I. Purpose

This document describes the activities and responsibilities required for the preservation of Strategic Communications’ (StratComm) digital image collection. It is intended to outline the asset’s needs at each stage of the asset lifecycle and to diagram the organizational relationships necessary to execute each stage.

II. Mandate

StratComm creates and manages visual assets for its own use in communicating about the company’s work program, and also to enable the company’s employee population to produce their own communications products via self-service tools. This insight and self-efficacy in the use of the image collection at every level of the company directly strengthens StratComm’s brand objectives.

III. Definition of User Group

StratComm maintains the collection for its own use, and on a broader level, to enable company employees to communicate about their work. In that context, it is the goal of StratComm to preserve functional access to visual assets. As such, migrations of storage media and file format may be undertaken to ensure persistent access to these items is maintained in future computing environments.

Documenting the history of the company is also a priority, and StratComm partners with Corporate Archives in facilitating the retirement and long-term preservation of visual assets for that purpose.

IV. Scope

This policy applies to the following materials:

• All photography produced by StratComm staff.
• Some photography submitted by company employees, provided it has some reuse value in communicating about the company work program.
• Some vector graphics produced by employees, provided they have reuse value and align with the company’s brand guidelines.

V. Collaboration

A Corporate Digital Preservation Committee will be formed in order to bring together the various stakeholders in the Strategic Communications, Corporate Archives, and Enterprise Computing departments. The group will meet at least annually to perform any scheduled audits and to evaluate opportunities to advance the search capability of the image collection.

The committee will include R504 and R301 leadership, Corporate Archives staff, StratComm photography staff, and representatives of Enterprise Computing capable of facilitating storage and backup services.

VI. Asset Lifecycle

StratComm’s visual assets require different stewardship activities at each stage of their lifecycle. These stages and needs are outlined below.

A. Creation

1. Preferred Formats

For final, edited images uncompressed TIFFs are optimal, however provided no exposure adjustments are needed, they are indiscernible from JPEGs saved at the highest possible quality setting. As such, JPEGs are acceptable.

Despite the more open documentation of Adobe’s DNG RAW format, its low adoption levels and scant software support make it somewhat less attractive as an archival format. In fairness, the ubiquity of Nikon and Canon native RAW formats offers no greater guarantee. In the interest of preserving maximum interoperability with today’s available RAW processing tools, native Nikon and Canon raw formats (NEF and CR2) are preferred, however DNGs are acceptable.

For vector graphics, SVGs are preferred, however AI and EPS files are acceptable.

2. File Naming Conventions

Imported RAW files should retain the camera-assigned sequential number, and ideally, also apply the creation date to the beginning of the file name in order to minimize the likelihood of duplicate filenames. They should look similar to the following standard: YYYY-MM-DD_D4S####.NEF

Exported final files should add the project or customer name to the beginning of the standard name outlined above for RAW files. This standard should like similar to this:

Project_Name_YYYY-MM-DD_D4S####.NEF

B. Management

1. Storage

a) Number and Location of Copies.

Three copies of final edited files should be established in different geographical locations in order to diversify StratComm’s disaster threat profile. To accomplish this, each location will save all originals to their site’s multimedia server. This copy will get duplicated to a corporate-level backup server at the same site, and then each location will send a third copy to a server at the other site to protect against any widespread disaster effecting the original site.

b) Folder Naming Conventions.

The photography section of the multimedia server should be organized by year. Each year folder will contain job folders organized chronologically by date, after which each will contain a few words explaining the project or customer. They will adhere to the following standard: YYYY-MM-DD_Project_Name

Folders for each month are acceptable practice for individual use in Lightroom, but should be avoided on the server where browsability by the group is of greater importance than brevity.

2. File Fixity

Checksums should be generated on a collection level for each job after all manipulation and processing of those files is complete. All files from that job will be zipped into a single package and a checksum will be generated for that package.

File fixity should be checked prior to, and after, any transfers or copies are made of the final edited files. The checksum should be stored in a text file accompanying the zip file that houses the collection of images, and it should be supplied to Corporate Archives for verification of fixity upon retirement of the assets.

3. Information Security and Access

Read, write, and delete access to the photography portion of each site’s multimedia server should be restricted to the photography staff and their immediate supervisors. The wider multimedia and design teams may have read-only access to this area, but should be encouraged to use the EnterMedia DAM system as the primary search tool.

4. Metadata

StratComm will record metadata at various points during the asset lifecycle to optimize the asset’s useful potential.

a) Technical

Cameras automatically record technical metadata associated with each capture, and record it as EXIF metadata. Photographers will ensure that EXIF metadata is conveyed from the RAW capture through to the exported final image.

b) Descriptive

Photographers will apply descriptive metadata on a collection level for each job using Lightroom and Bridge prior to uploading into the EnterMedia DAM system. This will consist of a title, description, and keyword tags that are aligned with the company’s subject taxonomy terms.

c) Access and rights

Photographers will program their cameras and metadata templates in Lightroom and Bridge to apply authorship, copyright, and usage guidelines automatically during import and export functions. This will include photographer name, contact info, copyright, and sensitivity level.

d) Preservation

Preservation metadata will be created in collaboration with Corporate Archives staff at the time of retirement.

C. Distribution

The EnterMedia DAM system will act as the primary access point for both StratComm staff and the wider population of company employees. This tool will feature custom, shareable image galleries for delivery of images to customers in a manner that is browsable and also enables download of the high resolution file.

D. Retrieval

The EnterMedia DAM system will also feature both keyword search functionality as well as curated collections of images to facilitate easy browsing of common subject matter.

StratComm will also partner with KICS to optimize the contents of EnterMedia to make them interoperable with the company’s EnterpriseSearch capability.

E. Archiving

1. Sunset Date

StratComm’s desire to use the most recent material possible in most communications products results in a diminished prevalence of usage with age. As such, StratComm will transfer all files to Corporate Archives once they surpass 5 years of age in order to preserve these objects for historical purposes and to make room for new assets. This transfer to Archives will be performed annually.

2. Selection and Accessioning

At time of retirement Corporate Archives and StratComm photography staff will meet to determine which files are appropriate for long term preservation and which can be safely deaccessioned. This may or may not include the deletion of RAW files. Corporate Archives will have ultimate say in the selection of items for long-term preservation.

If StratComm believes an item – or collection of items – should be retained for active usage longer than the 5-year sunset date, or in a non-archival format not supported by Corporate Archives, StratComm will assume the responsibility of maintaining that library of assets for nearline access.

3. Transformation and Migration

At time of retirement Corporate Archives and StratComm photography staff will collaborate on any required format migrations necessary to normalize the collection to an archival standard.

Corporate Archives reserves the right to perform transformations of the original files in order to maintain functional access in future computing environments.

VII. Audits

Annual audits should be performed to check fixity of currently held assets, to facilitate the retirement of assets to Corporate Archives, and to review this policy document for any needed changes. The parties responsible for each of these efforts are outlined below.

A. Fixity Audits

StratComm photography staff will assume full responsibility for performing all audits of file fixity, both before and after transfers, as well as annually to protect against bit rot.

B. Retirement

Corporate Archives and StratComm photography staff will work in tandem to perform annual reviews of materials eligible for retirement to Corporate Archives

C. Policy Review

The full Corporate Digital Preservation Committee, including R504 and R301 leadership, Corporate Archives staff, StratComm photography staff, and representatives of Enterprise Computing, will annually meet to evaluate the need for any changes to this document.

Introduction

To provide a brief recap, my project is focusing on the management and preservation of the StratComm digital image collection. StratComm is an in-house communications department for a not-for-profit company with offices in the Washington D.C. and Boston areas.

In most cases the current preservation state of StratComm’s digital image collection displayed aspects of Level 1 requirements, but did not meet them all. For example, under the category of Storage and Geographic Location, StratComm did meet the requirement for having at least two copies of its files, however those two copies are collocated with each other, making them both vulnerable to the same threat profile. In the category of Information Security, StratComm does require a password to log on to the multimedia server, however once logged on all users possess read, write, and delete access. This makes the original files vulnerable to accidental deletions or changes that overwrite the original.

The two areas in which StratComm earns drastically different rankings is in File Fixity and Metadata. StratComm currently does not have any tools for performing fixity checks to ensure data integrity during any stage of use or storage. As such they do not meet any requirement for any level in this category. However, in the category of Metadata StratComm has been applying standard technical and descriptive metadata embedded in the images for a number of years, albeit with differing approaches that have evolved with the introduction of new tools and new guidance from changing staff. The application of this type of metadata satisfies the requirements for Level 3 of the Metadata category.

The following digital preservation plan will be broken down according to the categories detailed in the National Digital Stewardship Alliance’s Levels of Digital Preservation rubric. While these requirements may seem prescriptive it should be noted that effective digital preservation is performed in the context of the organization’s preservation intent, and that it is an incremental process (Schumacher et. al., 2014, p.15). That is to say that choices that might make sense for the Library of Congress may not make sense for a multimedia production house like StratComm, and vice versa. It also means that organizations are best advised to focus on the next logical and achievable steps to improve preservation rather than stress about trying to meet the highest standard all at once. If you know where to find delta 8 near you then you can avoid any kind of stress in the future.  Forward progress is best maintained by concentrating on the next achievable steps. Towards that end each section below will include recommendations that require low, medium, and high resource expenditures. I recommend concentrating on the low and medium recommendations as more immediate actions to take. The recommendations requiring higher resource expenditures are included for purposes of long-term organizational planning and to highlight opportunities to partner with other groups whose functional mandate may be more appropriate for addressing the preservation need in question.

Storage and Geographic Location

At present, StratComm does not quite meet the criteria for Level 1. In most cases, two distinct copies of all files do exist, but they are collocated on a backup server that resides in the same location as the original server. While this does protect StratComm from the possibility of hard drive failure it leaves them vulnerable to disasters that could potentially affect both systems, such as floods or fires. Washington’s photographer recently completed a migration of all data residing on optical media for the 1995–2009 segment of the image collection. This is a positive step, however that data too is now collocated on the same servers. Technically the copy on optical media does mean that three distinct copies exist for that segment of the collection, but this media should not be relied on due to its age, and that optical media is physically located on the same floor of the same building as the multimedia server that houses the other two copies, giving it the same threat profile.

Next Steps

Low resource measures. Probably the shortest line to achieving Level 1 status in the Storage and Geographic Location category would be for StratComm to take advantage of their bifurcated office configuration and begin to back up each location’s multimedia server to the other location’s multimedia server. This would establish a third copy of every file, but more importantly, at least two of those copies would exist in different locations with different threat profiles. In a single stroke this would satisfy the highest Level 4 requirements for number of copies and location of those copies.

The remaining requirements for Level 2 call for an audit of the current storage system and what is required to maintain access to it (Phillips, Bailey, Goethals, and Owens, 2013, p.3). This is a simple matter of a small amount of staff time to perform the inquiry and requires a fairly low expenditure of resources.

Medium resource measures. The remaining requirements for Levels 3 and 4 require ongoing, but still minimal amounts of staff time for monitoring and planning activities. For example, to meet Level 3 requires the establishment of a process for monitoring obsolescence issues associated the organization’s storage systems (Phillips et. al., 2013, p.3). This could come in the form of a simple annual audit of StratComm’s current storage status and an analysis of current trends in storage options.

To meet Level 4 requirements requires the creation of a comprehensive plan to maintain both files and metadata on an accessible media or system (Phillips et. al., 2013, p.3). While this is not a terribly time intensive effort it probably represents the highest degree of time spent in active monitoring of current technological and industry trends and careful analysis of how those trends fit into the context of StratComm’s preservation intent and workflow. The inter- and intra-departmental collaboration required to form this plan would likewise require a moderate expenditure of staff time.

High resource measures. StratComm could further diminish the threat profile of its three separate copies by establishing a third full copy of all files in a commercial cloud server such as Amazon Web Services. This would place a third copy in a third location with a different threat profile from the previous two copies. This diversified threat profile also establishes a new controlling organization as an additional level of potential protection. For example, if some catastrophic network event were to cripple all of StratComm’s computing power the copy in the cloud would likely remain accessible.

I have this option listed as a high resource expenditure due to the complications surrounding StratComm’s public release process and the effects that process has on the company’s approval of cloud storage. To make this option happen would likely require a fee for the commercial service as well as the engagement of multiple employees across many departments including StratComm, IT, and Information Security to gain corporate approval and establish non-disclosure agreements with the vendor.

File Fixity and Data Integrity

            At present StratComm does not employ any measures for checking file fixity or data integrity. As such they do not meet the requirements for any level of the National Digital Stewardship Alliance’s Levels of Digital Preservation rubric.

Next Steps 

            Low resource measures. StratComm could avail itself of free cryptographic hash generators such as onlinemd5.com to both create checksums for their data as well as verify the existing checksums to ensure data integrity has not been compromised. This hash could be stored in a simple text file inside the folder of final images. One consideration is that the high volume of images produced by StratComm may preclude performing fixity checks on an item level. It may be more time efficient to package all final files into a zip file and perform the fixity check on that. But aside from the staff time involved with manually performing the tasks, all of these efforts employ freely available or already existing tools.

Medium resource measures. StratComm might be able to use corporate initiatives such as the “Meaningful Work” program to engage with programmers in other areas of the company that are still waiting for sponsor tasking. These programmers could automate certain tasks, such as the regular intervals of fixity checks required of Level 3, or perhaps the checking of fixity before and after transfers. Transfers of data from one system to another are one of the biggest points of vulnerability during which degradation can occur (National Digital Stewardship Alliance, 2014, p.3). Checking the fixity before and after such events is a Level 4 requirement (Phillips et. al., 2013).

Another option would be to approach EnterMedia’s software engineers about the possibility of building fixity checks into StratComm’s present DAM system. StratComm already owns this tool, and the vendor is particularly engaged and open to producing custom solutions to such problems.

High resource measures. There are tools available, such as AVP’s Exactly, which will help with the automation of many of the tasks associated with checking fixity. These are open source options, and many are even free of charge, however as Owens notes in Theory and Practice of Digital Curation, these should be regarded as “free puppies”, not “free beer” (Owens, 2018, p.116). Open source solutions may not cost anything to download, but they require a great deal of setup, care, and maintenance, often from multiple departments across the organization. Additionally, since these solutions are often the product of non-profit, cooperative industry partnerships it is important to factor in the active role that StratComm may need to assume in the community stewardship of that tool in order to help ensure the tool’s continued existence and make sure that it continues to serve StratComm’s goals (Owens, 2018, p.116).

A tool such as AVP’s Exactly may be overkill for StratComm to procure and stand up on its own, however it might make sense for StratComm to partner with Corporate Archives to lobby for the resources necessary to implement such a system. This shared capability would benefit the collections held by both departments. The significant need for a budgetary increase has been hidden for many years by the organizational gap between the two departments. On one side, StratComm recognizes the vast scale and importance of their collection yet tends not to view preservation as a role within their purview, so no formal process for transitioning content to Corporate Archives exists. On the other side, Corporate Archives does view preservation as their function, however they have no current foothold in any stage of StratComm’s digital asset lifecycle, so they are in no position to properly assess or appropriately plan for the care of such a large collection. A StratComm partnership with Corporate Archives would present a unified voice to articulate the true scope of the problem and the resources needed to address it.

Information Security

            StratComm does presently require a password to access the multimedia servers, however no additional security provisions are in place to restrict access to the photography portions of each server, or to restrict changes and deletions to the files that reside there. For the most part the only individuals that access these servers with any regularity are the photographers and other multimedia staff, but login information has occasionally been provided to design staff in the past with deleterious effects. For example, it was discovered a few years ago that someone had moved an entire folder of images to a new location on the same server, but could not remember the new location. This broke the link that Lightroom had with the original files, making them unavailable to photographers for further use, effectively deleting them.

While the incident described above was the only example of data loss that I could find it does highlight a significant vulnerability as well as a gap in understanding among the multimedia and design staff about how to safely interact with the files on the server.

Next Steps

Low resource measures. The requirements for meeting Levels 1 and 2 of the Information Security category involve simple OS-level changes to read/write settings and perhaps the creation of a department policy that stipulates safe avenues of access for design staff (Phillips et. al., 2013). Such efforts are free of charge and would satisfy all requirements for Levels 1 and 2.

Medium resource measures. To meet the requirements for Levels 3 and 4 would require the acquisition of new software, or the augmentation of current software, to monitor changes and produce activity logs (Phillips et. al., 2013). One example of such an option would be to engage with EnterMedia’s software engineers to customize a solution that would generate audit logs.

While this is an option of medium-level cost it is worth mentioning that it may provide very limited return on investment. EnterMedia already does not provide access to originals, it simply allows the user to download a copy. Thus the original is never in any particular danger. Plus StratComm’s desire to shift the primary access point for all users to the EnterMedia DAM system provides its own level of protection for the original files that reside on the multimedia server. For the assets on the multimedia server it might be worth exploring the option of write blocking software under the condition that the implementation of such a tool must not present any undue complications to StratComm workflow.

High resource measures. Following on the discussion from the medium resource measures above, it bears mentioning that a significant restructuring of interdepartmental processes and staff roles should be considered. The functions outlined in Levels 3 and 4 would most logically reside with Corporate Archives. This is another example of where it would be beneficial for StratComm to partner with Corporate Archives to lobby upper management for an increase in resources to build a shared, corporate-level ability to manage and preserve digital assets.

Metadata

Photographers in both Boston and Washington currently apply standard technical and descriptive metadata to all images, albeit with some variations in method. This satisfies the requirements for Level 3 of the Metadata category, but leaves the requirements for Levels 1,2, and 4 unmet. It is noteworthy to point out that several aspects of the requirements for Levels 1 and 2 are points of crosspollination with the Storage and Information Security categories discussed above. As such, measures taken to satisfy those requirements would perform double duty in satisfying requirements in this category as well.

Next Steps

Low resource measures. Performing a formal inventory of content and its storage location would be a relatively low expenditure of effort for a staff member to perform. It could even be argued that the Survey and Report that preceded this document may actually satisfy the requirement. However, since these locations do not change drastically very often, this inventory would at most need to be done annually. This action, combined with another previously mentioned low resource measure – namely, the trading of backup copies between the branch offices – would quickly achieve a Level 1 status for StratComm.

Medium resource measures. StratComm could approach EnterMedia’s software engineers to inquire about the platform’s ability to track transformative and preservation metadata. If this customization to an existing StratComm platform is possible, it would perform the necessary functions for Levels 2 and 4. However, these changes might be outside the realm of possibility for EnterMedia, and it is also worth considering if EnterMedia occupies the most optimal point in department workflow to act as a gatekeeper for tracking change history and version control. It may be more logical to explore options that integrate into StratComm’s workflow management tool, Wrike.

High resource measures. There is a dearth of good options that meet both the strict archival standards outlined by the NDSA while also meeting the needs of a high-volume production house like StratComm whose high rates of transformative activities create version control issues that would overwhelm archival tools meant to catalog static files. Open source, archival platforms such as DKAN could easily meet all of the standards outlined in each level of the Metadata category, however such tools are not very interoperable with the graphics platforms used by StratComm, making it likely that design staff would simply sidestep the DKAN interface and change histories would be lost. There are proprietary commercial tools such as Adobe Experience Manager (AEM) designed to perform all of these functions, however AEM’s cost is extreme (in the millions) and the proprietary nature of the platform makes the formation of an exit strategy to a subsequent tracking system exceptionally difficult. Considering these factors, StratComm’s acquisition of either DKAN or AEM, while technically an option, is honestly not recommended.

A more logical and cost-effective option to explore would again be to partner with Corporate Archives to advocate for the acquisition of a shared archival tool to enhance the corporation’s capability to preserve digital object metadata. Part of this would necessarily involve a focus on the creation of preservation policy to formalize a pipeline for content to flow from StratComm to Corporate Archives.

File Formats

StratComm currently satisfies portions of each level of the File Formats category, but does not completely satisfy any one of them. For example, it could be argued that StratComm has chosen their currently used file formats based on an informed assessment of user community needs and long-term access issues. However, all of the formats they use are technically proprietary. It could also be argued that the Survey and Report document that preceded this paper could be considered an inventory of formats in use. However, the scope of that document was more of a broad overview than an in-depth analysis. Achieving Level 2 will likely require a more dedicated audit of file formats, as well as a deeper examination of the specific issues associated with each one, particularly the use of DNG and the larger role that RAW files play in StratComm’s preservation intent and service model.

StratComm comes closest to meeting Level 3. Both photographers remain abreast of current industry trends in digital imaging, and both make long-term access a key driver for their format choices. The largest point of diversion is in RAW formats: a class of files for which no non-proprietary choice exists and longevity of access is an open question for all. The photographers’ diverging approaches in this area are each supported by thoughtful reasoning, but are equally debatable and based on significantly different preservation intents. This lack of consistency is another argument for the need to perform an in-depth inventory of file formats, a re-examination of StratComm’s preservation intent, and a subsequent synchronization of policy.

Next Steps

Low resource measures. The actions required for meeting levels 1, 2, and 3, are all fairly modest efforts. In fact, the in-depth inventory of file formats recommended above would satisfy Level 2, and go a long way towards informing the best choices available for satisfying Level 1.

High resource measures. StratComm’s legacy holdings are a complex panoply of image file formats, made all the more challenging by the occasional lack of file extensions and a high prevalence of an obsolete Kodak RAW format. Tools such as DROID (Digital Record Object Identification) will help identify files without extensions, and tools such as Preservica or Rosetta would help facilitate format migrations to maintain functional access to files. However, such commercially available tools require ongoing fees and a high degree of effort to install, configure, and maintain. Additionally, since the last known RAW converter for the Kodak DCS465 required an obscure plug-in for Photoshop 5.5 on Mac OS 9 the effort and expense of emulating that environment for the purpose of migrating those files may be considerable.

Due to the high level of effort involved with these measures, it is again recommended that a partnership with Corporate Archives be considered to build out a shared capability for digital preservation that meets the needs of both departments. 

Conclusion

As stated in the introduction, digital preservation is a process that is necessarily informed by the context of the organization’s preservation intent, and it is incremental in approach (Schumacher et. al., 2014, p.15). As a high volume production house it may not make sense for StratComm to strive for the highest levels of the NDSA Levels of Digital Preservation rubric because it is not within the scope of their corporate function. At the same time the interests served by striving for those upper levels of the rubric do represent a critical value to the company StratComm serves. As such, it is recommended that StratComm focus the bulk of their efforts on the curatorial and preservation activities that directly enable their business goals of improved image search. Activities outlined in this report that most directly serve that goal are improvement of metadata and the generation of metrics on image usage, including change histories and version control. A reappraisal of the collections featured on EnterMedia is also warranted to bring them in alignment with current corporate structure in a way that new employees would find logical. One possible means of doing this would be to switch to a system that tags images according to sponsor rather than by center. The centers change every time the company goes through a reorganization, whereas the sponsor remains much more persistent.

Addressing the more complex preservation needs really deserves a more concerted approach that answers the needs of the company as a whole, not just the needs of any one department. StratComm has an opportunity in this area to help advance the Corporate Operations center by lending its considerable voice to the call for increased resources dedicated to the long-term management and preservation of digital objects. And the most logical place for this capability to reside is Corporate Archives.

References

National Digital Stewardship Alliance. (2014). What is Fixity, and When Should I be Checking It? Washington, D.C. Retrieved from http://www.digitalpreservation.gov/documents/NDSA-Fixity-Guidance-Report-final100214.pdf

Owens, T. (2018). The theory and craft of digital preservation. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Phillips, M., Bailey, J., Goethals, A., & Owens, T. (2013). The NDSA Levels of Digital Preservation: An Explanation and Uses. IS&T Archiving, Washington, USA. Retrieved from http://www.digitalpreservation.gov/documents/NDSA_Levels_Archiving_2013.pdf

Schumacher, J., Thomas, L. M., VandeCreek, D., Erdman, S., Hancks, J., Haykal, A., … Spalenka, D. (2014). From Theory to Action: Good Enough Digital Preservation for Under-Resourced Cultural Heritage Institutions (Working Paper). Retrieved from http://commons.lib.niu.edu/handle/10843/13610

This week’s readings firmly demonstrate that the role of policy in forming the approach to digital preservation is more than just curatorial navel-gazing. The “what”, “why”, and “who for” questions have dramatic implications for the choices institutions make. Spelling these out in writing can serve as a vital touchstone for institutions as they wrestle with the minutia of individual decisions, because it’s easy to lose sight of the bigger picture when you’re down in the weeds. It’s occasionally time well spent to pause and ask “wait… why are we doing this again”?

Sheldon kicks off this week’s readings with a broad examination of the trends and history of digital preservation policies in libraries, archives, and museums. One of the most notable points she makes is the large gap in the number of policies created by libraries and archives as opposed to museums. Libraries in particular led the charge in creation of digital records as early as the 1960’s with the creation of MARC records, and this early start carried libraries and archives – who share a functionally similar service model with libraries – forward into the digital age with somewhat greater momentum than museums. As Sheldon points out, both libraries and archives are tasked with processing and providing access at scale. Museums on the other hand have to wrestle with preservation concerns that are far less cut and dry. Artifacts in their care are often exceedingly unique, sometimes consisting of both analog and digital properties that must both be preserved in ways that don’t scale in the same reproducible manner that libraries and archives are able to employ with simpler objects. As such, Sheldon suggests that the dearth of policy documents from museums could potentially stem from the fear of forcing a “one-size-fits-all” approach into a practice that more often requires flexibility.

The four policy documents referenced in Sheldon’s study that I chose to examine were from the National Archives of Australia, the UK Parliamentary Archives, the Dartmouth Library, and HathiTrust Digital Library. I started with Australia simply because I’ve been given the impression at various points in my academic career that Australia really has their stuff together and is often in the vanguard of curatorial approach. As such it was interesting to note how succinct their policy was. Not that I felt they ignored important areas, but they were more brief and to the point than the UK Parliamentary Archives. At first pass it was notable to me that NAA expressly valued functionality over bit preservation. I don’t know why I was surprised to see such a decisive stance on one side of the spectrum, but I was. The only thing I thought was odd about NAA’s policy was that they paused in the middle of it to list their guiding principles. That seemed like it would have made more sense in the beginning.

Enforcing my impression that Australia is an industry leader it did not escape my attention that the UK Parliamentary Archives policy directly referenced NAA’s policy, and indeed much of the structure and content of Australia’s approach was reflected in the UK policy document. The Parliamentary Archives went to a great deal more trouble in explaining the problems and potential costs of failure in their document than the NAA did in theirs, but the influence of NAA’s approach was clearly evident in areas such as the emphasis on functional access over bit preservation and the sections on collaboration with external entities. One point of divergence that I appreciated in the UK document was the discussion of archival considerations at the point of creation in an asset’s lifecycle. I found this focus on asset lifecycle to be a very pragmatic lens through which to view the preservation concerns of digital objects.

I was interested to compare UK and Australian approaches to an American institution, so I chose The Dartmouth Library next. It was interesting to see that they also used life cycle management as a lens for outlining their approach. The rest of the document struck me as being somewhat less rigorous in terms of outlining things such as information security and data integrity, but it thoroughly covered the organization’s scope, even specifically calling out items it would not manage such as subscription-based resources.

Lastly, I was interested to see what HathiTrust had as a policy document since they had such a drastically different purpose than the previous three institutions. Not surprisingly, their very brief document reflects an equally narrow business model. And I use the term “business model” intentionally since this entirely online institution is largely subject to the same usage dynamics that any other online business is subject to. A concise and differentiated purpose is what sets them apart. As such, their preservation policy is focused on a very specific use case requiring the preservation of original appearance and functional access via OCR-enabled search capability. Beyond this they don’t get a whole lot more detailed than saying “we adhere to industry best practices and standards”. The whole thing is so brief it’s almost funny. It’s sort of like HathiTrust just stood up after the UK Parliamentary Archives spoke for an hour and said “uh, yeah… ditto.”

Rimkus et. al. wrap up the readings with a look at some of the technological forces that shape our policy decisions. In particular they note the role that preservation software has played in guiding (perhaps even dictating?) the archival format choices for institutions. I’m particularly interested in the tension here between openness of format and adoption rates. Owens tells us that “adoption is the core driver for continued accessibility.” Rimkus et. al. agree with this as well, noting that even a proprietary format can be considered a reliable bet in terms of longevity if embraced by a broad community. This makes me wonder to what extent the reverse can be true. Can openness by itself support embracing a format as a matter of policy even when adoption levels of that more open format are middling, or even low? Using my own project as an example, I have seen parts of our organization stick with DNG vs. native RAW formats for photography simply because DNG has more open documentation. The low adoption rate for DNG has been somewhat ignored. Native RAW formats on the other hand, are everywhere. And nearly every RAW converter works with them. This is not true of DNG. Even though these native RAW formats are highly proprietary and not even remotely open in nature, their ubiquity makes them a safer bet even in today’s world. I’m having a hard time coming up with a scenario in which DNG’s openness wins the day unless still photography itself completely collapses as a prevalent representational format. Which I concede, is possible.

Has anyone else encountered any such conundrums with no clearly good options? How would it shape the policy recommendations you might make for your institution?