Inge Hofsink is Metadata Specialist at the KB National Library of the Netherlands and Trond Teigen is Team Lead of the Digital Preservation Team at the National Library of Norway.
On 18-19 November 2025, three representatives from the Digital Preservation Department of the KB, National Library of the Netherlands (KBNL), visited the Digital Preservation Team at the National Library of Norway (NLN) in Mo i Rana, Norway.
The background for the workshop was related to a serendipitous encounter at iPRES2024, triggered by Inge Hofsink’s (KBNL) presentation at the conference “It could happen to you: Thirty years of digital preservation in an ever-changing organization” and Torbjorn Petersen's (NLN) lightning talk “How the National Library established autonomous product team organization” . This led to a couple of virtual meetings between the institutions, before we found an opportunity to gather in-person.
Over the course of two “freezing cold” November days, we had a tightly packed schedule, starting with a guided tour of the NLN’s magazines and digitizing facilities in Mo i Rana.
National Library of Norway, Mo i Rana site.
The two institutions have different domain responsibilities. Due to the legal deposit act in Norway the NLN collects all kinds of media types and carries out extensive in-house digitisation. KBNL primarily handles text-based material, and almost all digitisation is carried out through tender processes where they receive the digitised result.
After the guided tour, we held a joint workshop. The focus here was to share each institution’s experiences working with digital preservation.
NLN presented the architecture of its inhouse developed high-capacity Digital Preservation System (DPS) and roadmap for the system. KBNL presented their current preservation solution, which is built on an internally developed pre-ingest system called DAPPR and uses ExLibris Rosetta and S3 for object storage. We also focused on experiences in using metadata standards such as METS, Dublin Core, MODS, and PREMIS and which metadata about events, rights, context information and versions should be captured.
The NLN-KBNL workshop (Inge Hofsink, Richard Ligtenberg, Lonneke Smit from KBNL, and Thomas Edvardsen, Lise-Lotte Melkild, Sandra Krakstad, Torbjorn Pedersen, Siarhei Kulakou, Vigdis Sorensen, Johannes Karlsen, Trond Teigen from NLN)
The final part of the workshop was devoted to discussing organisational challenges related to working with digital preservation. How can we ensure that institutions keep a continuous focus on digital preservation? How can we establish predictable working conditions to sustain this work? How can we prevent future generations from viewing this period in time as a digital dark age? Many interesting and valuable reflections emerged from the discussion.
Here are a few takeaways from the workshop:
-
There are major differences in operational preservation at NLN and KBNL, like years of working experience with digital preservation., using an in-house developed system versus a system off the shelf, interdisciplinary team organization versus a dedicated department, the demarcation of responsibilities regarding preservation, etcetera.
But despite these differences, there was significant overlap, and we were able to dive into practical details with a shared understanding. In many substantial areas of implementation, we found that we had arrived at similar solutions through different paths. Examples of this are how we both view preservation events, what should be recorded about events, and what the ideas are regarding relating objects to things like contracts. -
The opportunity to really go in-depth face to face with counterparts. It is very useful to sit together physically without any distractions. Somehow you get to the heart of the matter and details better, and discussions flow very naturally. Even so natural that we all felt as part of the same team at the end of the workshop.
-
The transfer and re-archiving of material between preservation systems is becoming an increasingly significant challenge and should not be underestimated. As collections continue to grow, this process becomes both time- and resource-intensive for preservation organisations. The KBNL is currently migrating material from its legacy DM1.5 system to the new Rosetta platform. This work began in 2022 and is expected to continue until 2028. Similarly, the NLN is in the process of transferring its holdings (12 PB) from an Oracle HSM solution to the new DPS. This migration started in 2022 and is scheduled for completion by the end of 2026.
-
We discussed the funding- and resource challenges associated with implementing policies and preservation plans. As an example, the NLN has adopted a step-by-step approach in the form of a roadmap for its Digital Preservation System (DPS). This approach has allowed the NLN to take advantage of emerging opportunities within the organization to implement improvements incrementally. One such opportunity was a pilot initiative conducted in cooperation with the LAM sector in Norway, which enabled the NLN to focus on upgrading the DPS with substantial new functionality.
-
Regarding organizational experience, we agreed that digital preservation should be clearly represented in the organizational chart, like it is at KBNL. Organizing work in interdisciplinary teams also appears to be effective, provided that the team serves as the primary home base for staff. One challenge, however, is that this approach can make budget allocation less clear.
-
The two days of intensive collaboration between our “new colleagues” mark the beginning of further cooperation and knowledge exchange. We have already agreed to write a blog post (this one🙂). In addition, we are exploring the possibility of submitting a joint contribution to iPRES 2026, holding regular(monthly) meetings on specific topics, and potentially arranging a return visit from the Norwegian team to KBNL in 2026.
In conclusion, the joint workshop demonstrated the value of open, in-depth discussions between institutions facing both shared and diverse digital preservation challenges. Despite differences in mandates, systems, and organizational models, the discussions revealed a strong alignment in core preservation principles and practical approaches. The opportunity to meet in person fostered trust, mutual understanding, and a sense of working toward common goals. These two days confirmed that collaboration across institutions strengthens both strategic thinking and day-to-day preservation practice. We look forward to continued dialogue, joint initiatives, and future meetings, ensuring that digital preservation remains a living, evolving practice rather than a historical afterthought.
#our knowledge matters!
Everyone needs to eat