Title: Survey of digital assets at the University of Florida, January 7, 2004
Full Citation
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00087407/00001
 Material Information
Title: Survey of digital assets at the University of Florida, January 7, 2004
Physical Description: Book
Language: English
Creator: University of Florida Libraries. Task Force on Institutional Repositories.
Publisher: University of Florida Libraries
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2004
Subject: University of Florida.   ( lcsh )
Spatial Coverage: North America -- United States of America -- Florida
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00087407
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved, Board of Trustees of the University of Florida


This item has the following downloads:

UFDigitalAssets ( PDF )

Full Text

Survey of Digital Assets at the University of Florida
January 7, 2004
Submitted by the Task Force on Institutional Repositories
Stephanie C. Haas, chairperson, Members: Suzy Covey, Vernon Kisling, Priscilla Williams, Cathy
Mook, Winston Harris, Peter McKay, and Carl Van Ness.



With Open Access and scholarly communication the rallying point of many proponents of Institutional
Repositories (IR), the definition of what contents should be placed in repositories remains open to
debate. While many of the early initiatives, e.g., eprints from the University of Southampton,
eScholarhip at University of California, Dspace at MIT, focused on the pre and post print versions of
journal articles, the overriding difficulties remain faculty buy-in to the concept, the implications for
peer-review and associated tenure issues, and the copyright issues. A survey by Ware of 45 institutional
repositories found that the average number of documents per repository was only 1,245. (Ware, M.
2004. "Universities' Own Electronic Repositories Yet to Impact Open Access." Nature.comr's Web
Focus: Access to the Literature. http://www.nature.com/nature/focus/accessdebate/4.html] The recent
initiative by NIH to mandate deposition of articles in PubMed will provide a tremendously powerful
incentive to one of the nation's largest scientific communities to participate in repository building.
Similar initiatives are occurring in Norway, Denmark, and the UK, where Wellcome Trust (an
independent biomedical research funding charity which currently spends over 400 million each year)
announced a new policy whereby "Wellcome Trust grantees will be required to deposit an electronic
version of their peer reviewed research articles in PubMed Central (or the European PMC, once
established) no later than six months after the date of publication." It is the belief of the Task Force
that leverage tied to research funding will have a far greater impact on participation than other
incentives. If all major funding agencies mandated deposition, it is likely that major repositories could
be developed rapidly with critical mass of discipline-related documents. Susan Gibbons, University of
Rochester, (IR conference) indicated that faculty felt much more connected to their disciplinary
colleagues than their institution which would also support the idea of subject based repositories, e.g.,
PubMed, rather than institutional ones. Many of the speakers at the SPARC/IR conference mentioned
that no individual IR will have enough material on any one subject to be of research value; only by
synchronizing the building of subject content can a viable open access research collection be created.
Because of the many issues associated with this genre of materials, the Task Force believes trends
should be closely monitored, but these materials should not be the first to be addressed in IR planning.

Beyond articles, many institutions have used theses, dissertations, honor papers, and technical reports as
the core for establishing repositories.


The University of Florida already has implemented a procedure for the submittal, storing and access to
its theses and dissertations. Similarly, the Digital Library Center in collaboration with other campus
units has begun to digitize and make available through the PALMM initiative some of the major

technical report series of the colleges, departments, and centers of the University. Although series are
being digitized as resources permit, key series that are underway include:

1. Bulletin of the Florida Museum of Natural History (v.1-15 completed);
2. Annual Reports, Bulletins, Circulars, and Miscellaneous Publications of the Florida Extension
3. Annual Reports, Bulletins, and Press Bulletins of the Florida Experiment Station;
4. Bulletins, Leaflets, Technical Progress Reports, and Florida Engineering News from the Florida
Engineering Experiment Station; and
5. Technical Reports of the Howard T. Odum Center for Wetlands.

Additionally, discussions are underway with IFAS to determine the most appropriate way to archive and
provide access to the historical versions of the EDIS publications as they are updated.


Also, there are some examples of journals that have migrated to electronic format. Several of these have
been developed by and in association with UF faculty and are served off of the servers at the Florida
Center for Library Automation. These include: Florida Entomologist, Journal of Nematology,
Nematologia Mediterranea, Nematropica, and Proceedings of the Florida State Horticultural Society.

With legacy trails in the print universe, it is likely that major series that have crossed into digital realms
can be readily identified and appropriate procedures established to prevent their disappearance and
assure their accessibility. What remains unknown about UF's digital assets then are non-major series,
individual items, class related items, and other ephemeral digital objects created by units, faculty, staff,
and students.



Aware of the magnitude of the digital universe, the Task Force decided not to include Law and Health in
this preliminary study, except where centers are run by multiple colleges. Review of digital assets
concentrated on non-maj or reoccurring digital objects created by university units at the university
administration, college, departmental, and institute/center level. No attempt was made to inventory the
digital contributions of individuals: faculty, staff, or students unless they were codified at a higher level.
While there is no doubt that the curricular related materials developed during the instructional process
are valuable, time constraints tabled their inclusion until a future time.

Two strategies were used to determine digital assets. The first was an online survey that was sent to the
Dean's list. Seventy-five responses were received but that produced only 19 URLs to digital objects. It
appears that list reaches a different constituency than the one creating Web sites within University units.
There were many responses from health related units but none of these except the Student Health Center
itemized any sites.

The second strategy involved each of the Task Force members reviewing a portion of the University's

digital presence. Again, the parameter for URL inclusions was some indication of reoccurring content,
or pseudo-seriality, such as collections of monographic works, e.g., technical report series.

Task Force members were assigned web exploration tasks in relevant subject areas:

Carl- university administrative units
Peter-College of Business Administration & School of Accounting and departmental sites for
Social Sciences: Anthropology, Political Science, Psychology, Sociology, Journalism
Vernon-sciences, excluding agriculture
Stephanie -College of Agriculture and its departments, a portion of the Centers, and the College
of Health and Human Performance
Priscilla-African & Asian Languages and Literatures Dept., Communication Sciences &
Disorders Dept., English Dept., Philosophy Dept., and Romance Languages and Literatures Dept
Cathy-Classics, Criminology, German and Slavic studies, History and Religion.
Religion, Education, and she sampled the Department web sites from the College of Fine Arts.
Stephanie, Suzy, and Winston- reviewed the Web sites maintained by the various Centers of the

For each site, the following information was collected: unit name, title, URL, format, frequency,
audience, notes.

Sites were reviewed from November 30 to December 14 and the results were integrated into an Excel
spreadsheet, including the unique titles from the Dean's list survey. A total of 313 sites were visited. Of
these, 244 had identifiable titles that were of potential interest, either in terms of research or historical
value, including documenting activities of the university community. The 69 other sites either had no
content that could be identified or the unit itself could not be located. This happened with several of the


Results of the survey indicate that the Web is being rapidly assimilated into the administrative, research,
and outreach efforts of the university community. To provide a general context for reviewing UF's
digital assets, some broad categorization of results is useful.

Table 1
Table 1 indicates the units identified and the University unit/college URL Count
number of sites identified that seem to have University Administration 24
research interest. Agricultural and Life Science 100
Business Administration 23
Design, Construction, and Planning 9
Education 5
Engineering 26
Florida Museum of Natural History 8
Journalism and Communication 11
Liberal Arts & Sciences 40

Other categorizations that establish an overview of the digital assets are genre (Table 2) and format
(Table 3). The genre field shows the types of materials being created and served on the Web. Because
the Task Force was looking for pseudo-serial types of digital assets, a cursory review of results
differentiated the following types: annual reports; newsletters; technical series that could include report
series, identification keys, lectures, journal articles, etc.; administrative documents; journals; image
collections; and publicity series. While pdf and html formats dominated, Table 3 indicates counts for all
formats identified. It should be noted that for some objects, multiple formats are available, e.g., pdf,
html or pdf, Flash

Table 2. Number of genre types
Administrative documents
Annual reports
Image collections
Publicity series
Technical series


Table 3. Formats used
t Format
23 html
9 asp
3 pdf
2 wmv
8 ppt
76 mov
5 p
n Jpg

Predominate Genre: Technical series, Newsletters, Administrative documents, and Journals

As noted above, technical series, newsletters and administrative documents make up the greatest
proportion of documents on the web. Table 4 provides analysis of these genre.

Table 4.
Genre (Number of sites) College Notes
Technical series (105) College of Agricultural and Life Format: html and pdf
Sciences (19) Lectures in audio formats: .wmv
Liberal Arts & Sciences (19) and .mov
Business Administration (11) ALEPH cataloging: Largely
Enineering (11) missing for series title and/or
Education (5) individual titles, e.g., neither
Design, Constru n ad Publications on Economic
Design, Construction and .
i, ( a Implications for Florida of the
Planning (4) Terrorist Attacks in New York
and Washington DC, Sept. 11,
All other units (36) 2001 nor the eight papers of this
series were in the catalog.


Newsletters (76) Agriculture and Life Sciences Format: html and pdf; 1-jpg and
(37) 1-asp; some are in multiple
Liberal Arts & Sciences (14) formats.
Engineering (8) ALEPH cataloging: 65 have not
Florida Museum of Nat. Hist.(6) been cataloged in ALEPH, 7
Journalism (4) have records for the print version
All others (7) only, and 4 have cataloging for
the electronic version.
Journals (8) Liberal Arts & Sciences (6) Format: html and pdf; 1-flash
All others (2) ALEPH catalog: 6 of 8 titles

Technical series include a diverse set of materials. They may be technical reports, bulletins, briefs,
circulars, lectures, data sets, monographic series, position papers, proceedings, general collections,
presentations, fact sheets, project papers, etc. The content of these series indicates that they have been
created for more serious business and research/educational endeavors. Audiences named include policy
makers, industry groups, federal agencies, researchers, regulators, academics, and informed public.
Many of these publications are issued on an irregular basis.

Newsletter frequency ranges from once a year to bi-weekly, and issues available online range from one
to archives containing several years. The intended audience of newsletters was frequently the staff,
students, and alumni of the given department; others were focused on providing timely information to
the practioners in the specified field; and still others appeared to be intended for general public
education. This was particularly true of newsletters produced by IFAS extension, e.g., Family Nutrition
Newsletter. Although archiving policies could not be determined, one surmises that archived issues
indicate a value determination.

University administrative documents include budget documents, handbooks for faculty and students,
program reviews, schedules of courses, etc. They document the official business of both the university
and the departments. Of the titles, fourteen were in ALEPH: seven had entries for the print version only,
and one has a record for the online version only of the University of Florida Student Guide.

Other series

The salient points concerning the other types of series are:

All of the annual reports are in pdf format. Some sites have archives from previous years.

Databases include the Archie Carr Sea Turtle database that is created in ProCite, massaged into a
pseudo-MARC record, and served by FCLA. The Aquatic and Invasive Plants database is served
off a dedicated server by the Center for Aquatic and Invasive Plants. DOCWEB is a database to
the documents of Computing & Network Services.

The two image collections identified are served in jpg formats. Copyright, use restrictions, and
fees are known to apply to the images at the Center for Aquatic and Invasive Plants. Images at
the North Florida Research and Education Center site appear freely available.

Publicity objects are in html, pdf, wmv, and asp. Most appear to be news releases.


Four units account for 77% of the sites identified in this survey. They are the colleges of Agriculture
and Life Science (100), Liberal Arts & Sciences (40), and Engineering(26). The fourth is a cluster of
university administration units (24). A brief discussion of each of these units is given below. Data for
all colleges/units is available on the Task Force web site at
http://www.uflib.ufl.edu/digital/Temporary/IR/Relateddocs.htm. Each of the colleges has some unique
sites. These are discussed briefly below.

Agricultural and Life Sciences

Because of the breadth of functions of this college, it represents a microcosm of the types of digital sites
found throughout the university community with a predominance of technical and newsletter series.
Some of the sites are extremely complex, e.g., keys to insect identification created by the Entomology
and Nematology Department, and the equally complex Singing Insects of North America
[http://buzz.ifas.ufl.edu/] that includes species information including sounds in way file format. An
additional aspect of the latter site is that images and sounds are collected from all over the world and the
contributor retains the copyright for contributions.

Liberal Arts and Sciences

Of interest in the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences are their online journals and the audio clips
associated with the children's' culture program entitled Recess. Technical series, newsletters and
journals are the top three genre. Technical series include DNA sequences, sea turtle tag data,
astronomical data (faculty copyrighted), and meeting reports.

College of Engineering

Video project descriptions are available through Engineering in wmv format. Again, technical series
and newsletters are the major genre.

University Administrative Units

Administrative series are documents related to the operations of the institution including catalogs,
student guides, miscellaneous athletic guides, publicity, journals, annual reports, etc. They are all in
html/pdf formats. Many have archive files associated with them.
One set of documents that was previously mentioned was the honors papers. Although not a focus of
this survey, honors papers are published in the Journal of Undergraduate Research which is available
online at http://web.clas.ufl.edu/CLAS/jur/. All issues are available online and searchable with the UF
Google interface.


This section relates the survey results to the Task Force objectives. It should be noted that certain
objectives were purposely left undone because the labor needed was not available and because
overriding policy decisions concerning the content of a UF institutional repository need to be established
before further effort is warranted. Objectives of the Task Force are:

1. Review existing lists of intellectual products produced by all units of the University of

313 sites were reviewed yielding 244 identifiable titles of potential interest. The review
purposely excluded the Health Center and Law units.

2. Determine what products are currently being published and in what format, i.e., print or
digitally, and the digital format, e.g., jpg, tiff, pdf, html. Determine the physical extent of
these products. Where necessary, units will be contacted to verify production. Identify a
source for obtaining copies of the products identified. The information collected in this
objective will be used by the Digital Library Center to determine costs for digitization and

A database was compiled listing academic unit, title, URL, format, frequency, intended audience,
and notes. For the majority ofURLs identified, digital formats could be identified. Although year
ranges were recorded for many archived series, no attempt was made to verify the physical extent,
i.e., file sizes of any of the archived titles. Unencrypted PDF files will offer few challenges to
capture and archiving, but the HTML files with their many external links will pose intellectual and
probably legal issues. Some preliminary work on file sizes of IFAS documents was done and will be
discussed under Costs in the Conclusion section below.

3. Analyze intellectual production in terms of ingesting and archiving feasibility; in other
words, what formats can be processed without major reengineering. Reference UF ETD
acceptable formats and FCLA Digital Archive acceptable formats. Where products are
already being issued in electronic format, determine what programming and software will be
needed to capture the objects for repository inclusion.

The list of formats and acceptability levels for the FCLA Digital Archives is given below. Although
HTML files can be handled, the complexity of external linkages used to populate and provide
functionality to these pages must be considered carefully prior to creating archival packages.
According to Priscilla Caplan, the entire package will need to be harvested before submitting to
FCLA for archiving.

Format Instances FCLA Digital Archive Acceptability Level
Aceptable Bit level preservation only
html 76 HTML 4.x (include a
DOCTYPE declaration)
asp 3

pdf 140 Embedded Fonts; no Encryption

wmv 2 Bit level preservation only
ppt 3 Bit level preservation only
mov 1 Bit level preservation only
flash 1
jpg 1 JPEG/JFIF (*.jpg)

3. Define potential audiences) for these materials. The Task Force may consult with any
library staff member or any faculty member or faculty group as necessary to determine
potential uses and audiences of any products identified.

Audiences ranged from faculty, student, staff, and alumni to professionals in various disciplines.

4. Determine what if any copyright restrictions apply.

Copyright designations on UF web sites appear to very greatly. Some sites bear the copyright
symbol preceded by the departmental name, others use the copyright symbol followed by a year and
the University of Florida. Some of the IFAS sites have no designation of any type; others have the
following complex statement:

This document is copyrighted by the University ofFlorida, Institute of
Food and Agricultural Sciences (UF/IFAS) for the people of the State of
Florida. UF/IFAS retains all rights under all conventions, but permits free
reproduction by all agents and offices of the Cooperative Extension
Service and the people of the State ofFlorida. Permission is granted to
others to use these materials in part or in full for educational purposes,
provided that full credit is given to the UF/IFAS, citing the publication, its
source, and date ofpublication.

It is apparent that if a title is selected for inclusion in the institutional repository that
verification of copyright status will need to be confirmed. Since the intent of the
repository will be to provide long-term access, it is believed that most departments
will cooperate willingly with submittal/ingest of titles.

5. Based on its findings, the Task Force will recommend collection management policies that
facilitate the building of the repository.

Task Force members suggested that collection management policies of UF digital assets cannot be
developed without the input and cooperation of numerous units across campus.
Selector input on digital content will be addressed in the concluding section.


As numerous studies and speakers have indicated, successful institutional repositories require sufficient
human and technical support from all levels of an institution. While the Task Force has attempted to

canvas UF's digital assets, no member believes that this represents a comprehensive review.
Nonetheless, it does permit us to set forth a fairly accurate view of the current balance sheet.

Summarily, it appears that the UF community is actively involved in presenting its research, news,
outreach, and educational activities through Web publishing. The content developed by departmental
efforts flavor each college's presence. Some departments have extremely well organized sites with
archival runs of publications, e.g., Business Administration, Journalism, some IFAS departments, while
others display little consistency.

In terms of catalog access to titles, when earlier print versions of series existed, records exist in ALEPH,
but many electronic versions do not have records.

Copyright designations vary across the sites. When numerous, non-UF individuals/agencies have
contributed to site development, the copyright issues become extremely complex. In some cases,
copyright is attributed to an individual faculty member. Another factor in this arena is the economic
models used to develop certain serial titles. Some departments sell their publications, both in print and
downloadable files, as a means of generating income.

In terms of IR functions, the Task Force believes that both access and archival
preservation are important. Access can be provided by UF through its own servers;
whereas, archiving should be outsourced to FCLA. Different formats will be used for
access vs. archiving.

The question of access/archiving actually requires a two node infrastructure. Access can
be accomplished in a number of ways but ingesting digital documents and creating
searchable metadata appear most foolproof against the lost link syndrome. True digital
archiving with implied forward migrations, refreshing, etc. is available only by
submitting documents to FCLA's digital archive. This is not a searchable archive, has a
fee structure, and should be used for titles that are expected to have lasting value.

Currently, Greenstone open source software is being acquired to facilitate the future
development of UF textual and graphic digital collections. This software can be used for
institutional repository development as well. As soon as the new version is available, its
IR functionality should be tested. An example of the ingesting mechanism of Greenstone
can be seen at the Indian Institute of Science Publications Database http://vidva-
mapak.ncsi.iisc.ernet.in/cgi-bin/library under "Add Publications." The Task Force
believes that until the system infrastructure is in place and tested, content building and IR
promotion should be limited.

It appears that many institutions have taken the approach of building a repository using
Dspace, eprints, or some other software and then assuming that faculty will be interested
in archiving digital titles. Since this does not appear to be a valid assumption, the Task
Force recommends a more circumspect approach to the development of an institutional
repository. As mentioned at the outset, UF already has IR content that is being created.
(Please see Background Comments.) In the cases of both the electronic theses and
dissertations and the series digitized by the Digital Library Center, the digital titles have

access and archiving strategies in place. The theses and dissertations are being served by
FCLA and they will be archived in FCLA's digital archive, as will the UF titles already
digitized by the DLC.


Specific recommendations by the Task Force concerning the next steps in developing a
UF repository are outlined below. Unless additional personnel is hired, selectors will
bear the brunt of labor involved in building the content of the IR. This means that they
must fully buy into the importance of developing UF's IR and must also understand the
architecture and functioning of Greenstone so that they can explain it fully to departments
and others.

Institutional Repository Architecture

1) Existing UF collections, e.g., electronic theses and dissertations, Florida
Agriculture and Rural Life, and Florida Environments Online already constitute a
nascent institutional repository, they simply have never been clustered formally as
a UF digital collection/repository.
2) The loading, testing, and maintenance of Greenstone's institutional repository
functions are paramount. Here the systems department and DLC director and
metadata coordinator will play critical roles..
3) Concurrently, the metadata format for repository items should be developed
jointly by cataloging and DLC.
4) Once testing is complete, procedural guidelines for self-archiving various types of
digital files must be compiled, and all selectors trained.
5) If UF is desirous of having all of its digital assets searched through a central point,
metadata for these existing materials could be harvested into the IR with links to
the distributed full text files.

Content Development

While the Task Force recognizes the potential need for a centralized UF digital
collection, the effort involved in building it requires campus wide support and input.
While the library system may take a leadership role in its development, its success
and sustainability depend on a critical perception by the university community as to
its value, and at a more basic level, a belief in the long-term value of the Web
publications they are creating.

As builders and promoters of this digital collection, CM selector participation
becomes essential. The activities defined below are dependent on selector

1) Selectors need to take the sites already identified, complete the departmental
web investigation, and enumerate titles of research potential. It should be noted
that some of the Task Force members felt that the sites they reviewed were of

minimal research value and questioned the need for archiving in any sense of the

2) Using their compiled lists, selectors should directly contact the department to
determine how it views the research value of the site. If concordance is high, a
discussion of self archiving the site to UF's institutional repository and beyond to
FCLA's digital archive should follow. The Task Force believes that departments
must be involved in evaluating the research worth of their own publications.

3) As the selectors complete #1 above, the Task Force members suggest that three
collecting priorities have already been established based on print materials: the
administrative documents of the university, IFAS document series, and theses
and dissertations. Similarly, the Digital Library Center should continue to
pursue its current negotiation with IFAS to capture documents in the UF IR and
archive them in the FCLA digital archives. Appropriate procedures for
incorporating theses/dissertations into the UF digital collection/repository should
also be explored.

Constituency Building and the Future

While the Task Force members understand the "glamour" associated with open access to
faculty publications, the initial UF digital collection/repository and archiving activities
should be directed toward official university documents and publications that have
research/historical value but are not in the national spotlight. By focusing on access and
archiving of administrative and departmental/unit digital assets, the value of the
institutional collection/repository should be easy to establish and explain. As
departmental contributions become established and monitored, efforts can be expanded to
alert individual faculty members to the campus-wide IR initiative. Solicitation of
curricular related materials might be considered as a next phase.

Two current leverages provide incentives for participating in repositories: administrative and
legal mandates and monetary considerations, i.e., funding sources require copy deposition-
At UF, state law and university mandates require the University to retain core documents that
have permanent historical and administrative value. Traditionally, these have been deposited
in the University Archives. Because the Task Force believes funding agency leverage will
play a critical role in developing open access to journal articles, they advise a spectator role
in this arena until the success of the NIH/PubMed initiative can be evaluated. Nonetheless, it
was noted that some faculty are already making copies of their publications available on
departmental and individual web sites. Technically, it is possible to ingest these documents,
but systematic collection of journal articles raises compelling legal issues. One interesting
angle is the Minds of Carolina project at the University of North Carolina that focuses on
retiring faculty. "Faced with the question of what will happen to their scholarly contributions
on retirement, retiring faculty members are receptive to the stewardship and preservation of
an IR." -Library Technology Reports, July-August 2004, 40(4): 58. An additional strategy is
to determine faculty with high research profiles (using citation counts) and recruit them as

Cost Factors

The annual operating cost (salaries, benefits, operating expenses, and business escrow) for
MIT's Dspace repository is $285,000, and the University of Rochester's repository is
$200,000. These costs do not include what may prove to be the most costly component: the
future cost of preservation.

Although the Task Force realizes the danger of making estimates without sufficient data,
the following section provides a draft of the staffing, equipment, and file storage
requirements that might be needed, based on the recommendations above.


Time Title Description
1 FTE Program Developer Coordinate all activities of the
institutional repository, develop guides
and manuals related to the institutional
repository, train selectors, and as needed
train departmental staff, set timelines,
monitor submittals and use, and
document development of repository
.25FTE Greenstone Develops functionality for institutional
Programmer repository including ingest,
normalization, metadata template and
.5FTE Normalization Tech Responsible for taking ingested
documents and converting them to
acceptable formats for digital archiving,
e.g., encrypted pdfs should be
unencrypted before submittal to FCLA.
.5FTE Metadata Cataloger Reviews ingest template and records
created from its use. Provide authority
control for metadata.
.1 FTE (4hrs/wk) until Selectors Review departmental sites, reach
review is finished; consensus with departmental
repeat review every representatives on research value, alert
two years program developer to titles to be
ingested. Confirm ingestion.
.1FTE (4hrs/wk) until University Archivist Assigned to work with Dennis Kovac,
review is finished; UF's Record Manager to determine
repeat review as university titles that need permanent
needed __retention in the digital archive.


Web servers should be purchased and maintained in the systems department. One for
digital content storage and one developmental server to test system modifications without
impacting access to content. Specifications have been developed by Bill Covey and
Erich Kesse.

System backup either magnetic tapes, off-site storage, or redundant servers.
Specifications need to be developed by Bill Covey.

Greenstone software is free ware, but may require additional software purchases to
provide functionality desired. Confirm needed software with Erich Kesse and Bill

Storage file size

The first year will include the ingesting of 50 digital administrative unit titles (est. by C.
Van Ness), the current 3,600 digital IFAS documents, and the first 150 digital titles
identified by selectors.

Estimating file size is inexact and should be revalidated before actual budgeting occurs.
For html files, all of the peripheral files that define a page content must be captured and
this creates the potential for ingesting tremendously expanded files. The development
team should be particularly aware of this and make appropriate policy decisions
concerning the depth of capture. The chart below indicates approximate file sizes for
various genre and formats to be ingested in the first year. The sizes for the IFAS
documents are based on a sample of 30 titles. A sample of file sizes for administrative
documents is also given. Estimates of storage cannot be given until all titles and formats
have been determined.

Unit Calculation Method/Title Format # proposed for Storage needed
IFAS Based on 30 EDIS title html=19 KB /title 3,600 67MB -does not
sample include images and
other information
stored on peripheral
pdf=719 KB /title 3,600 2,728MB

Digital Archiving

Because FCLA will be the first functional digital archives in the U.S., there is no way to
estimate storage costs for archiving. It is generally understood that FCLA will provide
storage for the first year for free until enough data is available to make reasonable cost
projections. Once data is available a cost structure will be developed and then the UF
Library can determine its policies of retention.

University of Florida Home Page
© 2004 - 2010 University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries.
All rights reserved.

Acceptable Use, Copyright, and Disclaimer Statement
Last updated October 10, 2010 - - mvs