Website Archivability - Library of Congress NDIIPP Presentation 2015/06/03

CLEAR+: a Credible Live Evaluation Method of Website Archivability

Vangelis Banos, Yannis Manolopoulos

3 JUNE 2015 NATIONAL DIGITAL INFORMATION INFRASTRUCTURE AND PRESERVATION

PROGRAMLIBRARY OF CONGRESS

Data Engineering LabDepartment of Informatics, Aristotle University, Thessaloniki , Greece

ARCHIVEREADY.COM

Website Archivability 2

Table of Contents1. Motivation and problem definition, related work,

2. Website Archivability,

3. CLEAR+: A Credible Live method to Evaluate Website Archivability,

4. Demonstration: http://archiveready.com/,

5. Experimental Evaluation,

6. Use Cases,

7. Web Content Management Systems Archivability

8. Discussion – conclusions.

1. Motivation• Web developer: I’m building a website. Is it

going to be archived correctly by a web archive?I don’t know until I see the archived snapshot…

• Web archivist: Can I archive that website?I don’t know, let’s crawl it and we’ll see the results…

• Professor: How can I teach my students about web archiving?100’s of standards but not many relevant apps online…

3

Problem definition• Web content acquisition is a critical step in the

process of web archiving;• If the initial Submission Information Package lacks

completeness and accuracy for any reason (e.g. missing or invalid web content), the rest of the preservation processes are rendered useless;

• There is no guarantee that web bots dedicated to retrieving website content can access and retrieve it successfully;

• Web bots face increasing difficulties in harvesting websites.

4

5

• Web harvesting is automated while Quality Assurance (QA) is mostly manual.

• Web archives perform test crawls.• Humans review the results, resources are spent.

• After web harvesting, administrators review manually the content and endorse or reject the harvested material.

• Efforts to deploy crowdsourced techniques to manage QA provide an indication of how significant the bottleneck is. • (IIPC GA 2012 Crowdsourcing Workshop)

Problem definition

6

1. the introduction of the notion of Website Archivability,

2. the Credible Live Evaluation of Archive Readiness Plus (CLEAR+) method to measure Website Archivability

3. ArchiveReady.com, a web application which implements the proposed method.

Publications:• Banos V., Manolopoulos Y.: A quantitative approach to

evaluate Website Archivability using the CLEAR+ method, International Journal on Digital Libraries (IJDL), 2015.

• Banos V., Kim Y., Ross S., Manolopoulos Y.: CLEAR: a credible method to evaluate website archivability, iPRES’2013, Lisbon, 2013.

2. Our Contributions

7

1. Mechanism to improve the quality of web archives.

2. Expand and optimize the knowledge and practices of web archivists, supporting them in their decision making, and risk management.

3. Standardize the web aggregation practices of web archives, especially QA.

4. Foster good practices in web development, make sites more amenable to harvesting, ingesting, and preserving.

5. Raise awareness among web professionals regarding preservation.

6. Support web archiving training.

Our Aims

WebsiteArchivability ?

What is

Website Archivability (WA) captures the coreaspects of a website crucial in diagnosing

whether it has the potentiality to be archivedwith completeness and accuracy.

Attention! it must not be confused with website dependability, reliability, availability, safety, security, survivability, maintainability.

CLEAR+: A Credible Live Method to Evaluate Website Archivability• An approach to producing on-the-fly measurement

of Website Archivability,• Web archives communicate with target websites via

standard HTTP,• Information such as file types, content and transfer

errors could be used to support archival decisions,• We combine this kind of information with an

evaluation of the website's compliance with recognized practices in digital curation,

• We generate a credible score representing the archivability of target websites.

9

The main components of CLEAR+

1. WA Facets: the factors that come into play and need to be taken into account to calculate total WA.

2. Website Attributes: the website homepage elements analysed to assess the WA Facets (e.g. the HTML markup code).

3. Evaluations: the tests executed on the website attributes (e.g. HTML code validation against W3C HTML standards) and approach used to combine the test results to calculate the WA metrics.

10

11

Accessibility

Cohesion

StandardsCompliance

Metadata

CLEAR+: A Credible Live Method to Evaluate Website Archivability

12

Website attributes evaluated using CLEAR+

13

CLEAR+ Evaluations1. Perform specific Evaluations on Website Attributes,

2. In order to calculate each Archivability Facet’s score:• Scores range from (0 – 100%),• Evaluations significance varies:

• High: critical issues which prevent web crawling or may cause highly problematic web archiving results.

• Medium: issues which are not critical but may affect the quality of web archiving results.

• Low: minor details which do not cause any issues when they are missing but will help web archiving when available

3. Website Archivability is the average of all Facets’ scores.

Accessibility

14

Accessibility• A website is considered accessible only if web

crawlers are able to visit its home page, traverse its content and retrieve it via standard HTTP requests.

• Performance is also an important aspect of web archiving. Faster performance means faster web content ingestion.

15

Accessibility Evaluations

16

Cohesion

17

Cohesion• Relevant to:

• Efficient operation of web crawlers,• Management of dependancies with digital

curation.• If files constituting a single website are dispersed

across different web locations, the acquisition and ingest is likely to risk suffering if one or more web locations fail.

• Changes that occur outside the website are not going to affect it if it does not use 3rd party resources.

18

Cohesion Evaluations

19

Metadata

20

Metadata• The adequate provision of metadata has been a

continuing concern within digital curation.• The lack of metadata impairs the archive’s ability to

manage, organise, retrieve and interact with content effectively.

• Metadata may include descriptive or technical information.

• Metadata increases the probability of successful information extraction and reuse in web archives after ingestion.

21

Metadata Evaluations

22

StandardsCompliance

23

Standards Compliance• Compliance with standards is a recurring theme in

digital curation practices. It is recommended that for digital resources to be preserved they need to be represented in known and transparent standards.

24

Standards Compliance Evaluations

25

ArchiveReady.com4. Demonstration

- Web application implementing CLEAR+,

- Web interface & also Web API in JSON,

- Running on Linux, Python, Nginx, Redis, Mysql, PhantomJS headless browser.

26

archiveready.com DEMO

27

5. ExperimentalEvaluation

28

5. Experimental evaluation

• Questions:– How can we prove the validity of the Website

Archivability metric?

– Is it possible to calculate the WA of a website by evaluating a single webpage?

29

Experiment 1: Evaluation using datasets

30

Experiment 1: Evaluation using datasets

31

Experiment 2: Evaluation by experts

• Experts rank 200 websites according to the quality of their snapshots at the Internet Archive

• We evaluate the same websites with archiveready.com

• We calculate the Pearson’s Correlation Coefficient of our variables and find correlations.

32

Experiment 3: WA variance in the pages of the same website

• We evaluate only a single webpage to calculate website archivability. Is this correct?

• Is the homepage WA representative of the whole website WA?

• We use a website of 800 webpages and calculate the WA of 10 different webpages for each website to find out.

33

Experiment 3: WA variation in the pages of the same website

34

6. Use Cases

35

Use Case 1: Deutsches Literatur Archiv, Marbach, Germany

• German literature web archiving project,• http://www.dla-marbach.de/dla/bibliothek/literatur_im_netz/netzliteratur/

• ~3.000 websites are preserved,• An evaluation of the archivability

characteristics of these websites was necessary before crawling,

• archiveready.com API was used to gain an insight on their properties http://archiveready.com/docs/api.html

36

Use Case 2: Academia• Used by digital curation units, researchers and

teachers. – University of Newcastle, UK,– Columbia University Libraries,– Stanford University Libraries,– University of Michigan, Bentley Historical Library,– Old Dominion University.

37

7. Web CMSArchivability

38

Web CMS Archivability• CMS dominate the web

– (Wordpress, Drupal, Joomla, MovableType, +++)• CMS constitute a common technical

framework for web publishing.• If a CMS is ‘incompatible’ with some web

archiving aspect, millions of websites are affected and web archives suffer.

39

Web CMS Archivability

• Our contribution:– We study 12 prominent web CMS.– We conduct experiments with a sample of ~5.800

websites based on these CMS.– We make specific observations on the Website

Archivability characteristics of each CMS.• Paper (under review):

– Web Content Management Systems Archivability, Banos V., Manolopoulos Y., ADBIS 2015’

40

Web CMS Archivability

41

Web CMS Archivability

• Indicative results:– Drupal has the third highest WA score (82.08%). It has

good overall performance and the only issue is the existence of too many inline scripts per instance (15.09).

– DotNetNuke has the second worst WA score in our evaluation (77.2%). We suggest that they look into their RSS feeds (13% Correct). and lacking HTTP caching support (5%).

– Typo3 WA score is average (79%). It has the largest number of invalid URLs per instance (12%).

42

8. Discussion &Conclusions

43

Discussion and conclusions

44

• Introducing a new metric to quantify the previously unquantifiable notion of WA is not an easy task.

• CLEAR+ and Website Archivability capture the core aspects of a website crucial in diagnosing whether it has the potential to be archived with correctness and accuracy.

• Archiveready.com is a reference implementation of the CLEAR+ method.

• Archiveready.com provides a REST API for 3rd parties.

Discussion and conclusions

45

1. Web professionals - evaluate the archivability of their websites in an easy but thorough way, - become aware of web preservation concepts, - embrace preservation-friendly practices. 2. Web archive operators - make informed decisions on archiving websites, - perform large scale website evaluations with ease, - automate web archiving Quality Assurance, - minimise wasted resources on problematic websites. 3. Academics - teach students about web archiving.

THANK YOUVisit: http://archiveready.com Contact: vbanos@gmail.com Learn More:• Banos V., Manolopoulos Y.: A quantitative approach to

evaluate Website Archivability using the CLEAR+ method, International Journal on Digital Libraries, 2015.

• Banos V., Kim Y., Ross S., Manolopoulos Y.: CLEAR: a credible method to evaluate website archivability, 10th International Conference on Preservation of Digital Objects (iPRES’2013), Lisbon, 2013.

ANY QUESTIONS? 46