For my first posting to this mailbase list, I seem to have managed to
do rather a bad job. (Without any further ado I will send what I intened to.)
Although up till this point I have been a silent reader of postings
to this list, I found myself fascinated by the last response of
Stevan Harnard to Donald Forsdyke. Since taking on a job working
in the field of preserving digital library resources, I have come
to realise that the problem of keeping access available to "a set
of bits" is not quite so straightforward.
Here are four reasons:
1) A stream of bits needs to be understood by a rendering platform
2) Technology means that rendering platforms and hardware rapidly
become obselete
3) Preserved bits which contain information which cannot be extracted
nor understood are as useful as a locked safe with no combination.
4) The essence is not only retaining the bits, but also how can we
retain access to their intellectual content.
(Independently of current technology)
This is why projects such as Cedars, Nedlib, and initiatives by the NLA
are all looking so hard into this "nonproblem". Yes, people should not
hesitate to preserve (or self-archive) - because hesitancy will probably
imply irrevocable loss of some resources. However, preserving things in
a poor (ill thought out) way could prove as effective as not preserving
them at all.
Derek
-----------------------------------------------------------------
D. M. Sergeant email: [log in to unmask]
Cedars Project Officer http://www.leeds.ac.uk/cedars
University Computing Service
The University of Leeds
Leeds
LS2 9JT
-----------------------------------------------------------------
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|