Author: Tina

This class has been eye opening for me. There are a lot of possible directions that you can take with a preservation plan. One recurring theme in our readings was that digital objects are not defined by everyone in the same way. This came through early in our readings when Owens wrote of digital objects’ “fuzzy boundaries” (p. 6) and “screen essentialism” (p. 46). We went on to discuss what it means to authentically render an object and how this informs preservation intent. Thinking of digital objects in different ways also means that we can open our minds to different types of access in order to observe restrictions based on privacy, copyright and cultural norms (Owens, p. 164).

It’s important then not to start with assumptionsabout what preserving a digital object means. Getting stakeholder input early in the process can help identify what aspects of digital content are of value to preserve. This will help an organization flesh out realistic goals based on their available resources. In working on my class project, I got a lot out of my discussions with my organization, and I think that process of talking it out was helpful for them as well. However, I think my involvement was just the beginning for them since I didn’t speak with anyone within their parent organization and user needs mainly focused on those for staff. Hopefully, my report can be a basis for further discussion.

This leads to my last takeaway. This is an iterative process. Preservation never ends. There may be a lot of things you’d like to accomplish, but think about what you can do that’s sustainable in the long term. At the same time, don’t feel overwhelmed by that commitment. The Levels of Digital Preservation includes recommendations for what to do at a minimum to preserve digital content. You can start small if necessary and have ideas in place to expand when the time is right. Additionally, things will change. Storage media will need to be replaced and formats can become obsolete. Digital media has changed how we think about information and different formats may come along that challenge your current approach.

In the case of my organization, there is so much potential for what they can do with their digital content once they get past the initial effort of consolidating and organizing their content. I suggested conducting an annual review in my preservation policy draft to encourage further reflection.

So here’s a question to ponder about our consultations. Having been through this process, what was one thing you would do differently if you did it over again?

Digital Preservation Report Archeology Program Office

Introduction

The Archeology Program Office of the Prince George’s County Department of Parks and Recreation was established in 1988 to excavate, preserve and protect archeological sites in county parks. It is a program of the Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission (MNCPPC). As part of its mission, the program curates millions of artifacts. Over the years, related documentation has been created in various formats and on disparate media, some of which have become obsolete. This practice has led to content being hard to find and inaccessible.

Purpose

This policy will establish practices for organizing and preserving digital content. Such practices will help save staff time by making the files easier to find and access, consolidate digital content into one more easily manageable system, and minimize loss of irreplaceable cultural heritage materials.

Scope

This policy only covers preservation of digital content although documentation exists in both digital and physical form. Reports, catalogs, photographs and maps were historically created in print but are now born digital. A selection of print photographs and slides have been digitized, and there are plans to continue digitizing physical copies.

Content includes both historical and working files. Historical files are those that are considered in their final form, the content of which should remain unchanged. Working files are those that continue to be updated.

Standards

This policy draws from recommendations of the National Digital Stewardship Alliance’s Levels of Digital Preservation and the Federal Agencies Digital Guidelines Initiative. Documentation follows MNCPPC’s Guidelines for Archeological Review.

 Storage

The department’s IT staff will maintain the storage systems, and monitor storage media to preempt obsolescence and system failure.

All content will be organized within the office’s shared drive and backed up nightly.

A complete copy of content will be stored in a different geographic location, either through another departmental storage system or by purchasing cloud services. This will protect content from loss due to equipment damage or a catastrophic event in one location.

 Data Integrity

 Directories within the shared drive will allow for three different levels of access: the Archeology Program Office, all of the Department of Parks and Recreation for Prince George’s County, and Dinosaur Park (another Prince George’s County program that shares workspace with the Archeology Program Office).

A designated staff person will maintain a list of staff with read, write, move and delete permissions to directories, subdirectories and special files. The list will be kept in the shared directory.

No one staff person will have write, move or delete access to all copies of files.

Historical files will be kept in separate subdirectories from working files, and will have limited write and delete permissions.

Fixity software will be used to create checksums. A designated staff person will compare checksums annually against all historical files, and for all files whenever transferring to a new storage system. This will ensure that files have not been altered or deleted.

Access and Confidentiality

The Archeology Program Office will explore potential repositories for sharing content with other researchers and with the public while still observing regulations protecting the locations of archeological sites.

 Metadata

Subdirectories and files within the Archeology Program Office directory will follow a naming system developed by staff. A file documenting the naming system will be kept within the directory so that it can remain accessible. All staff creating records will be responsible for following naming guidelines and saving content in the appropriate directory.

File Format

In order to keep files accessible, one or more designated staff people will maintain an inventory of file formats in use and monitor them for obsolescence. Whenever possible, staff will select commonly used file formats and use them consistently. This will help files remain accessible and facilitate migration if necessary. Currently, images are saved as jpegs. Microsoft Word, Excel and Access are used for text, spreadsheets and relational databases, respectively.

Prior to digitizing hard copies, staff will establish a standard for format and image quality appropriate for the material being digitized.

Review

This policy will be made available on the department shared drive, and undergo annual review by representatives of the Archeology Program Office and the Department of Parks and Recreation. Review will take place to evaluate compliance and amend the policy as necessary.

I found this week’s readings overwhelming. This is primarily because it not only drew on a lot of the themes we’ve covered in class so far, but for me, is really at the heart of what it means to be an information professional. The subject was preservation intent, authenticity and selection, which quite honestly, seemed like everything to me. It turns out this is all interrelated.

What does it mean to be authentic?

Bruner describes four meanings of authenticity – verisimilitude, genuineness, originality, and authority – using New Salem Historic Site, a reconstruction of the village where Abraham Lincoln lived in his 20s. I couldn’t help but think of our discussion of artifactual identity in one of our earlier classes since it referenced another historic site, Mount Vernon (Owens, 15-17). Using Bruner’s terminology, the Mount Vernon mansion is authentic because it is the original. According to its website, “restoration efforts aim to represent the estate as it appeared in 1799, the last year of George Washington’s life and the culmination of his designs for Mount Vernon.” This description conforms to Bruner’s idea of genuineness because the idea is that someone from the same period could believe it to be from that period.

Verisimilitude seems one step removed from genuineness. It may pass as believable for visitors, but it isn’t picture perfect. Bruner’s description of New Salem and Mount Vernon’s website include descriptions of modern-day conveniences for tourists and upkeep. Bruner describes gutters on the log cabins that would not have existed at the time, and Mount Vernon has accessible pathways for wheelchairs. Presumably both have bathrooms somewhere on the grounds.

Bruner’s last meaning refers to an authority that certifies something as authentic. For example, the State of Illinois has authority to approve New Salem Village as the official reconstructed site. 

So what’s an authentic digital object?

We’ve learned in class that “digital information is material.” (Owens, 34) Just like words on a page in a book, it’s written on something like a hard drive. However, as a storage medium, hard drives are much less reliable than books. In order to preserve a digital object, you have to transfer it to something stable and be ready to do it again before the storage conditions fail. This concept is outlined in the storage component of the Levels of  Digital Preservation which we read about in our first week of class. The idea then of an authentic digital object precludes Bruner’s third meaning of “original” because we won’t be able to open and use files under the exact same conditions on the same hardware forever.

So how close can we get to the original and what does that even mean? Last week we learned about platforms layers. Digital objects are constructed within a certain context related to several factors such as software, operating system, file formats, etc. When this context changes, it affects how the object appears to us if it can at all. In order then to recreate the object we have to consider what’s important about it and what parts of the object we need to hold onto that ideal. This brings us to the idea of preservation intent.

Owens presents several examples in our readings of preservation which speaks more to creating an authentic experience of the object, but in order to get there, you have to think about the aspects worth preserving. In one case, it might be the appearance recreated through a screen shot; in another, it might be worthwhile to emulate the platforms that were originally used in order to present an interactive experience.

However, you don’t necessarily have control over all aspects to recreate the experience faithfully. Owens uses one example in Grateful Med, a software interface for searching medical information. In order to recreate the experience of using Grateful Med, you would need to emulate all the platform layers required to run the software as well as preserve the external medical databases used. Because of all the variations in platforms involved, this approach was considered impracticable. Instead of preserving the software, preserving the tutorial  served to fulfill the preservation intent which was to captured how the software worked.

This reminded me our readings last week on Documenting Dancebecause it showed how an experience can be documented without being strictly representational. You don’t have to make a direct copy. You just have to drill down to what you think is important to remember.

Who decides what’s authentic?

Bruner’s last meaning of authenticity dealt with authority. I think this idea was captured in two of our readings – Preserving Social Media Records of Activism (Jules, 2015) and Expanding #ArchivesForBlackLives: Building a Community Archives of Police Violence in Cleveland (Drake, 2016). Both of these articles have to do with social media, but it’s also about who has historically had the authority to save or neglect the history of marginalized people? Drake especially tackles this head on and describes how alienating the archival profession has been for black people. Archivists don’t have a place in preserving this story unless they acknowledge complicity in maintaining the white patriarchal structure.

Social media has been described as a way to give voice to people to tell their own story, but it’s complicated by issues of privacy and ownership as well as a means to capture “authentically” an experience from what may amount to millions of different perspectives.

I have to digress a little here because my feelings about social media are complicated. As an information processional, it’s not my place to direct how the public creates records. It’s even questionable as whether it’s my place to preserve them. I have to say as my own opinion, I question the value of social media as a way of authentically preserving an experience. Jules acknowledges the limitations of Twitter, but I think there’s a suggestion that these limitations can be overcome, and I’m not sure I believe that. The essence of Twitter is after all a means of surveillance, not sneaky government surveillance but marketing. Owens gave the example of Documenting the Now, an effort to ethically collect and preserve social media content. I have to hope that if smart people are putting their heads together to ethically preserve this, then maybe they can come up with a better alternative to current social media platforms all together.

There was so much more in our readings with week so I’ll look forward to reading your impressions.