International Journal on Digital Libraries

, Volume 10, Issue 4, pp 133–157 | Cite as

Systematic planning for digital preservation: evaluating potential strategies and building preservation plans

  • Christoph BeckerEmail author
  • Hannes Kulovits
  • Mark Guttenbrunner
  • Stephan Strodl
  • Andreas Rauber
  • Hans Hofman


A number of approaches have been proposed for the problem of digital preservation, and the number of tools offering solutions is steadily increasing. However, the decision making procedures are still largely ad-hoc actions. Especially, the process of selecting the most suitable preservation action tool as one of the key issues in preservation planning has not been sufficiently standardised in practice. The Open Archival Information Systems (OAIS) model and corresponding criteria catalogues for trustworthy repositories specify requirements that such a process should fulfill, but do not provide concrete guidance. This article describes a systematic approach for evaluating potential alternatives for preservation actions and building thoroughly defined, accountable preservation plans for keeping digital content alive over time. In this approach, preservation planners empirically evaluate potential action components in a controlled environment and select the most suitable one with respect to the particular requirements of a given setting. The method follows a variation of utility analysis to support multi-criteria decision making procedures in digital preservation planning. The selection procedure leads to well-documented, well-argued and transparent decisions that can be reproduced and revisited at a later point of time. We describe the context and foundation of the approach, discuss the definition of a preservation plan and describe the components that we consider necessary to constitute a solid and complete preservation plan. We then describe a repeatable workflow for accountable decision making in preservation planning. We analyse and discuss experiences in applying this workflow in case studies. We further set the approach in relation to the OAIS model and show how it supports criteria for trustworthy repositories. Finally, we present a planning tool supporting the workflow and point out directions for future research.


Digital preservation Preservation planning OAIS model Decision making Evaluation Trusted repositories Compliance 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Alves, C., Castro, J.: CRE: A systematic method for COTS components selection. In: XV Brazilian symposium on software engineering (SBES), Rio de Janeiro, Brazil (2001)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ayris, P., Davies, R., McLeod, R., Miao, R., Shenton, H., Wheatley, P.: The LIFE2 Final Project Report. London, UK (2008). Research report LIFE Project, London, UK.
  3. 3.
    Beagrie, N., Semple, N., Williams, P., Wright, R.: Digital Preservation Policies Study. Technical report. Charles Beagrie Limited (2008)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Becker, C., Kolar, G., Kueng, J., Rauber, A.: Preserving interactive multimedia art: a case study in preservation planning. In: Asian Digital Libraries. Looking Back 10 Years and Forging New Frontiers. Proceedings of the Tenth Conference on Asian Digital Libraries (ICADL’07), Volume 4822/2007 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Hanoi, Vietnam, 10–13 Dec 2007, pp 257–266. Springer, Berlin (2007)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Becker, C., Strodl, S., Neumayer, R., Rauber, A., Bettelli, E.N., Kaiser, M.: Long-term preservation of electronic theses and dissertations: a case study in preservation planning. In: Proceedings of the 9th Russian Conference on Digital Libraries (RCDL’07), Pereslavl, Russia, October 2007.
  6. 6.
    Becker, C., Ferreira, M., Kraxner, M., Rauber, A., Baptista, A.A., Ramalho, J.C.: Distributed preservation services: integrating planning and actions. In: Christensen-Dalsgaard, B., Castelli, D., Ammitzbll Jurik, B., Lippincott, J. (eds.) Research and Advanced Technology for Digital Libraries. Proceedings of the 12th European Conference on Digital Libraries (ECDL’08), Volume LNCS 5173 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Aarhus, Denmark, 14–19 Sept 2008, pp. 25–36. Springer, Berlin (2008)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Becker, C., Kulovits, H., Rauber, A., Hofman, H.: Plato: a service oriented decision support system for preservation planning. In: Proceedings of the 8th ACM IEEE Joint Conference on Digital Libraries (JCDL’08), pp. 367–370 (2008)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Becker, C., Rauber, A., Heydegger, V., Schnasse, J., Thaller, M.: A generic XML language for characterising objects to support digital preservation. In: Proceedings of the 23rd Annual ACM Symposium on Applied Computing (SAC’08), Fortaleza, Brazil, 16–20 March 2008, vol. 1, pp. 402–406. ACM (2008)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Becker, C., Kulovits, H., Kraxner, M., Gottardi, R., Rauber, A., Welte, R.: Adding quality-awareness to evaluate migration web-services and remote emulation for digital preservation. In: Proceedings of the 13th European Conference on Digital Libraries (ECDL’09), Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Corfu, Greece, September 2009. Springer Berlin (2009)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Brody T., Carr L., Hey J.M.N., Brown A., Hitchcock S.: PRONOM-ROAR: adding format profiles to a repository registry to inform preservation services. Int. J. Digit. Curation 2(2), 3–19 (2007)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Carvallo J.P., Franch X., Quer C.: Determining criteria for selecting software components: lessons learned. IEEE Softw. 24(3), 84–94 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Carvallo, J.P., Franch, X., Quer, C.: Requirements engineering for cots-based software systems. In: Proceedings of the 23rd Annual ACM Symposium on Applied Computing (SAC’08), Fortaleza, Brazil, 16–20 March 2008, pp. 638–644. ACM (2008)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Dobratz, S., Schoger, A., Strathmann, S.: The nestor catalogue of criteria for trusted digital repository evaluation and certification. J. Digit. Inform. 8(2), (2007).
  14. 14.
    erpanet: Digital Preservation Policy Tool, September 2003.
  15. 15.
    Farquhar A., Hockx-Yu H.: Planets: integrated services for digital preservation. Int. J. Digit. Curation 2(2), 88–99 (2007)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Franch X., Carvallo J.P.: Using quality models in software package selection. IEEE Softw. 20(1), 34–41 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Gilliland-Swetland, A.J., Eppard, P.B.: Preserving the authenticity of contingent digital objects: the InterPARES project. D-Lib Mag. 6(7/8), (2000).
  18. 18.
    Guttenbrunner, M., Becker, C., Rauber, A.: Evaluating strategies for the preservation of console video games. In: Proceedings of the Fifth international Conference on Preservation of Digital Objects (iPRES 2008), London, UK, September 2008, pp. 115–121Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Hockx-Yu, H., Knight, G.: What to preserve?: significant properties of digital objects. Int. J. Digit. Curation 3(1), (2008).
  20. 20.
    Hoeven J.R., Van Der Diessen R.J., Van En Meer K.: Development of a universal virtual computer (UVC) for long-term preservation of digital objects. J. Inf. Sci. 31(3), 196–208 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Hofman, H., Planets-PP subproject, Becker, C., Strodl, S., Kulovits, H., Rauber, A.: Preservation plan template. Technical report, The Planets project (2008).
  22. 22.
    ISO: Software Engineering—Product Quality—Part 1: Quality Model (ISO/IEC 9126-1). International Standards Organization (2001)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    ISO: Information technology—Multimedia Content Description Interface—Part 1: Systems (ISO/IEC 15938-1:2002). International Standards Organization (2002)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    ISO: Open Archival Information System—Reference Model (ISO 14721:2003). International Standards Organization (2003)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    ISO: Document management—Electronic Document File Format for Long-term Preservation—Part 1: Use of PDF 1.4 (PDF/A) (ISO/CD 19005-1). International Standards Organization (2004)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    ISO: Information Technology—JPEG 2000 Image Coding System—Part 12: ISO Base Media File Format (ISO/IEC 15444-12:2005). International Standards Organization (2005)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    ISO: Information Technology—Open Document Format for Office Applications (ISO/IEC 26300:2006). International Standards Organization (2006)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Jadhav A.S., Sonar R.M.: Evaluating and selecting software packages: a review. Inf. Softw. Technol. 51(3), 555–563 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    King, R., Schmidt, R., Jackson, A.N., Wilson, C., Steeg, F.: The planets interoperability framework: an infrastructure for digital preservation actions. In: Proceedings of the 13th European Conference on Digital Libraries (ECDL’2009), 2009Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Knight G., Pennock M.: Data without meaning: establishing the significant properties of digital research. Int. J. Digit. Curation 4(1), 159–174 (2009)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Kontio, J.: OTSO: a systematic process for reusable software component selection. Technical report, College Park (1995)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Kontio, J.: A case study in applying a systematic method for COTS selection. In: Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE-18), Berlin, pp. 201–209 (1996)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Kulovits, H., Rauber, A., Brantl, M., Schoger, A., Beinert, T., Kugler, A.: From TIFF to JPEG2000? Preservation planning at the Bavarian State Library using a collection of digitised 16th century printings. D-Lib Mag. 15(11/12), (2009).
  34. 34.
    Land, R., Blankers, L., Chaudron, M., Crnkovic, I.: High Confidence Software Reuse in Large Systems, Volume 5030 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Chapter COTS Selection Best Practices in Literature and in Industry, pp. 100–111. Springer, Berlin (2008)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Lawrence, G.W., Kehoe, W.R., Rieger, O.Y., Walters, W.H., Kenney, A.R.: Risk management of digital information: a file format investigation. CLIR report 93, Council on Library and Information Resources, June (2000)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Maiden N.A., Ncube C.: Acquiring COTS software selection requirements. IEEE Softw. 15(2), 46–56 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Mellor, P.: Camileon: emulation and BBC domesday. RLG DigiNews 7(2), April (2003)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Mohamed, A., Ruhe, G., Eberlein, A.: COTS selection: past, present, and future. In: Proceedings of the 14th Annual IEEE International Conference and Workshop on the Engineering of Computer Based Systems (ECBS’07), pp. 103–114 (2007)Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    National Library of Australia: Guidelines for the Preservation of Digital Heritage. Information Society Division United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) (2003).
  40. 40.
    Ncube, C., Dean, J.C.: COTS-Based Software Systems, Volume 2255 of LNCS, Chapter The Limitations of Current Decision-Making Techniques in the Procurement of COTS Software Components, pp. 176–187. Springer, Berlin (2002)Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Ncube, C., Maiden N.A.M.: PORE: Procurement-orienteds requirements engineering method for the component-based systems engineering development paradigm. In: Development Paradigm. International Workshop on Component-Based Software Engineering, pp. 1–12 (1999)Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    nestor Working Group-Trusted Repositories Certification: Catalogue of Criteria for Trusted Digital Repositories, Version 1. Technical report. nestor—Network of Expertise in long-term STORage, Frankfurt am Main (2006)Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Neubauer, T., Stummer, C.: Interactive decision support for multiobjective cots selection. In: HICSS’07: Proceedings of the 40th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Washington, DC, USA, p. 283b. IEEE Computer Society (2007)Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    RLG/OCLC Working Group on Digital Archive Attributes: Trusted Digital Repositories: Attributes and Responsibilities. Research Libraries Group (2002).
  45. 45.
    Rolland C.: Requirements engineering for COTS based systems. Inf. Softw. Technol. 41, 985–990 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Ross, S., McHugh, A.: The role of evidence in establishing trust in repositories. D-Lib Mag. 12(7/8), (2006)Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Rothenberg, J.: Avoiding Technological Quicksand: Finding a Viable Technical Foundation for Digital Preservation. Council on Library and Information Resources (1999).
  48. 48.
    Rothenberg, J., Bikson, T. Carrying authentic, understandable and usable digital records through time. Technical report. Report to the Dutch National Archives and Ministry of the Interior, The Hague (1999)Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Saaty T.L.: How to make a decision: the analytic hierarchy process. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 48(1), 9–26 (1990)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Strodl, S., Becker, C., Neumayer, R., Rauber, A.: How to choose a digital preservation strategy: evaluating a preservation planning procedure. In: Proceedings of the 7th ACM IEEE Joint Conference on Digital Libraries (JCDL’07), Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, June 2007, pp. 29–38Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Strodl S., Rauber A.: Preservation planning in the OAIS model. New Technol. Libr. Inf. Serv. 1, 61–68 (2008)Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    The 100 Year Archive Task Force: The 100 year archive requirements survey. (2007)
  53. 53.
    The Center for Research Libraries (CRL), Online Computer Library Center, Inc.(OCLC): Trustworthy Repositories Audit & Certification: Criteria and Checklist (TRAC). Technical Report 1.0. CRL and OCLC (2007)Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Thibodeau, K.: Overview of technological approaches to digital preservation and challenges in coming years. In: The State of Digital Preservation: An International Perspective, Washington, DC, July 2002. Council on Library and Information Resources (2002).
  55. 55.
    van der Hoeven, J., van Wijngaarden, H.: Modular emulation as a long-term preservation strategy for digital objects. In: 5th International Web Archiving Workshop (IWAW05), Vienna, Austria (2005)Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    van Lamsweerde, A. Goal-oriented requirements engineering: a guided tour. In: Proceedings RE’01, 5th IEEE International Symposium on Requirements Engineering, Toronto, Canada, pp. 249–263 (2001)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Christoph Becker
    • 1
    Email author
  • Hannes Kulovits
    • 1
  • Mark Guttenbrunner
    • 1
  • Stephan Strodl
    • 1
  • Andreas Rauber
    • 1
  • Hans Hofman
    • 2
  1. 1.Vienna University of TechnologyViennaAustria
  2. 2.Nationaal ArchiefThe HagueThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations