© the digital archiving consultancy limited, 2011 digital archives practice where we are now and...

© The Digital Archiving Consultancy Limited, 2011

Digital Archives PracticeWhere we are now and what needs to be done

DLM Members Meeting

Budapest, Friday, 12th May, 2011Philip Lord

Digital Archiving Consultancy Limited, UK

1


Background

This presentation: where we are now, the RM interfaceStemming from:

15 years thinking on the issues in the DAC and in industryDeveloping and teaching digital archiving and preservationat the University of Dundee

MSc/MLitt module “Digital Archiving and Preservation” Students are generally already in the work place in RM or archival

positions Both Records Management and Archiving professionals My views only, not necessarily those of Susan Thomas (co-tutor) or the

University of Dundee’s

2


The Dundee Course MSc/MLitt module “Digital Archiving and Preservation” Delivered mainly by distance learning Running now for nearly 5 years Students generally both Records Management and

Archiving professionals in emplyment:• Ratio 2:1 of Archiving (MLitt) to Records Management (MSc)

students• An international background: from UK, Iceland, Netherlands,

Malta, Korea, Lesthotho, USA, Canada, China . . . etc• Very varied work backgrounds: National to local archives,

schools, scientific and religious establishments, lawyers, … Now quite a few CPD (continuing professional

development) students We use “Records Keeping” to cover both the records

management and archiving disciplines

3


Context of presentation

Traditional RM Traditional archivingPaper, etc.

ERM Digital archivingDigital:

Was mainstream

Will be mainstream

4


Context of presentation

Traditional RM Traditional archivingPaper, etc.

Hybrid forms

ERM Digital archivingDigital:

Was mainstream

All will persistbut

digital archiving still immatureeven though the digital information

form is now dominant

Will be mainstream

5


Digital archivists’ concerns

Traditional RM Traditional archiving

ERM Digital archiving

Central concerns remain the same:AuthenticityContextProvenanceIntegrityPreservationThe long-term

6

Paper, etc.

Hybrid forms

Digital:


Context

Traditional RMTraditional archiving

Paper, etc.

Hybrid forms

ERMDigital archiving

Digital:

Often operate in a wider context than ERMOften completely outside an RM context (e.g. scientific contexts – oceanographic and archaeological)

Cultural, other contexts


7


Summary of digital archiving issuesTraditional RM Traditional archiving

OperationalWhat workflows?Where does appraisal happen?Obtaining metadataMetadata and description structures and standardsBridging the pre-ingest phasePolicy consequencesLack of tools, softwareProblematic, unproven preservation methods

StrategicWhat is to be preservedLack of skilled resourcesCostsVast data volumes (numbers of items)Intractable information forms (databases, social media, etc.)Lack of understanding of the issues outside digital archives (including IS/IT professionals)Aligning with earlier paradigms, wider contexts

8




Workflows - traditionalTraditional RM Traditional archiving

Acquirerecord

Preservation/Conservation

DiscoveryPresentation

UseStoreAppraisal

Archival description

Disposition

Create/use record

9




Workflows - new

Archival Storage

Access

Management

Producer

Preservation Planning

Administration

Consumer

Ingest

Data Management

AIPSIP DIP

SA

But others too:e.g. InterParesJones/BeagrieAd hoc

10




Operational: Where to appraise

Archival Storage

Access

Management

Producer

Preservation Planning

Administration

Consumer

Ingest

Data Management

AIPSIP DIP

SA

11




Metadata and description

ERM tends to be item-orientated Less focus on description as

practiced in the archival community

Hierarchical metadata structures• Hierarchical description – ISAD(G)

and related standards Digital preservation metadata - item

based description• E.g. PREMIS (not used in ERM

contexts?) Much better to collect this metadata

at the early as possible in the life-cycle to increase likelihood successful preservation

Issues across the ERM-digital archival boundary

12




Description and metadata

The traditional description standard is ISAD(G) and related standards – which takes a hierarchical view of records description

Pre-ingest metadata schemes for description generally take a more flat-file, item by item approach

For digital preservation metadata the standard of choice is PREMIS (which takes a file-by-file approach)

This is little used in a RM environment

13


Description and structure

A traditional hierarchical view of data storage and description, E.g. Fonds /Sub-fonds / Sub-sub-fonds / item Important for recording context, and reflects older paper-

based structures Digital favours item-by-item (file by file, relational)

view – typical in the pre-ingest phase, RM view Traditional archives management systems (e.g. CALM,

ADLIB) support the hierarchical data structures and description. Poor at the latter.

14


ISAD(G) structures

15


Bridging the pre-ingest boundaryTraditional RM Traditional archiving

ERM Digital archiving

ERM tending to give greater attention to the archival stage of the life-cycle

Short IT product lifecycles and obsolescence imply digital preservation concerns here

Digital archiving demands greater intervention in the early stages of the information life-cycle Even before information

creation? Old vs new paradigms in the

archiving sphere

Contrary movements

Implications? Merger/blending - Closed collaboration, interchange

standards? New professional consensus?

16


Digital archiving: current statusStatus: Still a great lack of skills; need for more training – but what Emerging practice – but mainly confined to large, (relatively well-

resourced) institutions Smaller archives struggling or in the dark

Operationally, much unfinished business: Workflows

Appraisal – when, where, by whom? Metadata assignment – when, where, by whom?

Synthesis and standards for metadata and metadata structures Tools – including software systems Preservation/conservation strategiesAnd Need for cost-effective tools (N.B. ICA’s AtoM) Increasing volumes of information Increasing intractability of digital information forms Costs

17


The DAC: who we are

The Digital Archiving Consultancy Limited

Independent archiving consultancy, established 2002 in the UK

Alison Macdonald, Philip Lord directors

Work at strategic, policy and operational levels on all archiving issues

Specialists in digital preservation and archiving technical data

Partner company in the UAE Work in English, French, German,

Arabic, Spanish et al

Clients include:

European Commission British Library (UK) ICA (France) TNA (UK) NCDR (UAE) JISC (UK) UK Research Councils Wellcome Trust Commercial archives

18


Some keywords

Disjunction

Disruption

Incompletion

19


The Digital Archiving Consultancy2 Wayside Court

Arlington RoadTwickenham

TW1 2BQUK

T: +44 20 8607 9102F: +44 20 8744 9322

[email protected]

20

© the digital archiving consultancy limited, 2011 digital archives practice where we are now and...

Documents