overview and update of the pedals project persistent digital library and archives system panel...

Overview and update of the PeDALS project Persistent Digital Library and Archives System www.pedalspreservation.org

Panel discussion of lessons learned by participants from each state Matt Guzzi (South Carolina) Richard Pearce-Moses (Arizona) Alan Nelson (Florida) Bonnie Weddle (New York) Abbie Norderhaug (Wisconsin)

To develop and sustain multi-state collaborative Began with four states South Carolina joined on its own dime Two additional states to be added in 2009

To use middleware to automate processing of large volumes of records and publications Follows OAIS reference model Can be audited using RLG/OCLC Cost-benefit of programming v. staff processing

requires sufficiently large body of consistent materials

Test LOCKSS as storage system Automated integrity checking and error

correction Articulate a curatorial rationale suitable

for electronic records and digital publications

Create a community of shared practice Work as inexpensively as possible Build a functioning digital repository in

each partner state

Core Metadata v. 1 completed First iterative review in progress

Admin catalog database designed and implemented First iterative review in progress

Admin catalog web interface nearing completion

Simple AIP schema completed Proof of concept

AZ Marriage certificates ingested Marriage certificates code reused for SC Commission

orders

Vulcan mind meld Significantly increased efficiency of

communication among participants. Faster! Less confusion!

Cloning Don’t waste time and take risks hiring new

people. Just clone your good employees! Time Travel

Easier to meet deadlines without losing sleep or sanity

Teleportation All the benefits of a face-to-face meeting, with the

time savings of teleconferences!

Importance of effective collaboration Within agencies Across geographic and political boundaries

Structured, consistent activities and expectations instill sense of involvement and project ownership

Lack of face-to-face interaction makes it harder to get engaged

Working in smaller teams capitalizes on our individual strengths

Partner teams need the right mix Archives, library, and IT

Team members must be Open to “learn as you go” Creative and innovative

The project as viewed by our peers Other repositories very interested

By government agencies and other stakeholders Often excited Recognize project is ambitious Impatient with a research project; they

want a solution

Keeping everyone informed of what each group is doing Metadata Group IT Group

Keeping project leaders informed of progress Keeping the larger group informed

Curatorial Group

Regular communication Bi-weekly update conference calls Committee meetings as needed Quarterly reports

Go To Meeting VoIP can keep long distance costs down Simultaneous editing of documents

Basecamp Central document repository

Library and archives AZ and FL: part of same agency, close

relationship NYS: part of larger agency, some

collaboration SC: different agencies WI: no state library, working with the WHS

library which is the state depository library Archives and records management

AZ, FL, NYS, SC: archives and RM under one agency

WI: another agency responsible for RM

Some partners maintain their own IT AZ and SC have complete control over firewalls,

network, and infrastructure Some partners have agency-level, centralized

IT NYS must integrate PeDALS work into its parent

agency’s overarching IT work schedule Some partners have state-level, centralized IT

WI has opted to place PeDALS servers at U.W.-Madison, not state IT unit

One state opted against joining PeDALS because it could not work through its IT infrastructure

No one is working on the project full-time

Scheduling complications Partners spread across three time zones State holidays, employee furloughs, office

moves, vacation plans Perception that we’re not working

quickly enough; reality that we’re making good progress, slow and steady

Working on a technical project with non-technical people Archivists and librarians don’t always grasp

limitations of project software Programmatic staff need basic knowledge of IT

concepts and practices Database structures, etc.

Working on an archival/library project with technical people IT staff need basic knowledge of core library

and archival concepts Permanence, trustworthiness, series, etc.

Consultants The adventures of finding the right

consultant The decision to make sure each partner

state had someone who knows BizTalk

Efforts to sustain the project after the grant Project agreements Models

Common practices Informal collaboration Consortium—formal agreements

PeDALS creates a flexible community of shared practice Mandatory metadata and system

requirements kept to a minimum Partners can continue to follow their own

workflows Partners can use PeDALS standards as

leverage NYS and WI now catalog archival e-records

in conformance with PeDALS metadata

Richard Pearce-MosesPeDALS Principal Investigator

Deputy Director for Technology & Information

ResourcesArizona State Library, Archives

and Public Recordsrpm@lib.az.us (602) 926-4035

Matthew R. Guzzi Electronic Records Archivist

South Carolina Department of Archives and History

mguzzi@scdah.state.sc.us(803) 896-6103

Alan S. Nelson System Project Administrator State Library and Archives of

Floridaanelson@dos.state.fl.us

Abbie J. NorderhaugPublic Records AccessionerWisconsin Historical Society

abbie.norderhaug@wisconsinhistory.org(608) 261-1037 

Bonita L. Weddle Coordinator, Electronic Records

New York State Archives bweddle@mail.nysed.gov

(518) 473-4258