Digital Curation Decision Guide An NDSA Publication NDSA AUTHORS Angela Beking (co-Chair, Library and Archives Canada), Bradley Daigle (co-Chair, University of Virginia/APTrust), lan Collins (University of Illinois Chicago), Tawnya Keller (University of Utah), Donald Mennerich (NYU Libraries), Rosalyn Metz (Emory University), Leah Prescott (Georgetown University Law Library), Nathan Tallman (Penn State University), Walker Sampson (University of Colorado Boulder), David Underdown (The National Archives - UK), Simon Wilson (Independent Archivist), Lauren Work (University of Virginia)Digital Curation Decision Guide Table of Contents Table of Contents About the National Digital Stewardship Alliance Introduction How to Use this Document Curatorial Themes Collection Development Collections Management: Security Collections Management: Intellectual Access Collections Management: Technical 12 Appendix 1: Use Case Examples 19 Appendix 2: Digital Curation Decision Tree 33 About the NDSA Founded in 2010, the NDSA is an international membership organization that supplies advocacy, expertise, and support for the preservation of digital heritage. The NDSA promotes a vision in which all digital material fundamentally important to our cultures receives appropriate, effective, and sustainable stewardship care from the international preservation community to protect and enhance its persistent value, availability, and (re)use. NDSA member institutions represent all sectors, and include universities, consortia, non-profits, professional associations, commercial enterprises, and government agencies at the federal, state, and local levels. More information about the NDSA is available at https://www.ndsa.org. axa Copyright © 2020 by NDSA. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike 4.0 International License. DOI: 10.17605/OSF.10/Q8C47Digital Curation Decision Guide Introduction Purpose The aim of this document and its companion visual decision tree’ is to elucidate specific factors or decision points for curators tasked with acquiring digital content. The intent of this document is to empower the curator to make decisions that are informed by digital preservation practice, including needs and requirements, pertaining to four broad themes: collection development; collections management: security; collections management: intellectual access; and collections management: technical access. This guide is a complement to, but not a replacement for, consultation with a digital preservation practitioner. Local policies and infrastructure will have an impact on what is feasible at your institution. This document is not intended to define the concepts of appraisal and acquisition Rather, it aims to inform appraisal and acquisition practice by highlighting the digital preservation concerns that are inherent in these activities. Appraisal and Acquisition Decision Points The decision points listed below start with an alphanumeric code and align with the decision points of the same name found on the visual decision tree. Each decision point will correspond to a step in the process of thinking through each of the four broad themes outlined above. Included under each decision point are questions to consider pertaining to each theme as you move through the appraisal and acquisition processes. The images also include an octagonal “revisit” symbol “—”, which asks curators to stop and reconsider the acquisition of the content, or to consider that more information or additional actions may be needed before the acquisition can proceed Thus, while appraisal and acquisition are not explicitly defined here, this document can be used to inform the curatorial choice to 1) assign value to digital content, and 2) bring digital content into a repository for digital preservation. In some scenarios, the decision to acquire might be made based on other criteria (e.g., legal obligation), but by referencing the curatorial guide and the related Levels of Digital Preservation, decisions about how to support the acquisition of such content may be more clear. "The visual decision tree is available as a separate document and as an appendix in this document. The individual images are also found at the beginning of each section within this document. 3Digital Curation Decision Guide How to Use this Document Itis recommended that curators begin by investigating any existing preservation assessment(s) within their organization. This document may be used as: 1) Part of a curatorial evaluation process, before content is acquired by the repository; 2) Part of a reappraisal process, to decide whether a) to preserve, or b) to remove processed or unprocessed digital content that has already been acquired by the repository; 3) Part of a process to move from one Level of Preservation to another. Examples of each of these scenarios can be found in Appendix 1 fused as part of a curatorial evaluation process, it is suggested that curators look at all categories and address decision points as part of their considerations around appraisal and acquisition. In the case of reappraisal, curators should address considerations around preservation or removal. The aspects of collections management that are detailed in this document are informed to varying degrees by the Levels of Digital Preservation matrix. The Technical Access section in particular has been informed by and organized according to the functional areas detailed in the Levels. This section will be useful for those who use this document as part of a process to move their preservation program actions from one Level of Preservation to another. This document is not intended to be linear. The three possible uses mentioned above can be explored in any order that makes sense according to the curator's organizational mandate and/or operating context. This document could also be used as part of a local set of workflows or guidelines. For example, links to organizational policies, procedures, or circumstances could be added or integrated into this template as relevant to your organization. Curatorial Themes This section walks through the four areas that the curatorial guide focuses on: Collection Development, Collections Management: Security, Collections Management Intellectual Access, and Collections Management: Technical. Each section is introduced, followed by the associated graphic, and the guiding curatorial questions.Digital Curation Decision Guide Collection Development The significance of collection development in the context of digital preservation is that the decisions made about what to collect should be informed by, and will affect, the processes and procedures involved in the preservation of that content. POSSIBLE COLLECTION CD1: Unique? Is the intellectual content of the material, or its informational context, unique or in some way irreplaceable? While every institution will have a unique contextual framework, you may want to consider the following questions: © Is this the only copy of the content at your institution, or do multiple copies or versions exist? © Is this content held at any other institution(s) (e.g., will your repository be the sole custodian)? © Note: This may not apply in certain organizational contexts, for instance, if your organization deals with institutional transfers. ‘* Would this content represent the acquisition of digital surrogates (e.g.. digitized representations of original analog content), or of unique bom digital material? ‘* Would you retain all versions of the content or only the latest? What is the nature of the differences in the versions?Digital Curation Decision Guide CD2: Conform to CD Policy? Does this content conform to your collection development policy? While every institution will have a unique Collection Development (CD) policy, you may want to consider the following questions: © Does the content hold high contextual or research value for your designated community? © Have you defined your designated community? ‘* Are there actions that you apply to all collections (e.g. removing duplicates)? Are there specific actions that you would apply to this content? ‘* Do you have consortial obligations that need consideration? ‘* Are there other policies that apply to selection (e.g. disaster management, takedown, etc.)? © Do you have a sunset/deaccession plan in place for the content? CD3: Mandatory? Is acquiring/keeping this content mandatory for your institution? Consider the following © Is there a legal or contractual mandate to retain the content? If so, for how long? What are the terms of any memorandums of understanding (MOUs) and/or agreements that may be relevant to the content? Collections Management: Security Just as physical archival materials need to be secured, so do digital files and systems. Some of the security parameters would be the same for physical and digital objects, such as the redaction or restriction of sensitive or confidential information, but other parameters would be different, such as those related to system security. 2 an identified group of potential consumers who should be able to understand a particular set of information, The Designated Community may be composed of multiple user communities. A Designated ‘Community is defined by the archives and this definition may change over time, From the Reference Model for an Open Archival Information System. 6Digital Curation Decision Guide St: Sensitive Information? Does this content include sensitive information? Is there sensitive, PIl?, ePHI*, GDPR-qualifying®, or confidential data in the content? © Keep in mind external factors that may affect information and systems security. For example, GDPR may have an impact on how you must manage digital content from within or without the EU © Direct contact with the donor may help identify and address sensitive information (e.g. oral histories). © If the source of acquisition acknowledges that there is sensitive, Pll, ePHI, GDPR-qualifying, or confidential data, is there an agreement on how the repository will identify and, if necessary, restrict access to such content? * Are there seourity or contractual considerations around sensitive information that must be taken into account in your legal context? ® Personally Identifiable Information. Examples include information such as address or phone number information, national identification numbers (¢.9. social security number), and bank account information. “Electronic Protected Health Information, or any protected health information that is created, stored, transmitted, oF received electronically. ® Qualifying for protection under the General Data Protection Regulation, a strict privacy and security law that applies to information in the European Union and about residents of the European Union. For more information, see the regulation's official website.Digital Curation Decision Guide Are there security requirements specific to the content or any classes of the content? Does metadata exist to help identify such content? (See also T3: Description for further metadata considerations). © Ifthe content is machine readable, other technologies may exist to assist with identification, If the materials contain deleted files or web browser history, do you have permission to retain deleted files and web browser history? If necessary, do you have the permission to decrypt encrypted content or passwords? S2: Sufficient Systems and Environment? Do you have, overall, sufficient systems and environments (policies, procedures, and workflows) to care for the sensitivities you identified in decision point S1? Things to consider: Do you have software or other tools at your disposal to find and restrict this, content? ‘Are you in compliance with local policy/risk management processes and procedures related to the infrastructure needed for any sensitivities identified in 81? © Are there documented disaster recovery plans in place for systems and environments used for processing, accessing, and preserving digital collections? Do these plans refiect necessary information and systems security for access controls? If necessary, do you have a system for encryption key® management? Have you documented staffing roles in relation to these materials, including access to the materials for deletion, or for corruption mediation? Who within and outside of your organization is able to access digital content? What are they able to do with that access? This is particularly relevant for network and cloud storage. Is this information documented, and who has access to this documentation? ‘$3: Mandatory? © A string of bits created explicitly for scrambling and unscrambling data. For more information, see the ‘Techopedia entry on “encryption key.” aDigital Curation Decision Guide If you do not have sufficient systems and/or environment to manage the digital content, but the content is mandatory to retain, collaborate with your digital preservation staff and consider the following points to address the systems/environment in question 83. Risk © What are the steps necessary to have the needs identified in $1, $2, and/or $3 met by your technology and repository support? © Is itnecessary to engage in a requirements gathering exercise to better understand the needs for the collection? = Enhancing systems could relate to frameworks such as ISO 27001" and other applicable policies/legislation. This may involve segregating restricted content from general storage to enforce access controls. * How are technology and repository support projects scheduled and resourced? What are the risks of not enhancing systems and environments? What are the risks of not preserving collections when mandated? ‘© Who makes the final decision and how is it documented? Initiate Conversations / Investigate Systems Enhancement / Evaluate Collections Management: Intellectual Access This section relates to considerations around how access to digital content will be managed. Fundamentally there can be no access without preservation, while conversely there is no point to preserving without the expectation that access will be provided at some point (and for some designated community). 7180 27001 (or ISO/IEC 27001:2013) is the international standard that sets out the specification for an information security management system. For more information review the UK IT Governance website. 9Digital Curation Decision Guide attr Mogens so (-}— 4 1A1: Could there be limiting factors? Determine if there could be limiting factors for providing access. Make sure to consider both statutory/legal issues as well as any specific contractual issues. Ask the following: 1A1.1: Statutory and other Legal Issues © Are there legal issues that would prevent you from providing access to this content, either internally, to those connected to your institution, or to the public? On what legal basis is access to the content provided? © For instance, will you provide access under Public Records, Federal Records, Presidential Records, Freedom of Information legislation, or similar? 10Digital Curation Decision Guide * Are there legislative provisions such as privacy or data protection that may restrict the level of access you can give? 1A1.2: Contractual Issues © Are there specific agreements that may limit access to this content? * Does the deed of gift, or similar donor agreement, affect the level of access you may provide? © If no agreement exists, you may want to work with local counsel or policy departments before providing access. * Is there an explicit embargo time period? * Is access restricted to specific individuals or groups? * May the repository access the content to provide collections care? 1A2: Resolvable? If there are factors involved with providing access that prevent moving forward with the collection, consider the following: @ You may need to do some internal advocacy to obtain the resources you need to make necessary changes. Consider referring to the Digital Preservation Coalition's Advocacy and Business Case protocols. © Can any issues be resolved within your organization (e.g., access restrictions that could be re-negotiated with a donor)? Or are the issues beyond your organization's control (e.g., copyright law)? © Access restrictions might be resolved in the same way as security concerns discovered in $1 * Is there a time limit to the statutory, legal, or contractual issues identified above, after which they would be considered “resolved”? © E,g., the lifting of access restrictions 50 years after the death of the donor? 1A3: Document Access Protocols All access protocols (e.g., where and how digital content will be made available, such as on-site access via a non-networked terminal), should be documented. Ideally, documentation will address any limiting factors as well as the content’s format or type. An institution may choose to handle collections differently within their own established digital access protocols. Documenting the access protocol for each clarifies needs, use, and access protocols. "Digital Curation Decision Guide © Examples: © Collection 1: a political collection full of images and documents. These materials have rights that allow them to be normalized and optimized for web or repository access. Collection 2: a collection from a noteworthy digital artist. Due to the proprietary format types and unique software required for viewing the artwork, this collection requires more advanced access measures such as the emulation® of various systems to render files properly. Emulation will not be possible until further resources can be spent to evaluate needs Resource: The DLF's Levels of Born-Digital Access is an example of a resource for organizations to help determine possible access methods. The areas of accessibility, description, researcher support and discovery, security, and tools are discussed in this resource. Collections Management: Technical Digital preservation work consists of technical processes such as converting files to appropriate formats; creating or validating fixity hashes (e.g. checksums*); moving files to appropriate storage locations; creating appropriate metadata; making files available to end users, etc. This section consists of factors and decision points around technical processes, and it relates to the corresponding sections in the Levels of Digital Preservation Matrix. © A means of overcoming technical obsolescence of hardware and software by developing techniques for imitating obsolete systems on future generations of computers (definition from the Digital Preservation Coalition's Digital Preservation Handbook) ° A checksum value is a string of alphanumeric characters used to verity the intagrity of a file or data transfer. For more information, see TechTerms’ definition of checksum. 2Digital Curation Decision Guide Coletons Managerent Tectia T1: Technical Limitations It is important to think about any technical limitations you may have prior to accepting or choosing to keep materials. This section groups questions by the functional areas listed on the Levels of Digital Preservation Matrix to assist with additional correlations you can make for yourself on where your actions may fall on the Matrix. Answers to the questions below do not in themselves tell you what Level you may be on, but allow you to think about technical issues when making curatorial decisions. Storage ‘* Is there adequate storage, in terms of amounts and capabilities, for this material? * Is there enough storage to have multiple copies of the material? 8Digital Curation Decision Guide © Isthe storage stable and dependable? * Are there concems about the storage being obsolete? Integrity © Did integrity information (checksum values) come with the information? If so, are you able to use these to verify the contents when moving/copying the files? ‘© Are you able to create integrity information if it was not provided with the materials? Control Who has rights to access the material? What rights do they have? Do these include rights to read, write, move, or delete content? * Is there a reasonable expectation that users (including internal staff who will be processing the content/determining access restrictions, and external clients) will have software to open these file formats? © Ifnot, can you create access copies of the files in alternative formats? ©. Iffile formats for this material are proprietary, can you create access copies in alternative formats to allow researchers to gain some understanding of the material and decide if they should obtain their own license? m= Note: You should also consider how your own staff would access the material in the event of a request, such as a Freedom of Information review. * Do you know the type of software/hardware required to access this information? Metadata © Is there an inventory of the content? * Is there existing technical metadata associated with the content? If so, are there processes in place to retain it? © E,g,, timestamps or dates such as “created,” “accessed,” and “modified” for a file are often maintained by the filesystem originally maintaining the content. In such a case, this metadata would need to be recorded out of the filesystem, or the filesystem itself be preserved. © Other metadata may include the content’s location in a directory structure or larger system, or a checksum/hash associated with the content. © Technical metadata may also be embedded in the file, in which case the information will travel with the file “Digital Curation Decision Guide * Are there systems in place to store metadata (descriptive, technical, administrative, etc)? Content * Do you have a good understanding of what the materials consist of Do you have a list of fle format types? Do you understand the characteristics of the formats? Do you understand the obsolescence risk of the formats? Are there user or creator expectations for functionality of the materials over time? Is there an expectation that the original environment within which the materials were created will be retained or conveyed to the user? For example, will emulation be needed to render obsolete content or to reproduce the look and feel of this environment? © Is there documentation on the working environment for the materials donated? If emulation or reproduction of the original environment is needed but not presently possible, what interim solutions are available? ‘* Are there other expectations from a given designated community (user, donor, etc.) for access? © For example, have MOUs been discussed with the creator regarding expectations for functionality of a particular type of data? 12: Workflows in place? Itis important to think about your existing workflows and actions you will take upon materials you bring into your care. Many, but not all, of these workflows are technical in nature. Therefore, this section also groups questions by the functional areas listed on the Levels of Digital Preservation Matrix to assist with additional correlations you can make for yourself on where your actions may fall on the Matrix. Answers to the questions below do not in themselves tell you what Level you may be on, but allow you to think about technical issues when making curatorial decisions. Storage * Do your workflows address when and where copies will be made and stored? * Do your workflows include plans for addressing obsolescence of storage hardware, software and media? Integrity 6Digital Curation Decision Guide * Do your workflows verify fixity information (checksums) for the materials being acquired if provided with the materials? '* Do your workflows include creating fixity information (checksums)for the materials being acquired if not provided with the materials? * Do your workflows include periodic checking of fixity information (checksums) to ensure that content has not changed over time? Control © Do your workflows include documenting who has rights to read, write, move, and delete content and when? * Does your workflow include maintaining logs documenting who (people/software) did what to the content when? * Do your workflows include performing periodic checks of these actions/action logs? Metadata * Do your workflows include using specific metadata standards? '* Do your workflows include recording preservation actions? Content ‘* Do your workflows include verifying file format chararcterstics? Do your workflows include monitoring for obsolescence and changes in technology on which content is dependent? * Does your workflow include performing migrations, normalizations, or emulations as needed to keep content accessible? Access ‘Access is not one of the framework elements found in the current Levels of Digital Preservation, but it is important to consider the level of access to content that you are able or required to provide when developing and refining curatorial workflows. © Does the result of your workflows end with an access system robust enough to provide flexible and granular levels of access (.e. different users/groups of users may have different rights to access the content)? © Are there workflows and infrastructure to allow for staff to view materials/derivatives for description if access to the preservation copies is locked down? 6Digital Curation Decision Guide * Workflows should consider how freely available you can make these materials online and what the use and reuse permissions might look like. Consider the following scenarios as appropriate for your content: © Consider using Creative Commons licenses appropriate to the content © Consider providing access via an API“ to support bulk reuse of metadata and/or content by programmatic means © Are there other means of accessing data other than direct online access? Are these systems appropriately resourced? © Will materials from a ‘dark archive’ (e.g. LOCKSS/CLOCKSS) be made publicly accessible only in the event of a “trigger event’ such as the failure of a journal publisher? T3: Description Itis important to consider how you will describe the materials coming into your care (or What metadata already exists or can be captured upon their acquisition) and what types and levels of description your access systems will support. All types of metadata (descriptive, technical, preservation, administrative) are necessary to support the overall management of digital content. The Description decision point does not connect explicitly to the Levels of Preservation but descriptive work underpins many of the other functions described in this document. Metadata * Does descriptive metadata already exist for this material (e.g. from hybrid collection materials or previous digital accessions?) Is technical metadata present or can it be programmatically generated? Does preservation description information (e.g. fixity, provenance, description of context of creation, etc.) exist for the content? © Do you have enough administrative metadata (e.g. rights information, source information, etc.) to manage the content long-term? * Is the metadata in a machine-readable format? © Does user or system documentation exist? Description ‘© An API, or Application Programming Interface, is a set of commands, functions, protocols, and objects that programmers can use to create software or interact with an extemal system. For more information, see TechTerms' definition of API. 7Digital Curation Decision Guide What level of description supports the intended use and is required for this, collection to be accessible? Does the supporting documentation (data dictionaries, metadata, etc.) allow you to describe at this level? © Do local collection priorities and resourcing allow you to describe content at this level over time? What descriptive standards will be used for the data itself, and does your environment or software require any particular descriptive standards? © Are there minimum description standards via local implementation/policy? Do you understand the data well enough to describe it appropriately? > If the answer is “no,” further discussion with the source of acquisition may be needed; this issue will need to be resolved before description can be done. Access 8 Scheduling of descriptive work should take into account access restrictions.Digital Curation Decision Guide Appendix 1: Use Case Examples These use cases will explore three different curatorial scenarios: 1) Part of a curatorial evaluation process, before content is acquired by the repository; 2) Part of a reappraisal process, to decide whether a) to preserve, or b) to remove unprocessed digital content that has already been acquired by the repository: 3) Part of a process to move from one Level of Preservation to another. Use Case 1: A Politician's Papers Curatorial Scenario: 1 - Part of a curatorial evaluation process, before content is acquired by the repository. Context of Collection: Unique born digital photographs, videos, and documents made by a politician and his office. Materials were donated via institution-provided hard drive and from original donor-created discs. Decision Yes | Details Point or No D1 Unique? |Y | Yes, this politician is a noteworthy local lawmaker and only his office has a lot of these materials. CD2Meet CD |Y | Yes, our institution has a focus on political and political Policy? organization collections, cD3 N Mandatory to collect? S1-Sensitive |Y | Maybe some Pll in the documents. We can check for this via Information? repository or BitCurator. 1”Digital Curation Decision Guide S2 - Sufficient Must work with the donor and get permission on any de- systems or encryption, but we can maintain preservation and access to environment? these kinds of materials. $3 - Mandatory to acquire? 1A - Limiting Factors? IA Statutory or other Legal issues? 1A1.2 Contractual Issues 1a2- Resolvable? 1A3 - Our repository can handle this kind of material. Document Our main discussion is collection dependent: Do we need to Access create disk images that are accessible to patrons or Protocols maintained only for preservation? Or do we only need to have archivists process the files and preservelprovide access to the processed folders and files from the disks instead of treating the disc itself as an important preservation item. For this type of collection, we would create disk images to account for backlog and to stave off bitrot. Curators will use the disk images to process files and provide access to the materials as opposed to offering access to an image of the whole disc (an image that we would stil keep for preservation's sake) 11 - Technical Limitations 2»T2- Workflows | Y Digital Curation Decision Guide Our basic workflow would work to preserve and provide in place? access with our repository. T3- Descriptive metadata would be developed going forward with Deseription input from the metadata team. In this case there's not much metadata created by the donor, so basic metadata information for fields such as identifiers and subject headings will be created for the files. based on our metadata standard for ingest into our repository. Use Case 2: Photographer's Born Digital Photographs Curatorial Scenario: 1 - Part of a curatorial evaluation process, before content is acquired by the repository. Context of Collec : The output of a well-known photographer, who did all of their editing work in the Adobe suite. Collection includes final copies of photographs, in proprietary Adobe formats, as well as some accompanying contextual records (accounting spreadsheets in Excel, note documents in Word). After discussion, the donor has also agreed to generate and transfer final copies of photographs in TIFF format. Decision Point | Yes | Details or No CD1 Unique? |Y | The photographs are unique born-digital material, irreplaceable. The photographs have not been donated to any other repository (e.g., we will be the sole custodian). aDigital Curation Decision Guide Issues CD2MeetCD |Y — | Meets collection development policy (e.g., we have Policy? established the long-term historical significance of this photographer's work). Material has high research value to our designated community. There is no sunset/deaccession plan (e.g., the material will need to be retained forever), Section complete. CD3 Mandatory | N to collect? $1-Sensitive |N | Photographer has confirmed that there is no sensitive Information? information in the photographs or the accompanying material, Section complete. S2- Sufficient | N/A systems or environment? S3 - Mandatory | N/A to acquire? IA- Limiting |] ¥ Factors? IA1.4 Y | Copyright. The collection is copyright protected, and will remain so, for 50 years after the death of the Statutory or photographer. The material may be consulted internally, other Legal by those connected to the institution, and by the public, issues? but they may not be reproduced without permission of the photographer until 50 years after their death. 1a1.2 N Contractual 21A2- Resolvable? Digital Curation Decision Guide Copyright issues are managed through Reference Services, who have an established workflow for providing consultation access without reproduction of archival material. 50 years after the death of the photographer, these issues will be moot as copyright will expire. 143 - Document Collection will adhere to standard, documented access Access protocols for born-digital material (which include Protocols copyright). Section complete. 11 - Technical Users may not have the software required to open the Limitations Adobe file formats. - Internal staff who will be processing the content/determining access restrictions will have access for current formats; - However, external clients may not. The Adobe suite is not provided in the reading room; moreover, the version required will become obsolete and the repository does not do emulation Mitigation strategy: The donor has agreed to create a final TIFF version of each of their photographs. This way, they will retain control over stylistic decisions that must be made during this process (e.g. color saturation, etc.). - The repository is confident that it will have software available for all users (internal and external) to open TIFF files. aDigital Curation Decision Guide 72-Workflows |Y | - The repository has established pre-ingest, processing in place? and preservation workflows that are sufficient to address the storage, integrity, control, metadata, and content needs of this collection, once it is transferred. - Caveat: There is no recommended workfiow in place for the recording of preservation actions completed by the donor (e.g., the generation of the TIFF files). Effort should be made to document this process in consultation with the donor. The repository should consider establishing a new workflow for documenting donor-completed preservation actions. This would help to ensure that advice given by the repository to donors re: preservation actions is as consistent and as standardized as possible over time. T3- Description | N | Documentation on creation of the content and formats does not exist for the TIFF versions, but there is opportunity to ensure that it is createditransterred by continuing to consult with the donor. Section complete. Use Case 3: Found Fifteen 2.8" DataDisks in a Box of Previously Acquired Content Curatorial Scenario: 2 - Part of a reappraisal process, to decide whether a) to preserve, or b) to remove unprocessed digital content that has already been acquired by the repository 24Digital Curation Decision Guide Context of Collection: A processing archivist found fifteen 2.8" DataDisks in a box of analog content acquired in 1995 from a well-known company. The company no longer exists. Decision Point Yes or No Details CD1 Unique? Unknown The company that produced the disks is known to be important under established acquisition frameworks. However, the repository has no means of reading 2.8” DataDisks and cannot, therefore, confirm that the content is unique or irreplaceable. - Given that the repository holds a large amount of analog content produced by the company, there is a strong possibility that the content on the disks is duplicated in the analog content. Revisit institutional policies regarding such material - Research options/costing to attempt to read 2.8" DataDisks? - Deaceession the disks under a risk mitigation strategyimatrix (likelihood of duplication amongst analog, likelihood that content is readable, cost to institution to attempt to read...)? CD2 Meet CD Policy? Unknown Without knowing what the content is, there is no way to know whether it meets the repository’s CD Policy. CD3 Mandatory to collect? While the company was important, archives of this nature are not legally mandatory to collect. 2%Digital Curation Decision Guide S1- Sensitive | Unknown | Without knowing what the content is, there is no way Information? to know whether it contains sensitive information. Revisit: This makes contracting for a third party to attempt to extract the content more complex. E.g., MOUs with third party contractors will need to contain provisions for QA checks on whether the content is accessible (can a third party contractor be permitted to read data that may contain sensitive information?). S2- Sufficient | Unknown | Revisit. The presence of sensitive information, its systems or nature/complexity, is unknown, Therefore it cannot be environment? confirmed whether the repository has appropriate systems for processing. $3 - Mandatory | N to acquire? 1A-Limiting | Yes, there could be limiting factors, but we are unable Factors? to identify them, as the content cannot be accessed. IAt4 Unknown Statutory or other Legal issues? 1A1.2 N There are no contractual issues arising from the Contractual transfer agreements that were made with the Issues company in 1995 2%1A2- Resolvable? Unknown Digital Curation Decision Guide Revisit. It is unclear whether transfer agreements were made with full knowledge that the boxes being transferred contained digital information (we are dealing with essentially “found” content). Is this permissible/resolvable? Would any specific reference have needed to be made regarding digital content? 1A3 - Document | Unknown Access Protocols T1-Technical |N Revisit. There are extreme limitations in that this Limitations material is not within the institution's capacity to read. Considerations: 2.8" DataDisks existed from 1986 to the early 1990s. They were introduced by Smith Corona for use in their Personal Word Processors (PWPs). These disks store about 100 KB (~50 pages of text). - They did not have a protective shutter, and therefore need their sleeves to protect them from dust. The disks in this box do not have their protective sleeves, and therefore have been unprotected for up to 30, years (storage conditions prior to the repository are unknown; boxes have been well stored since 1995, but no specific protection for the disks). ~ Requirement to read includes finding a working PWP or Mitsumi Quick Disk drive (which often need a drive belt repair), and disks are often difficult to read. https://obsoletemedia.org/2-8-inch-datadisk/ aDigital Curation Decision Guide Challenges related to technical metadata, file formats, functionality, etc., cannot be meaningfully assessed. 2 - Workflows in place? Revisit. Repository cannot read the disks; all other workflow points cannot be achieved. T3 - Description Revisit. We do not understand what this data is, and therefore cannot know whether we could describe it appropriately. 2Digital Curation Decision Guide Use Case 4: University Archives Born Digital Images Curatorial Scenario: 3 - Part of a process to move from one Level of Preservation to another Context of Collection: Unique, born digital content (photographs) that meets University collection development policy, but is very large in size (over 14 TB of material) and likely contains a fair amount of duplication/near subject duplication. Materials were transferred in full when a physical server was due to be retired in a short time frame. No pre- appraisal evaluation was possible. Control of the materials was taken by the archives, but almost no other work has been done on the collection. Materials also include exported descriptive metadata from a proprietary content management system in addition to embedded image metadata. Given the context of the materials, curatorial needs, and the state of digital preservation at the institution, this collection is framed within the context of the need to move from one present state of preservation Level to other states for better preservation practice Decision Yes or | Details Point No D1 Unique? Y Yes, contains irreplaceable, unique bom digital images of a distinct period of time at the university. CD2 Meet CD | Y Yes, relates to the history of the university that is part of Policy? the university archives mandate for collection, and has high research value. cps NA N/A due to collection context Mandatory to collect? $1- Sensitive |Y Not likely - per conversations with the university Information? photographer and a brief review on transfer, none of the transferred materials should contain sensitive information - consists of born digital photographs and metadata. S2- Sufficient | NIA N/A due to S1 answer systems or environment? 2»Digital Curation Decision Guide s3- NA N/A due to S1 answer Mandatory to acquire? IA- Limiting | N Factors? IA1.4 N Copyright is owned by the university, as the images were Statutory or produced by a photographer under the employ of the other Legal university. issues? 1A1.2 N ‘Standard university archives transfer. As far as it is Contractual known, there are no contractual requirements that limit Issues access or preservation of the collection 1A2- NA N/A due to IA 1.1 and IA 1.2 answers Resolvable? 1A3 - Note on access protocols. While there are currently no Document —_| Unknow | limiting legal or contractual issues, access protocols at Access n the university are still being developed for born-digital Protocols materials, particularly materials of this scope and size for presentation both in the reading room and for online access. Use of DLF Levels of Born-Digital Access document encouraged for framework development. Revisit. More policy and workflow development needed. See Technical Limitations section for more detail T1-Technical | ¥ Reappraisal actions for this collection might consider the Limitations following to aid with preservation and alignment of Levels consideration: Metadata: Both the descriptive metadata (XML export) and the embedded technical metadata of the images should be examined. File types: Several file types comprise most of this collection - CR2 (Canon RAW file), JPG, and TIFF. Processes for preferred file types for preservation and 0Digital Curation Decision Guide access need to be considered and developed as workfiow and policy. File near duplicates: Due to the size of the collection and the nature of photo shoots, many sets of near duplicate images exist. Reappraisal should consider processes for identifying and appraising collections of this size, including using automated methodology to aid in review. File software/access considerations: TIFF files are preferred for preservation and access over raw proprietary images for storage and renderability over time. Technical workflows, potentially working with the donor, may need refining to generate desired preservation file types. Revisit. Major (reappraisal and preservation decisions need to be made for the collection. Some decisions may need policy and workflow documentation. Storage Current Level: 2 Desired Level, pending (re)appraisal: At least 3 Integrity Current Level: 2 (checksummed & logged on server transfer) Desired Level, pending (re)appraisal: At least 3, 4 preferred Control: Current Level: 3 (current level may be satisfactory pending reappraisal) Content Current Level: 2 (due to remaining questions about desired file formats for preservation, duplicates) 31Digital Curation Decision Guide Desired Level, pending (re)appraisal: At least 3, 4 preferred Metadata (see T3) T2- Workflows in place? Appraisal needs to be completed, and some workflows. need to be refined via T1 answers. Before access is possible, the following local policies need to reflect solutions to T1 issues in the following institutional policies and any related processing/accessioning/preservation manuals: Preservation Strategy and Intent - see Level answers inTt -Access protocols for born-digital materials (see IA3) “Appraisal -Archival Description (see T3 below) Revisit. Workflow components need to be discussed, documented, and agreed upon prior to additional work. 13- Description The ability to use both the exported, machine readable descriptive metadata provided by the donor, as well as the existing embedded metadata allows for descriptive processes to move forward based on archival best practice. However, level of granularity may be a question for this collection, given the item level description available. Consideration in this section also includes how preservation actions will be recorded and associated with content as well. Metadata Current Level: 2 Desired Level: 3 or 4 2Digital Curation Decision Guide Appendix 2: Digital Curation Decision Tree The images below duplicate the images within the Digital Curation Decision Tree/Visual Guide. The Digital Curation Visual Guide can be found as a standalone document on the NDSA OSF site. sDigital Curation Decision Guide Collection Development POSSIBLE COLLECTION Collections Management: Security Ccllctions Management: SecutyDigital Curation Decision Guide Collections Management: Intellectual Access ar ager na = 5 sDigital Curation Decision Guide Collections Management: Technical Coalectons Management: Technical