Project – PRESERV2

Project Name: PRESERV 2

Short Project Name: PRESERV 2

Programme Name:  Repositories and Preservation

Strand:  Preservation

JISC Project URI

Project URI:

Start Date:  July 2007

End Date:  Feb 2009

Governance: JISC IIE

Contact Name and Role: Steve Hitchcock (Project Manager)

Brief project description:

Preserv 2 is a JISC project investigating and developing infrastructural digital preservation services for institutional repositories. Project partners are Southampton University, The National Archives, The British Library and Oxford University.

Name of Trawler: Mahendra Mahey

Outputs: (just link to individual output postings) as a bulleted list

Output – CAIRO: Content Model overview

Title:  Graphical Overview of a Cairo Content Model

Pages: all
Date Released: unknown

Summary of contents:

Graphical overview of a collection content model for archives – displays PREMIS and METS links.

URI for Output:


It is difficult to navigage and display this image as it is currently available.

Output – CAIRO: Tools survey

Title: Cairo tools survey: a survey of tools applicable to the preparation of digital archives for ingest into a preservation repository

Pages: all
Date Released:21 May 2007

Summary of contents:
“The purpose of this tool review is to identify a set of ingest and metadatarelated applications, tools or code that could form the components of the overall Cairo tool package.”p5

This document contains an overview of 54 tools that the project has indentified that have functionality relevant to ingest of personal digital archives for curation and preservation.

Crtieria for inclusion on this list is:
“General criteria for the survey include applications and tools that:

  1. are available now;
  2. are available for public re-use;
  3. may be open source, ‘free to use’ or commercially available;
  4. extract or generate some form of metadata from or about a file object or
  5. objects;
  6. operate on a variety of computing platforms;
  7. have some basic information about them available.”p3

URI for Output:


Output – CAIRO: Cairo Use Cases

Title: Cairo use cases: a survey of user scenarios applicable to the Cairo ingest tool

Pages: all
Date Released: 21 May 2007

Summary of contents:
The CAIRO “project will develop a tool for ingesting complex collections of born-digital materials, with basic descriptive, preservation and relationship metadata, into a preservation repository.” The tool is designed to aggregate and interface with other tools and so reduce the computing skills overhead on archivists awnting to create AIPs. p3
“This document outlines a set of [55] use cases describing the different interactions users of the Cairo tool have with that tool. The use cases also describe the behaviour of the tool in response to those user interactions.”p5

URI for Output:

This document provides a selection of use cases that have shaped the developed of an ingest tool. As such they inform not only this tools but software/service development more generally and institutional preservation planning.

Project – CAIRO

Project Name: Complex Archive Ingest for Repository Objects

Short Project Name: CAIRO

Brief project description:
“This project will develop a tool for ingesting complex collections of born-digital materials, with basic descriptive, preservation and relationship metadata, into a preservation repository. The proposal is based on needs identified by the JISC-funded Paradigm project and the Wellcome Library’s Digital Curation in Action project and is a key building block in our strategy to develop digital repository architectures which can support the development of digital collections. This tool will be tested on personal digital collections already accessioned by the partner institutions and will provide an open-source tool for use by others with similar requirements. The project will produce technical and user support documentation and promote the tool with relevant audiences. “


Programme Name: Repositories and Preservation Programme

Strand: Tools and Innovation

JISC Project URI:
Project URI:

Start Date: 2006-10-01

End Date: 2008-08-31

Governance: Integrated Information Environment Committee (JIIE)

Contact Name and Role: Susan Thomas, Project Manager

Name of Trawler: John

Project – Preserving Access to Software Research Outputs

Project Name: Preserving Access to Software Research Outputs

Programme Name: Repositories and Preservation

Strand: Information Environment

JISC Project URI:

Project URI: None found

Start Date: 1st April 2007

End Date: 31st March 2008


Contact Name and Role: Professor J Woodcock

Brief project description:

The project will investigate issues around the deposition and preservation of software artefacts in repositories. It will develop guidelines for the preservation of software research outputs, in particular, considering the use of existing software repositories such as sourceForge. It will develop these guidelines from the partners’ experience in running a number of software repositories but in particular by monitoring and analysing in detail a particular case study which is a thematic software repository in the software engineering domain.


None available.


No outputs found as at 22nd January 2009. No project website found.

Output – LIFE2 – Economic evaluation of LIFE methodology

Output Name: Output – LIFE2 – Economic evaluation of LIFE methodology

Title: Economic evaluation of LIFE methodology
Number of pages or page numbers: 26 pages

Date Released:

URI for Output:

Summary of contents: Validation of the economic modelling and methodology for the Lifecycle and Generic Preservation formulae developed in Phase 1 of the LIFE project, with technical and presentational development of the models. Cloudlake Consulting Oy carried out this evaluation.  The major conclusions are on page 16:

All in all there seem to be two major application areas for the LIFE models:

  • Institutional repositories, which span a range of object types that are likely to populate the IR of a particular university.
  • Specialised collections of national libraries and similar organisations, which have a national and sometimes legal obligation to long-term archiving.
In the latter case it seems more sensible to apply the model to individual collections than to
the totality of objects stored in say a national library.
In such a case it is important for a national library, which works within budget restrictions, to be able to compare the long term preservation costs of different collections, in order to make informed priority decisions. This is in contrast with the Institutional Repository Case.
An important point which could have far-reaching consequences for the parameters of the
model is how institutional repositories (which are numerous) are going to solve the
preservation management issue. In contrast to national institutions such as the British Library,
universities would gain very obvious benefits from sharing resources for preservation, for
instance via consortia, outsourcing, using external service providers etc. A good case is for instance the technology watch function included in the model. One can argue if there is a need for every university to
duplicate this effort. A more sensible approach would be for certain service providers to
assume the responsibility for issuing guidelines.

Additional information: