Yale-Elsevier Mellon Yale-Elsevier Mellon ProjectProject

NISO/BISG Digital ArchivingALA, New Orleans, January 20, 2002

Karen HunterSenior Vice President, Strategy

Elsevier Science

ContextContext

Yale University LibraryElsevier Scienceprevious joint efforts

Yale Library as a playerYale Library as a player

history of electronic resources both on its own and with the NorthEast Research Libraries (NERL)

electronic expenditures of $1.4 million in 2000, $1.8 million in 2001

clear that cannot endlessly continue to support duplicate collection of paper and electronic

Elsevier Science as a Elsevier Science as a playerplayer e-journal interest dates to late 1970’s formal archiving policy in 1999 as part of

ScienceDirect license– guarantee that would maintain archive or

transfer to library-vetted repository customer feedback: “neutral” archive now

(i.e., in library hands)

also needed to protect authors’ interests explored various archiving arrangements

Joint effortsJoint efforts

between 1997 and 1999 Yale and ES had explored the possibility of Yale being a local repository for some or all of the 1,100 ES journals

end decision: license for SD online because of fuller functionality

throughout, working relationship had been good; started this discussion in summer 2000, proposal to Mellon followed

TeamsTeams

Yale Scott Bennett (PI), Paul Conway, David

Gewirtz, Fred Martz, Ann Okerson (Co-PI), Kimberly Parker, Richard Szary

Elsevier Science Geoffrey Adams, Emeka Akaezuwa,

Haroon Chohan, Karen Hunter, Paul Mostert

Some of the starting Some of the starting assumptionsassumptions digital archive >100

years archiving content, not

format or functionality archive responsible

for migration archive not competing

with publisher archive shouldn’t be

totally dark

archive does not mirror pub. site

archive does not create content not in original e-edition

highly desirable for publisher to provide needed metadata

standards are key archive not a “hot

backup” for disasters

Work plan -- issuesWork plan -- issues

what does it mean to be an archive journal business life cycles economic issues contractual relationship between publisher &

archive metadata needs archival uses independent of day-to-day

uses technical infrastructure

Work plan -- Work plan -- deliverablesdeliverables

metadata elements model license a prototype

Sizing the problemSizing the problem

Elsevier Science published 1,100 journals when project started

acquired Harcourt (Academic Press, Saunders, Mosby, Churchill Livingstone) mid-2001, raising number of journals to 1,500

backfile digitization project (v.1, no.1) guestimate: 6.5-7 TB

What is an archive?What is an archive?

publisher’s production “archive”normal customers with locally-held

files (ScienceDirect On Site)“self-designated archives” -- national

bias“official” archives -- formal

relationship for “perpetual care”

Journal business life Journal business life cyclecycleScott Bennett’s starting premise:

“...information half-life, which is the point at which the commercial value of e-journal content to the publisher has declined to the point where the publisher hands off preservation and access responsibilities to an archiving agent”

Trigger eventsTrigger events

failed to find such a half-life – felt too early in the e-publishing process

– for example, we want to recover costs of retrodigitization

extensive, fascinating discussion of “trigger events” – points when archive can go bright to the public

could not identify trigger events – except if publisher goes out of business and no

successor taking ownership of assets

Economic Economic considerationsconsiderations inability to foresee a half-life and unlikely

trigger event leads to question: Does it make sense to establish an archive now, given costs involved?

conclusion: yes – libraries need archives to go e-only and it will

only be riskier, more difficult and more expensive later

how to fund: part of next phase

Contractual Contractual relationshiprelationship issues different from normal license,

including:– perpetual nature of an archive– service level agreement– trigger events -- public access– financial terms– format for submission– comprehensiveness of archive (e.g.,

“withdrawn” material)

Metadata needsMetadata needs adoption of both OAIS and OAI as standards to be used detailed evaluation of the metadata work done by

others, most notably the British Library also close analysis of metadata currently captured by

Elsevier mapping of needs and gaps mapping to Dublin Core for prototype

Archival usesArchival uses

notion that there are uses made of an archive that are quite different from normal day-to-day researchers’ use of journals

if could be identified, could open the archive for such uses immediately

started discussion with history of science faculty

Technical Technical infrastructureinfrastructure needed to understand the publisher’s e-

workflow and what the publisher can delivery (now or with modification)

needed to understand what others are doing – series of site visits (to ES Amsterdam, Royal

Library, British Library, Chase, etc.)

want to learn from others and avoid re-inventing the wheel– importance of standards (OAIS and OAI) clear

DeliverablesDeliverables

metadata elements -- done! – “Description of Metadata Elements for the Yale

Electronic Archive”

model license -- work in progress – early version that needs more wordsmithing

and legal polishing

prototype -- done! – working prototype that was registered with

ARC for OAI harvesting

Next stepsNext steps

we have learned a lot, including that we can work together and must work together if this is going to happen

now we want to build the 6.5-7+ TB real thing

part of that process will be further identifying ways to collaborate with other archives internationally

A word of thanks...A word of thanks...

… to Ann Okerson and the Yale team for letting me “borrow’ from the draft project report to prepare this presentation