5 Replies to “DC Punk Archive Digital Preservation Policy”
First, I really like that you got to work with such a unique and off-beat institution. The policy looks really comprehensive and well thought out. I especially like that you suggested they accession records into Internet Archive then migrate files over to Preservica. Internet Archive is a great tool for outreach and public interaction while Preservica is great for back end maintenance. So utilizing both is a great idea if they can afford it.
It would be great to add in some additional notes on the Dublin Core point (3.1), that is some requirements (ex, every item must include at last three fields, Title, Crator, Date) or something like that. Whatever makes the most sense for them as it would make it a little more specific.
I like the point of keeping audio files in their original formats. That makes a lot of sense as it’s particularly important for a music archive like this.
Nice job articulating a process for downloading and replacing the local copies of the content from Preservica. That would be rather useful as a way of both having those extra copies under their control and for ensuring that they have a solid exit strategy if/when they need to move to some future system.
Thanks for the comment. I took your advice and updated the Dublin Core section. Specifying minimum element requirements should be included in my policy.
Great work. I think it’s great that you thought to include a section on staff training. Because our information is constantly changing, it makes sense that the people who are handing these preservation activities are kept up to date. It’s all well and good to spell out procedures for digital preservation, but that information is useless unless staff have a working knowledge of how to use and interact with the technology. Sometimes we get so bogged down with the technical stuff that we ignore the human element. Thanks for reminding us.
I think it’s pretty great that you added a specific emergency plan, as I haven’t noticed that in other policy statements.
This DC Punk Archive project, like a couple of the other projects in our class, raises some interesting questions about the extent to which a small organization really needs its own digital preservation project when it is affiliated with a larger institution. In the Punk Archive’s case, external affiliations really provide some hefty resources that a fully independent archive would not have. (This is also a good justification for these sorts of things to affiliate themselves with libraries in the first place.)
My instinct at first was that it isn’t really necessary for them to create their own policy. But after reading a few (also including the Bostwick House and Washingtoniana projects), I have changed my mind. There are concerns that arise at every level of an organization, and separate policies are justifiable. However, I think the most reasonable course would be to refer to a broader institutional policy first, and then specify ways in which the more local policy differs from or expands upon it.
First, I really like that you got to work with such a unique and off-beat institution. The policy looks really comprehensive and well thought out. I especially like that you suggested they accession records into Internet Archive then migrate files over to Preservica. Internet Archive is a great tool for outreach and public interaction while Preservica is great for back end maintenance. So utilizing both is a great idea if they can afford it.
It would be great to add in some additional notes on the Dublin Core point (3.1), that is some requirements (ex, every item must include at last three fields, Title, Crator, Date) or something like that. Whatever makes the most sense for them as it would make it a little more specific.
I like the point of keeping audio files in their original formats. That makes a lot of sense as it’s particularly important for a music archive like this.
Nice job articulating a process for downloading and replacing the local copies of the content from Preservica. That would be rather useful as a way of both having those extra copies under their control and for ensuring that they have a solid exit strategy if/when they need to move to some future system.
Thanks for the comment. I took your advice and updated the Dublin Core section. Specifying minimum element requirements should be included in my policy.
Great work. I think it’s great that you thought to include a section on staff training. Because our information is constantly changing, it makes sense that the people who are handing these preservation activities are kept up to date. It’s all well and good to spell out procedures for digital preservation, but that information is useless unless staff have a working knowledge of how to use and interact with the technology. Sometimes we get so bogged down with the technical stuff that we ignore the human element. Thanks for reminding us.
Mallory
I think it’s pretty great that you added a specific emergency plan, as I haven’t noticed that in other policy statements.
This DC Punk Archive project, like a couple of the other projects in our class, raises some interesting questions about the extent to which a small organization really needs its own digital preservation project when it is affiliated with a larger institution. In the Punk Archive’s case, external affiliations really provide some hefty resources that a fully independent archive would not have. (This is also a good justification for these sorts of things to affiliate themselves with libraries in the first place.)
My instinct at first was that it isn’t really necessary for them to create their own policy. But after reading a few (also including the Bostwick House and Washingtoniana projects), I have changed my mind. There are concerns that arise at every level of an organization, and separate policies are justifiable. However, I think the most reasonable course would be to refer to a broader institutional policy first, and then specify ways in which the more local policy differs from or expands upon it.