Preserving access: Making more informed

1
Preserving accessMaking more informed guesses
about what works

• Prepared by Maxine Davis, Collaboration
  Research Officer
• Presented by David Pearson, Acting Director
• Web Archiving Digital Preservation,
• National Library of Australia
• IIPC Open Day, San Francisco, 7 October 2009

2
Presentation Outline

• The problem
• Case study PANDORA Web Archive
• Some approaches options
• Approach 1 Unified Digital Format Registry
  (UDFR)
• Approach 2 Wikipedia
• Approach 3 Another way documenting what web
  archives actually use/d

3
The problem

• The World Wide Web is constantly evolving
• Requires combinations of software/hardware to
  render web content
• But what is used for creation and access changes
• Web archives
• Contain snapshots of websites taken at different
  times (different sites or same sites multiple
  times)
• Lots of files, many file formats, various
  versions
• Aim for ongoing access

4
Process of version creepin the archive

• Mixed accessibility resulting from
• Different browsers, plug-ins, operating systems
  in use (then and now)
• Backwards compatibility not guaranteed
• Changes in standards and coding practices
  (deprecated, dead non-standard tags)
• Obsolescence of file formats renderers
• Changes to access paths
• Incremental loss of access not directly obvious
• Alternative access paths not specified

5
Case study PANDORA Australias Web Archive (1)

• Selective archive began collecting 1996
• Sites individually selected by NLA partners
• As at July 2009 over 70.6 million files
• Accessible over the web using standard web
  browser
• .au whole domain harvests
• 4 annual harvests 2005-2008 completed, 2009
  underway with Internet Archive
• Combined harvests 05-08 2.3 billion files
• Not currently publicly available

6
Case study PANDORA Australias Web Archive (2)
7
IIPC Preservation Working Group discussions

• Need for documenting the technical environment
• Support required for alternative preservation
  action strategies
• Emulation of past environments
• Migration to standard formats
• Risk notification
• Recording conversion and alternate access paths
• Exploring different approaches
• Sharing information sensible

8
Technical information of interest

• Browsers plug-ins/helper applications versions
  dependencies
• Used approximately when?
• Appropriate for which individual/ type of file
  format or whole archive?

9
Already documented?

• Manufacturer/vendors websites
• Developers networks, forums, blogs, etc.
• File format registries
• File extension resources
• Software archives/download sites
• Internet history websites
• Internet statistics websites
• Wikipedia

10
Possible Approach 1 UDFR

• Digital format registry will result from proposed
  merger of PRONOM and GDFR
• Pros
• Considerable intellectual investment already
• Could be used for general digital preservation
  and potential interaction with other tools
• Cons
• Under development
• Web archive requirements need to be specified,
  use cases developed, changes to data model,
  population with relevant data and regular
  updating
• Temporal aspect not currently catered for
• Entry point Individual file format or software
  type could be a pro?

11
Possible Approach 2 Wikipedia (1)

• Pros
• Existing free, web-based collaborative
  multilingual project
• Draws together a rich set of information
• browsers, layout engines, plug-ins software,
  statistics, creators, standards, etc.
• lists, history, comparisons, timelines, links to
  internal external references
• Updated by many voluntary contributors

12
Possible Approach 2 Wikipedia (2)

• Cons
• General audience, not specific to web archive
  requirements or specific web archive
• Amount of detail varies (between different
  language versions, articles)
• Can be edited by multiple users ( -)
• Not designed to interact with other digital
  preservation tools as UDFR has potential to do

13
Extract example
14
Possible Approach 3 Documenting what web
archives are using/used

• Pros
• Time based software suite approach
• Starting point for
• Potential UDFR seed list
• Identifying commonly used software
• Inferring additional software requirements
• Identifying alternate access paths
• Cons
• Easier to document current versions
• Obscure/obsolete material in our collections may
  be unknown

15
Individual web archives as sources of information

• Analysis of archive contents harvesting
  statistics
• Web archivists observations records
• UK Web Archive Technology Watch blog
• Website usage statistics
• Browser versions operating systems
• Indicative of popularity
• Archived sites
• Plug-in requirements, file type information
• May include useful information websites
• Internet Archive complementary collection

16
Example NLA Web archiving software environment
July 2009

• Operating system Windows XP
• Computer Windows PC, Intel Pentium 4
• Browser Internet Explorer 7 (main browser), IE8,
  Firefox 3.0
• Additional software
• Adobe Reader 8
• Adobe Shockwave Player
• Adobe Flash Player 10
• Real Player 10
• Apple QuickTime 7
• Windows Media Player 11
• Java 6 Update 11
• JavaScript enabled
• Word, Excel, PowerPoint 2003
• WinZip

17
Example Earlier NLA Software Environment
18
Example Comparison NLA and BnF software
environments
19
Going forward

• Is it worth pursuing approach 3?
• If so where would we record (IIPC PWG wiki?,
  other suggestions)?
• Interested in contributing?

20
Questions?

• Contact
• David Pearson dapearson_at_nla.gov.au
• Maxine Davis madavis_at_nla.gov.au
• Report to IIPC PWG by end October 2009

Everything, for Everyone Forever