1 / 15

Preservation Program Southern European Libraries Link

Preservation Program Southern European Libraries Link. FCCN, 3 June 2011 João Mendes Moreira B-on Manager Jmm@fccn.pt. Agenda. Scope and goals Existing solutions Comparative analisys Conclusions Recomendations. Selection criteria. Terms and conditions Consortium/ Member support

len
Download Presentation

Preservation Program Southern European Libraries Link

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. PreservationProgramSouthern EuropeanLibraries Link FCCN, 3 June 2011João Mendes Moreira B-on Manager Jmm@fccn.pt

  2. Agenda • Scope and goals • Existing solutions • Comparative analisys • Conclusions • Recomendations

  3. Selectioncriteria • Termsandconditions • Consortium/Membersupport • Contents(vendors, titlese temporal coverage) • Costs(subscriptionandsupport/maintenance)

  4. Existingsolutions • Local loading • LOCKSS (Lots of Copies Keeps Stuff Safe) • CLOCKSS (Controlled LOCKSS) • PORTICO

  5. Detailed Comparativeanalysis

  6. Termsandconditions

  7. Contents

  8. Contents

  9. Titlesb-on

  10. 23% ofb-ontitles are preservedbyPortico(this figure tends to increase). • Thispercentagedoesn’tinclude: • EBSCO aggregator (63%) titles • IEEE and ACM proceedingsand standards • Fromthe 7. 000 availabletitles, 4.376 are inPortico (61% ofsubscribedtitles).

  11. TOP 10 - Preservation 7 outof 10 top 10 are preservedbyporticowithPCA

  12. Final considerations • Local – solution to much expensive; need to allocate HR and IT • CLOCKSS - solution is not suitable since does not support post-cancellation • LOCKSS – suitable terms and conditions but bad content coverage • Portico – solution more suitable with better coverage and terms and conditions

  13. Conclusions • There is no single solution that grants preservation to all contents due to their typology and nature. • Localhosting despite its content coverage and terms and conditions potential its not suitable for b-on due to development and operation costs • B-on contents include a big rate of titles provided by aggregators that are not eligible for preservation • Referential databases are also not eligible for preservation

  14. Conclusions • Porticoseams to bethemostsuitablesolutions • There are contentsthat are notdealtbythisservice • There are limitationsattheaccesslevel

  15. Recomendations • Adopt Portico • Continue to follow preservation initiatives • Establish international partnerships in order to promote local hosting solutions and share of services and costs • Make pressure of vendors in order to foster their participation on preservation initiatives

More Related