JiscMail Logo
Email discussion lists for the UK Education and Research communities

Help for JISC-REPOSITORIES Archives


JISC-REPOSITORIES Archives

JISC-REPOSITORIES Archives


JISC-REPOSITORIES@JISCMAIL.AC.UK


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

JISC-REPOSITORIES Home

JISC-REPOSITORIES Home

JISC-REPOSITORIES  January 2006

JISC-REPOSITORIES January 2006

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

Re: To do: Re: Repository content (17 Jan) - and preservation

From:

"Wheatley, Paul" <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Wheatley, Paul

Date:

Thu, 26 Jan 2006 10:24:10 -0000

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (177 lines)

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. 
 
**************************************************************************

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

JiscMail Tools


RSS Feeds and Sharing


Advanced Options


Archives

March 2024
February 2024
January 2024
December 2023
November 2023
October 2023
September 2023
August 2023
July 2023
June 2023
May 2023
April 2023
March 2023
February 2023
January 2023
December 2022
November 2022
October 2022
September 2022
August 2022
July 2022
June 2022
May 2022
April 2022
March 2022
February 2022
January 2022
December 2021
November 2021
October 2021
September 2021
August 2021
July 2021
June 2021
May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
November 2005
October 2005


JiscMail is a Jisc service.

View our service policies at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/policyandsecurity/ and Jisc's privacy policy at https://www.jisc.ac.uk/website/privacy-notice

For help and support help@jisc.ac.uk

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager