federal role in agency distribution of government information included “a broader mandate…to embrace value added services” (Love, 1994). However, to this day, the public/private debate continues. It is in this environment of technological uncertainty on the part of libraries and demands on the part of the information industry that the government not compete in the provision of electronic services that the GPO Access Act was passed. The GPO Access Act focused on access rather than distribution to the depository libraries. It included fewer stipulations requiring agency compliance and left out language found in earlier versions of the bill that would have given the GPO the role of working towards setting standards for federal online materials. The Act does require the Superintendent of Documents to “maintain an electronic directory of federal electronic information, provide a system of online access” and “to the extent practicable…shall accommodate any request by the head of a department or agency to include in the system of access…information that is under the control of the department or agency involved” (U.S. Congress, 1993). The law also stipulates that the Superintendent of Documents consult with users
Preserving Electronic Government Information: What Role Does Policy Play?
189
of the system. In effect, the Act made the GPO’s role one of provision of access to rather than the distribution of electronic government information. According to the law, electronic publications published by agencies may be part of the system, but this is not mandated, and no distribution to depositories is required. As publications migrate from print to electronic formats, they are not necessarily included in the FDLP’s system-wide distribution to depository libraries, though they may be held on GPO servers. Congress gave the depository community an opportunity to study the possible outcomes of the transition to a more electronic depository program by requiring a study in 1996. Rather than reaffirm the tenets of a depositbased system and the value of locally held and maintained collections of government information, depository librarians and government officials decided in the Study to Identify Measures Necessary for a Successful Transition to a More Electronic Federal Depository Library Program (GPO, 1996) that the GPO should store the information, taking on roles that libraries had done for years. Depository libraries would then merely provide access to this information and assist users. While the word “disseminate” is used throughout the study to describe a situation where the GPO stores the information and provides access via the Internet, by the 1998 publication of the GPO document, Managing the Electronic Collection: A Policy and Planning Document, the GPO finally acknowledges that they were taking on roles traditionally held by libraries. In fact they are acting as the only regional depository. The document states “by establishing the GPO Access databases, GPO has taken responsibility for the life cycle management of such electronic government information products…GPO has assumed the role traditionally taken by regional depository libraries” (GPO, 1998). B. Legislative Reform Efforts to more systematically include electronic information in the depository program include the work of the Inter-Association Working Group on Government Information (IAWG). The group was established in February 1997 as a cooperative team of representatives from seven major library associations. IAWG worked to “develop a legislative proposal for amending Title 44 of the United States Code to improve the FDLP and enhance public access to government information” (O’Mahoney, 1998, p. 116). This proposal included an active role for the GPO in establishing and monitoring a distributed system for the preservation and access to electronic government information. The IAWG proposal authorized “the Superintendent of Documents to obtain copies of or access to the electronic source files of government documents covered by the statute” (O’Mahoney, 1998, p. 117). There is no doubt that legislative revision would aid in providing
190
M. Elizabeth Cowell
permanent public access to government information and enforce agency compliance in the electronic environment. But despite the valiant efforts of IAWG, Senate Bill 2288, the Wendell H. Ford Government Publications Reform Act of 1998 was not passed by Congress. C. Roles for Depository Libraries What are the roles of the depository library in the digital age? Traditionally, libraries select, organize, preserve and provide service for their depository collections. In fact, these are fairly traditional roles for all types of libraries. In the traditional FDLP model, the GPO identifies, describes and distributes these publications to depository libraries. The GPO then focuses on production types of issues, allowing the libraries to do what they do best, collect, house and provide service to local collections to serve the local communities for which they were designated to be depositories. With the redefinition of distribution to access, the roles are confused and permanent public access is threatened. The GPO is now acting as a library, which is not necessarily a bad thing, but with increasing problems of identifying and describing government information, who is looking out for the more traditional roles of the GPO? The GPO and the Depository Library Council are still concerned about depository libraries leaving the FDLP. Currently, the Council Operations Subcommittee on Attrition and Retention (SOAR) is charged with developing “different techniques to encourage and support depositories to remain active in the FDLP” (GPO, 2002a,b). Though not addressed in the charge for SOAR, perhaps one of the reasons for this depository attrition is the lack of a concrete role for depositories in the electronic environment. Electronic titles now represent approximately 60% of depository materials (GPO, 2002a,b). This means that the GPO either preserves a copy of these documents or points to the document on agency web sites and distributes the cataloging record with a URL to depository libraries. The libraries then merely point to the documents. Gone are the days of large shipments of depository items, which need to be processed and shelved. This has perhaps led some depositories to leave the program because they feel they can access all these materials for free on the Internet. The point is that reasons for remaining a depository in the current environment are waning. Without a clear role for participating in the preservation of government information, libraries are opting out. This does not mean that depository libraries are unnecessary. If copies of these source files were distributed as part of the FDLP, libraries could work together as “super-regionals” to preserve these copies and provide services to their local constituencies. Rather than one library per state acting as a regional depository, per Title 44, these regionals
Preserving Electronic Government Information: What Role Does Policy Play?
191
could join together with better funded institutions to distribute the responsibility of permanently storing all depository titles in all formats. If libraries do not act to cooperatively provide permanent and free public access to government information, the public sector will take the opportunity to provide government information services directly. Efforts to privatize public information and agreements with the private sector that threaten to restrict public access continue. Consider the Department of Energy’s (DOE) August 2002 announcement of the cessation of the PubSCIENCE service (United States Department of Energy, 2002). PubSCIENCE is a free searchable database that continues the formerly printed Nuclear Science Abstracts and the Energy Science and Technology database dating back to the 1940s. In the August of 2002, the DOE announced its cessation because of currently (not permanently) free private sector indexes. The private sector indexes are not as comprehensive as PubSCIENCE and the vendors make no claims that the indexes will remain free. The travesty is that the American taxpayer is being asked to accept less access to less information in order to avoid the appearance of competition with the private sector.
III. Pitfalls of the Access Only Model In the current environment, rather than multiple copies of publications living on servers spread throughout the country under different administrations, we have just a few copies sitting only on government-controlled servers. This issue has gained more importance as the Bush administration struggles to control access to “sensitive” information in the wake of September 11. One or two copies are not enough to ensure long-term access and preservation. Storing them only on government servers means that no one outside the government is mandated to preserve the same document. If changes are made to the document or if it is taken off the server completely, the network of depository libraries is not necessarily notified and access is negatively affected. If there were multiple copies on multiple servers in and out of the government, more notice would undoubtedly be paid. In the depository environment, if a document is required to be withdrawn from depository collections, agencies have to go through the GPO who in turn sends a recall notice to the libraries, who then withdraw the item. Checks and balances are built into the system and any debate about the recall of a particular document occurs in the public arena. However, in the digital environment, when publications are not protected by the depository program, who monitors the access, change and availability of electronic information? When electronic publications are depository items, but only live on government servers, will the withdrawals be given the same notice
192
M. Elizabeth Cowell
and attention? What will happen when the FDLP does not deposit anything? It will go away and one of the best tools we have to preserve the public’s right to know will go away with it. A. Create Your Own Collection The point has been made that depositories are not prevented from downloading digital titles of government information on their own (Baldwin and Barnum, 2001) and that we are more than welcome to create our own locally held collections of government information. This is true, but there are problems with this proposition. First, there is no stamp of authenticity on a digital document that an individual depository downloads. When a library adds a depository item to their collection, they stamp it with a depository stamp, which says that it is an official government publication. If we were just to download a title from an agency website, it would not have this level of authenticity. A reasonable solution to this problem would be for the GPO to add this to the titles included in the program and distribute them in a way that would help authenticate them to users at the local level. A second problem of the access only model is that of cost. Local depository librarians develop programs to serve their local constituencies. If these programs would benefit from the addition of digital copies of publications such as the Federal Register, the library must assume the cost, in thousands of dollars, of purchasing this title from the GPO. Certainly, librarians may download these titles on their own, but it would be a tremendous workload and since the GPO already prepares the Federal Register and other GPO Access titles to sell to commercial interests, why could they not just send depository copies to selecting libraries? Why would librarians wish to acquire such publications in digital format? It goes along with the idea that there is value to locally collected and maintained collections to the end users. For example, the GPO Gate project created by the University of California, San Diego in 1995 and supported by the California Digital Library until 2001 was created to give users of the GPO Access databases more searching flexibility through a web interface. The service was limited in what it could offer to users because the GPO controlled the structure of the database and defined which fields could be searched. If we could have had the actual databases, they could have been correlated with state level information, providing a powerful information tool and useful service to our users in California. GPO Gate is no longer maintained, but other ongoing projects could very easily make use of locally housed databases in the same way. The GPO’s unwillingness to distribute the information contained in the GPO Access database confirms the model of access in place of distribution, thereby limiting services to local user communities.
Preserving Electronic Government Information: What Role Does Policy Play?
193
Why then are libraries depositories in the digital age? To provide bibliographic access to online government publications and maintain their print collections? As libraries give up ever more collection responsibilities to centralized access through the GPO or private vendors, they abrogate their roles and risk the future of libraries. In order to stay relevant in the digital age and assure that the public’s right to know is not swept aside due to technical or financial issues, libraries must advocate for locally held digital collections of government publications. B. Permanent Public Access and the GPO The GPO describes its efforts at maintaining its electronic collection in various documents found on their web site. They state “a system of shared responsibility for building, storing, disseminating, and preserving Government Information will produce the greatest benefit in return for resources invested” (GPO, 1998). They cite multiple copies (a yet to be established mirror site in Pueblo, CO), partnerships with vendors such as OCLC and other institutions, and drawing upon expertise of constituents in making policies. Nowhere in any of these documents is mention made of distributing electronic documents for storage in local collections of multiple depository libraries. As a result, the preservation plan of the GPO falls short. A third problem of the access only model is the increasing reliance among government agencies on private sector publishers rather than depository libraries. For permanent public access to be assured, the private sector must not be seen as a major partner. As business interests change and profits shift, vendors may opt out of agreements to permanently store the public’s information. The private sector has different goals than the public sector. Their interest is the bottom line, profit. The public sector’s role is permanent public access and protecting the public’s right to know. When private sector interests conflict with public sector goals, there should be protection for collections in multiple depository libraries. Mirror sites are certainly a piece of the preservation puzzle, but having the only existing copies under the same administrative control takes away the natural check on government that collections under different administrations provide. They also do not offer any variety of collections and address the issues of multiple collections, customized presentation and service. Institutional partners such as universities can be a very useful part of the whole, especially if they distribute what they have, including the documents and associated metadata. Projects around the country have shown that it is possible for libraries to participate in large-scale digital library projects. The pitfall of these partnerships lies in the fact that they are partnerships with only one institution. If the institution no longer wishes to participate, is there
194
M. Elizabeth Cowell
assurance that another library will take its place? With a wider distribution, more libraries will be available to manage more publications, providing a more robust network for preservation. The distributed model is “more practical and expedient, multiple locations will facilitate speedy access…The best reason for shared responsibility however is the availability of talent and energy in the institutions which share it” (CNI, 1998).
IV. A New Model What would a model look like in which the GPO distributed electronic copies to depository libraries? In this model, the GPO would focus on the roles that it currently carries out, the identification, description and distribution of government information. By distributing digital publications along with descriptive metadata about the publications, the GPO will have taken a huge leap towards protecting the public’s right to know (Cowell and Jacobs, 2001). Without any other actions, just the multiple copies alone can improve the odds that if one copy is damaged or tampered with, users can go to other locations to find the same information. If the GPO went the extra step of establishing a “reference copy” of each publication against which all copies could be compared and metadata for each publication which would include descriptive information about the properties of the publication, including provenance, there would be an additional level of integrity (Levy, 2000). Because the reference copy and metadata are produced by the GPO, the source of official government information, and maintained by depository libraries, trusted repositories of government information, this integrity check becomes an authentication tool as well. Many have brought up the important issue of insuring authenticity and integrity of locally held collections of electronic publications. The concept of authenticity is a social construct that relies heavily on the notion of trust (Lynch, 2000). It is also important to keep in mind that there is not one great technical solution to this social problem. Trust in this view is more important and reliable than anything technical or digital. The question then is, who should the American public entrust to assure access to public information? Government administrations subject to the whims of party politics and budget changes? Corporate entities whose interest may go away as it is no longer profitable, whose focus is on short-term profit rather than long-term preservation? Or Federal Depository Libraries, whose mandate has always been preserving and assuring access to public information? These are difficult concepts to imagine working locally and the issues are complex and involve higher stakes than the preservation of print formats. “We cannot put a digital file on a shelf and decide later about preservation
Preserving Electronic Government Information: What Role Does Policy Play?
195
intervention. Storage means active intervention…The preservation of digital data should begin at the time of creation” (Smith, 2000). But, if we do not start now, experimenting with digital collections and asserting our rights under Title 44, how will we keep up with issues as they become even more complex? In fact if we do not demand that the GPO distribute these files, the result will be a pass off in our responsibilities as librarians. If we allow the GPO to maintain the only electronic collection, they will be focusing on that rather than improving their record of identifying and describing government publications. As these roles slip, we, as volunteers, will be required to do more and more of this work. If the GPO does its work well, a locally held electronic collection in DC is a good addition to the network of depository collections around the country. A. Promising Projects Waiting for legislation is a risky gamble when technologies and willingness exist in the current framework to distribute GPO-acquired source files. For example, the GPO recently agreed to participate in a National Science Foundation initiative to see if the Stanford University based LOCKSS (Lots Of Copies Keep Stuff Safe) program of preserving and authenticating electronic serials will work in the depository environment. According to the LOCKSS-DOCS website, “Stanford University Libraries have received a planning grant from the National Science Foundation to explore the potential applicability of the LOCKSS technology to preservation of U.S. Federal government information. LOCKSS software allows individual libraries to take custody of stable content in all formats delivered via HTTP and safeguard their community’s access” (LOCKSS-DOCS, 2002). Eight partners will experiment with the software, but the assumption is that the distribution of electronic files is a strategy worth considering. Another promising project is underway at the California Digital Library. Funded by a Mellon Foundation Grant, the project will “assess the technologies for the capture, curation, and persistent management of webbased government information. The project’s ultimate goal is to outline the requirements for stable and sustainable digital collection building for this genre of information.” The hope is also to share the findings of this project and the collection building tools that are created with other libraries interested in doing similar things (CDL, 2002).
V. Conclusion Some will balk at the systems demand or technical learning curve of participating in an electronic FDLP. However, libraries provide services for
196
M. Elizabeth Cowell
all kinds of new formats. Collecting digital formats will once again change business, as we know it. We had to buy microfiche cabinets, microfiche readers, even microcard readers that do not work anymore and new scanners that do. We have been dealing with format issues all along and none of our budgets have increased to do so. It requires a rethinking of our budgets, repurposing of staff positions and departments. Who had a full time systems position 20 years ago in their library? It is what libraries do. We select, acquire, organize, preserve and make government information accessible. Depository libraries do not have a choice. If we want to remain vital institutions preserving the public’s right to know, we must make the decision to select, preserve and provide access to digital information for our local communities. The one size fits all approach or access versus ownership approach to library collections will make us dispensable institutions and will underestimate the value of locally selected and presented collections. The most important function we provide as depository libraries is providing permanent public access to government information. If we do not assert our rights under Title 44 and the FDLP, permanent public access will be further jeopardized by a system that keeps government information under exclusive government control and does not provide for multiple copies. Though the GPO is not currently distributing digital publications to depository libraries, this does not mean there is nothing to do in the interim. In fact, libraries can and have been doing things to preserve particular documents for some time; current projects give hope to the notion of a true electronic FDLP. The assumption here is that an organized dissemination method would allow more libraries to participate and ensure preservation of this material in a more systematic way. If libraries begin now, exploring possibilities for local collections of electronic government publications, they will be poised to participate in an electronic depository program and begin to amass important preservation copies of these materials, in effect closing the door on access in favor of distribution, and defining an active role for the depository library of the future.
References Baldwin, G. and Barnum, G. (2001). On my mind: government documents for the ages. American Libraries 32, 38. California Digital Library (2002). Web-based government information project, a Mellon funded initiative, http://cdlib.org/libstaff/sharedcoll/gii/MellonGovInfo. Coalition for Networked Information (1998). Access to and Services for Federal Information in the Networked Environment, http://www.cni.org/projects/fedinfo/ fedinfo.draft.html. Cowell, M. E., and Jacobs, J. A. (2001). Roles for libraries big and small in the digital preservation of government information. Proceedings of the 10th Annual Federal
Preserving Electronic Government Information: What Role Does Policy Play?
197
Depository Library Conference, http://www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/fdlp/pubs/ proceedings/01pro41.html. Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and Budget (2002). Memorandum for Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies, M-02-07, May 3, 2002. Government Printing Office (GPO) (1993). Depository Library Council Recommendations and Responses, May 17– 18, 1993, http://www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/ fdlp/council/rsp93.html. Government Printing Office (GPO) (1996). Study to Identify Measures Necessary for a Successful Transition to a More Electronic Federal Depository Library Program, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC. Government Printing Office (GPO) (1998). Managing the FDLP Electronic Collection: A Policy and Planning Document, U.S. Government Printing Office, www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/fdlp/pubs/ecplan.html. Government Printing Office (GPO) (2002a). Administrative Notes: Newsletter of the Federal Depository Library Program, 23, 13, http://www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/ fdlp/pubs/adnotes/ad101502.html#5. Government Printing Office (GPO) (2002b). Committees of the Depository Library Council, http://www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/fdlp/council/dlccoms.html. Levy, D. M. (2000). Where’s Waldo? Reflections on Copies and Authenticity in a Digital Environment (Authenticity in a Digital Environment), Council on Library and Information Resources, http://clir.org/pubs/reports/pub92/levy.html. LOCKSS-DOCS (2002). Exploring distributed access to web-based US government information, http://lockss-docs.stanford.edu. Love, J. P. (1994). Current Issues and Initiatives in the Electronic Dissemination of Government Information (Emerging communities), University of Illinois at UrbanaChampaign. Graduate School of Library & Information Science. Lynch, C. (2000). Authenticity and Integrity in the Digital Environment: An Exploratory Analysis of the Central Role of Trust (Authenticity in a Digital Environment), Council on Library and Information Resources, http://www.clir.org/pubs/reports/pub92/ lynch.html. Nyren, K. (ed.) (1986). FLICC forum: federal information policy as seen by proponents and opponents of OMB’s Circular A-130. Library Journal 111, 10– 14. O’Mahoney, D. P. (1998). Here today gone tomorrow: what can be done to assure permanent public access to government information? Advances in Librarianship 22, 107 – 121. Smith, T. D. (1994). Measuring the effect of U.S. Office of Management and Budget Circular A-130: a case study. Journal of Government Information 21, 391 –402. Smith, A. (2000). Authenticity in Perspective (Authenticity in a Digital Environment), Council on Library and Information Resources, http://clir.org/pubs/reports/ pub92/smith.html. United States Congress (1985). An Open Forum on the Provision of Electronic Federal Information to Depository Libraries: A Report to the Staff of the Joint Committee on Printing to the Chairman of the Joint Committee on Printing, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC. United States Congress (1993). Government Printing Office Electronic Information Access Enhancement Act of 1993. Public Law 103-40. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC. United States Department of Energy (2002). U.S. Department of Energy Proposes to Discontinue PubSCIENCE, http://pubsci.osti.gov/.
Fire Recovery and Preservation of Collections at the Russian Academy of Sciences Library Valerii P. Leonov, Irina M. Belayaeva and Julia P. Nyuksha The Russian Academy of Sciences Library, St Petersburg, Russia
I. Introduction (Historical Note) Founded by Peter the Great in 1714, the Library of the Russian Academy of Sciences (BAN—Biblioteka Akademii Nauk) is the first library of Russia open to the public. At present it is the main scientific library of the Russian Academy of Sciences and due to the size and value of its collections, BAN is among the greatest libraries of the world including the Library of Congress (USA), the Russian State Library and the Russian National Library. Since 1783, it has received depository copies of all published works in the country. Peter’s the Great’s private library makes up the Library’s historical core. Among the Library’s most valuable collections are the XV – XVIII centuries collections, the library of Aptekarskij pricaz (the Drugs Department), and the collections of the Dukes of Kurlandia and Holstein, Radzivill’s princes, Tsarevich Aleksei, Peter the Great’s fellow-campaigners and contemporaries and others. Gradually the Library became a centralized library system, including the Central Library and 31 research libraries of the scientific research institutions of the current Saint-Petersburg Scientific Centre of the Russian Academy of Sciences (RAS). The current collection of BAN includes more than 20 million domestic and foreign publications, manuscripts, maps, prints, as well as more than 8 million magazines and more than 26,000 newspapers. Publications in the European and Asian languages, including ancient languages, are represented. Annually BAN acquisitions amount to 450,000 – 500,000 documents.
ADVANCES IN LIBRARIANSHIP, VOL. 27 q 2004 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved ISSN: 0065-2830 DOI:10.1016/S0065-2830(03)27008-2
199
200
V.P. Leonov, I.M. Belayaeva and J.P. Nyuksha
BAN carries out library and information services for the basic sciences and together with RAS members, serves researches, scholars and specialists, regardless of their institutions, enterprises or organizations. BAN serves more than 32,000 scholars and specialists annually. Now, the Library of the Russian Academy of Sciences is widely known in our country and abroad as the All-Russian State Universal book-depository with the status of a scientific-research institution in the fields of librarianship, bibliography, informatics, study of books, scientific description of manuscripts, preservation and restoration of documents, and security of libraries and archives. In its life, BAN has suffered three fires. The first happened on December 5, 1747, because a smoke-duct was out of order. The damage inflicted by the fire was comparatively small. 246 Russian and foreign books were lost. According to sub-librarian Taubert, the books suffered mainly from dampness and having been thrown out the windows in a hurry. In 1901, there was a great fire in the same building on the Neva embankment that already had caught on fire in 1747. According to Academician K.G. Zaleman, director of the II Foreign Department, 1500 foreign books were burned, and all the premises and closets were severely impaired by high temperature and smoke: “All glass in the building burst, the ceiling and the furniture turned black, and the books were soiled.” Few events in the approximately three-century history of the Library of the Academy of Sciences need analysis as much as the fire of February 14 –15, 1988.
II. The Fire World library history knows of no such disaster on such a large scale as that which the Library of the Academy of Sciences faced after the fire of 1988. The losses came to 298,961 items. One of the greatest losses was the ruin of 152,245 imprints of foreign publications before 1930. These materials had been arranged in stacks according to Academician K. M. Baer’s classification system. Moreover, 3.6 million books had suffered exposure to water, steam and high temperature. The fire at BAN was extremely disastrous, nevertheless the very next day fire recovery efforts were started and control over the situation was regained, thanks to the support of the City Administration, the St Petersburg Branch of the Academy of Sciences and many institutions. Joint efforts of scientists, who formed a special interagency experts’ group, enabled the Library to organize regular work in various areas. Besides that, many international organizations like the Foundation for Survival and Development of Humanity, UNESCO,
Fire Recovery and Preservation of Collections
201
the International Council of Archives, the International Federation of Library Associations, the Library of Congress, as well as private businesses, responded to the disaster, offering their assistance. A vast field of activities was opened for conservation specialists of BAN and the other libraries and archives of St. Petersburg. A major feature of conservators’ actions in a disaster is that all operations and treatments, even the most trivial ones, have to be performed on a large number of items and in a very short time. Hence the search began for methods of mass conservation, some of which are invented “on the fly,” so as not to lose precious time necessary to save collections; thus it was, in 1988, during the recovery from the disastrous BAN fire. For the conservators and curators it was a crucial period when many things had to be reconsidered and reassessed—views, experience, innovations and principles.
III. Fire Recovery The large volume of collections that suffered and the intense aggravation resulting from the influence of water, steam and high temperatures on thousands of other books, required unusual decisions in the organization of the restoration process. In the history of mankind, unfortunately, catastrophes and accidents involving major cultural artifacts frequently become powerful accelerators for the process of scientific research and its practical implementation. This sad and somewhat paradoxical situation found its complete reflection after the most destructive fire in the Library’s history. In what areas was the work for preserving the Library collections carried out? Seven key areas will be named: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.
Rescue work; Recovery of the collections lost; Restoration work; Phased conservation; Expert opinions and methodical help; Informational and instructive-methodical provision; Increases in BAN building safety.
A. Rescue Work 1. Drying Techniques Regarding the first group of measures, it may be of interest to mention the significant improvements in the drying techniques for the books that have
202
V.P. Leonov, I.M. Belayaeva and J.P. Nyuksha
become totally wet, and the implementation of large-scale disinfection of repositories facing the risk of a massive fungi attack, detrimental to both people and books. In the circumstances of such a disaster, huge efforts were made to mobilize resources so as to speed up the drying process, employing all known techniques, including freezing. In particular, diffusive drying, commonly used in conservation practice, was applied. This technique consists in drawing the water off the wet book block by means of filter paper over another material with good hygroscopic properties. The drying of separate sheets was performed using the heated surface of various devices like platen dryers, photographic print dryers, and the like. The books were exposed to leaf drying in a flow of warm air, the speed of which was being changed at a certain rate. This was reached using various electric convectors, dryers, fans, and other devices. All these methods are not quite satisfactory, and it is not just because they are time consuming and labor intensive. Employing them always leads to complex deformation of various parts of book materials. Drying in a highfrequency electromagnetic field proves to be much more effective in this respect, though it has drawbacks of its own, especially when applied to charred materials. Sublimation and vacuum drying, or their combination, have generally well-accepted advantages. 2. Aerodynamic Drying System The library had a high-frequency device, but it did not possess the equipment for sublimation drying, which is most suitable for drying frozen books. However, a decision about this problem was soon made, without resorting to the use of complex equipment. While the work was already in progress, an aerodynamic system was developed in a very short time, enabling the Library to dry frozen books without unfreezing them, without distortion of binding and text blocks. Blocks of frozen books were packed into moisture-absorbing, mattress-type, sawdust-filled wrappers. The blocks thus packed were freely placed on open shelves in a spacious chamber. About them strong, closed flows of hot air were created. The air streams pierced the blocks of the books and also circulated around the perimeter of the drying chamber walls. A separate powerful fan discharged the humid air out of the chamber. At the same time, dry air was sucked in. The process ensured gradual dehydration of the books packed into blocks without any deformation or deterioration of the materials. The state of the materials was controlled thermometrically, hygrometrically, and by means of selective assessment of the mechanical properties of paper. The drying continued until an equilibrium of moisture content corresponding to that existing in normal storage conditions was
Fire Recovery and Preservation of Collections
203
reached, with relative humidity of 55 ^ 5% and temperature of 18 ^ 28C. The speed of dehydration depended on the rate of motion of the air flows ^ 0.1 per minute and also on the structure and composition of the books. At the beginning of the process, the air temperature decreased whereas the block temperature increased. It was only after the equilibrium of temperature in the air and within the book blocks had been reached that the rate of air flow was reduced to a temperature gradient of 0.15 ^ 0.058C/minute. The process continued until the ambient temperature reached 18 ^ 28C. This took 8 ^ 2 hours. After drying had been completed, a process of stabilization began in the materials. The packing wrappers were taken off and the books were removed from the chamber. Then they were stacked for subsequent disinfection and rehabilitation, under controlled storage conditions. Over 150,000 books have been dried this way, without the slightest damage to, or deformation of, paper and bindings. The drying system used in BAN was a significant technological improvement and even has some advantages over vacuum sublimation drying in special chambers. This technology ensures uniform drying of books, and at the same time maintains a prescribed humidity level in them throughout the entire drying cycle. Besides, the advantage of the method over vacuum drying is that drying will not occur until the pressures reached in the material have matched the corresponding strains on it, under permanent humidity control. It should also be mentioned that there is no way to control moisture content in books while sublimation drying is in progress. 3. Threat of Mold Growth Despite all the measures taken in order to hasten the drying, there was an imminent threat of mold growth in many areas of the multi-deck repositories. In 10 days, the mold content of the air had increased threefold. The high content of viable fungal diaspores, equally dangerous to books and people, caused serious concern. 4. Disinfection Having analyzed all the available city resources and taking into account the urgency and possibility of performing work in close proximity to the inhabited buildings, the commission of experts made an unambiguous decision to consider disinfection of the repositories as an immediate priority in the fire recovery efforts. During the period from April 19 to May 27, 1988, 8.1 million volumes underwent disinfection right on the shelves of the repositories. The disinfection technique employed in this case was to a considerable extent different from all the procedures known so far. The plan was to perform
204
V.P. Leonov, I.M. Belayaeva and J.P. Nyuksha
massive decontamination of the hermetically sealed repositories, together with the books located in them, by means of aerosol fumigation, which would produce no detrimental effect on people. 5. Procedure The procedure was as follows. All windows, doors, and slits in the repositories were hermetically sealed. Within the rooms a series of ventilating devices ensured an aerodynamically closed ring. The rooms were preliminarily warmed up using electric fans; in addition the environment was moistened. The temperature was set to 40 ^ 58C. This hot and humid environment in 1.5 –2 days triggered the growth of fungi spores, which in the form of vegetable mycelium are more sensitive to physio-chemical impact. This made it possible to limit the contents of formic aldehyde in the disinfection composition to 40 g/m3 of the room, thus making the operation easier. The disinfecting agent was a composition of 8% formic aldehyde, 40% carbon dioxide and 52% water. The composition was introduced into the repositories’ environment using ultrasonic nozzles. The aerosol mixture got into the closed convective heat gas flows and in short time spread over the whole room. The exposure continued for 1 –10 days, with permanent mycological control of the books and storage rooms’ environment. One day after the composition mixture had been introduced, the contamination of the books was reduced by a factor of 10 –15%, and on the 10th day, by a factor of 75%. The process was stopped when the treatment efficiency reached 95 – 100% against the initial content of the diaspores in the air and on the books. Upon completion of the disinfection, the formic aldehyde was neutralized by an equimolecular amount of ammonia, with gas flow passing from the room via absorption filters installed on the exhaust window fans. Contamination or leakage of the disinfecting agent into the environment was precluded due to the exact calculation of the parameters of the production process. All cycles of the disinfection treatment were performed under permanent control of the City’s sanitary and toxicological authorities. This resulted in satisfactory, rapid, and ecologically safe prevention of a massive fungi attack on vast book collections, stored close to the repositories that were damaged during the fire. The Library’s staff and volunteers were reliably safeguarded against the mycological diseases. B. Recovery of the Collections Lost The BAN collection curators had quite sufficient means for ensuring the safety of certain books, but the expediency of using some or other methods had to be defined according to the recovery work (the arrangement of
Fire Recovery and Preservation of Collections
205
materials after drying, corrections to the catalogs showing the existence of books and the like). Besides, it was also necessary to consider general library funding problems and the need for a rational means of expenditure. The recovery of damaged books, by restoration, has been very problematic only because of the long cycle, large expenditures and lack of enough qualified restorers. Moreover, this method of recovery leads to a situation where readers cannot use titles they need for a long time. So, we understood it was necessary, where possible, to purchase identical copies to replace most of the damaged collections. These conclusions had been confirmed by experts’ appraisal of the state of the collections, made by the scholars at the Leningrad Pulp and Paper Production Institute in 1990. Specifically, according to the results of studies a conclusion was made about shortened longevity of paper affected by high temperatures. The Council for Formation of BAN Stocks supported the curators’ proposal about replacing most of the damaged stock. For this purpose, a large amount of organizational work was conducted for acquisition of replacement copies. It was conducted on several levels: regional, all-union and international. We are happy to say that great assistance in recovery of BAN collections was given by the international library community. Now it is absolutely evident that the consequences of such disastrous calamities can be eliminated by professional and economic efforts not only within the country that suffered the loss, but also with international help. Further, foreign colleagues perceived the Library fire as their own disaster and expressed their readiness to help in carrying out the recovery program for collections. More than 20,000 copies have been received from foreign libraries, governments and collections. In all, 222,336 copies arrived from 764 institutions for the recovery of collections. C. Restoration Work It should be noted that, initially, in the general plan of measures for the elimination of the fire’s consequences, the long-term program of restoration of damaged inventory had a major role. In the past the restorers, as a rule, had to deal with natural aging of the material base of the book, but now they met with damage of an artificial character—thermal destruction. It leads to a sharp lowering of the paper’s mechanical strength, the paper becoming dark with a lowering of text-contrast. The leather and parchment bindings were especially damaged, because these materials are extremely sensitive to the influence of temperature. For decisions on the technological problems of restoration programs, a working group, consisting of Leningrad’s leading specialists, was organized.
206
V.P. Leonov, I.M. Belayaeva and J.P. Nyuksha
The candidates for treatment were printed editions, having suffered similar damage: carbonization at different levels, deformation, and mechanical damage. These circumstances, and the large number of volumes damaged, limited the choice to the following restoration principles. 1. Restoration must be almost complete in most cases. 2. The restoration process has to be simplified, but without damage to longevity and mechanical strength of these valuable materials. 3. During the restoration a change of format for most editions is permitted, e.g., simplified binding of sheets in a block, use of modern materials for covers, change of cover design, and also storing books as separate sheets when there is major destruction of the inner book margins. 4. Editions that have special historical and artistic value must be individually treated by restorers with expert qualifications in the recovery and reconstruction of all book elements. There were enough reliable means in BAN for providing security for separate books, but the expediency of using these other methods had to be defined according to the stack maintenance work (arrangement of books after drying, inspection of books, and so on). Moreover, it was also necessary to consider the general library economic problems and the need for a reasonable level of expenditure. D. Phased Conservation In June 1988, after the visit of Library of Congress (LC) specialists, LC took on the role of coordinating international help for BAN’s recovery of its damaged foreign collections. We should note that after thorough examination of the state of the collections and the technical and the economical potential of BAN by LC specialists, several ways of preserving damaged collections were proposed, e.g., microfilming, encapsulation, and reformatting in a program of phased conservation. The selection of optimal methods for saving and further recovery of books depended, in the first place, on the uniqueness of the Library of the Academy of Sciences’ damaged foreign collection—the “Baer Collection.” 1. The Baer Collection The development of the system of organization of the foreign collections of the Library has undergone a long process of formation. BAN has many book collections that are kept in their original state. These collections are traditionally called “fond” or “library,” with the attachment, in the first case, of its founder and organizer name, or in the second, of its owner.
Fire Recovery and Preservation of Collections
207
The oldest fond is the Baer Collection—the books and periodicals that the Library received from the day of its founding and up to 1930, according to a classification system developed by the academician –librarian K. M. Baer during 1835 –1840. The 27 years from 1835 to 1862, during which the well-known natural scientist K. M. Baer was active, were significant times in the history of the Foreign Department of the Library of the Academy of Sciences. The encyclopedic breadth of his knowledge and interests allowed him to create a classification system that combined at the same time strict scientific attitude in its design, a simplicity of interpretation, and clearness in its outline. Peter the Great’s reforms in Russia and further developments in natural sciences in the XVIII – XIX centuries had promoted solid and wide-spread interest in books in the natural sciences. So systematization of the stocks made by Baer had a great positive influence especially for more effective use of books in the interests of science, and to a considerable extent, facilitated increasing the quality of service to readers. Contents of the Baer’s fond literature were defined initially by the needs of Russian science. The Library as “the major element of the Academy” was called upon to provide rapid and complete scientific information to all divisions of the Academy, “classes” in Baer’s terminology, based on the variety of scientific research topics or problems on which the divisions were working. During its first decades, the main sources of the Library’s acquisitions were private collections of the prominent statesmen of Russia. Later the Library also started acquiring books through the academic library bookstore, through commissioners and with the help of book exchange, exchanging Academy editions for foreign titles. In the XVIII –XIX centuries, the academic book exchange system was the most widespread and the Library had relations with 686 scientific institutions of the world. It is interesting, in our opinion, that by the end of the XVIII century the number of books in the Library’s foreign collections had grown to more than nine times the number of domestic imprints (27,718 versus 2964). The contents of the Library collections reflected the level of Russian science for those times: along with the literature in natural sciences works on philosophy, history, geography, classical philology and linguistics were also adequately represented. An extensive exchange with foreign academies and learned societies allowed the Library to collect works, transactions and reports of the leading scientific institutions. In the brief historical guide of the Library of the Academy of Sciences published in 1929, the foreign collection (“Baer collection”) was said to have 260,000 items. By January 1, 1988, the Baer collection held 518,000 volumes.
208
V.P. Leonov, I.M. Belayaeva and J.P. Nyuksha
2. Development of Phased Restoration Program It was a hard task to provide essential restoration of the original imprints that could not, by virtue of their significance, be replaced. In its turn, restoration of the damaged collection, according to the expert’s appraisals, would require 50 years work of 20 skilled restorers. The first practical experience of restoration of major artifacts, damaged by the fire, showed that because of complexity and labor intensity of restoration processes, the period of the recovery process in this specific area would be very long and, for the same reason, the price of restoring the works would be very high. Microfilming of the same large number of volumes would also require large financial support. Thus, the objective difficulties in organizing the restoration program for microfilming and encapsulation, as well as the concrete recommendations of LC specialists, caused the Library to conclude that it needed to adopt the method of phased conservation for the Baer collection. 3. Implementation of the Program The essence of phased conservation is that documents are placed in special cardboard containers (or boxes) made of inert material or acid-free material and stored in any phase of their existence, in any condition, and at any stage of processing. It should also be noted that microclimatic containers are able to carry out many functions simultaneously in keeping and using documents. They considerably prolong the objects’ life in libraries and at the same time allow the library to continue to use the materials as they did in the past. We will try to formulate the principle arguments in favor of the wide adoption of this method. – – – –
– –
Boxes mechanically preserve the document being used. They guarantee protection of documents from mutual friction on the shelves. They preserve against light radiation (both from natural and artificial light). They serve as a reliable buffer between their contents and any unfavorable environment, protecting them from destructive influence of surroundings. They permit preserving documents during transportation, protecting them from mechanical and physio-chemical influences. They provide protection from extreme damaging factors (water, smoke, soot, and the like).
It is difficult to overestimate the role and importance of boxes in solving the problem of saving documents damaged by the fire. To all the merits
Fire Recovery and Preservation of Collections
209
mentioned above, more possibilities can be added. For books that were partly burned and crumbling, containers provided physical support and kept components of the books together. As it is known, the products of combustion and other fire-damaged parts of the documents excrete volatile substances that, very likely, are rather dangerous for the environment and humans, and containers become an original “self-contained environment,” helping to solve this problem. The condition of the Baer collection required taking all due measures after the fire. However, there was no experience in using the phased conservation method in our country, on such a large scale, using information from abroad as well. The principles of phased conservation for BAN were worked out together with the specialists at LC, and above all, with the program curator, Peter Waters. They were made more precise during an exchange of letters and telexes. Because of mutual efforts the main approaches were developed and we achieved valuable results after the adoption of the program. During the first stage of the work, LC undertook provision of necessary equipment and individual microclimatic storage boxes. Until 1994 these boxes were produced by means of the Custom Manufacturing Inc. (CMI) company’s sponsorship with the help of special computer control equipment. In September, 1994, at the expense of the Getty Conservation Institute (USA) their program-controlled equipment was installed, permitting production line manufacture of individual storage boxes for every document using maximum automation. A donation of special archive acid-free cardboard was also received. At the same time, BAN successfully adopted the technology of phased conservation: the necessary methods, proper instructions, and standards. All the stages of the process of phase conservation are now functioning. For successful solution of the problems that curators and conservators of the Library had, it was very important to provide them with quick and accurate information on current scientific research in this area, so they could implement these programs. A detailed database was developed (the database had an important place in this plan) reflecting all the characteristic features of the Baer collection according to its composition and the physical condition of editions, with indexing of all necessary measures about their conservation. The database is a special information map that contains all necessary information not only about the degree of security for a document, but also about its historical –cultural value. The main goal of this database was to make easier not only the process of conservation, but also to promote recovery of the damaged collections. The task of accumulating information about the history of creating the collection is no less important than its treatment. The database, together
210
V.P. Leonov, I.M. Belayaeva and J.P. Nyuksha
with bibliographical and book-study information, reflects the physical condition of each item and its changes. The elaborated DB has multiple parts (blocks). Employment of the information map in practice shows that the division of information into parts (book description, characteristic of binding, block characteristic) is reasonable and proved to be quite correct. During data input to the database and its correction, one can directly move the information from one block to the other. We selected and marked the most frequently occurring parameters of damage and its elimination. One can provisionally divide the information data map into three groups: registration, description and expert information. This information matrix is intended for several kinds of users: curators, conservators, biologists, and restorers. Each user has his own orientation as to what information is most important. To simplify the completion of the information map, concrete methodical recommendations were created. The database which contains the information about the Baer Collection helps in the process of description. The factual information in the DB completely reflects the degree of security for each document. Besides, if necessary, such description will allow further repeated use of structured data through search queries. Existence of most complete data about books decreases the necessity of frequent book use, increases the level of their safe keeping and makes it possible to substantiate scientific planning for recovery. Generalization from and analysis of this information considerably enriches our knowledge about the initial BAN collection as a unique resource of Russian culture and science of the XVIII century. Processing the information received permits more proper and scientific substantiation of the strategy of programs for preserving the Baer Collection, specifically defining those volumes and parts that need urgent stabilization. One of the most important problems that BAN employees faced was a decision on some questions concerning the choice of box materials. Up to now in Russia, technical or common cardboard was used for these purposes. Credit for initiatives to organize scientific research work concerning the creation of domestic archival cardboard in Russia belongs to the BAN Library. By 2000, BAN, together with All-Russia Scientific-Research Institute for Paper, took out a patent for development of the technology for industry production of acid-free cardboard. Practical adoption of phased conservation in Baer Collection, having high historical – cultural value, required the organization of new services and new distribution of duties among several subdivisions of the Library. What’s more, the organization of such work was started and continues on the basis of a precisely worked out technological scheme (Fig. 1).
Fire Recovery and Preservation of Collections
Fig. 1. Technological scheme of phased conservation of documents in BAN.
211
212
V.P. Leonov, I.M. Belayaeva and J.P. Nyuksha
The technological scheme “Phased Conservation in BAN” reveals all principal processes of production, their sequence and interconnection. Three BAN departments happen to be directly involved in this process and their work is accordingly coordinated: these are the collection departments, the scientific-research department of conservation and restoration, and the special service for production of microclimatic boxes. First of all, collection curators make decisions on transferring documents to phased conservation, inserting necessary descriptions for the library’s bibliographical part of the information map and making estimates of the measurements for every item. The completed forms are passed to the Service for Production of Microclimatic Boxes (SPMB). First BAN employees perform visual inspection of editions with the purpose of their division into groups according to the degree of their damage. If it is necessary, a test copy of each group is fixed on film. Further they describe and fill in the information map, indicating the nature and degree of book damage, and condition of binding and paper. Just after examination and description the entire consignment is divided into two groups: editions with biological damage and without it. Then laboratory studies are carried out, including fungi analysis of biologically damaged editions and definition of paper acidity (pH). Moreover books in which the existence of viable fungi spores has been revealed are disinfected and after this they are joined up with the consignment without biological damage. The last stage is the hygienic processing aimed at cleaning dust and fumes from the books. The documents that have high acidity (pH , 6) are subjected to non-water neutralization. Volumes with leather or parchment bindings are passed on for cleaning and softening. All the above mentioned kinds of processing methods are carried out strictly according to documented procedures, and their data filled in on an information map. Also entered here are commentaries, connected with technological process peculiarities (if there are any). The information map thus becomes ready for imputing into the database and it is passed on together with the processed books. SPMB employees use special automated equipment for microclimatic box manufacturing. These boxes are manufactured in strict conformity with the size of each document. First of all, the operator inputs information from the measurements form appearing on the computer display. Then the operator selects a group of measurements, necessary for manufacturing these boxes. The samples of boxes are displayed on the computer screen and the operator arranges them for cutting out of cardboard, selecting the optimal variant allowing the Library to use the material frugally. At last, a sheet of cardboard is loaded and the equipment is started. A special program operates the work of cutters, cutting out microclimatic boxes from a sheet of cardboard.
Fire Recovery and Preservation of Collections
213
For accuracy they are automatically stamped with measurements. The boxes are easily assembled from intermediate products by collection curators and the books are placed in them. Systematic observation convinces us that microclimatic boxes made from archival board are the first factors of stabilization. The book will stay in them until the carrying out of measures outlined for every edition individually (this may be restoration, change, or further stabilization). According to a specially developed program there is monitoring of editions placed in microclimatic boxes: it allows one to get data for analysis and conclusions on the degree of their protection, and the information itself is input into the database. Then, according to a set order of priority, constant selection of editions for planned restoration is carried out and this data is also put into an information map. In general, phased conservation is one of the major methods for providing security for BAN collections. It is put into the plans of scientific research work of many subdivisions. The existence of materials, technical plans, and trained personnel has allowed the Library to formulate a program of phased conservation and ensure its implementation on a level corresponding to modern requirements. In our opinion, it is extremely significant that in conformity with an elaborated technological scheme, this program be implemented with reference to any one of the library collections requiring urgent measures for their safe keeping. The program of phased conservation includes the following kinds of activities: – – – – – – – –
investigation of physical condition of documents; systematic inspection of storage conditions; organization of the technological process of phased conservation; physical –chemical and biological processing of books; development of methodical and normative-technological documentation; manufacturing of individual microclimatic boxes (containers); training of qualified personnel; development and creation of an informational database.
Selection of objects for treatment is based on the historical and cultural significance of collections. Nowadays, phased conservation in BAN has been actively introduced in the Baer Collection, the Manuscript Department (Peter the Great’s library and the foreign manuscripts collection), the Rare Book Department (incunabula collection) and the Slavonic Collection. There has been full expert evaluation of the state of each document preceding conservation work. Owing to the exceptional cultural value of the
214
V.P. Leonov, I.M. Belayaeva and J.P. Nyuksha
collections the parameters of information map were created and revised during the work with Baer Collection. Now the improved information map gives full information on all the peculiarities of the object itself, its physical condition, as well as concrete information about the specific features of preservation methods. For example, the information map, made for all the books of Peter the Great’s library, contains 153 different characteristics. The totality of data being kept in informational maps allows us, with enough completeness, to define the composition, state and optimal forms for preserving the whole collection. Moreover, the set of properties taken into consideration permitted the creation of a database for revealing various books’ peculiarities and will serve as a solid basis for further work to provide constant care for these cultural monuments. As already mentioned, phased conservation of Baer Collection was carried out according to a special program that took into consideration the existence of large number of carbonized documents. Correspondingly, for the implementation phase of conservation works from other collections—Peter the Great’s library, the foreign manuscript collection, the incunabula collection and the Slavonic Stock—it appeared necessary to introduce some changes into the program, because these monuments (major works) fortunately had not suffered from fire. Now an in-depth examination of all collection parameters was made the cornerstone of investigation, but the technological scheme remained unchanged. The thorough study of collection components, which became the objects of phased conservation, indisputably corroborates the fact that these collections are outstanding monuments of history and culture. So the employees of the Library faced an important problem, not only to save intellectual substance of these collections, but principally to also look after their original physical form. The complex program developed at BAN encompasses the full range of preventive conservation measures. It also seems very important that in this program we succeeded in keeping the principle of least intervention into the material base of documents and used methods of exceptional care in applying modern conservation processing. It should be noted that through the process of phase conservation adoption we were also able to ensure the easiest reversibility by the use of microclimatic boxes. The fulfillment of the research program and achievement of concrete technological conservation methods became a qualitatively new stage in the determination of the principle ways of ensuring the security of rare and valuable BAN collections. It was the work with the Struve collection, damaged by the fire of February 1997, which gave the Library considerable
Fire Recovery and Preservation of Collections
215
experience in the adoption of phased conservation in BAN. The efficient organization of work and existence of trained personnel able to carry it out in the shortest time, made it possible to dry collections quickly and in the middle of March 1997 the library was ready to proceed to the implementation of collection phased conservation program. The composition of the collection was thoroughly investigated, including the history of its creation; specialists also studied the character of the damage. All this, as well as the earlier experience of the phased conservation program, made it possible to implement the program with respect to Struve collection in a short time. The Library drew upon the experience using the technology of document conservation for the Baer collection and made use of the already elaborated information map. In our opinion, another positive aspect of this program is that during its development and adoption, one language developed between the librarian and the conservator. The library worker must not only give a diagnosis to a situation in a book depository, but also deal with conservators and his own colleagues in one professional language. Eventually, to him/her—the librarian—belongs the chief role in searching for the most correct, optimal means and methods of the problem’s decision. It should be noted that the character of initial rescue work was changed and widened by the Library of BAN specialists. It became a special form of activity for increasing the collections’ safety and improving their accessibility. All this became, in the Library, a system of complex measures, operating on a constant basis. Moreover, in this connection, the Library of BAN created an automated system for the most optimal provision of safety for materials. The experience of its adoption, in our opinion, may be used during creation of such programs in other libraries and archives. E. Consulting and Methodological Help Based on a BAN initiative two seminars were conducted on the subjects of document safety: “Natural Disasters and Preservation of Cultural Values” (September, 1990; organizers—BAN, the Library of Congress USA, Getty Conservation Institute) and “Preservation of Cultural Heritage: International Imperative” (June, 1993; organizers—BAN, RNL, Getty Conservation Institute), where some actual problems were discussed, devoted to the questions of BAN contents recovery. In February, 1998, an International Conference—“BAN: Ten years after the Fire” was held in St Petersburg. Once more it gave an objective picture of the real scale of damage caused by this catastrophe to domestic and world culture, and analyzed in detail the work for recovery and ensuring of collection safety.
216
V.P. Leonov, I.M. Belayaeva and J.P. Nyuksha
Another conference was held in February, 2003. BAN conducted a scientific conference “Preservation of the Cultural Heritage in Libraries, Archives and Museums,” devoted to St Petersburg’s 300th anniversary, and timed to occur 15 years from the day of the tragic events of February, 1988. F. Informational and Instructive-Methodical Support Trustworthy and timely information depends on library actions at the time of natural disasters. The experience of other libraries, adoption of useful ideas from other branches of knowledge, requires one to be well informed and have a breadth of knowledge and rationally appreciate the situation. Because of this, BAN began work on the creation of a database concerning problems of document security that can also be used for documents kept in archives and museums. As a whole, literature about keeping of cultural artifacts is dispersed among many branches of knowledge. Its search is possible also among abstracts in physics, chemistry, biology, and the study of museums. BAN is creating an index of literature on the “Storage and Conservation of Library and Archival Collections.” It has accumulated more than 5000 bibliographical records. This huge database includes materials on conferences, symposia, seminars, and normative documents in different languages. The database permits questions according to keywords. Many bibliographical descriptions have abstracts. A search-informational thesaurus has been created allowing one to select literature based on special questions and separate problems. The thesaurus collected terms and other lexical items corresponding to the area of “document safety with indication of relations and causal connections and links between them.” This is of vital importance to an information search. The thesaurus was compiled taking into account the possibility of easily looking at the system of synonyms and homonyms, to replace synonyms with descriptors, and to invert files, gender relations, adjectives and set expressions. G. Increasing of BAN Building Safety Let us try briefly to note some parameters of these activities. – –
In 1990 – 1991, the Library installed an automatic fire alarm system and gas system to combat fire in the buildings. In the autumn of 1994, the Library put a new gas boiler room into operation instead of using one which had existed for 80 years (from the day of BAN main building construction, i.e., from 1914). The new boiler room provided heating of the building in necessary areas, improved
Fire Recovery and Preservation of Collections
–
–
217
ecological conditions and also eliminated a constant source of fire danger—the coal boiler room and hundreds of tons of coal stored in the yard. In 1997, heavy repairs of metal roofing of the BAN main building (4.4 thousand square meters) were completed, absolutely ruling out the possibility of the library collections being soaked when the roof leaks. In 1998, specialists of Television Research institution assembled the equipment for: – an outside system for observation and control of the BAN buildings; – an inside observation and control system in the areas of new acquisitions display and in the Manuscript Department.
IV. Conclusions Now, after 15 years have passed since the disaster, what lessons can one learn from our experience concerning the elimination of the fire’s consequences? Here are some results of our observations. 1. To cope with the consequences of tragedy independently “on one’s own” is impossible. A library catastrophe of this size has global consequences. 2. In the first hours after the catastrophe, most people will react with shock and this is inevitable since most losses are inflicted at the beginning. 3. Instantly after the fire, an internal investigation of its causes and the initial surveys of damage caused should begin. 4. One should not be in a hurry to search for culprits (it is not a duty of librarians but of special authorities) but should concentrate on the rendering of urgent help. 5. For rational organization and control of the rescue and recovery work, it is necessary to create a permanent headquarters, involving specialists with the necessary qualifications. 6. It is important to inform the employees and the mass media daily about the state of things, striving for the most openness in information about the consequences of the fire. 7. It is equally important to purposively, and without hurry, appeal to colleagues in the country and abroad, send letters, and invite professionals to evaluate the recovery work being undertaken. 8. One must remember that the Library is intended for readers and be concerned about its stage-by-stage opening.
218
V.P. Leonov, I.M. Belayaeva and J.P. Nyuksha
9. One should make a current and prospective plan for recovery of the Library book-depositories and collections and begin searching for other editions of titles which have suffered damage. It is necessary to transmit the plan to higher authorities. The fire scale and consequences should be accessible for analysis. 10. And last there is the human factor. The programs for elimination of the fire’s consequences are not carried out in a vacuum, not in ideal circumstances, but in the real environment, where the best and worst human qualities are demonstrated. It is necessary to remember that every major destabilization of a large library will energize opposition. For the opposition it is a receptive soil for discrediting the administration, making complaints concerning its incompetence, and “disclosure” in letters to various authorities. If the opposition is strong enough, then results of these disclosures may have negative consequences not only in the beginning of the recovery program but also some years later. Recommended Readings Belayeva, I. M. (1991). Phased conservation at the Library of the USSR Academy of Sciences. Conservation Administration News #46, July, 1–27. Belyaeva, I. M. (1992). “Baer Collection”: the history of formation, modern condition, prospects of research. Baer Collection in the Library Academy of Sciences. SPb, pp. 3–12. Leonov, V. P. (1992). Preserving the collective memory (a conservation with Valery Leonov, director of the Russian Academy of Sciences). Conservation. The GCI Newsletter 7, 8–9. Leonov, V. P. (1999). The Library Syndrome, K.G. Saur, Munchen, p. 295. Leonov, V. P., Sung, C., Olmsted, H., Waters, P., Smith, M., and Leich, H. (1989). Text of agreement for cooperation with Library of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR, Leningrad, June 17, 1988. Library of Congress Information Bulletin 48(1), 3–5. Nyuksha, J. P., and Leonov, V. P. (1999). Preservation of collections at the Russian Academy of Sciences Library: a retrospective overview, problems and solutions. Restaurator 18(4), 201–217. Russia’s first international conference on preventive conservation to be held in St. Petersburg, Getty Conservation Institute lends support, expertise (1993). The J. Paul Getty Trust. Press Information Release, June 10, 1993, p. 4. Sung, C., Leonov, V. P., and Waters, P. (1990). Fire recovery at the Library of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR. American Archivist 53(2), 298–312. Waters, P. (1990). Phased preservation: a philosophical concept and practical approach to preservation. Special Libraries 81(1), 35–43. Waters, P. (1995). From Florence to St. Petersburg: an enlightening and through-provoking experience: a personal account of the past twenty nine years in pursuit of the conservation of library materials. In: Redefining Disasters: A Decade of Counter-Disaster Planning: An International Conference, Sydney, Australia, September 20–22, pp. 237– 249. Waters, P. (1995). A unique library “preventive” preservation technology. International Preservation News: A Newsletter of the IFLA Core Programme on Preservation and Conservation #10, 8–9.
Partner Library Programs: The Colorado Programs Nancy M. Bolta and Lisa Coleb a
Colorado State Library, USA Arapahoe Library District, USA
b
I. Origins and Implementation of the Bulgaria/Colorado Library Partnership Project, Nancy Bolt A. Introduction Come, Madam But I don’t have my shoes on. Come, Madam.
This was my first introduction to Bulgaria. We crossed the border about 1 AM from Turkey. We had booked a couchette, a sleeping compartment for three on the train. I was in the lower bunk, my husband the upper bunk, and my 12 year old son, across the cabin. So when the border guard knocked on the door and said loudly “passport control,” I was the one who handed out the passports. He took them away, returned after a short time, and said, “Come, Madam.” My protestations about my feet went unheard and, not wanting our passports to get too far out of my sight, I followed him down the train car aisle, off the train, across another set of tracks (which involved going down a concrete embankment and then up again), and then to a small office by the side of the tracks. When I arrived I was the only woman there with about 12 men staring at me in my nightgown and hastily assumed robe. The guard handed my passports into the office, then looked at me and said in surprise, “But you have no shoes on!” In due time my passports were returned and I found my way back (down and up the same concrete embankment) to my rail car where my husband met me at the door with my shoes, wondering where I had been. And I was wondering how I got into this situation.
ADVANCES IN LIBRARIANSHIP, VOL. 27 q 2004 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved ISSN: 0065-2830 DOI:10.1016/S0065-2830(03)27009-4
219
220
Nancy M. Bolt and Lisa Cole
1. A Bulgarian Librarian Visits Colorado Bob Doyle, then Director of the International Relations Office at the American Library Association, was implementing the Library Fellows Program, a cooperative agreement with the United States Information Agency (USIA) and ALA to bring librarians from other countries to the United States for a 4 month stint in an American Library. A librarian who worked in her country’s national library had requested to be placed in a state library agency. No Library Fellow had ever made that request before. That country was Bulgaria and the librarian was Iskra Mahailova. I did not even know where Bulgaria was; I had to look at a map. I knew nothing about its culture, its people, its history, or its libraries. I will not go into the details of Iskra’s visit with us. This paper is about the Partner Library Project, not the Fellows program. But this introduction to Iskra and her 4 month visit with us was the start of an adventure that has made a difference for me personally, for libraries in Colorado, and, most importantly, for libraries in Bulgaria and the development of the country. B. Bulgaria and Its Libraries Bulgaria has a rich history. The current Ambassador from the United States, James Pardue, describes it as the “undiscovered gem of Europe” and we have found it so. There are archeological sites all over the country and Bulgarians are very aware of their history. But the government has experienced massive change in recent years. Moving from communism to democracy has been a bumpy road. 1. Bulgarian History Every little town has its own Roman ruins. Evidence of human inhabitance dates back to 7000 years B.C. at the Neolithic site in Stara Zagora. At the crossroads of three continents, Bulgaria has been invaded and then liberated (by itself or with help) many times. Occupied by the Thracians first, then conquered by the Romans. Huns, Bulgars, and Proto-Bulgarians moved south from Asia and established the First Bulgarian Kingdom in 681. Overrun by the Byzantines, the Bulgarians established the Second Bulgarian Kingdom in 1187. In 1395, the Turks conquered the Bulgarian territory and parts beyond which they occupied for 500 years. The Bulgarians still refer to this as “500yearsofTurkishdomination” as if it were both one word and happened yesterday. Finally in 1878, during the Russo/Turkish War, the Bulgarians and the Russians threw the Turks out and the First Bulgarian Republic was formed.
Partner Library Programs: The Colorado Programs
221
In 1945, Bulgaria came under Soviet and thus communist domination. It was not until 1997 that Bulgaria threw the communists out in a bloodless and peaceful revolution and became a democracy. The communist years were mixed for Bulgaria. On one hand, personal freedom was seriously curtailed. People had to watch what they said. Religion was not banned but discouraged for anyone who wanted to move up in a career. On the other hand, the economy was in relatively good shape. People were paid their salaries, and libraries, schools, colleges, and universities received regular funding from the central communist government. Once democracy was established, the situation essentially switched. Personal freedom became guaranteed, elections occurred, and democracy prevailed. But the economy tanked, inflation rose dramatically, (over 300% in the winter of 1996) and the local government was supposed to fund its own services such as schools, libraries, higher education, and welfare. Librarians stopped getting paid but kept going to work. (When I said in my American arrogance: “Americans would not go to work if they did not get paid,” I was told there were people standing in line for jobs where they might get paid some day.) This dichotomy between communism and democracy pervades much of their life. Mahailova says “Democracy is expensive” meaning the government can not or will not take care of you the way it has in the past. Meaning that people have to take responsibility for themselves, as individuals and as part of local communities. 2. Libraries The governmental changes have had an enormous impact on libraries. As with its history, Bulgaria has a rich educational heritage. Libraries were first established with monasteries during the 500 years of Turkish domination. There are now over 8000 libraries in Bulgaria. They have public libraries, community libraries (private libraries called Chitaliste—think YMCAs with libraries), technical, medical, and law libraries, theater and art libraries, school libraries, community college, college, and university libraries. Colorado, over twice as large in square miles (104,091 – 44,365 for Bulgaria, about the size of Tennessee) by contrast has only 1729 public, school, and academic libraries. Bulgarian libraries collectively house over 100 million books compared to only 23 million in Colorado libraries. The circulation, however, is not that much different from Colorado— 38.2 million for Bulgarian libraries vs. 32.3 million for Colorado libraries. That circulation is done by about 2.1 million Bulgarians (out of a population of 10 million) compared to 3 million Coloradoans (out of a population of
222
Nancy M. Bolt and Lisa Cole
about 4 million). Put another way, about only 20% of Bulgarians regularly use libraries compared to 75% of Coloradoans. While we do not have data on the age of their collection, a perusal of library collections easily confirms that the collections are old and in poor repair. Magazines in English in their collections (heavily used by high school and college students) often date before 1999 and are usually only one or two issues per title. People see the old collections and buildings in disrepair and just do not use them. Under communism, the Bulgarian National Library assumed responsibility for many aspects of library development including collection development, continuing education, and management advice. Libraries received subsidies from the national government and library staff received salaries. With the advent of democracy, National Library staff ceased their assistance to local libraries, the national government ceased financial contributions to local libraries, and the staff were no longer paid regularly. Support of local libraries depended on local communities and what colleges and universities could raise from tuition. Bulgarian librarians do not have experience in seeking funding from local governments. When the local librarians were asked about their major problems, two surfaced in every encounter: lack of money and lack of automation. I would add a third—the perception of public officials about libraries. Two examples make this point. First, many local public officials are striving for economic development. In a luncheon conversation, with the Vice-mayor of a large Bulgarian city, he said that the city wanted to establish an Economic Information Center. Even though the library operates branches throughout the city, the Vice-mayor never thought of the library as a place to house the Center. Second, in a presentation to librarians from small towns, visiting American librarians discussed reference service in American libraries. We asked if Bulgarian libraries provided reference and if so, what kind. The Mayor of the small town interrupted to say that Bulgarian libraries are not supposed to offer that kind of service but to preserve the cultural heritage, period! Our own experience with Bulgarian libraries is mixed but encouraging. After 10 years of democracy, five without communist domination, some local librarians still wait for the library to be funded and saved by some outside funding source. They do not see a way to forge their own future through their own action. But there are some, led by courageous, ambitious, and visionary librarians, who are anxious to move their libraries toward modern library service. They seek funding aggressively from government and private sources. They lobby effectively, find funding for automation, begin new services, and
Partner Library Programs: The Colorado Programs
223
are seeking to bring their libraries into the 21st century. These are the libraries that became the foundation of the Bulgaria/Colorado Library Partnership Program. C. The Beginning of the Partnership The Partnership began in 1999 and encountered both success and problems almost immediately. Differences in culture and comfort with electronic communication made many of the partnerships unsteady. 1. The Partnership is Founded I first went to Bulgaria in 1996. I returned in 1997 on a lecture tour and in 1998 and 1999 with a group of American librarians who attended conferences sponsored by local librarians. It was becoming apparent that many Bulgarian libraries were hungry for a longer term relationship and for information and materials that would help them improve their library services. In the summer of 1999, I met Alexander Dimchev, President of the Union of Librarian and Information Specialists (ULISO) and Professor at Sofia University and Snezjana Ianeva, Director of the Information Resource Center at the American Embassy in Bulgaria. They were looking for a way of helping more Bulgarian librarians with a systematic program that extended beyond annual trips to Bulgaria by American librarians doing one or two conferences a year. The idea that emerged was to establish partnerships between Bulgarian and Colorado libraries. The preliminary guidelines for the project were thus. † We would identify libraries in both countries that might be become partners. † A contact person in each library would be encouraged to exchange letters and photos of the people and the libraries before sending any materials to verify that the address was correct. † Materials requested by Bulgarian and Colorado libraries would be exchanged and information about library trends in the profession. † Funds to ship books and other materials from Colorado to Bulgarian libraries would come from fundraising in Colorado. 2. Recruiting Partners An article about the upcoming partnership opportunities was published in the September, 1999 Centennial State Libraries, the monthly newsletter of the Colorado State Library. By October of 1999, Ianeva and I had drafted a Resolution of Cooperation. To make understanding of the relationship easier, ULISO was called the Bulgarian Library Association (BLA) in the
224
Nancy M. Bolt and Lisa Cole
Resolution and in all subsequent Partnership activities. Ianeva presented the resolution to the BLA board and I presented the resolution to the Colorado Library Association (CLA) Board and, after they approved it, to the membership of the CLA at their annual meeting where it also met with unanimous approval. Ianeva recruited six libraries in Bulgaria to become the first partners. They were from Sofia, Veliko Turnovo, Burgas, Dobritch, Varna, and Stara Zagora. Each library sent a packet of information about their library to Ianeva who sent it on to me. I sent out a message on the Colorado library listserv, libnet, asking for partners. The publicity about the project indicated that there were only four requirements. † A desire to learn about a different culture. † A willingness to frequently communicate with your Partner. † Someone who speaks English (mainly a requirement for the Bulgarian partners!). † An e-mail address (post office is too slow). In addition, the Bulgarian librarians were to indicate to their partner the kind of books or other information they would like from their partner. And the response was…underwhelming. One librarian responded—Patty Gibbons from the Eagle Library District. Patty is a library assistant in the Children’s room and was excited about forming a relationship with a library in another country. After 2 months with still no additional Colorado partners, I contacted Denver metro public librarians and raised the issue of the Partners project. With a personal plea, I was able to recruit the remaining five needed Colorado libraries to establish the initial partnerships. I conducted electronic introductions between each library and waited for e-mail messages to fly. 3. Cultural Differences Become Apparent Patty Gibbons immediately corresponded with her partner, Kalina Ivanova, in Veliko Turnovo. At that time, Kalina was a reference librarian at their main library. Patty was very patient and Kalina spoke good English, had a reliable e-mail account, and was comfortable with e-mail communication—all skills that were going to prove invaluable to successful partnerships. But even they had problems. Kalina was hesitant about her English ability. She often waited lengthy periods between messages. At one point Patty ended her message with “I’ll be waiting to hear from you.” Kalina e-mailed back several days later with a large apology because she took Patty’s words literally and thought Patty was sitting expectantly at the computer, waiting for a reply!
Partner Library Programs: The Colorado Programs
225
Bulgarian Library Project Resolution Cooperation Between Colorado Library Association and Bulgarian Library Association Nancy M. Bolt, State Librarian and Snezjana Ianeva, U.S. Information Agency, Bulgaria Resolution Colorado Library Association Bulgarian Library Association WHEREAS Bulgarian librarians are dedicated professionals seeking to improve their ability to deliver library service to work now to develop a civil society and, WHEREAS Bulgarian libraries are suffering financially from the depressed Bulgarian economy, and WHEREAS Bulgarian library budgets have been cut and they have difficulty purchasing new library materials or periodical subscriptions, and WHEREAS the BLA is currently attempting to pass national legislation to delineate the status and support of Bulgarian libraries, and is interested in sharing information about library law, and WHEREAS Bulgarian libraries have a rich tradition of publishing bibliographies, indexes, and information about Bulgaria in both Bulgarian and English, and WHEREAS current information about Bulgaria is difficult to obtain outside of Bulgaria, and WHEREAS Colorado libraries lack up-to-date information about Bulgaria, particularly since the end of communism, and WHEREAS there are opportunities for librarians from Bulgaria to contribute to Colorado libraries and opportunities for librarians from Colorado to contribute to Bulgarian libraries, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the BLA and the CLA will become partner organizations in the sharing of resources and information between Bulgarian and Colorado libraries and librarians, and THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that there be no automatic financial obligation on the part of either Library Association, but rather any cooperative project include a budget for that project and the source of supporting funds, and THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that regular communication be established between the CLA and the BLA through various methods of sharing information. THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that one or more liaisons be appointed each year by each Association to facilitate communication and resource sharing among the two Associations and the libraries they represent.
226
Nancy M. Bolt and Lisa Cole
The rest of the partnerships started very slowly. Colorado librarians might send a message but it often was not a priority for the Colorado library director. Where the library director assigned communications to a staff member, the communication moved faster. But often, the Colorado libraries would e-mail me and say “I’ve sent three messages and they haven’t answered” or “I sent a message and it bounced back.” I e-mailed Ianeva, asking her to urge the Bulgarian librarians to communicate more often, to not be concerned about their English, to tell the local librarians what they wanted. In some cases the Colorado librarians changed their e-mail addresses and the Bulgarians complained to Ianeva and me that their messages bounced. 4. A Meeting of the Minds In May, 2000, I traveled to Bulgaria and met with all of the Bulgarian Partner Libraries. Snezjana Ianeva was instrumental in bringing all of them to Sofia for the meeting with costs paid by the American Embassy. I had lunch with the partner libraries. Bulgarians often greet strangers with sullen faces. It is as if they are hesitant to commit until they know that the person they are meeting is friendly. This may be a result of the long years of cautious interactions under the Communist control. At any rate, the Partner librarians did not at first smile, but they were all there and Kalina had even brought flowers. But with continued, persistent, smiles on my part, I began to get a response. One of my first realizations was that language was a bigger problem than I thought. Only three of the Bulgarians present spoke English well enough to carry on a conversation. So Ianeva translated. I talked about what the Colorado libraries wanted, mainly e-mail communication, and that the Bulgarians should not worry about their English. I emphasized that Americans were nice people and that the Colorado libraries would not have volunteered to be part of this project had they not wanted to learn something about a different culture. The Bulgarians asked questions. They wanted to know what kinds of materials people would want in America. I slowly began to realize that the partnership was, in a sense, one way. I had pictured the partnership as Colorado librarians sending books to needy Bulgarian libraries. But the Bulgarians did not just want handouts, they wanted to contribute meaningfully to the partnership as well. I suggested that the Bulgarians send CDs of Bulgarian music and tourist information about Bulgaria and materials about Bulgarian history and books in Bulgarian as well as English. Emilia from Varna said she would set up an e-mail list for all of the librarians. I emphasized the need for cultural understanding on both sides of the partnership, how we need
Partner Library Programs: The Colorado Programs
227
to work together and learn about each other and not to be upset if someone said something inappropriate out of American ignorance. Slowly the communication began. 5. Presenting Plaques from the National Commission on Libraries The National Commission on Libraries and Information Science began a Sister Library program, linking American libraries with libraries in other countries. I registered all of the Bulgarian/Colorado Partner libraries in this program. As part of a library tour of Bulgaria 2000, six NCLIS plaques were presented to six Bulgarian libraries. While we were presenting these plaques to the librarians and mayors in Bulgaria, the International Sister Cities convention was being held right in downtown Denver and plaques were being presented to Colorado libraries as well. We made presentations to all six library directors and either the mayor or a representative from his/her office. The Sister Libraries program recognizes that most local libraries get their support because the local town government provides the funding so they are eager to recognize the mayors as well. 6. A New Round of Recruitment Communication was now underway at some level between most of the partners although some problems continued to exist because of changing e-mail addresses on both sides of the ocean. One partnership did not work at all and I suggested to the Bulgarian librarian that they drop out for now and re-enter the partnership at a later date. Seven new partnerships were formed as a result of word of mouth in Bulgaria among librarians, interest from American Peace Corps Workers in Bulgaria, and heavy recruitment in Colorado. Matching the libraries, promoting the communication, finding someone who speaks English—all have been major challenges. Currently there are 12 partnerships, some very successful, some just getting started, some limping along. Current partners are shown in Appendix I. D. Partner Activities 1. Typical Activities Both the Bulgarian and the Colorado libraries have conducted activities in the name of the Partnership. In general, Partner Libraries have participated in the following activities:
228 † † † † † † † † † † †
Nancy M. Bolt and Lisa Cole
regular communication by e-mail and postal mail; exhibits and programs in the libraries of both countries; exchange of cultural information about each city and country; sending books from American libraries to their Bulgarian partners; sending information about Bulgaria to the American partners; pen pals (and e-mail pals) between children and teenagers in both countries; visits of American librarians and municipal officials to Bulgarian cities and libraries; conferences in Bulgaria on topics of interest to Bulgarian librarians and municipal officials; establishment of English reading rooms in Bulgarian libraries; cross-country friendships; visits to each other’s country and libraries.
First, books and more books—and CDs, videos, pamphlets—flow from the Colorado libraries to their Bulgarian partners. The arrangement with the Colorado libraries is, if they will donate the books, I will see that they are sent to Bulgaria. The Colorado libraries are generous in finding good, relatively new used books, and in some cases, new books as well. The cost of the books is paid for by importing and selling Bulgarian jewelry at library conferences. Sending the books costs $1.00 per pound using a special U.S. Post Office program for oversees packages. But it is slow, taking up to 3 months to get the boxes of books to Bulgaria by boat. The most active partnership continues to be Eagle Library District and the Veliko Turnovo Public Library. Kalina Ivanova is now the Assistant Director of the VT Library under the new director Ivan Alexanderov. Mr. Alexanderov fully supports the Partnership and Kalina promotes it heavily in Veliko Turnovo. Eagle regularly sends books to Veliko Turnovo, based on a profile of needs supplied by Veliko Turnovo. At Christmas, the senior citizen club in Eagle made Christmas tree ornaments for the Veliko Turnovo library. Art students connected to the Veliko Turnovo library created art posters for the Eagle Library District. Eagle has done several programs for children and adults that include slide shows, instruction and participation in Bulgarian folk dances. Together, the two libraries have 75 pen pal pairings. Gibbons visited Veliko Turnovo and participated in the conference on Library Service to Children and Teenagers. She also presented gifts to the Vice Mayor of Veliko Turnovo from the mayors of towns in the Eagle Library District. During that visit, Veliko Turnovo Director Ivan Alexanderov announced that they were going to create a Foreign Language Reading Room primarily stocked with books received from the Eagle Library District. He called it the
Partner Library Programs: The Colorado Programs
229
“newest branch of the Eagle Library District.” In 2001, using funds they collected at their own used book sales, Eagle wired money to a computer store in Veliko Turnovo to purchase a computer for the new Foreign Language Reading Room in Veliko Turnovo. In November, 2002, I was privileged to attend the opening of this “newest branch,” so designated by the Eagle Valley logo on the Bulgarian Branch Library door. Most exciting is the cultural understanding that has grown between the library staff, the youth, and the residents of the two towns. Another Partnership, the Lone Tree Branch of the Douglas Public Library District regularly sends books to its Partner Library, the “Dora Gabe” Library in Dobritch, Bulgaria. Lone Tree held a program last spring where a Lone Tree Bulgarian resident presented a talk about Bulgaria and I presented a slide show about Bulgaria and its libraries. Lone Tree Mayor Jack O’Boyle visited the partner library in 2002, presented gifts and was surprised when Dobritch Library Director, Elena Yurchenko, ceremoniously planted a “lone tree” in the town square in honor of the partnership. Dobritch has a photo record of this ceremony on its website and links to the CLA’s website on the project. The Dobritch staff presented posters about Dobritch done by the children who visit the library. Mayor Jack O’Boyle was honored by the Douglas Public Library District Board of Trustees for his work in this area. Exhibits about Bulgaria have been mounted in many Colorado libraries. Some have also held programs about Bulgaria in an effort to promote cultural understanding about their Partner. Boulder Public Library asked Varna teenagers to submit writing in English to be published in their teen magazine. Both Varna and Dobritch libraries have created websites about the partnership. Libraries in Bulgaria have taken several actions as a result of information presented at conferences and meetings and through communication with their partners. Varna began a digitization project, digitizing the historical documents of Varna. Sofia has been working with the Jefferson County Public Library to establish a business collection and prominently displays that large, signed Christmas card poster sent by the JeffCo staff.
2. September 11, 2001 I was in Bulgaria on September 11th with a group of Americans. The outpouring of sympathy from Bulgarians in general was comforting and touching. On the Friday following the tragedy, Bulgaria declared 3 minutes of silence to honor the victims. I was presenting at an automation conference
230
Nancy M. Bolt and Lisa Cole
and at noon, the entire conference stopped, all the attendees went out into the fall sunshine, and stood in solemn unity while sirens wailed and church bells rang. It was a very moving experience. Back in the United States, letters of condolence from our partners poured in. Dear friends, We are deeply shocked we are so sorry… There was great loss of life unjustly! Today in Bulgaria is a Mourning Day. Please, take our deep and friendly sympathy. We pray that God is taking care of you! Let God bless America and all of you! Dora Gabe Library Staff Dear Nansy, dear friends! Take our sincerely regret about tragedy which happened with you. As women, wifes and mothers, as people we sorrow over the death of so many innocent victims. You must believe in our support always and everything. God rest their soul.Staff of “Zaharii Knyazheski”— library—Stara Zagora Dear Nancy, dear Frends, I am painful!! That is impossible!! I BELIEVE from all my heart—good will prevail. Kris from Varna, Bulgaria
3. A Special Visit of Bulgarian Libraries From the beginning, the project has enjoyed the unqualified support of Snezjana Ianeva, Director of the Information Resource Center at the American Embassy in Sofia, Bulgaria. The project could not have succeeded without her support and the support of the Embassy. Ianeva, while on the Board of the BLA, selected the initial Bulgarian library partners and encouraged them to participate in the project. In the spring of 2002, Ianeva proposed to the Embassy that they sponsor a visit from eight Bulgarian librarians to the United States to attend the American Library Association conference in Atlanta, Georgia, and then to visit their partner libraries in Colorado. At the American Library Association conference, the librarians participated in all of the events sponsored by the ALA International Relations Committee and in other social events at the conference. Ianeva presented a paper on the Partnership Project and together we prepared a Poster Session about the Partnership. They flew from Atlanta to Colorado to be hosted by the partner libraries. Each Bulgarian librarian visited their partner library, at least one other library, and a luncheon at the Eagle Valley Library District. A major reception was held at the Bemis Public Library District. Representatives from all of the partners were invited. Donna Jones Morris, President of the CLA, presented a plaque of appreciation to Emilia Milkova representing the BLA. In return, Emilia presented two plaques, one to the CLA and one to me for my assistance over the years. At the Eagle Valley Library District luncheon, Emilia made a presentation about the Partner Library program and programs
Partner Library Programs: The Colorado Programs
231
in Bulgaria. The Bulgarians were also hosted at American homes for an informal dinner and conversation. The purpose of the trip was threefold. First, it was a continuing education experience for the Bulgarian librarians, giving them an opportunity to observe American library service. Second, it was a chance for the partners to get to know each other personally. It is easier to communicate with someone whose face you can visualize. Third, it was a cultural exchange opportunity for the librarians from both countries to get to know each other. The trip was, by all accounts, a tremendous success. The American librarians report increased communication with their partners and more books are flowing from Colorado to Bulgaria. The Bulgarian librarians report life-changing experiences. From Rosita Poparkova in Gotse Delchev: First, I would like to thank you for the wonderful time I had in Colorado as well as for the opportunity to visit and get acquainted with my American colleagues. The knowledge and experience I gained, during my stay in the United States, have stood me in good stead and have broadened my horizons as well. I learned a lot about the way American librarians work and have been bringing all this to the knowledge of my Bulgarian colleagues ever since I came back from the United States…Owing to the book donations from the Koeble Library the number of our readers is on the increase. The books are of great service to students, undergraduates, and the culturally-minded public. We are much obliged to you for all you have done for our library. Diana Stefanova from the Sofia Public Library writes: This visit was kind of wonder for me. I’ve never thought that I will see America. And I am very grateful that I’ve been given that chance. These three weeks were important experience for me. I liked Denver most because you and the other librarians were very cordial and generous hosts. I really miss this friendly atmosphere and I will never forget these days there. I was very impressed of the fact that librarians can work hard and make fun at the same time. If you need some information from me personally, please, let me know. Sorry for mistakes. I hope when I see you again my English to be better. Thanks again and take care. Diana Radka Kalcheva from Varna writes: I want to express my great pleasure to know all these wonderful colleagues and people we met during our visit to America and especially to Colorado. I really enjoyed my visit to Boulder public Library and felt happy to meet Mary and the rest of our sister’s staff personally. I think Denver and Rocky Mountains are amongst the most magnificent places I have ever visited. I keep vivid memories about the gorgeous nature of the Rocky Mountains. Radka One example of how they have used the information is a request from Neli Stoilova from the Silestra Public Library. In addition to being the Library Director, Neli is also on the Silestra Town Council where she lobbies for library support. She recently wrote to me and her partner librarian
232
Nancy M. Bolt and Lisa Cole
requesting “experience by American libraries in work with volunteers and lobby as a politic in the public library.” On their return to Bulgaria, the Bulgarian librarians planned a conference to tell their fellow librarians about their trip. The conference was called “The Public Responsibility of the Public Libraries and Their Part in a Democratic Society,” a concept I never heard mentioned three years ago. E. Conferences Before and after the official beginning of the partnerships, the American Information Center at the American Embassy, the BLA, the CLA, and the Colorado State Library jointly or separately sponsored a series of conferences and meetings in Bulgaria. Sometimes the content was specifically requested, such as a lecture on how libraries can contribute to a positive tourist experience in a seaside town or how to lobby for additional funds. At other times, the content was very general with general conversations about library service. Below is a description of three of these conferences. 1. Access to Government Information Through Libraries On a routine visit to the office of the Governor of the Stara Zagora region, Radomir Enev, an idea emerged that would take over a year to implement. As usual with first meetings with Bulgarians, the Governor was very formal. He invited us to lunch with his key staff and his wife. Four hours later, we had consumed great food, a worthy share of Bulgarian alcohol, and had a fascinating discussion. He asked many questions about economic development in the United States. Greg Hill, Library Director in Fairbanks, Alaska, was on the trip and very active in Fairbanks community development. He shared much information, including the important role of libraries. One issue the Governor was dealing with was a new proposed Bulgarian national law requiring public access to government information. Bulgaria wants very much to enter the European Union and public access to government information is one requirement. The Governor is struggling with how to implement this law once it is passed. We suggested, of course, public access through libraries. The Governor was so intrigued with our conversation, he traveled 40 miles the next day to lunch with us again (short this time, only 3 hours). Greg elaborated about how his library helps people get information about their government. We suggested again that Bulgarian libraries could do the same. The Governor said he did not think that would work in Bulgaria for three reasons.
Partner Library Programs: The Colorado Programs
233
1. Libraries do not know how to get government documents from the government. 2. Libraries do not know how to organize the information. 3. Libraries do not know how to tell the public that they have government documents. The public does not expect to get this information from libraries. We suggested that we could provide information about all of these issues and offered to do a conference in Stara Zagora the next summer on providing local government documents to the public. The Governor agreed to cosponsor such a conference. In June, 2000, the Governor, the American Information Center in Sofia, the BLA and the CLA sponsored Public Access to Government Information through Libraries. The Bulgarian Parliament had, indeed, passed the law requiring public access to information, literally weeks before, so our conference was very timely. The opening purpose of the law states that the people of Bulgaria should have access to information about their government “in order to form an opinion of their own” about government activities. I spoke providing a general overview of the need for and benefit of public access to information. Mary Redmond from the New York State Library spoke on how and why a government entity would want to give public information to a library; how a library can convince a government agency to provide the information; and how a library would organize the information for public access. Bonnie McCune from the Colorado State Library surprised them and excited them with a presentation on marketing your library to the public (frankly, a new idea for them). Roumi Radenski, a Bulgarian now living in the United States and working at the Library of Congress, spoke on automating government document access and delivery. The conference was attended by the Governor who gave opening remarks and by his staff. His PR person, Daniela Miteva played a dual role as she is also an elected member of the local parliament. Of course, local librarians were there from the public libraries and the university libraries. There was actually some tension in the room. After our formal presentation and during discussion, Mrs. Duncheva, Director of the Public Library, basically said that she had been asking for government documents and the government had been reluctant to give them. Buzz, buzz, buzz. Break. After the break, Mrs. Miteva said that the Governor had now committed the Regional Government to providing information to the libraries and that she would see that the local parliament would as well.
234
Nancy M. Bolt and Lisa Cole
2. Association Tolerance and a Conference with Mayors As I travel to Bulgaria often, I am able to get involved with new projects and advocate for the role of libraries. By 2000, my friend, Iskra Mahailova, had taken a job with the European Union, helping Bulgaria meet requirements for membership. On behalf of the EU, she was asked to speak at the organizing meeting of a new group in Bulgaria. It is called Association Tolerance and is composed of Mayors and Vice-Mayors of small and medium-sized towns committed to demonstrating to the world that ethnic groups in a Balkan country can live in peace. I felt very honored to speak on behalf of the United States (by the Association, not the U.S. Government but Bulgarians seem to think that every American can speak for America, see Press below). I pointed out that America has always struggled with integrating different ethnic groups into our society economically while still helping such groups maintain their own identify and culture. Sometimes we have been successful and sometimes less so. Of course, I mentioned the role of libraries and information centers in helping local communities develop economically and in preserving and celebrating different cultures within a community. Later in the week I was able to meet Senator Ahmet Dogan, a member of the Bulgarian National Parliament, the political leader of the Tolerance Association, and leader of the Movement for Rights and Freedom (MRF). Meeting with the Senator and I were the two women who are the Executive Directors of the new Association Tolerance, Ajdjan Dieva and Kirilua Angelova. Dieva and Angelova specifically asked for information about municipal government in the United States. They also expressed interest in having some Mayors or city officials from the United States, particularly Colorado, visit Bulgaria the following year. The Mayor’s tour was highly successful as well. Three conferences were held. Librarians were invited to participate in one conference. At each conference, mayors and city officials from Colorado met with their counterparts. I saw my role as emphasizing the role of public libraries in a community, particularly in providing information for economic development and as playing a key role in a democratic society.
3. Conference on Library Services to Children and Teens In 2001, we were invited by the Veliko Turnovo Public Library to present a joint conference on Library Service to Children and Teens. The program was opened by young Bulgarian children dancing traditional folk dances. Patty Gibbons from the Eagle Library District presented information on her library’s Summer Reading Program; Susan Simmons from Broomfield
Partner Library Programs: The Colorado Programs
235
Public Library presented on Library Service to Teenagers, and Katherine Kielty, an English teacher, read an American Indian folk tale, entertainingly presented by Katherine and then interpreted by Iskra. After each American spoke, a member of the Veliko Turnovo staff presented on a similar topic.
F. The Press From the beginning of the trips to Bulgaria, the press have been very interested in the visits and have asked many questions. Trip participants and I have been interviewed by print, radio, and TV reporters. The questions tend to be the same: Why did I come to Bulgaria? What is the purpose of the trip? What will I tell people when I go home? What were my favorite historical monuments? What is so interesting about libraries that would lure me here? What would Americans like about Bulgaria? Sometimes it sounds as if they are actually surprised that Americans would come to Bulgaria and truly wonder why we find it so interesting! I try and make certain points in my replies. † My visit is to promote cooperation between the two countries. † I want to show Americans the exciting and courageous history and culture of Bulgaria. † Libraries play an important role in the development of a democratic society and should be supported by Bulgarian local governments. † We want to support economic development in Bulgaria. My most troubling questions came in 1999 when the United States was bombing Kosovo. The reporter wanted to know how Americans feel about the bombing. Not wanting to create an international incident, I responded that Americans were divided with opinions in favor of and against the bombing. We do not like the bombing but we like what Miloshovic is doing even less. Then she asked what I would do to end the war. I remember thinking if I had a real answer to that question I would be something other than a librarian visiting Bulgaria. But I answered with something about peace coming from people who have access to information and understand each other’s culture.
G. Financing the Effort My arrangement with the Colorado partner libraries is that if they will donate the books and other resources, I will pay to send them to Bulgaria. As the project has developed, other expenses have arisen as well. We have paid for
236
Nancy M. Bolt and Lisa Cole
receptions for the visiting librarians, for certain resources we felt the partners should have, for registration fees for Bulgarian librarians to attend library events and for trip expenses to Bulgaria.
1. Current Funding Funds to support the project have come from four sources. First, on my first trip I was impressed with the uniqueness and beauty of Bulgarian jewelry and crafts. I bought a little on the first trip and on each trip I added more. People in the United States also found the jewelry and crafts to be beautiful and were willing to purchase them. Ten percent of all items sold goes to a fund at the Bemis Public Library that is used to pay for project expenses. Second, local libraries donate resources for their partners. Some of these are used books in good condition and sometimes the library buys new books and other resources. At least one library has also purchased a computer and computer furniture for their partner. Third, trip participants pay most of their own expenses to visit Bulgaria, give a lecture, and visit libraries and cultural and historical monuments. Finally, library vendors and friends have been willing to donate funds to offset the cost of some participants’ trips. Vendors contributing include: Sirs Mandarin, Inc., Friends of the Lone Tree Library, Follett Software Company, Sagebrush Corporation, JNR Associates, Pattern Research, Jones E-Global, Gale, Baker & Taylor/Informata, the Colorado Association of Libraries, the Colorado State Library, and the BLA. 2. Future Funding Up until now, no major grants have been solicited. I am now working with Snezjana Ianeva at the American Information Center to identify sources of federal and private funds that support more sophisticated and ambitious programs of cooperation among the libraries. The Bulgarian libraries have been asked to submit a list of their needs and they will need support beyond what our limited fundraising has been able to do. Their desire for larger cooperative programs also call for additional funding. For example, a list of their needs and programming ideas include: † † † †
computer equipment and other technology; more exchange visits; more pen pals among library users; workshops on: * library management; * library advocacy;
Partner Library Programs: The Colorado Programs * * * *
237
serving local government; fundraising; volunteer management; using automation.
Since this article was written, the Project has received $198,000 from the U.S. Department of State to further the goals of the Project. H. Evaluation of the Project In 2002, Lisa Cole, a Library Assistant at the Arapahoe Library District and an MLIS candidate at the University of Denver, conducted an evaluation of the Bulgarian/Colorado Library Partnership Project. Section II of this chapter is the report of the evaluation.
II. An Evaluation Study of the Bulgaria/Colorado Library Partnership Project, Lisa Cole A. Introduction 1. Goals and Objectives The goal of this study was to collect evaluative information about the Bulgarian/Colorado Library Partnership Project and determine if there are reasons why some partnerships have been more active than other partnerships. In addition, it is hoped that some possible strategies for improving the partnership project may be discovered. Finally, it is hoped that the benefits of the partnership project will be more clearly defined. A combination of methods was employed to gather evaluative information about the partnerships. Between May and August 2002, interviews and surveys were conducted to gather information from partner participants about their experiences as partner libraries. 2. Sister Library Projects During the late 1990s, an IFLA program supported by UNESCO existed that attempted to pair international partner libraries. At this same time, two initiatives known as “Sister Libraries” existed. The IFLA program was referred to as twinning partnerships. An IFLA Twinning Database was established to partner interested international libraries, however due to the time required to maintain the IFLA Twinning Database and limited success, the database was closed down (IFLA (no date-a)
238
Nancy M. Bolt and Lisa Cole
website http://www.ifla.org/VI/2/p4/workshop.htm). Interest in the Twinning Database was high, however success did not follow the initial interest. A report on the Twinning Database speaks to the possible problem of the international database. “It is apparent from the interest shown that there is a place in the library world for twinning partnerships but it is debatable whether there is a need for an international focal point. Most libraries have definite ideas of the type and geographical location of potential partners and it may be more fruitful for them to initiate their own search” (IFLA (no date-b) report to UNESCO. http://www.ifla.org/VI/2/p4/unesco.htm). One of the Sister Library projects was initiated by Sarah Long, the former president of the ALA. The ALA Sister Library Program worked in conjunction with the IFLA Twinning project. Sarah Long encouraged partnering of libraries between American libraries and libraries in other countries. The philosophy of the ALA Sister Libraries provides insight into the importance of all international library partnerships. Sarah Long wrote: Libraries build community, but today’s community is a global one. Many of today’s library users have immigrated from other countries. Many travel routinely for pleasure and conduct business abroad. Becoming a Sister Library is an opportunity to build relationships with libraries in other cultures that can help us learn, understand and better serve our community” (Long, Sarah (no date) ALA website, http://www.ala.org/sisterlibraries/).
The Sister Library Program of the ALA did not track or report on the success of the library partners. I was not able to determine the level of success of the international partnerships involved in this project. At the same time that Sarah Long promoted international library partnerships with the ALA Sister Library Program, another initiative, known as Sister Libraries: A White House Millennium Council Project was developed cooperatively by the White House Millennium Council, the National Commission of Libraries and Information Science, and Sister Cities International. Some of the original Bulgarian/Colorado Library partnerships were recognized as White House Millennium Council Sister Libraries. Martha Gould, who served as Chairperson of the National Commission on Libraries and Information Science, wrote about the benefits of global cooperation among libraries. Gould stated, “The Sister Library programs will do much to encourage multicultural exchange and broaden international understanding—enabling young people to appreciate more fully their own place in, and impact on, the world of today and tomorrow” (Gould, Martha. NCLIS website, http://www.nclis.gov/millennium/list6-00.html). The fact that there have been several international library partnership projects over recent years points to the desire for cooperation and understanding among libraries in various countries of the world.
Partner Library Programs: The Colorado Programs
239
I was fortunate to be able to interview Beth Bingham, a consultant who worked closely with the Sister Libraries: A White House Millennium Council Project (telephone interview, March 22, 2003). This interview provided insight into the Sister Libraries Project, which is helpful in understanding international library partnerships in general and the issues faced by the Bulgarian/Colorado Library Partnership Project. A total of 353 designated libraries were involved in the Sister Libraries Project. Eighteen foreign countries and at least forty states were represented. The interest in the project far exceeded original expectations. The project proved to be more time consuming than anticipated. Not only were many libraries involved, also the libraries often required more assistance with the partnerships than expected. The language barrier created problems. Sister libraries needed to be creative in finding translation sources. Some libraries sought out translation services from local universities. Other libraries looked to resources in their community for translation. Another common problem was that international sites were slow to respond and U.S. sites expected quicker and more frequent response from their partners. There seemed to be a difference in expectations between many of the U.S. libraries and the foreign libraries. Partner libraries in the U.S. had higher expectations in terms of communication. There were difficulties with the project. Some library partnerships failed, but “the ones that worked, worked very well” (Bingham, 2003). The Millennium Project Sister Libraries had a focus on youth, however the partner libraries were free to participate in any way they chose. Examples of activities between Sister Libraries included sending books, participating in exchange visits, holding cultural programs about the partner library’s country, and writing back and forth. Often projects found ways to incorporate art and poetry in their partnerships. Local businesses and organizations such as the Rotary Club were sometimes involved and supported the Sister Libraries partnerships. Some of the benefits of the partnerships went beyond the actual exchange of books and mail. Beth Bingham (2003) stated that “a lot came from this to empower libraries.” Some of the benefits were “to raise the visibility of the libraries with governmental units and to foster international exchange” (Bingham, 2003). Bingham expressed that the Sister Libraries Project was a “time intensive project” that “needed a hands-on approach.” The project took on a greater scope than expected. There were some challenges, however it was successful in achieving its purpose. Bingham (2003) said, “Getting people to learn about the world was what we wanted to happen and that did.” The Bulgarian/Colorado Library Partnership Project is in many ways similar to other partnership projects, which have taken place over the past
240
Nancy M. Bolt and Lisa Cole
several years. The partnership between the Colorado Association of Libraries (formerly known as the Colorado Library Association) and the BLA can provide opportunities for professional growth, cultural understanding and international friendship. It is hoped that an evaluation of the project can provide information, which will enable this project to continue, to grow, and to overcome some of the obstacles inherent in international partnering. B. Design of the Evaluation Project 1. Who, What, Where, When and Why Librarians in Colorado and Bulgaria who have participated in the Bulgarian/Colorado Library Partnership Project were interviewed and surveyed during the time period May 2002 through August 2002. The research was conducted using a questionnaire. This questionnaire was used to administer interviews in person and via telephone. When interviews were not possible, the questionnaire was used as a written survey. Although much of the research was qualitative in nature, using a standard questionnaire enabled quantitative data to be gathered. C. Results of Project 1. Quantitative Results Included in this section are tables providing information gathered from the evaluation research. 1. Most of the libraries in the Bulgarian/Colorado Library Partnership Project are public libraries. Of the libraries studied, sixteen were public libraries, one was a special library and one was a school library. 2. The majority of the partner libraries have participated in the project for less than 3 years. 3. In most cases, the partnership was initiated by the library director. This is especially true of the Bulgarian libraries. Of the nine Bulgarian libraries in the study, seven stated that the partnership was initiated by the library director. Of the Colorado libraries, five partnerships were initiated by the library director. 4. Most frequently, there was one individual who was responsible for the partnership. However there were also a number of libraries that had a committee of three or more people who shared responsibility for the partnership project. 5. An important goal of the research was to determine the level of satisfaction with the Bulgarian/Colorado Library Partnership Project. One of the interesting findings of the research was that the Bulgarian libraries reported a higher level of satisfaction with the project than the Colorado
Partner Library Programs: The Colorado Programs
241
libraries. Of the Bulgarian libraries, seven reported they were “Very satisfied” and two reported they were “Satisfied” with the project. The results from the Colorado libraries were, two libraries reported they were “Very satisfied, four libraries reported they were “Satisfied” and three libraries reported that they were “Somewhat satisfied” with the project. There are several possible reasons for the discrepancy. † Most of the Bulgarian librarians who participated in the research were visiting Colorado at the time of the interviews. This factor may have contributed to their more positive view of the project. † It is possible that the difference in culture contributed to the difference in responses. There is a possibility that the Bulgarian culture, especially given the former level of fear felt by many Bulgarians under the communist regime, created more likelihood to give positive feedback about perceived “official” programs. † It could also be that the Colorado librarians felt less inhibited with the researcher, who is also from Colorado and the Bulgarian librarians did not feel as comfortable because they were dealing with a researcher from another culture. † It is also possible, that the Bulgarian libraries do not have as high a level of expectation as the American libraries. Americans have high expectations and high standards. Perhaps, the Colorado librarians expected more in the way of results than the Bulgarians. † Another possibility is that the project provides more of what the Bulgarian libraries are looking for, and the American libraries are not having their particular needs met as well by the project. Although Colorado libraries did not report as high a level of satisfaction as the Bulgarian libraries, no library reported dissatisfaction with the project. From her experience with the librarians in both countries, Bolt speculates that the reasons the Bulgarians are more satisfied is because their benefits are more tangible: books, information, a trip to America, positive publicity in Bulgaria, the hope of more resources to come. The benefits to Colorado libraries, on the other hand, are more intangible. In their answer to Question 10 on the survey about what is valuable about the program they indicated “sharing ideas” and “knowing another culture.” It is also important to note that the Colorado librarians expressed the most frustration in the area of communication (a desire for “more frequent e-mail” in their answer to Question 8 and to “improved communication” in their answer to Question 10. Bolt also says that the project is moving into a more sophisticated stage and seeking federal and foundation grants for more ambitious programs. As part of this enhanced
242
Nancy M. Bolt and Lisa Cole
effort, a new evaluation will be done using Cole’s survey as a foundation and adding additional questions. Satisfaction
Bulgaria
Colorado
Total
Very satisfied Satisfied Somewhat satisfied Dissatisfied
7 2
2 4 3
9 6 3
6. An essential component of the partnership project is e-mail communication between the partner libraries. In determining the success of the partnerships, I asked the participating libraries how frequently they sent e-mail to their partner and how frequently they received e-mail from their partner library. The results for this question were also significantly different between the Bulgarian libraries and the Colorado libraries. The Bulgarian libraries reported a higher frequency of e-mail communication. They reported e-mail both being sent and being received more frequently than the Colorado libraries. There is a possibility that the same factor(s) that created a discrepancy in the responses concerning level of satisfaction also affected the responses about e-mail frequency.
How frequently e-mail received Monthly Several times a year One to two times a year Once a year of less Never How frequently e-mail sent Monthly Several times a year One to two times a year Once a year or less Never
Bulgaria
Colorado
Total
9
2 4 2
11 4 2
8 1
2 6
10 7
7. In addition to e-mail, partner libraries communicate in other ways, they have met in person, they have sent and received books and some have mailed cards and letters. The tables below show that many partners have visited and almost all of the libraries have sent and received books and gifts.
243
Partner Library Programs: The Colorado Programs
Other communication
Bulgaria
Colorado
Total
Telephone Mail In person
4 6
5 7
9 13
Have you sent books or gifts
Bulgaria
Colorado
Total
Yes No
7 2
8 1
15 3
Have you received books or gifts
Bulgaria
Colorado
Total
Yes No
9
8 1
17 1
8. Libraries have also had special programs and displays about the partnerships. Most of the Colorado libraries and many of the Bulgarian libraries reported hosting a special program, or display in connection with the partnership. Special program or display
Bulgaria
Colorado
Total
Yes No
5 2
8 1
13 3
9. An important aspect of this evaluation research was to determine what factors are potential problems for the partner libraries involved in the Bulgarian/Colorado Library Partnership. Participating libraries were asked what factors impede their involvement in the partnership project. Bulgarian libraries reported that the biggest factors that impede their involvement are lack of money and the language barrier. Internet problems are also a factor. Some of the Bulgarian libraries have sporadic access to the Internet. This is often because the libraries are not able to afford the cost of Internet access. Colorado libraries reported a wider range of issues that interfere with their participation. Most frequently mentioned by Colorado libraries was the language barrier. Other issues include lack of time, lack of money and lack of
244
Nancy M. Bolt and Lisa Cole
community support. Colorado libraries also mentioned the Internet problems in Bulgaria and a lack of interest. What factors impede involvement
Bulgaria
Lack of time Lack of money Lack of interest Language barrier Internet problems in Bulgaria Lack of community support
8 7 2
Colorado
Total
3 3 1 5 1 2
3 11 1 12 3 2
10. When asked what they would like their partner to do, the participating libraries gave a variety of responses. The Colorado libraries indicated that the most important thing they would like their partner library to do is to e-mail more frequently. The Bulgarian libraries mentioned sending more books and gifts and visits most frequently. What would you like your partner to do
Bulgaria
Colorado
Total
E-mail more frequently Send more books or gifts Visit Displays and programs Provide info—what they want
3 6 7 4
6
9 6 8 4 2
1 2
11. One of the open-ended questions asked of the libraries was: “Are there any particular aspects of the partnership that you are particularly satisfied with, or dissatisfied with?” The responding libraries reported a wide range of things they are satisfied with. The dissatisfaction centered on communication problems and a lack of time for the Colorado libraries. What particular aspects are you dissatisfied with
Bulgaria
Colorado
Total
Lack of time Communication problems
2
2 6
2 8
The tables and charts below list all of the issues that were mentioned by at least two libraries in response to particular aspects of the partnership the libraries were satisfied with or dissatisfied with
245
Partner Library Programs: The Colorado Programs
What particular aspects are you satisfied with Cultural exchange Pen pal program Book exchange Information exchange Communication Concept
Bulgaria
Colorado
Total
2 1 1 3 1
2 1 1
4 2 2 3 2 2
1 2
12. The value of the Bulgarian/Colorado Library Partnership Project was one of the areas under investigation. The Bulgarian and Colorado libraries agreed that there were some valuable aspects to the partnerships. Almost all of the libraries in both Bulgaria and Colorado stated that sharing ideas and getting to know another culture were valuable results of the project. The Bulgarian libraries reported more than the Colorado libraries that gifts and books were valuable. Friendship and helping others were also mentioned as valuable. What do you think is valuable
Bulgaria
Colorado
Total
Sharing ideas Gifts and books Knowing another culture Helping others Friendship
8 7 8
8 3 8 3 1
16 10 16 3 2
1
13. Another goal of the evaluation was to determine if there were ways in which the partnership project could be improved. The partner libraries were asked for their feedback about improvement of the project. The participating libraries were asked the open-ended question, “How do you think the Bulgarian/Colorado Library Partnership Project could be improved?” Because the question was open-ended and qualitative in nature, there was a wide range of responses. Any responses that were mentioned by more than one library are reported in the following table and chart. † The improvement suggested by most of the libraries was mentioned by both Bulgarian and Colorado libraries. This suggestion is to have a cooperative of libraries in Colorado for participating Colorado libraries and another cooperative in Bulgaria for Bulgarian libraries. These cooperatives would provide a forum for libraries to exchange ideas and provide support for one another.
246
Nancy M. Bolt and Lisa Cole
† The suggestion mentioned most frequently by Colorado libraries was to improve the lines of communication between Bulgarian and Colorado partners. † A separate, but related issue is to resolve the language barrier. † Several libraries suggested that the project could be improved if the public was made more aware of the Partnership Project, in order to gain more community support. † Improvement of the Internet access in the Bulgarian libraries was suggested. † Bulgarian libraries suggested more visits. † Colorado libraries thought that more financial support could improve the project. † Another suggestion made by Colorado libraries was to have a written guide to provide basic information and guidance for participating libraries. How can the project be improved? More money Cooperation among libraries Resolve language barrier Improve communication Inform public Improve Internet access More visits Written guide
Bulgaria 2 1 1 1 2
Colorado
Total
2 3 3 4 2 1
2 5 4 4 3 2 2 2
2
14. The final question in the questionnaire was asked only of Bulgarian libraries. The Bulgarian libraries were asked if they thought the Bulgarian/Colorado Library Partnership Project had improved library development in Bulgaria. Of the nine responding libraries, eight stated that yes, they believed the Bulgarian/Colorado Library Partnership Project had improved library development in Bulgaria. Only one library responded no. † All nine of the Bulgarian libraries in the study mentioned the benefits of learning through the partnership project. Specifically, learning a new style of librarianship and being exposed to a different library system with new ideas has been helpful for the Bulgarian librarians. Learning about another culture was also mentioned as important, in addition to learning about specific library techniques. One library emphasized the global nature of libraries and information and pointed out the value of international experiences in the world of global information.
247
Partner Library Programs: The Colorado Programs
† Three of the nine libraries emphasized the value of the visits to the United States and also the value of the visits from American librarians to Bulgaria. These librarians pointed out the importance of seeing things first-hand and meeting people face-to-face. † Two of the nine mentioned specifically the benefits of receiving English language materials. This is especially helpful for young people in Bulgaria who are learning English. † Another benefit that was mentioned was the increased prestige of Bulgarian libraries as a result of their involvement in the Bulgarian/Colorado Library Partnership Project. Libraries have received increased recognition from political leaders because of their participation in the project. Do you think the project has improved library development in Bulgaria?
Bulgaria
Yes No
8 1
Most Bulgarian libraries agreed that the Bulgarian/Colorado Library Partnership Project has been beneficial for Bulgarian libraries. There is also a desire among the Bulgarian libraries to give back to the American libraries. The Bulgarian libraries would like to be able to contribute as equal partners and give as well as receive benefits from the project. 2. Qualitative Result The previous sections gave tabulated quantitative results from the research. In addition to the quantitative results, some qualitative results were received from the discussions during the interviews. Many of these qualitative results mirror the quantitative results, however at times additional information or additional emphasis on issues was received. One of the problems that was addressed in most of the interviews was difficulty with communication. Factors, which contribute to the communication difficulty, are the language barrier and Internet problems. Many Colorado libraries reported that communication was slow. It was perceived by some Colorado libraries that some Bulgarian libraries were hesitant to communicate, because they were not comfortable writing in English. Some Colorado libraries expressed frustration in not receiving direct information from their Bulgarian partners about the Bulgarian partners’ needs. A number of libraries suggested some possible remedies for the communication
248
Nancy M. Bolt and Lisa Cole
problems. It was suggested that translation service be provided. This would help alleviate the language barrier. Several Colorado libraries also suggested paying for Internet access for the Bulgarian libraries to assist with the Internet connection problems. Both Colorado libraries and Bulgarian libraries expressed a desire to have more publicity and an effort to inform the public about the Bulgarian/Colorado Library Partnership Project. Some libraries felt as though more awareness by their patrons and understanding of the value of the project would enable the libraries to increase support of their partnership Another request from participating libraries was more structure and guidance for partner libraries. Libraries requested written guidelines to help libraries know how to deal with the logistics of a partnership. Bulgarian libraries requested a formal contract for participating libraries, which would legitimize their partnership involvement in their communities. Bulgarian libraries expressed an interest in developing more in-depth and structured partnerships. The Bulgarian libraries suggested having partnerships among specific departments and areas of focus within the larger partnership project. For example, there could be a technological focus, a circulation focus, a children’s services focus, etc. Most Colorado libraries expressed interest in cultural exchange, rather than an exchange of specific library expertise. Although there was an interest in in-depth exchange among Bulgarian libraries, Bulgarian libraries also suggested the possibility of expanding the project beyond library partnerships to other types of exchanges. Some Bulgarian libraries envisioned a possibility of hosting music exchanges, sport exchanges, chess tournaments etc. The Bulgarian librarians expressed a desire to have larger numbers of Americans visiting Bulgaria and Americans getting to know more about Bulgaria. Libraries in both countries expressed a desire to continue the Bulgarian/Colorado Library Partnership Project for a long time. Some libraries viewed the partnership project as being in the early stages and envisioned continuation and growth of the project for many years to come. The aspect of the Bulgarian/Colorado Library Partnership Project that received the most positive response was the cultural exchange. Colorado libraries expressed the value of learning about other people and other places. Bulgarian libraries were interested in learning about America. They also placed a high value on helping Americans learn more about the Bulgarian people and the country. The Bulgarian people have a strong sense of pride and cultural identity. At the same time, they
Partner Library Programs: The Colorado Programs
249
are eager to be involved in the international community. A couple of Bulgarian libraries emphasized the Bulgarian desire to be “open to the world.” Some of the partner libraries have developed pen pal programs. These pen pal programs all received enthusiastic support from participants. Pen pal programs have been a positive outcome of the Bulgarian/Colorado Library Partnership Project. While most of the pen pal programs have had a focus on younger children, there is a desire for teenagers to be involved in pen pal exchanges as well. One librarian stated that young people often identify more with their age group than with their country. There is a strong sense of connection between young people of similar ages, regardless of national boundaries. Teenagers could benefit from getting to know teens from another country. D. Conclusion The Bulgarian/Colorado Library Partnership Project has been in existence for several years and it has not previously been subject to a formal evaluation to determine its strengths and weaknesses, value and limitations. This report will enable leadership of the project, participating partner libraries and prospective partner libraries to understand more about the project. Tim Honey of Sister Cities International underscores the value of cultural partnerships such as that in the Bulgarian/Colorado Library Partnership Project. The only way to have a peaceful and just world is to have people understand each other—both their similarities and differences,’ says Honey. Americans’ profound lack of knowledge of great chunks of the world…cries out for correction. And the answer, says Honey, can not just be government-to-government relations; citizen diplomacy, direct contact between peoples and communities, needs to be cultivated if we’re to cohabit a shrunken globe in peace (Peirce, 2002).
Fostering understanding of other people and another culture in a local and personal way is one of the underlying goals of the Bulgarian/Colorado Library Partnership Project. The participants of the Bulgarian/Colorado Library Partnership Project have expressed a desire to continue this project for many years to come. Evaluating the project will enable the partnerships to be guided and supported in such a way that the information sharing and cultural understanding between Colorado and Bulgarian libraries can continue into the future.
250
Nancy M. Bolt and Lisa Cole
III. What Makes a Successful Partnership, Nancy Bolt and Lisa Cole A. What makes a successful partnership? One of the goals of this paper, through Bolt’s personal experience and Cole’s formal evaluation was to determine why some partnerships have been especially successful and why others have not. Cole uncovered what she feels are a few common threads among successful partnerships. These common elements include: † † † †
Personal enthusiasm; Outgoing personalities; Library support of time; Library support of money.
The most successful libraries had at least one staff member who was personally very enthusiastic about the partnership project. The person or people involved had outgoing personalities and seemed to enjoy communicating and meeting new people. Successful partnerships also had the support of the library administration in terms of time and money. Libraries that encouraged staff to use paid time to work on the partnership were the most successful. In addition to time, libraries that supported the project financially in other ways, e.g., through programs or materials were also more successful. B. Ten Elements of Success 1. There needs to be someone enthusiastic about the project in the partner library who is willing to and enjoys spending time working with people from another country. This is usually NOT the library director. While the director is always supportive of the program, he/she usually does not have time to personally devote to the partnership. 2. Language is a major barrier. In retrospect, expecting the Bulgarians to speak English without a similar requirement for the Americans was unfair. Numerous people in Colorado speak Bulgarian. In the past six months, a decision was made to offer both English and Bulgarian translations of all messages when requested by the participating library. This has increased the number of communications. 3. While there are more resources available in Colorado libraries and thus more to share with Bulgarian partners, the Bulgarians do not wish to only receive handouts. They wish to share information
Partner Library Programs: The Colorado Programs
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
251
about their culture as well, although the sharing has always been proportionally more on the American side than the Bulgarian side. It takes money to make the partnership work. The Colorado libraries were quite willing to donate books and other resources but a financial requirement was much more difficult. The American librarians have to be persistent and patient. Trust builds very slowly and librarians in other countries often need time and proof that the American librarians are serious about the partnership. The Bulgarians were often too patient, waiting months for a message before asking if the partner was still interested. Both sides of the partnership need to be more assertive in sending and expecting to receive messages. Written agreements are very meaningful in other countries and provide proof that the cooperation is real. Such agreements can be used to leverage more support from local governments in Bulgaria. Face to face visits promote understanding and friendship but are expensive for both sides. However, it is these visits that can bond partners in a way e-mail and snail mail cannot. Many foreign libraries expect more than their American partners can realistically deliver. For example, the Bulgarian librarians have asked for computers, printers, CD players, other electronic equipment, electronic databases, etc. Their needs are great but filling these needs requires a more organized and sophisticated program than most partnerships have. A third party committed to the partnership can serve as a catalyst for future development of the partnership and as a problem-solver. It takes a lot of time and effort to keep the partnerships going.
C. Conclusion Credit for making these partnerships a success goes to Colorado libraries who have embraced their partners; to the CLA (recently reorganized into the Colorado Association of Libraries), the only such association in the country with a partnership program like this as an official function; to Snezjana Ianeva and the American Information Center in Bulgaria for her tireless effort on behalf of Bulgarian libraries; and Iskra Mahailova, who has maintained her interest and support of Bulgarian libraries as she changed her work in Bulgaria. This summer a Colorado choir went to Bulgaria to sing with four Bulgarian choirs. At the last concert, Ivan Petrov, the Director of the local chitaliste finished his remarks by saying: “Believe in Bulgaria, remember
252
Nancy M. Bolt and Lisa Cole
Bulgaria, tell your friends in Colorado about Bulgaria.” That is what we have been doing.
Appendix I Libraries participating in the Bulgaria/Colorado Library partnership project A. Current Partnerships
Sofia Public Library Plovdiv Public Library Stara Zagora Public Library Univ. of Stara Zagora Medical School Stara Zagora Chitaleste Library Silestra Public Library Varna Public Library Dobritch Public Library Cyril and Methodius Elem. School Gotse Delchev Public Library Vapcarov Folk Arts School Zavets School and Public Library Veliko Turnovo Public Library Kurjali Public Library
Jefferson County Public Library Arkansas Valley Regional Library Bemis Public Library, Littleton Denver Medical School Colorado State Library Aurora Public Library Boulder Public Library Lone Tree Public Library Remington Elementary School Arapahoe Library District Denver School of the Arts Durango Public Library and High School Eagle Library District Montrose Library District
References About ULISO. (no date). (Online). Available: http://nl.otel.net/uliso/abt.htm (July 1, 2002). Bingham, Beth. Telephone interview, March 22, 2003. Bulgarian Library Association: Union of Librarians and Information Services Officers. (no date). (Online). Available: http://www.lib.bg (June 26, 2002). Bulgarian Library Project—Colorado Library Association. (no date). (Online). Available: http:// www.cla-web.org/bulgarian.htm (April 30, 2002). Bulgarian Library Project—Colorado Library Association. (no date). (Online). Available: http:// www.cla-web.org/bul_resolution.htm (June 26, 2002). Gould, M. (no date). Sister Libraries: A White House Millennium Council Project (Online). Available: http://www.nclis.gov/millennium/list6-00.html (July 1, 2002). IFLA (International Federation of Library Association and Institutions). (no date-a). “Twinning Between Libraries”. (Online). Available: http://www.ifla.org/VI/2/p4/workshop.htm.
Partner Library Programs: The Colorado Programs
253
IFLA (International Federation of Library Association and Institutions). (no date-b). “IFLA Twinning Project Report Submitted to UNESCO”. (Online). Available: http://www/ifla.org/ VI/2/p4/workshop.htm. Long, S. (no date). Sarah Long, ALA President-Sister Libraries. (Online). Available: http://www. ala.org/sisterlibraries (July 13, 2002). Peirce, N. (2002). Sister cities: A grand concept cried out for expansion. Nation’s Cities Weekly 15(2)., 25 Electronic version.
Index
access government information, 187–189, 191–194 GPO, 187–189, 193–194 moving images, 79–85 sound recordings, 112–113 storage, 178 Access Act 1993, GPO, 187–189 accessioning, 75, 175 acetate film, 53, 57–58, 83, 86 achievements, RLG, 1–23 acid-free cardboard, 208, 210 acquisitions, 120, 131, 135– 136 ActivePaper Archive, 38– 39 aerodynamic drying systems, 202– 203 air pollution, 169–170 analog videos, 53–54, 85 anthropological theory, 97–98 archives ActivePaper Archive, 38–39 Digital Archive, 39– 46 films, 51, 56–60 foreign archives, 64 large public archives, 62–63 NARA, 21 OAIS, 19 specialist archives, 63 Archives Preservation Microfilming Project, 9 ARL see Association of Research Libraries Art Serials Preservation Project, 8–9 Association of Research Libraries (ARL), 120–121, 164–165 Association Tolerance, 234 Australia, 20–21 authenticity, 44, 107 –109, 192, 194 automated storage systems, 172– 173, 215
Baer Collection, 206–210, 213–214 Baker, John, 2 BAN see Russian Academy of Sciences Library Bandy, Mary Lea, 51– 52 Banks, Paul, 171 Batch Ingest service, 42 Belayaeva, Irina M., ix, xiii, 199–218 Bellardo, L., 50–51, 56 Bellinger, Meg, ix, xii, 25–48 Besser, H., 26–28 Betacam SP, 55, 74 Bingham, Beth, 239 Bit Preservation, 42–43 Bolt, Nancy M., ix, xiii, 219–237, 250–253 brittle books, 86 Brown University, 130– 137 Bulgaria/Colorado Library Partnership Program, 219–252 origins and implementation, 219– 237 Bulgarian Library Project Resolution, 225 activities, 227–232 evaluation, 237–249 current partnerships, 252 improvements, 245–247 problems, 243–244 satisfaction, 240–242, 244–245 successful partnerships, 250–251 visits, 230–232, 251
cable television networks, 64– 65 Caplan, Priscilla, 31 care, moving images, 87– 93 cataloging, 25, 28, 81–82 CDs see compact disks Center for Research Libraries (CRL), 166–167, 170
255
256 challenge grants, 130, 132, 136 –137 Cloonan, Miche`le Valerie, ix, xii, 49–95 Cole, Lisa, ix, xiii, 237– 253 collaboration, 1–23, 31, 219–252 collections, 32–46, 63–64, 192–193, 199–218 Colorado Partnership Programs, 219 –253 communication, 215, 241 –243, 246 –248 compact disks (CDs), 100–101 compression, 69–70 conferences, 232–235 Connexion, 44 conservation, 134, 136, 206–215 consortial action, 1–23 consultations, BAN, 215–216 containers, 12–14, 177, 208–214 Content Management Services, 32, 37– 39 CONTENTdm (software), 37–39 conversion processes, 98–104, 210–212 cooperative activity, OCLC, 25 –26, 31 Cooperative Preservation Microfilming Projects (CPMP) I&II, 6 cooperative storage, 165– 167 copyrights, 62–63, 75–76, 109 –113 Cornell University, 161–163 costs government information, 192 sound, 113–115 storage, 164 Cowell, M. Elizabeth, ix, xiii, 185–197 CPMP I&II see Cooperative Preservation Microfilming Projects I&II CRL see Center for Research Libraries cultural issues Bulgaria/Colorado Partnerships, 224, 226–227, 231, 245, 248–249 microcultures, 97–98, 115 custodial problems, 70–71
Dale, Robin L., ix, xi, 1– 23 Darling, Pamela, 2 data gathering, endowments, 125– 126 database, BAN, 209–210, 216 DCPS see Digital Collection and Preservation Services deacidification, 133–134, 136 dead books controversy, 160– 161 demagnetization, 89–90 democracy, 222
Index depository libraries, 185 –196 desiderata, endowments, 139 development issues Brown University, 132–133 digital libraries, 27–32 DIAP see Digital Image Access Project Digital Collection and Preservation Services (DCPS), 26–27, 32–46 Digital Image Access Project (DIAP), 13–14 Digital Library Federation (DLF), 21, 30 digital preservation see also preservation Brown University, 134, 136 DCPS, 26–27, 32–46 DIAP, 13–14 Digital Archive, 39–46 Digital Content Management Services, 32, 37 digital libraries, 27–32 funding, 121, 134, 136 moving images, 68–72 OCLC, 25–48 outreach services, 32 –33 reformatting, 84 RLG, 13–21 RLG Member Institutions survey, 18 sound, 97–117 storage, 162–163, 178 videos, 54–55 disinfection, 203–204 distribution, films, 61 DLF see Digital Library Federation Dobritch ‘Dora Gabe’ Library, 229 documentation, 43 –46, 49, 76–79 Dogan, Ahmet, 234 donors, Brown University, 132– 133 Douglas Public Library District, 229 drying techniques, 201–203 Dublin Core records, 106–107 DVD, 66, 84 –85
e-mails, 24, 241 –242 see also Internet EAD see Encoded Archival Description Eagle Library District, 228–229 East Asian Microfilming Project, 8 electronic government information, 185–197 access pitfalls, 191– 194 FDLP, 185– 191, 195–196
Index formats, 186–191 new model, 194– 195 Electronic Technologies and Preservation (Waters), 14 Eliot, Charles William, 160 emulation, 74–75 Encoded Archival Description (EAD), 105–107 encryption, 69–70 endowments, 124–157 Brown University, 130– 137 establishing endowments, 137–141 literature, 124–125 questionnaire, 125–130, 142–157 Enev, Radomir, 232–233 enthusiasm, successful partnerships, 250 environmental controls automated storage systems, 173 Harvard Depository, 171– 172 moving images, 72, 84, 90 storage, 167–170, 173, 175–178 equipment moving images, 80–81 sound, 103 ESTAR film, 53, 58 evaluation, Bulgaria/Colorado Partnerships, 237–249 expenditures see also costs; funding Brown University, 133– 135 endowment questionnaire, 126–127, 129, 144–145 Extensible Markup Language (XML), 106
fair use, 112–113 FDLP see Federal Depository Library Program Feather, J., 50– 51 Federal Depository Library Program (FDLP), 185–191, 195–196 FIAF see International Federation of Film Archives films see also microfilms; moving images access, 83–85 accessioning, 75 archives, 51, 56–60 care, 87–88 collections, 63–64
257 funding, 58, 65– 67 institutional issues, 56–72 media, 52–53 preservation definitions, 51–52 reformatting, 74–75 stakeholders, 60–67 vinegar syndrome, 58, 72–73 fire damage, 177, 199–218 foreign archives, 64 formats FDLP, 186–191, 196 fire damage, 206 microfilms, 35 reformatting, 74–76, 83–84, 134, 136 sound standards, 104 –105 TIFF, 38–39 videos, 55, 74–76 Friends of the Library, Brown University, 133 functional areas, Digital Archive, 40–41 funding, 119–158 Brown University, 130–137 Bulgaria/Colorado Partnerships, 235–237, 251 Bulgarian libraries, 222–223 endowments, 124– 157 films, 58, 65–67 fundraising, 128–130, 132–133, 145–146 grant-funded projects, 122–124
Gate project, GPO, 192 generations, digital libraries, 27–32 Gibbons, Patty, 224, 228, 234 Global Digital Format Registry, 21 Gould, Martha, 238 government information, 43, 185 –197, 232–233 Government Printing Office (GPO), 43, 185–196 Gracy, Karen F., ix, xii, 49– 95 grants Bulgaria/Colorado Partnerships, 236–237 challenge grants, 130, 132, 136–137 funding, 122–124 Great Collections Microfilming Projects, 8, 123 Greenstein, D., 26–30 guidelines see also how-to manuals digital preservation, 15–17
258 Harvard Depository, 159–160, 171–172 historical aspects BAN, 199–200, 207 Bulgaria, 220 –222 funding, 119– 121 moving images, 56– 72 RLG, 2–21 sound, 98–100 storage, 159–161 Honey, Tim, 249 hook strategies, endowments, 139 Houser, Leah, ix, xii, 25–48 how-to manuals, microfilms, 9–11 humanities, 122– 123, 130– 137 humidity, 168 –169 HVAC systems, 173, 176
Ianeva, Snezjana, 223–226, 230, 251 IAWG see Inter-Association Working Group on Government Information independent film producers, 61 information BAN database, 209–210, 214 government, 43, 185–197, 232–233 RLIN, 3– 6 inspections, 87, 90–93, 212 institutional issues endowment questionnaire, 126–129, 143 films, 56–72 government information, 193– 194 storage, 165, 172 integrity, 107–109, 194 intellectual control issues, 81–82 Inter-Association Working Group on Government Information (IAWG), 189–190 International Federation of Film Archives (FIAF), 56–57 international links, BAN, 206, 208 –209, 215 Internet e-mails, 24, 241–242 endowment questionnaire, 243–244, 246–248 FDLP, 186 –187 moving images, 85 OCLC, 28–29 World Wide Web, 32, 36–37, 39, 41–42, 43–46
Index interrelated components, moving images, 70 Ivanova, Kalina, 224, 226, 228
Joint Information Systems Committee (JISC), UK, 20 Joint Photographic Experts Group (JPEG), 35 JSTOR project, 170– 171
Kalcheva, Radka, 231 Kenney, Anne R., 16 Kilgour, Frederick G., 26 Kircher, Pam, ix, xii, 25–48 Kodak, 53
language problems, 226–227, 243–244, 246 –248, 250 LC see Library of Congress legal issues, 109–113, 189–190 Leonov, Valerii P., ix, xiii, 199–218 Library of Congress (LC), 206, 208–209 light, 169, 177 Local Preservation, 42 local support, endowments, 139– 140 LOCKSS see lots of copies keeps stuff safe Lone Tree Branch, Douglas Public Library District, 229 Long, Sarah, 238 lots of copies keeps stuff safe (LOCKSS), 101, 109, 113–115, 195 Lougee, W., 26–28, 30
Machine-Readable Cataloging (MARC), 105 –107 magnetic tape, 98–100 Mahailova, Iskra, 220– 221, 234, 251 MAM see media asset management systems management, endowments, 138, 141 MARC see Machine-Readable Cataloging mayors, 234 media FDLP, 187 moving images, 52–55, 86 newspapers, 38 the press, 235 sound, 100–101 television, 64, 67–68
Index media asset management systems (MAM), 78 meetings with Bulgarian Partner Libraries, 226–227 metadata moving images, 70 OCLC, 31– 32, 41, 43–46 sound, 105–107 Metadata Encoding and Transmission Standard (METS), 31–32, 41, 44–45, 78, 105, 107 micro-cultures, 97–98, 115 microclimatic boxes, 211–213 microfilms CPMP I&II, 6 funding, 122 Great Collections Projects, 123 how-to manuals, 9–11 masters, 5–6 OCLC, 29, 35 projects, 6–9 RLG, 3– 11, 16– 17, 22 storage, 175 migration, 74–75 Milkova, Emilia, 230 mirror sites, 193 mold, 176, 203–204, 212 Morris, Donna Jones, 230 Motion Picture Experts Group (MPEG), 78–79, 104 moving images, 49–95 access, 79–85 care and handling, 87–93 cultural values, 85– 86 environmental controls, 72, 84, 90 historical aspects, 56–72 media stability, 52–55 obsolescence, 52–55 preservation definitions, 50–52 problems, 69–72 services, 75 strategies, 72– 79 studios, 61 MPEG see Motion Picture Experts Group multi-media information, 86 multiple repositories, sound, 108–109 Murray-Rust, Catherine, ix, xii-xiii, 159–183
National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), 21
259 National Commission of Libraries and Information Science (NCLIS), 227, 238 National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH), 122–123, 130–137 NCLIS see National Commission of Libraries and Information Science need assessments funding, 138 RLG, 11–12, 18 NEH see National Endowment for the Humanities newspapers, 38 next generation libraries, 25 –48 nitrate film, 53, 57, 83, 86 Nyuksha, Julia P., ix, xiii, 199– 218
OAIS see Open Archival Information System obsolescence, moving images, 52–55, 69 OCLC see Online Computer Library Center OliveSoft, 37–39 online catalogs, 25, 28 Online Computer Library Center (OCLC), 25–48 DCPS, 32–46 digital libraries, 27–32 RLG, 19–20 services, 32–46 Open Archival Information System (OAIS), 19, 29–30, 39 –41, 78 outreach, 32–33, 82–83
PADI see Preserving Access to Digital Information Pape, Whitney, ix, xii, 119–158 particulates, storage, 169– 170 partnership programs, 219–253 pen pal programs, 245, 249 phase boxes, 208 –214 phased conservation, 206 –215 photographs, 12–13, 22 plaques, NCLIS, 227 playback signals, 89 policy, government information, 185–197 pollution, 169–170 Poparkova, Rosita, 231 PreNAPP see Preservation Needs Assessment Package
260 preservation BAN, 199–218 copyrights, 110 –112 fire damage, 199–218 funding, 119– 158 government information, 185– 197 metadata, 43– 46 moving images, 49– 95 OCLC, 25–48 PADI, 20–21 Preservation Manual, 9– 10 Preservation Resources, 29 Preservation Service Centers, 32, 34–37 Preserving Digital Information report, 17–19, 29 RLG, 1–23 service levels, 42– 43 sound, 97–117 storage, 159–183 Preservation Needs Assessment Package (PreNAPP), RLG, 11–12 Preserving Access to Digital Information (PADI), 20– 21 the press, BAN, 235 private sector, 123 –124, 188, 191, 193 producers, films, 61 professional film archivists, 58–60 projects government information, 195 grant-funded projects, 122–124 microfilms, 6–9 proposals, endowments, 140 Public Access to Government Information through Libraries conference, 233 public archives, 62–63
questionnaire, endowments, 125–130, 142–157
recording levels, 103 recruitment, 223–224, 227 reformatting see also formats Brown University, 134, 136 moving images, 74– 76, 83–84 refreshing, 74–75 rehousing, 134, 136 relative humidity, 168–169
Index repairs, 87–88, 134 rescue work, BAN, 201–204 research ARL, 164 –165 digital libraries, 29, 138 endowments, 138 RLIN, 3–6 storage, 165, 172 Research Libraries Group (RLG), 1–23 digital preservation, 13–21 information network, 3–6 microfilms, 3 –11, 16– 17, 22 OCLC, 29–31, 45 Research Libraries Information Network (RLIN), 3–6 resolutions, Bulgaria Library Project Resolution, 225 responses, endowment questionnaire, 147 –157 restoration see also preservation BAN, 205–206 Rieger, Oya Y., 16 RLG see Research Libraries Group RLIN see Research Libraries Information Network roles, depository libraries, 190– 191 Russian Academy of Sciences Library (BAN), 199 –218
safety issues, 216– 217 Seadle, Michael, ix, xii, 97–117 selection, storage, 174–175 September 11th 2001, 229–230 Service for Production of Microclimatic Boxes (SPMB), 212 shelving, 163–164 Shoaf, Eric C., ix, xii, 119–158 Sister Library projects, 227, 237 –240 small film collections, 63 software, 36–39, 46, 103 Sony, 54– 55 sound preservation, 97–117 costs, 113–115 digital conversion, 98–104 legal issues, 109–113 sampling, 101–104 standards, 104–109
261
Index specialist archives, 63 specialists, LC, 206, 208–209 SPMB see Service for Production of Microclimatic Boxes staffing issues, 134–135 stakeholders, moving images, 60–72 standards digital libraries, 28–30 MAM, 78–79 METS, 31–32, 41, 44–45, 78, 105, 107 MPEG, 78–79, 104 OAIS, 19, 29–30, 39–41, 78 sound, 104–109 storage, 174–178 Stefanova, Diana, 231 sticky shed syndrome, 73– 74, 88– 89, 99 stock footage libraries, 62 stock replacement, 205 Stoilova, Neli, 231– 232 storage, 159– 183 automated systems, 172–173, 215 BAN database, 216 conditions, 167 –170 containers, 12–14, 177, 208–214 cooperative storage, 165–167 Cornell University, 161–163 environmental controls, 167–170, 173, 175–178 Harvard depository, 159 –160, 171–172 historical aspects, 159–161 institutional issues, 165, 172 methods, 163–164, 174 –178 microfilms, 175 preservation strategies, 170–171, 178–179 standards, 174–178 Struve collection, 214–215 success factors, partnerships, 250–252 support systems, partnerships, 250 Surface, Taylor, ix, xii, 25–48 surveys Bulgaria/Colorado Partnerships, 237–249 Digital Preservation Needs and Requirements in RLG Member Institutions, 18 endowment questionnaire, 125–130, 142–157
Tag Image File Format (TIFF), 38–39 tapes, 90, 98–100 TEACH Act see Technology Education and Technology Harmonization Act Technical Images Test Project, 13–14 technology see also digital preservation; Internet automated storage systems, 173 BAN conversion scheme, 210–212 Brown University, 131 sound, 98–104 Technology Education and Technology Harmonization Act (TEACH), 112 television, 64, 67–68 temperature, 168–169 TIFF see Tag Image File Format tools Digital Content Management Services, 37–39 web-archives, 41 translation issues, 71–72 twinning partnerships, 237–238
United Kingdom (UK), 20 United States (US) copyrights, 109–113 endowments, 125– 141 films, 65–67 government information, 43, 85– 97, 232–233 GPO, 43, 185–196 TEACH Act, 112 use copies, access, 79–80
Veliko Turnovo Public Library, 228–229, 234–235 videos see also moving images access, 84–85 care, 88–93 formats, 55, 74–76 media stability, 53– 55 obsolescence, 53–55, 69 stakeholders, 67–68 sticky shed syndrome, 73–74, 88–89 viewing moving images, 69, 80–81 vinegar syndrome, 58, 72–73
262 Walker, Gay, 2 watermarking, 108 Waters, Donald, 13–14 Waters, Peter, 209 weeding, 164 White House Millennium Council, 238–239 Williams, Ed, 2 Williams, Gordon, 170 working groups IAWG, 189–190
Index OCLC, 30–31, 45 RLG, 15, 19–20 World Wide Web see Internet WorldCat, 25–26, 28, 37–38
XML see Extensible Markup Language
youth, 234–235, 239
