4 Replies to “DHR Digital Preservation Strategy and Policy”
Hi Dave,
I really like that you included the line about this policy being a natural extension of DHR’s mission. I think it’s important to document this connection when writing a policy like this for an organization so that they can clearly see the benefits of how a digital preservation plan is important for their functionality in the long run. I’m sure it’s not too difficult for people actually doing the work at the organization to see this connection, but having a line like this in a policy reviewed by board members or other upper management might be helpful to convince them particularly if funding is involved. I also thought it was an especially good idea that you included definitions at the bottom to ensure that those reading the policy know exactly what various terms mean. Wish I would have thought of that!
Thanks, Sarah! (psst, the definitions and terms section wasn’t an original idea of mine….). I think that the definitions/terms section can definitely be expanded for the exact reason that you mentioned. I chose to mention that the policy was a natural extension of the institution’s mission so that it can more easily reference existing documents and maybe even be incorporated into something higher up in the government food chain. I think (hope) that this will eventually lead to the development of an umbrella policy for DHR or be augmented with existing policy and guidelines.
I think this is a really great policy and nicely arranged and organized. All the section headings and numberings do help to make otherwise dry policy documents somewhat more readable — or at least, they help a reader find the only part they need. I’m especially impressed by the definitions of terms at the end. I’m also curious about the way you’ve differentiated digital surrogates and born-digital materials. It makes a lot of sense, but I haven’t noticed too much about this in any of our class readings and I wonder whether you’ve thought this through yourself or adopted it from elsewhere.
For all your “insert title” statements, I wonder if you are constrained by your project, or whether that will be left for them to figure out later? I definitely consider all my work on this site to be more a draft than a finished project.
Thanks for the good words. I chose to purposefully differentiate between surrogates and born digital primarily to highlight two independent content streams. DHR accessions born-digital items, but creates surrogates whenever asked. Knowing how valuable storage space is and how difficult it is to navigate bureaucratic hurdles, I think that associating differing workflows and content loss threat levels with different terminology will *hopefully* prevent the loss of irreplaceable content.
My insert title statements exist because I’m aware of the appropriate documentation but don’t currently have access to it. I also chose to leave the roles designations blank because I’m not sure how DHR wants to divide these responsibilities (will it become IT’s problem, the Archivist’s, or someone else?). I also consider this a working draft and it is my intention to continue giving feedback to DHR.
Hi Dave,
I really like that you included the line about this policy being a natural extension of DHR’s mission. I think it’s important to document this connection when writing a policy like this for an organization so that they can clearly see the benefits of how a digital preservation plan is important for their functionality in the long run. I’m sure it’s not too difficult for people actually doing the work at the organization to see this connection, but having a line like this in a policy reviewed by board members or other upper management might be helpful to convince them particularly if funding is involved. I also thought it was an especially good idea that you included definitions at the bottom to ensure that those reading the policy know exactly what various terms mean. Wish I would have thought of that!
Sarah
Thanks, Sarah! (psst, the definitions and terms section wasn’t an original idea of mine….). I think that the definitions/terms section can definitely be expanded for the exact reason that you mentioned. I chose to mention that the policy was a natural extension of the institution’s mission so that it can more easily reference existing documents and maybe even be incorporated into something higher up in the government food chain. I think (hope) that this will eventually lead to the development of an umbrella policy for DHR or be augmented with existing policy and guidelines.
Hey Dave,
I think this is a really great policy and nicely arranged and organized. All the section headings and numberings do help to make otherwise dry policy documents somewhat more readable — or at least, they help a reader find the only part they need. I’m especially impressed by the definitions of terms at the end. I’m also curious about the way you’ve differentiated digital surrogates and born-digital materials. It makes a lot of sense, but I haven’t noticed too much about this in any of our class readings and I wonder whether you’ve thought this through yourself or adopted it from elsewhere.
For all your “insert title” statements, I wonder if you are constrained by your project, or whether that will be left for them to figure out later? I definitely consider all my work on this site to be more a draft than a finished project.
Thanks for the good words. I chose to purposefully differentiate between surrogates and born digital primarily to highlight two independent content streams. DHR accessions born-digital items, but creates surrogates whenever asked. Knowing how valuable storage space is and how difficult it is to navigate bureaucratic hurdles, I think that associating differing workflows and content loss threat levels with different terminology will *hopefully* prevent the loss of irreplaceable content.
My insert title statements exist because I’m aware of the appropriate documentation but don’t currently have access to it. I also chose to leave the roles designations blank because I’m not sure how DHR wants to divide these responsibilities (will it become IT’s problem, the Archivist’s, or someone else?). I also consider this a working draft and it is my intention to continue giving feedback to DHR.