This report is part of the Web-at-Risk project. This report includes the following three sections: (a) the methodology used to conduct the focus groups and analyze the data, (b) the detailed results of the analysis organized into phases of the collection development process, and (c) a discussion of the key findings.

This report is part of the Web-at-Risk project. This report summarizes the results of the interviews with content providers. Section 2 identifies the interview methodology. Section 3 describes the results and Section 4 discusses the major findings.

This report is part of the Web-at-Risk project. The guidelines in this document are intended to assist the Web-at-Risk's project's curators in developing plans for the collections they will create using the project's Web Archiving Service (WAS). A web collection typically consists of a group of web-sites related by a common subject, theme, or event. Librarians will notice that some familiar concepts and practices from collection planning for print materials easily transfer to collection planning for web-published materials while some new concepts and unfamiliar practices are introduced. To effectively manage collections of web-published materials, it is good practice to either create new plans or modify existing collection plans to address these concepts and practices.

This report is part of the Web-at-Risk project. These policy and planning documents typically guide collection management within libraries and archives. Some familiar concepts and practices from collection development for non-digital materials easily transfer to collection development for web-based materials while some new concepts and unfamiliar practices are introduced. To effectively manage web collections, it is good practice to either create new policies and plans or modify existing collection policies and plans.

This report is part of the Web-at-Risk project. The Web-at-Risk project is developing a Web Archiving Service (WAS) that will enable the project's partner institutions to act as archive agencies that will assist the project's curators in building and managing archived collections of web-published materials.

This report is part of the Web-at-Risk project, one of eight digital preservation projects funded in 2004 by the Library of Congress.

This report summarizes the results of the interviews with end users for the Web-at-Risk project. The Web-at-Risk project is one of eight digital preservation projects funded in 2004 by the Library of Congress. The project is a 3-year collaborative effort of the California Digital Library (CDL), the University of North Texas (UNT), and New York University (NYU). The project will develop a Web Archiving Service that enables curators to build, store, and manage collections of web-published materials.

This report is part of the Web-at-Risk project. The report includes the following three sections: (a) the methodology used to conduct the focus groups and analyze the data, (b) the detailed results of the analysis organized into phases of the collection development process, and (c) a discussion of the key findings.

This report discusses the collection plan for the CyberCemetery, part of the Web-at-Risk project. The topics include the mission and scope, the selection, acquisition, descriptive metadata, presentation and access, maintenance and weeding, and preservation.

This report is part of the Web-at-Risk project. This report includes the following three sections: (a) the methodology used to conduct the focus groups and analyze the data, (b) the detailed results of the analysis organized into phases of the collection development process, and (c) a discussion of the key findings.

This report is part of the Web-at-Risk project. The Web-at-Risk project is one of eight digital preservation projects funded in 2004 by the Library of Congress. The project is a 3-year collaborative effort of the California Digital Library (CDL), the University of North Texas (UNT), and New York University (NYU). The project will develop a Web Archiving Service that enables curators to build collections of web-published materials. The content of the collections for this project will be largely from US federal and state government agencies, but will also include political policy documents, campaign literature, and information surrounding political movements and labor unions. This report includes the methods, results, discussion, and appendices related to the Web-at-Risk project.

This report is part of the Web-at-Risk project. The Needs Assessment Toolkit created for the Web-at-Risk project describes the project's needs assessment activities and includes data collection tools, which are designated to identify the needs and requirements of curators, web-content producers, and end users with regard to the Web Archive Service. Additionally, information gathered by some of the data collection tools will help to identify curators' requirements for the web crawler and its crawl analyzer tool, which will be developed as part of the project. Each of the assessment activities described in the Needs Assessment Toolkit was designated to follow a collection development framework for web archives. This report contains a data analysis of the survey results. Results from focus group discussions and interviews with content providers and end users are presented in separate reports.

This report discusses a focus group that was part of the Web-at-Risk project. The report includes the following three sections: (a) the methodology used to conduct the focus groups and analyze the data, (b) the detailed results of the analysis organized into phases of the collection development process, and (c) a discussion of the key findings.

This report discusses the curators' evaluation of Web Archiving Service (WAS) release 1, as part of the Web-at-Risk project. This report summarizes the feedback received from the curators and provides details details to illustrate the areas that were either confusing or problematic to them. Their recommendations as well as some considerations for future development are also included. Additionally, many of the observations and suggestions in the Quick Heuristic Evaluation of the WAS echo the feedback received from the curators. These commonalities are noted in the document.