What Paul Wheatley is referring to has been called "Digital Archeology".
See Ross, Seamus. Ann Gow. 1999. Digital Archeology: Rescuing Neglected and
Damaged Data Resources, A JISC/NPO funded report within the eLib Programme
on the Preservation of Electronic Materials, 1999.
http://eprints.erpanet.org/archive/00000047/
Best wishes, Henry
H.M. Gladney, Ph.D. http://home.pacbell.net/hgladney/ HMG Consulting
-----Original Message-----
From: Repositories discussion list [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
On Behalf Of Wheatley, Paul
Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2006 2:24 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: To do: Re: Repository content (17 Jan) - and preservation
All,
I've been following the fascinating discussions over the last week, and have
a few further comments in response to Bryan Lawrence's last posting.
Bryan wrote:
> > Given that the development of preservation technology is at such an
> > early stage, I'm not sure anyone can answer that question easily.
What
> > we will be able to say with confidence that we can preserve in just
a
> > couple of years time will be far more ambitious than what we can
> > realistically preserve now. Is this a good reason to turn away
material
> > now?
>
> (Note that my response here is about research *data*, I have nothing
> (useful)
> to say about learning materials etc).
>
> Yes, I'm afraid it is. The reality is that preservation (beyond a
trivial
> period of time) relies heavily on a relationship between the producer
of
> the
> data and the archivist, and as time goes on, a relationship between
the
> consumer of the data and the archivist.
With regard to research data, yes I agree completely that without metadata
this material will become a problem as soon as the producer is no longer in
the picture.
However, there is an argument that we may as well keep the bitstreams with
little or no metadata on a "just in case" basis. Even if only a small
percentage are returned to by the producer (who can make sense of them), it
may well be worthwhile. Assuming of course that the cost to do basic
bitstream preservation is low in most cases. Perhaps a big assumption...
An example I'm familiar with is at The University of Leeds which has
maintained a long term file store (effectively doing no more than basic
bitstream preservation) for many years. While I'm sure much of the data in
it has been written once and never read, there are some compelling examples
of deposited research data that has been retrospectively discovered to be
really quite valuable and recovery/re-use has been possible as the producers
have still been around.
Taking this approach further, there may even be cases where the software of
the future may provide us with better mechanisms for using the data.
Again, there are certainly examples of old data that can now be explored and
used more effectively using modern search and view software. This suggests
that the same may be true of the material we produce today.
Of course if this is the approach taken, the repository has to be very clear
about what it means to take material with a bitstream preservation only
approach!
Is this at all realistic for you Bryan? Very interested to hear your
thoughts.
>
> Experience tells us: if you don't get the producer actively involved,
> producing adequate discipline specific metadata, right at the
beginning,
> and
> if you don't then actively migrate that metadata ... you'll end up
with
> bits
> and bytes that are simply impracticable to deal with because you need
> humans to help ... and it's simply become unscalable. We're already in
> that position with some of our early datasets ... it's not that we
> can't read the format, it's that the information encoded in the format
> isn't good enough, and
we
> need a human to deal with it ... but we've got 35,000 files in that
> format, each could take 1-15 minutes or so to deal with. You do the
> maths ...
> that's
> just one format!
Can you explain what you mean by the information not being "good enough"
as opposed to not being able to read the format? Would you say this is a
bigger challenge than the format obsolescence problem?
>
> So, by saying to the producer: "don't worry, just biff me the data,
we'll
> work
> out how to preserve it later" is giving them license to think you've
done
> the
> preservation work, but you haven't, and you're going to have to come
back
> to
> it ... and by then there might be no one willing to pay for the work!
>
> (For the record: definition of "early stage": the BADC has been
preserving
> digital data for 11 years, and it grew out of a preceeding entity ...
> arguably we represent several decades of experience doing this ... and
> we've made a lot of mistakes ... some of which I see being repeated).
>
> > >Then they need to hold a hard line against function creep, and only
> >
> > accept >material in "well known formats" (whatever that means) with
> > "well
> >
> > This is a popular strategy to ease the preservation problems the
> > repositories are taking on. However, the reality is that when faced
with
> > a limited number of submission formats, submitters either don't
bother
> > or they perform migrations themselves. Do we really want to place
> > complex preservation actions in the hands of the users? No records
are
> > kept of what action they take and migrations are performed in an ad
hoc
> > way. This could well be creating an even bigger preservation
challenge
> > for us in the future.
>
> The bottom line is the folk you call users are the data producers, and
> they know more about what they're doing than we do. In particular, if
anyone
> has
> to make ad hoc decisions, rather them than me! When I can do it
properly,
> then I'll get involved.
>
> (Remember, I'm talking about research data, the arguments Paul makes
are
> quite
> tenable with other types of "preservation entity", and i'm only making
> these arguments to try and keep IR's - with a sensible definition -
practical
> and
> useful).
With non-research data, one of my major concerns is where the producer takes
some kind of preservation action that is not recorded. Is this considered to
be a problem with the research data that you encounter, or is this not
really a concern in the context of the bigger challenges the material poses?
Cheers
Paul Wheatley
--------
Digital Preservation Manager
eIS/Architecture
The British Library
01937 546254
[log in to unmask]
**************************************************************************
Experience the British Library online at www.bl.uk
Help the British Library conserve the world's knowledge. Adopt a Book.
www.bl.uk/adoptabook
The Library's St Pancras site is WiFI - enabled
**************************************************************************
The information contained in this e-mail is confidential and may be legally
privileged. It is intended for the addressee(s) only. If you are not the
intended recipient, please delete this e-mail and notify the
[log in to unmask] : The contents of this e-mail must not be disclosed or
copied without the sender's consent.
The statements and opinions expressed in this message are those of the
author and do not necessarily reflect those of the British Library. The
British Library does not take any responsibility for the views of the
author.
**************************************************************************
|