Previous section |
Contents |
Next section
5. Summary and recommendations - meeting and outcomes
5.1 Preamble
As an intended result of this project, a discussion meeting on the "Preservation of Digital
Materials: Policy and Strategy Issues for the UK" was held on 13th December 1996, at the
British Library. The material presented in sections
4.4 and
4.5 was made available as a
web page to participants prior to the meeting and at the meeting. Participants had been selected
to represent a wide range of interested parties and organisations and for their interest in and
knowledge and experience of digital preservation and related matters. A list of participants is
given at Appendix A. No comment or criticism of the issues for consideration
(4.4) or
the initial prioritised actions (4.5) was received, as requested before the meeting.
At the meeting, after outlining the aim and objectives of the project (see section
2), the
following presentations were made:-
- a critical analysis of the
CPA/RLG Report, delivered by
Alan Poulter (see
4.2)
- comment on the Report, delivered by Emma Blagg (see 4.3)
- an introduction to the meeting, delivered by
Graham Matthews (see
5.2)
These presentations were well received. Rather than discuss issues (see
4.4) which had
already been covered in the presentations, the participants at the meeting requested focused
discussion on the initial prioritised actions given in
4.5. After two sessions (see 5.3 and
5.4) a final set of prioritised actions was arrived at.
These prioritised actions were subsequently listed on a web page and put before participants at
the meeting, for correction or clarification. The final prioritised actions that follow (see
5.5 below) were thus agreed at the meeting and confirmed later by means of the web page.
Graham Matthews
of the Project Team began with a few general comments under six key
headings: change, preservaton versus digitisation, selection, common language, participation
and colloboration and costs.
Change
My first comment of a general nature is that the theme which pervades this report (and indeed,
that of the Warwick Workshop), is:
sustained change and flux
This change is pervasive, the legal environment is in change, as is the technical one. Digitised
objects themselves are dynamic. As Denise Lievesley commented at the
Warwick Workshop:
"The challenge facing data archives is how to anticipate the new whilst continuing to provide
a service." (p.20)
Preservation v Digitisation
My second comment goes beyond the report and that is that there appear to be two ways of
approaching Preservation and Digitisation. On the one hand there are those who are digitising
or promoting digitised materials primarily from the point of view of ACCESS and where
preservation is not a factor, or one of low priority; on the other there are those who are
concerned that preservation does not appear to be a major consideration of such activities, and
that insufficient knowledge is available about the preservation of digital materials and indeed,
the use of digitisation as a preservation method.
This was certainly underlined not just by speakers but from the floor at the National
Preservation Office Annual Conference in September this year (Preservation and digitisation:
principles, practice and policies. The National Preservation Office Annual Conference,
University of York, 3-5 September 1996).
Selection
This links into my third comment - and I here I draw on my views on the preservation of
library materials in general - that SELECTION is vital. We cannot preserve everything, nor
should we. We must not confuse digitisation and preservation where they are both not
applicable, ie we must not get hung up about preservation where digital materials are not
intended to be retained. But we may need to consider preservation in a different way. In
libraries, preservation tends to automatically be perceived as long term or forever. If more
material is available in digital form then maybe we need to revisit that and look at it more like
a records manager might do with short, medium and long term preservation, relegation and
discard policies and practices. Equally, where digitised materials are deemed to be worth
retention, especially for long term preservation, then preservation must be a central
consideration.
Common Language
And fourthly, following on from this: we need to develop and speak a common language -
there are parallels here with the use of the terms preservation and conservation in the 1980s.
The
CPA/RLG report, for instance, tries to make clear the distinction between digital libraries
and digital archives. We need to understand this just as clearly as what we mean by metadata
and migration and so on.
Participation and collaboration of as many stakeholders as possible
All the stakeholders involved need to try to collaborate and coordinate where
possible.
Costs
And, lastly, what's it all going to cost? Do we need more studies on this?
This will be vital for policy decision-making. There is a need for UK cost models - 'richer,
more detailed'.
I would end with another quote from the
Warwick Workshop which underlines the key issues
I feel are central in the analysis of the
CPA/RLG report and subsequent activity in the UK.
And here I quote Mirjam Foot:-
"Planning for long term preservation of electronic material is made even more difficult
because of the rapid changes in technology and the impossibility of predicting what the state
of technology will be, even in the medium term." (p.45)
and
"... we must also endeavour to make the best possible use of the available resources; we must
ensure that we do not duplicate efforts; we must combine to work together ... and we must be
selective ...in the context of a national or international preservation strategy" (p.45)
But, we need to make a start ...
5.3.1 National Digital Preservation Officer
On the issue of appointing a National Digital Preservation Officer, Lynne Brindley commented
that the natural home for such a position was the
National Preservation Office (NPO).
In response, Vanessa Marshall said that it was anticipated that a post was to be created to start
on 1st April 1997 to take a central lead and to coordinate projects. The post would cover
surrogacy issues. The job description would include microfilming as this is still an important
issue. In response to a request for information about the NPO and its role, Vanessa
summarised its aims and activities, including the development of a national preservation
policy, on which little progress has been made.
Bridget Winstanley noted the difference between digitising materials and material already in
digital form, commenting that there was a huge amount of material which has never been on
paper. Would one person have the time to deal with all this? Several participants voiced this
same concern. The Mellon Microfilming Project will continue; digital preservation is a
different issue and needs to be carried out at a different level. The meeting felt that dealing
with the Mellon Project and digital preservation was too big for one person and that there
needed to be a high level focus on digitisation in the NPO. The meeting requested that Vanessa
Marshall seek funding from British National Bibliography Research Fund to draw up a
proposal for the appointment of an officer to deal solely with digital preservation. It also urged
that she seek funding for general support of the NPO from commercial enterprises.
Vanessa Marshall said that the only way to move forward is to form partnerships and
collaborate extensively. There was a consensus on this issue. Peter Fox noted that all of the
deposit libraries have foreign material in their collections. Reg Carr noted a high level point of
international contact is required, and raised the question of who should have this role. Richard
Blake noted that there was a meeting organised by the European Union looking at document
management the following week. The NPO, the
Public Record Office (PRO), and
The Data Archive agreed to
collaborate and share information.
There was also a lack of knowledge about other organisation’s activities in digital
preservation. Peter Fox commented that projects to date are largely non-commercial. It was
important that future projects should involve libraries and publishers, for example. There was
general agreement that it was essential for the British Library’s position on legal issues to be
clarified and for it to be more open about what experiments are going on in digital
preservation. A seminar was proposed for all stakeholders in digital preservation to attend.
Lynne Brindley also said that the
JISC would be willing to offer money if the PRO would take
on the responsibility of organising it. Vanessa Marshall offered to liaise with the PRO.
It was generally felt that costs could only be established once a working model was begun i.e
through practical experience. Dan Greenstein pointed out that projects could be started now as
there is much non-copyright material available. Anthony Watkinson said that even with
copyright material, publishers are willing to allow its use in studies.
Ian McGowan said that this was not pointing to a central monolithic archive but to a distributed
system of archives with shared costs. The
Arts and Humanities Data Service has five service
providers and so may be a useful example.
Chris Rushbridge pointed out that different projects/methods would lead to different cost
models and comparisons could be made.
On the issue of funding, Lynne Brindley noted that there are many stakeholders who could
potentially buy into the NPO. The British National Bibliography Research Fund Committee
could be approached to provide funding for making a case for another post at the NPO.
Richard Blake noted that across industry there is interest in preservation. Pharmaceutical
companies for example need to keep their records indefinitely and could possibly be persuaded
to buy into digital preservation research.
On the issue of standards, some work of the
Central Computer and Telecommunications Agency
(CCTA) on British standards on open systems has been largely ignored. If a big
company, such as Microsoft, was ‘on board’ there would be more chance of the standards
being used universally. If this is not the case there is a danger of creating standards that noone
is interested in. Dan Greenstein backed up this view and pointed out that the ‘trend-setters’ had
not been invited to the meeting.
Companies like Microsoft are beginning to take initiatives, what is important is how the library
and archive world is going to latch onto this. The feeling of the meeting was that the needs of
business and not libraries would be driving standards for digital preservation. Bearman had
produced an article on this in the Journal of the Society of American Archivists (
Bearman).
Anthony Watkinson pointed to the problem that there is a need for all parties to be aware of
the kind of products that are actually on the market. The Canadian work looks at SGML,
scientific publishers use pdf and the PRO is looking at pdf and postscript. There was a general
consensus that the question of what degree of functionality needs to be preserved is important.
Should material be reduced to a common format (i.e ASCII text) or should elements of
functionality (i.e structure) be preserved?
5.4.1 National Preservation Body
There was general agreement that there should be a national body for digital preservation, a
working group of the NPO, responsible to the NPO management committee. The timescale for
its implementation would be before the next financial year. It was felt that this body should be
representative of all stakeholders.
On the question of models and pilots, the joint JISC/Publisher’s Association Working Party
will identify 2 or 3 models of collaborative publisher/university digital archive projects. The
PRO is currently undertaking a number of projects, looking at the practicalities of digital
archiving, especially varying degrees of access to different users. Alison Worthington said that
it may be easier to archive data if it were deposited as ‘data’ rather than the finished product.
She advised that Chadwyck-Healey would be prepared to participate by depositing an archive
file with a library and leaving it with the library as an experiment in controlling access etc.
The publishers agreed that to do this would cost them very little. Anthony Watkinson said that
publishers are generally unaware of what libraries want, it is in their interests to find out.
Lack of agreement on terminology was seen as an obstacle. Bridget Winstanley noted that the
definition of ‘publication’ is unclear. The issues of typology and definitions were discussed.
The British Library proposal for legal deposit of non-print materials contains an attempt at
definitions (Proposal for the legal deposit of non-print publications: to the Department of
National Heritage from the British Library. London: British Library Board, 1996).
One of the studies on the JISC list of future projects is concerned with typology and a
BLRDD report (Martin, David. Definition of publication and associated terms in digital
publications. London: British Library Research and Development Department, 1995. BLRDD
6243) has looked at this issue. The need for some definitions was recognised but some present
felt that there was a danger of making things too formal.
The possibility of creating a UK web site and discussion list was introduced. The creation and
maintenance of a database was suggested, but it was felt that a more informal system of
communication was more relevant. The web site could be a useful starting point. Dan
Greenstein said that people in strategic positions should talk to each other and the outcomes of
their work be put on the web site. There also needs to be an analytical overview with a focus
on commonality. Nancy Elkington suggested that it would be useful to make reporting
findings of studies a condition of funding. Lynne Brindley felt that this was something JISC
would look into
5.5.1 Appoint National Digital Preservation Officer (NDPO)
Vanessa Marshall advised that such a post was anticipated starting April 1997 at the NPO and
this would cover surrogacy - to include digital material. The general feeling of the meeting
was supportive of this but that the focus had to be on digital materials. Meeting urged Vanessa
Marshall to:-
1. approach the British National Bibliography Research Fund for financial support to
make a case for a post solely concerned with digital preservation.
2. seek external general funding for the NPO from stakeholders, in particular,
industrial ones e.g pharmaceutical industry
This will be representative of all stakeholders, as a working group of the NPO, responsible to
the NPO Management Committee, to work with and support the activities of the National
Digital Preservation Officer. Vanessa Marshall to establish by the start of the new financial
year.
The meeting agreed that Ian McGowan as Chair of the NPO Management Committee should
write to the British Library,
Public Record Office and the
Data Archive to request details of
digital preservation (existing activities, experimental projects and future plans). The PRO is to
organise a seminar funded by
JISC with speakers from those organisations with digital
archiving/preservation experience, such as PRO, BL, the Data Archive, the
Arts and Humanities Data Service to share experience and outline potential pilot projects. The seminar
would be open to all kinds of publishers of digital material to attend. Vanessa Marshall will
liaise in the first instance with Helen Forde.
This is to be achieved through research and/or pilot projects, looking at issues such as
selection, metadata, standards, certification. Dan Greenstein noted that the
Arts and Humanities Data Service was looking at different organisations and tasks and was hoping to
come up with a number of models.
JISC will promote models as part of practical pilot
schemes (to derive better knowledge of costings, standards etc). The JISC Committee on
Electronic Information will be asked to consider pilot studies for digital preservation. The joint
JISC/Publisher’s Association Working Party will consider models for projects involving
publishers working together with libraries to preserve publisher's products.
The PRO is working on this now, as is the NPO. These organisations are to liaise through
Vanessa Marshall and Helen Forde.
The web site for this project should act as a starting point for a national digital preservation
web site in the UK. This will serve as a central information resource showing 'who is doing
what'. Vanessa Marshall is to liaise with the Project Team about maintenance and development
of the web site. The web site should then be publicised, especially in print media.
The Project Team is to establish and maintain a UK (-based) discussion list, "Digpres", to
enable informal discussion of activities, problems and issues. Following the appointment of the
National Digital Preservation Officer, the NPO is to host the web site and discussion list.
This effort should be targeted at the broad range of stakeholders in digital preservation. The
Research Libraries Group is producing a curriculum for a 3 day workshop on digital
reformatting and will hold talks with the NPO about producing a parallel project on digital
archiving. Vanessa Marshall is to liaise with Nancy Elkington.
Vanessa Marshall is being nominated for membership of RLG's
Preservation Advisory Council
and through this will be involved with colleagues in Australia, Canada and the United States.
Representatives of the PRO have various international and European Union contacts. The
meeting felt informal and formal international contacts were in place and could be cultivated.
Previous section |
Contents |
Next section
Web version of this report by
Alan Poulter