Trevor,

I like this a lot, I think it will provide valuable information and it 
doesn't look like it will be too onerous to fill out.  Some comments below.

This survey is clearly focused on archival storage (in OAIS terms) but 
the Intro says "... working to
better understand how member organizations with digital collections are 
approaching storage
systems."   I would think we would want to make it immediately clear we 
are not talking about storage for online digital collections apart from 
the preservation capacity of the institution.  I'd probably rephrase the 
intro something like this:

The Infrastructure working group of the National Digital Stewardship 
Alliance is working to
better understand how member organizations are approaching storage for 
their preservation systems.  For institutions where preservation and 
access are coupled at the storage level, the below questions should be 
answered for the entire system.  For institutions that have separate 
archival storage, the questions should be answered for the archival 
storage only.

Q4.  My organization's storage architecture is largely in line with the 
Open Archival
Information System (OAIS) reference model. -- I don't know what this 
means; I don't think OAIS specifies a storage architecture, only an 
information model and functional reference model.

Q5. My organization plans to pursue TRAC certification within the next 
three years.  --  I know what this means, but probably better to say 
"certification as a trustwothy repository" than "TRAC certification" 
given that the new ISO standard isn't called TRAC, and only CRL 
certifies in the U.S.  Also, given that CRL certification  is only open 
to CRL members, and that it costs $75K, a lot of institutions may be 
striving to be trustworthy according to TRAC but not actually seeking 
certification.  I guess I would make this one more fuzzy:  "My 
organization intends to meet requirements for a trustworthy digital 
repository according to TRAC or successor standards."

Q7. My organization would prefer to contract out storage services that 
are managed by another
organization or company.  -->  "7. My organization would prefer to 
contract out storage services to be managed by another
organization or company."

Q14. Roughly, what percentage of your content is dynamic. (Collections 
that are currently being
added to?)  -->  "14. Roughly, what percentage of your archived content 
is dynamic?  (i.e., packages that are actively being changed)

Q17. When does your organization check the fixity of the content you are 
preserving. ---   For those who answer they check at intervals, can we 
add a box for them to specify the interval?  That's something I would 
love to know.

Q21. How would you describe the minimal services your organization 
intends to provide
currently for files in "preservation storage"?  ---  To many people, 
"bit preservation" includes fixity, so the distinctions made here would 
not be clear.  How about a "check all that apply" with this set of options:
-- secure storage with backup and recovery procedures in place
-- periodic fixity checking
-- version control
--format normalization, format migration, or platform emulation

Also, re: version control, many preservation systems treat any change as 
a new object, so traditional version control does not apply, though some 
kind of relationship tracking can be maintained.

There's nothing in here about cost.   Should there be a question about 
how important cost is compared to other factors (speed, capacity, etc?)

p







On 8/18/2011 11:28 AM, Owens, Trevor wrote:
> Hello Infrastructure Working Group Members,
>
> Please take a few minutes before our call next week (Wednesday, Aug 24th, 1-2pm eastern) to take a look at the draft of the member storage survey I have put together.
>
> As a reminder, the idea behind this survey is to take some of the preliminary themes and issues we found in the open ended questionnaire and workshop session and gather some simple descriptive statistics and numerical information about our storage systems to enhance the document we have been drafting.
>
> Consider sharing any reactions and feedback about the survey over the list before the meeting.
>
> I imagine that this survey would be something we would distribute to NDSA Members who are responsible for preserving some set of content.
>
> The following kinds of feedback would be particularly valuable:
> 1. Comments on any individual questions that are unclear.
> 2. Suggestions for ways to refine any of the questions to better focus any of the questions.
> 3. Suggestions for additional questions or questions that we should add or remove.
>
>
> Thanks!
>
> Trevor Owens
> Digital Archivist
> National Digital Information Infrastructure and Preservation Program
> Office of Strategic Initiatives
> The Library of Congress
> 101 Independence Ave SE
> Washington DC 20540-1300
> 202.707.7217
>
>
>
> ############################
>
> To unsubscribe from the NDSA-INFRASTRUCTURE list:
> write to: mailto:[log in to unmask]
> or click the following link:
> http://list.digitalpreservation.gov/SCRIPTS/WA-DIGITAL.EXE?SUBED1=NDSA-INFRASTRUCTURE&A=1

############################

To unsubscribe from the NDSA-INFRASTRUCTURE list:
write to: mailto:[log in to unmask]
or click the following link:
http://list.digitalpreservation.gov/SCRIPTS/WA-DIGITAL.EXE?SUBED1=NDSA-INFRASTRUCTURE&A=1