Category Archives: Duke Digital Repository

Turning on the Rights in the Duke Digital Repository

As 2017 reaches its halfway point, we have concluded another busy quarter of development on the Duke Digital Repository (DDR). We have several new features to share, and one we’re particularly delighted to introduce is Rights display.

Back in March, my colleague Maggie Dickson shared our plans for rights management in the DDR, a strategy built upon using rights status URIs from RightsStatements.org, and in a similar fashion, licenses from Creative Commons. In some cases, we supplement the status with free text in a local Rights Note property. Our implementation goals here were two-fold: 1) use standard statuses that are machine-readable; 2) display them in an easily understood manner to users.

New rights display feature in action on a digital object.

What to Display

Getting and assigning machine-readable URIs for Rights is a significant milestone in its own right. Using that value to power a display that makes sense to users is the next logical step. So, how do we make it clear to a user what they can or can’t do with a resource they have discovered? While we could simply display the URI and link to its webpage (e.g., http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/ ) the key info still remains a click away. Alternatively, we could display the rights statement or license title with the link, but some of them aren’t exactly intuitive or easy on the eyes. “Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International,” anyone?

Inspiration

Looking around to see how other cultural heritage institutions have solved this problem led us to very few examples. RightsStatements.org is still fairly new and it takes time for good design patterns to emerge. However, Europeana — co-champion of the RightsStatements.org initiative along with DPLA — has a stellar collections site, and, as it turns out, a wonderfully effective design for displaying rights statuses to users. Our solution ended up very much inspired by theirs; hats off to the Europeana team.

Image from Europeana site.
Europeana Collections UI.

Icons

Both Creative Commons and RightsStatements.org provide downloadable icons at their sites (here and here). We opted to store a local copy of the circular SVG versions for both to render in our UI. They’re easily styled, they don’t take up a lot of space, and used together, they have some nice visual unity.

Rights & Licenses Icons
Circular icons from Creative Commons & RightsStatements.org

Labels & Titles

We have a lightweight Rails app with an easy-to-use administrative UI for managing auxiliary content for the DDR, so that made a good home for our rights statuses and associated text. Statements are modeled to have a URI and Title, but can also have three additional optional fields: short title, re-use text, and an array of icon classes.

Editing rights info associated with each statement.

Displaying the Info

We wanted to be sure to show the rights status in the flow of the rest of an object’s metadata. We also wanted to emphasize this information for anyone looking to download a digital object. So we decided to render the rights status prominently in the download menu, too.

Rights status in download menu
Rights status displays in the download menu.

 

Rights status also displays alongside other metadata.

What’s Next

Our focus in this area now shifts toward applying these newly available rights statuses to our existing digital objects in the repository, while ensuring that new ingests/deposits get assessed and assigned appropriate values. We’ll also have opportunities to refine where and how the statuses get displayed. We stand to learn a lot from our peer organizations implementing their own rights management strategies, and from our visitors as they use this new feature on our site. There’s a lot of work ahead, but we’re thrilled to have reached this noteworthy milestone.

On TRAC: Assessment Tools and Trustworthiness

Duke Digital Repository is, among other things, a digital preservation platform and the locus of much of our work in that area.  As such, we often ponder the big questions:

  1. What is the repository?
  2. What is digital preservation?
  3. How are we doing?

 

 

 

What is the repository?

Fortunately, Ginny gave us a good start on defining the repository in Revisiting: What is the Repository?  It’s software, hardware, and  collaboration.  It’s processes, policies, attention, and intention.  While digital preservation is one of the focuses of the repository, digital preservation extends beyond the repository and should far outlive the repository.

What is digital preservation?

There are scores of definitions, but this Medium Definition from ALCTS is representative:

Digital preservation combines policies, strategies and actions to ensure access to reformatted and born digital content regardless of the challenges of media failure and technological change. The goal of digital preservation is the accurate rendering of authenticated content over time.

This is the short answer to the question: Accurate rendering of authenticated digital content over time.  This is the motivation behind the work described in Preservation Architecture: Phase 2 – Moving Forward with Duke Digital Repository.

How are we doing?

There are 2 basic methodologies for assessing this work- reactive and proactive.  A reactive approach to digital preservation might be characterized by “Hey!  We haven’t lost anything yet!”, which is why we like the proactive approach.

Digital preservation can be be a pretty deep rabbit hole and it can be an expensive proposition to attempt to mitigate the long tail of risk.  Fortunately, the community of practice has developed tools to assist in the planning and execution of trustworthy repositories.  At Duke, we’ve got several years experience working in the framework of the Center for Research Libraries’ Trustworthy Repositories Audit & Certification: Criteria and Checklist (TRAC) as the primary assessment tool by which we measure our efforts.  Much of the work to document our preservation environment and the supporting institutional commitment was focused on our DSpace repository, DukeSpace.  A great deal has changed in the recent 3 years including significant growth in our team and scope.  So, once again we’re working to measure ourselves against the standards of our profession and to use that process to inform our work.

There are 3 areas of focus in TRAC: Organizational Infrastructure, Digital Object Management, and Technologies, Technical Infrastructure, & Security.  These cover a very wide and deep field and include things like:

  • Securing Service Level of Agreements for all service providers
  • Documenting the organizational commitments of both Duke University and Duke University Libraries and sustainability plans relating to the repository
  • Creating and implementing routine testing of backup, remote replication, and restoration of data and relevant infrastructure
  • Creating and approving documentation on a wide variety of subjects for internal and external audiences

 

Back to the question: How are we doing?

Well, we’re making progress!  Naturally we’re starting with ensuring the basic needs are met first- successfully preserving the bits, maximizing transparency and external validation that we’re not losing the bits, and working on a sustainable, scalable architecture.  We have a lot of work ahead of us, of course.  The boxes in the illustration are all the same size, but the work they represent is not.  For example, the Disaster Recovery Plan at Hathi Trust is 61 pages of highly detailed thoughtfulness.  However, these works build on each other so we’re confident that the work we’re doing on the supporting bodies of policy, procedure, and documentation will make ease the work to a complete Disaster Recovery Plan.

Going with the Flow: building a research data curation workflow

Why research data? Data generated by scholars in the course of investigation are increasingly being recognized as outputs nearly equal in importance to the scholarly publications they support. Among other benefits, the open sharing of research data reinforces unfettered intellectual inquiry, fosters reproducibility and broader analysis, and permits the creation of new data sets when data from multiple sources are combined. Data sharing, though, starts with data curation.

In January of this year, Duke University Libraries brought on four new staff members–two Research Data Management Consultants and two Digital Content Analysts–to engage in this curatorial effort, and we have spent the last few months mapping out and refining a research data curation workflow to ensure best practices are applied to managing data before, during, and after ingest into the Duke Digital Repository.

What does this workflow entail? A high level overview of the process looks something like the following:

After collecting their data, the researcher will take what steps they are able to prepare it for deposit. This generally means tasks like cleaning and de-identifying the data, arranging files in a structure expected by the system, and compiling documentation to ensure that the data is comprehensible to future researchers. The Research Data Management Consultants will be on hand to help guide these efforts and provide researchers with feedback about data management best practices as they prepare their materials.

Our form for metadata capture

Depositors will then be asked to complete a metadata form and electronically sign a deposit agreement defining the terms of deposit. After we receive this information, someone from our team will invite the depositor to transfer their files to us, usually through Box.

Consultant tasks

As this stage, the Research Data Management Consultants will begin a preliminary review of the researcher’s data by performing a cursory examination for personally identifying or protected health information, inspecting the researcher’s documentation for comprehension and completeness, analyzing the submitted metadata for compliance with the research data application profile, and evaluating file formats for preservation suitability. If they have any concerns, they will contact the researcher to make some suggestions about ways to better align the deposit with best practices.

Analyst tasks

When the deposit is in good shape, the Research Data Management Consultants will notify the Digital Content Analysts, who will finalize the file arrangement and migrate some file formats, generate and normalize any necessary or missing metadata, ingest the files into the repository, and assign the deposit a DOI. After the ingest is complete, the Digital Content Analysts will carry out some quality assurance on the data to verify that the deposit was appropriately and coherently structured and that metadata has been correctly assigned. When this is confirmed, they will publish the data in the repository and notify the depositor.

Of course, this workflow isn’t a finished piece–we hope to continue to clarify and optimize the process as we develop relationships with researchers at Duke and receive more data. The Research Data Management Consultants in particular are enthusiastic about the opportunity to engage with scholars earlier in the research life cycle in order to help them better incorporate data curation standards in the beginning phases of their projects. All of us are looking forward to growing into our new roles, while helping to preserve Duke’s research output for some time to come.

Rethinking Repositories at CNI Spring ’17

One of the main areas of emphasis for the CNI Spring 2017 meeting was “new strategies and approaches for institutional repositories (IR).” A few of us at UNC and Duke decided to plug into the zeitgeist by proposing a panel to reflect on some of the ways that we have been rethinking – or even just thinking about – our repositories.

Continue reading Rethinking Repositories at CNI Spring ’17

Nuts, Bolts, and Bits: Further Down the Preservation Path

It’s been awhile since we last wrote about the preservation architecture underlying the repository in Preservation Architecture: Phase 2 – Moving Forward with Duke Digital Repository.   Iceberg.  Fickr user: pere.We’ve made some terrific progress in the interim, but most of that is invisible to our users not unlike our chilly friends, icebergs.

Let’s take a brief tour to surface some these changes!

 

Policy and Procedure Development

The recently formed Digital Preservation Advisory Group has been working on policy and procedure to bring DDR into compliance with the ISO 16363 Audit and Certification of Trustworthy Digital Repositories Minimum Criteria. We’ve been working on diverse policy areas like defining how embargoes may be set; how often fixity must be checked and reported to stakeholders; in what situations may content be removed and who must be involved in that decision; and what conditions necessitate a ‘tombstone’ to explain the removal of an object.   Some of these policies are internal and some have already been made publicly available.  For example, see our Deaccession Policy and our Preservation Policy.   We’ve made great progress due to the fantastic example set by our friends at Purdue University Research Repository and others.

Preservation Infrastructure

Duke, DuraCloud, and GlacierDurham, North Carolina, is a lovely city– close to mountains, the beach, and full of fantastic restaurants!  Sometimes, though, your digital assets just need to get away from it all.  Digital preservation demands some geographic diversity.  No repository wants all of its data to be subject to a hurricane, of course!  That’s why we’ve partnered with DuraCloud, a preservation-focused cloud provider, to store copies of our digital assets in geographically diverse locations.  Our data now enjoys homes at Duke, at DuraCloud, and in Amazon Glacier!

To bring transparency to the process of remotely replicating our assets and validating the local and remote assets, we’ve recently implemented a process that externalizes these tasks from Fedora and delivers scheduled reports to stakeholders enumerating and detailing the health of their assets.

 

Research and Development

The DDR has grown tremendously in the last year and with it has grown the need to standardize and scale to demand.  Writing Python to arrange files to conform to our Standard Ingest Format was a perfectly reasonable solution in early 2016.  Likewise, programmatic reformatting of endangered file formats wasn’t feasible with the resources available at the time.  We also did need to worry about traffic scaling back then.  Times have changed!

DDR staff are exploring tools to allow non-developers to easily ingest large amounts of material, methods to identify and migrate files to better supported formats, and are planning for more sustainable and durable architecture like increased inter-application messaging to allow us to externalize processes that have been handled within the repository to external servers.

A New Home Page for the Duke Digital Repository

Today is an eventful day for the Duke Digital Repository (DDR). Later today, I and several of my colleagues will present on the DDR at Day 1 of the Duke Research Computing Symposium. We’ll be introducing new staff who’ll focus on managing, curating, and preserving research data, as well as the role that the DDR will play as both a service and a platform. This event serves as a soft launch of our plans – which I wrote about last September – to support the work of researchers at Duke.

Out-of-the-box DDR home page of the past

At the same time, the DDR gets a new look, at least on its home page. For years, we’ve used a rather drab and uninformative page that was essentially the out-of-the-box rendering by Blacklight, our discovery and access layer in the repository stack. Last fall, our DDR Program Committee took up the task of revamping that page to reflect how we conceptualize the repository and its major program areas.

New DDR home page with aerial hero image and three program areas.

The page design will evolve with the DDR itself, but it went live earlier today. More information about the DDR initiative and our plans will follow in the coming months.