"British Library Digital Preservation Strategy." Available at: http://www.bl.uk/aboutus/stratpolprog/ccare/introduction/digital/digpresstrat.pdf
The digital preservation strategy statements of Cornell University Library and the British Library delineate the institutions' digital preservation goals, explain the operating principles that govern their programs, and offer general descriptions of the digital preservation activities that they will undertake. Both institutions list the principal objective of their digital preservation programs as ensuring "long-term "[Cornell] or "perpetual" [British Library] access to their digital collections. Both universities' statements also identify the risks and challenges associated with digital preservation and suggest some ways that they'll attempt to address those challenges. Cornell University's statement tends to be more general (or, cast more critically, vague) in this respect. The "recognized challenges in implementing an effective digital preservation program" that it identifies tend to be broad notions such as financial "sustainability" and the "rapid growth and evolution" of technology (Cornell 3). The British Library, on the other hand, identifies more pointed risks, noting, for example that the "Inaccuracy or unavailability of Representation Information may compromise ability to render objects in the long term" (British Library 3). It then gives equally specific strategies for mitigating such risks.
When it comes to determining preservation priorities, however, Cornell's statement is far more detailed. Whereas the British Library does not specify how it prioritizes the preservation of its digital materials, The Cornell statement explains that born digital materials receive its most rigorous preservation efforts while ephemeral digital materials (such as scans created for e-reserves and "odds and ends of collections") receive no preservation treatment (2). Cornell also explicitly articulates its mandate for digital preservation, explaining how scholarship, institutional records, legal obligations, organizational commitment, and "consortial and contractual obligations" all serve as impetuses for its program. Another area in which the Cornell policy is more detailed is in its references. The British library strategy does not provide any specific allusions to models or studies outside of the institution. Cornell, on the other hand, specifically notes that its program follows the OAIS model and includes a list of primary and secondary resources for its program, such as the Metadata Encoded Transmission Standard (METS).
Interestingly, neither strategy gives specific numbers pertaining to its funding or its staffing allocations. Similarly, though the Cornell statement mentions the importance of financial sustainability, neither strategy goes into any detail about its sources of funding or offers specific strategies for achieving financial sustainability.
Both libraries' statements were posted as links from the institutions' more general digital preservation websites. Whereas the British Library statement is linked to what appears to be an active page (it also had a link for the iPres 2008 conference), the Cornell statement (which dates from 2004) is linked to the website for the Cornell University Library's "Digital Preservation Officer," a position that a notice on the webpage explains no longer exists. Accordingly, it is unclear whether the Cornell digital preservation strategy is still in effect, as such. I had difficulty locating similar digital preservation strategy statements for Museums. Though there are general digital preservation guidelines for museums available online, such as the Canadian Heritage Information Network's Digital Preservation Best Practices for Museums web resource (http://www.chin.gc.ca/English/Digital_Content/Digital_Preservation/muscontext.html), it is much more difficult to locate specific museums' policies. Museums should follow the lead of libraries and begin posting their own digital preservation policies.
No comments:
Post a Comment