In 2007, the Dutch government and the Dutch State Archives took an approach towards active digital archival preservation and widespread access by the development of what they termed an "e-Depot." Rather than acting as many U.S. organizations have, the Dutch wanted to begin some sort of storage and distribution center for digital archival materials to allow ingestion of the materials and access across departments/to the general public. U.S. organizations have this "catch-up" mentality, which is trying to get paper documents into digital formats while managing digital materials currently being created at the same time, with the result that we are constantly trying to get caught up with technology and the volume of digital materials. The Dutch State Archives has shifted its focus from this mentality towards "the realisation of a fully-fledged digital depot, whereby the ongoing accessibility of digital archives can be ensured, whereby digital archival records can be more effectively delivered to a wide audience, and whereby the transfer of digital archives from government departments to the State Archives Service can be made more efficient. The digital depot will enable the State Archives Service to accept and manage digital archival material" (http://en.nationaalarchief.nl/information-management-and-creation-of-archives/sustainable-management-of-digital-archiva-4).
A centrally-accessible repository for all--whether government, citizen, or archivist. Now that sounds extremely democratic to me, much more so than the current state of U.S. digital archival systems. A lot of this has to do obviously with the differences amongst the Dutch government/society compared and the U.S. However, President Obama recently had a memo announced that shows the President wants the U.S. to develop plans by April 2012 to have a more centralized digital repository that will be managed by the National Archives and Records Administration (even though budget cuts by the President have cut NARA jobs or programs for the coming year). Chief U.S. Government Records Officer Paul Wester "said new laws and regulations may be needed to move the process of creating a more unified electronic records system forward" (http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9222248/Obama_wants_feds_to_digitize_all_records). But as Computerworld, the group that conducted the interview with Wester noted, NARA has officially ended a 10-year project to create an online electronic records repository that would be accessible to all citizens. Heck, historic records aren't even available yet through any centralized database, let alone current records. If it's taken 10 years for a project to fall through, what hope under the U.S.'s current approach to electronic records management will the future citizens and government of this country have when it looks back to the 1990s-2010s? We will have no records, and our citizens will not have access to records the Constitution gives them right to due--not to cover ups or issues of government redaction--but to being unable to keep up with technology (the very technology the U.S. government promotes for archives to begin using through grants and state programs for which little funding is available). We have more money allocated for developing new technology for the military than we do for our nation's internal records access, preservation, and security.
The Dutch State Archives Digital Depot became operational in 2010, and now the nation has a means to preserve electronic records from this point forward, giving the Dutch time to catch up on preserving records in older formats/outdated electronic formats. The National Library of The Netherlands (KB) has been working with the State Archives by storing the nation's scientific and scholarly publications in the e-Depot: "Next to its national deposit collection, the e-Depot contains the digital archive of the Dutch academic institutional repositories, the Dutch web archive from 2008 onwards and the master archive of national digitisation projects" (http://www.openplanetsfoundation.org/members/national-library-netherlands). The KB's goal for their collections within the e-Depot is to move from 15 terabytes of articles as of 2008 to by 2013 having 700 terabytes. The Dutch e-Depot has become the digital storage center for electronic journal publications, and it is no wonder that most scholarly journal publishers in Britain and the Netherlands have used the Dutch State Archives to store the world's past and new electronic scholarly research.
Why has the U.S. lagged so far in their appreciation for records management digitally? Why have the Dutch moved so far ahead of the world when the U.S. basically developed the personal computer and so much of the world's technology out of Silicon Valley? One issue is that the U.S. is a relatively young nation that has not come to appreciate the importance of national and state records as other nations that have faced wars, territorial divisions, records destruction, and other issues such as the Dutch have faced. Between the 1600s and World War II, the Netherlands suffered enormously from conflicts and territorial divisions that made information about the country and its population be more vital in the national consciousness than the U.S. sees it in this country. The U.S. is losing many of their records by simple neglect, by poor security, and by a lack of focus on the benefits of information. Ironically, in the new information age, we are now worried about information loss, but only as it applies to digital information--the current information medium. The U.S. still lacks an appreciation for the preservation of past information. U.S. businesses have been the biggest contributors to this national information loss as mergers and business demands outweigh preserving identity. Companies and state agencies affect society so much, employ the great majority of U.S. citizens, and are a large part in the development of societal interactions. The companies and agencies' records shed light on these developments, but many of these records are gone now or in such a state of disrepair that rebuilding an organizational or cultural identity will lead to incomplete views r knowledge about specific portions of the U.S.'s development. It is a shame the information is being lost and seen as nice to save, but there not being enough time to go back and manage all the past records of the company or government.
I believe this to be the genius of the Dutch system: start now in preservation, no matter how inadequate due to technology changes, and be able to not have to worry 20 years from now about the time it will take to go back over the digital records. In the U.S., after having worked at a county records center and archives, the general population and even government officials do not understand or know what information is available, how to utilize it, where it came from, or how to access it. It does little good to have records digitized without context, which is what many government digitization projects are doing now: digitize this collection or agency, and put it together with other agencies' records. What the Dutch have done is state the importance of all records created within a country--whether by the government or by citizens themselves (either researchers, businessmen, etc.)--should be associated together in a structured system. These records define the nation and the people within the nation. It's also important to remember for the U.S. that if a centralized digital repository was begun today, we would not have as great of a cost to try preserving and ingesting records in old formats down the road. Even though we are in a recession, I believe the U.S. government needs to take an approach to their records like the government did during the Depression with the WPA to preserve historical information, lands, artistic accomplishments, and other such things that would give a nation suffering financially some pride in itself and the informational basis to rebuild after the troubled times.
I do not believe the U.S. government will be up to speed with the Dutch until at least 2020, by than which billions of documents will be in outdated formats, and--much like an issue I face right now at my current institution with U-matic video cassettes that document the organization's advertising approaches--the cost to transfer records further down the road greatly increases and becomes challenging as the equipment is gone. Even the National Archives of Estonia, a former Soviet Republic as of 1989, is in the middle of finishing a project for their national digital archival repository, similar to the Dutch in some ways (http://riigi.arhiiv.ee/en/digital-archive-development/&i=6). Centralized digital records depositories must be developed in the U.S. (whether centralized at the state or national level). The two closest U.S. state systems I can recall that have some centralization of their digital records are in Ohio (OhioLink) and in California (Online Archive of California). Even these, though, are not of the scale being attempted by the Dutch. If the U.S. cannot agree on metadata standards and infrastructure soon, there will be few digital records to describe or store. Although there are information professionals and digital archivists working on this issue, there is too much division in the nation's information systems to allow for a centralized digital depot right now.
Showing posts with label digital records. Show all posts
Showing posts with label digital records. Show all posts
Sunday, January 1, 2012
Friday, July 8, 2011
Is Digitization the Answer for Preserving Paper-Based Library Materials?
The digital age has wrought a reliance on electronically-transmitted and formatted materials for use by the public. Digitization of records has come over the past twenty or so years to offer a means of reformatting deteriorating paper-based library materials, ensuring the information contained in the ink and paper is available for long-term access. Digitization offers several advantages for libraries in terms of preservation, providing access, and removing severely-deteriorated materials from library shelves in order to protect the library’s other materials. Since around the 1920s, microfilm offered such a solution for libraries, archives, and other cultural institution fighting the battle of the rot and ware of paper-based materials. However, microfilming requires a great deal of time, a lot of oversight during the whole process, can be costly, requires elaborate equipment, and often has to be outsourced to microfilming vendors. Most patrons of library do not enjoy the experience of utilizing microfilm, as eye fatigue and continually having to reload rolls of film on a viewer wear on a user’s patience.
Over the past twenty years especially, digitization has become one of the main answers for libraries and archives in creating use surrogates of original materials for public handling, in order to protect the original items and sustain the availability of the items in their original format for as long as possible. However, digitization carries many of its own problems, among which are long-term storage and maintenance of digital materials, complete substitution of the original materials for electronic copies, and the loss of information only available from the original format of the paper-based materials. The most important questions concerning digitization for libraries still have yet to find concrete solutions, while in the meantime libraries continue to digitize for short-term benefits initially. Is digitization the solution for the preservation of paper-based library materials? Is there a difference between “digitization for preservation” and “digital preservation”?
Books and other paper-based records carry with them uniqueness, as well as the record of the physical impact they have received from people and time. Library collections are increasingly focusing on digital collections and digital curation—with digitized paper-based records such as archival material fitting within this movement. However, the concept of “physical artifact” that is embodied within old books and manuscript collections imbues library preservation with the need to take steps to ensure the longevity of the original materials, through providing both a use copy of the fragile originals and sustaining the integrity of the original materials. In a January 2010 issue of The Library Quarterly, Paul Conway echoes this view in his study of the conversion to digitization within libraries and archives, recommending that libraries:
"Continue to give pride of place to preservation quality environments and the buildings required to sustain them. Perhaps for decades to come, material culture artifacts will serve as the ultimate backups for their digital surrogates. Preservation environments buy time for careful decision making and represent highly tangible commitments to long-term preservation" (“Preservation in the Age of Google,” 75).
Even so, the Association for Research Libraries Preservation of Research Library Materials Committee notes that, with all preservation and reformatting options for paper-based library materials, there are benefits and shortcomings. The Committee stated in a June 2004 report that
"Digitization increases the capture capability for many types of paper-based material, such as oversize and color items, for which there has been no effective reformatting strategy to date. Functionality, such as zooming capabilities, allows users to examine more closely fine details and produce a variety of outputs to suit different needs. Digital facsimiles better reproduce the navigational experience of a book than does the linear format of microfilm" (“Recognizing Digitization As A Preservation Reformatting Method,” 2, http://www.arl.org/bm~doc/digi_preserv.pdf).
Even with these reasons to utilize digitization, it is important to note that the ARL recognizes, as the title of the report suggests, that digitization of paper-based materials for preservation is an issue of “reformatting,” not necessarily substitution of the digital surrogate for the original item. This goes counter to a popular attitude amongst library professionals, which is promoted, as Robert Bee discusses in an April 2008 Library Quarterly issue, by “The idea that texts are information that can be reformatted without loss permeates the professional library literature, a view that tends to ignore the importance of a text’s medium and physical format” (“The Importance of Preserving Paper-Based Artifacts in a Digital Age," 180).
Original formats of paper-based library materials carry with them unique “historical dents” created through the agency of various people and the impact of time’s wear. Reproducing these alterations and “dents” are difficult because of their variety on paper-based materials: “Faithful digital representation is even more difficult with manuscripts. Take a look at the Library of Congress’s online versions of the Works Progress Administration (WPA) Life Histories, which requires some complex notation just to represent a small handwritten correction” (Daniel J. Cohen and Roy Rosenzweig, “Digital History,” http://chnm.gmu.edu/ digitalhistory/digitizing/1.php). Digitization for preservation, despite its benefits for “reduce[ing] wear and tear on fragile items,” remains a tool that is to be fit within a library or archives overall preservation program, for “Preservation remains a secondary benefit of digital projects” (Trevor Jones, “An Introduction to Digital Projects for Libraries, Museums and Archives; http://images. library.uiuc.edu/resources/introduction.htm). There is no substitute of the original paper-based record. Searchability, unlimited access, and ready availability will continue to push digitization of library materials for preservation and research needs, and the public will understand only that they want the materials available digitally—not necessarily caring about the preservation issues involved. Public pressure and funding objectives will push libraries to use digitization as a primary means of preservation in the future.
Yet, as pointed out briefly already, Richard Rubin succinctly identifies the most pressing issue regarding digitization for preservation: “The problem is fixity. That is, print materials have some permanence, but electronic text is impermanent. Ironically, the ease with which digital material can be altered raises serious questions about its capacity to serve as a preservation technique” (Foundations of Library and Information Science, 3rd ed., 2010, 259). Long-term preservation of the digital formats most often used to capture digitized records (such as PDF and TIFF) are only reliable as a preservation medium if they can be migrated to newer formats, be able to have guaranteed continual access on technological devices, and have no or little loss of data representing the originally-scanned record. This is where digital preservation—or the long-term curation of digital materials—comes into play, and where the difficulties embodied within both digital preservation and digitization for preservation become joined together. There are no agreed upon long-term digital preservation formats. Rather, there are digital formats that limit or have no loss of digitized material within a certain amount of stored time or certain number of repeated uses of the original digital records. Bee points out that “Digitization offers the potential of much better surrogates for documents, but it also is fraught with danger. Digitized information erodes more quickly than print does, contains errors, must be continually “refreshed,” and is encoded on constantly changing software and hardware” (“The Importance of Preserving,”191).
The costs involved with creating, maintaining, and promoting digitized paper-based library materials can be just as expensive as microfilming, with the major distinction being the great disparity in length of longevity of the storage medium. Digitization relies on magnetic and optical media that require electricity for the basis of access. As more and more digitized library materials are places on the Web, access of these materials also becomes dependent on the type of web browsers used, computers and other digital devices utilized by users and patrons, and the ability of different people from different socio-economic backgrounds to be able to obtain access to those materials.
Digitized library materials give more opportunity for the public and researchers to discover the records without having to be physically present in the records’ repository. Even so, this wider access and discovery opportunity also brings up the “Google question” of copyright issues regarding digitized materials. Libraries do not have the luxury of time to check on the copyrighted nature of all the materials they digitize, though they must according to professional practice and legal restrictions. Thus, digitization offers great flexibility as a preservation tool, but not as the substitute for what others have produced or contributed to a particular produced record within a library’s collection: “Even after digitization, original documents and artifacts must still be cared for” (Jones, “An Introduction,” http://images.library.uiuc.edu/resources/introduction. htm).
In the end, digitization for preservation will continue to operate for the immediate future as a tool only for preservation for most materials, with some materials demanding digitization as the only way to save the information contained in the materials. Long-term, advances may be made to give digital records a storage and use stability of 25-50 years, yet a step below microfilm but a great improvement over current digital storage abilities. Rubin sees that “as new digital storage techniques are developed, digital preservation will become increasingly common” (Foundations of Library 2010, 260). Still, there will be no substitute for the preservation of original paper-based library materials in their original, non-digital format—-at least until digital-born publications and records begin to outnumber and to outperform the amount produced of and opportunities offered by hard copy paper-based materials. Digitization for preservation is a good weapon in the fight to preserve, but just like microfilm has not completely negated preserving the original paper-based materials, so too will digitization not—nor should it—replace the hard copies of the printed word.
Over the past twenty years especially, digitization has become one of the main answers for libraries and archives in creating use surrogates of original materials for public handling, in order to protect the original items and sustain the availability of the items in their original format for as long as possible. However, digitization carries many of its own problems, among which are long-term storage and maintenance of digital materials, complete substitution of the original materials for electronic copies, and the loss of information only available from the original format of the paper-based materials. The most important questions concerning digitization for libraries still have yet to find concrete solutions, while in the meantime libraries continue to digitize for short-term benefits initially. Is digitization the solution for the preservation of paper-based library materials? Is there a difference between “digitization for preservation” and “digital preservation”?
Books and other paper-based records carry with them uniqueness, as well as the record of the physical impact they have received from people and time. Library collections are increasingly focusing on digital collections and digital curation—with digitized paper-based records such as archival material fitting within this movement. However, the concept of “physical artifact” that is embodied within old books and manuscript collections imbues library preservation with the need to take steps to ensure the longevity of the original materials, through providing both a use copy of the fragile originals and sustaining the integrity of the original materials. In a January 2010 issue of The Library Quarterly, Paul Conway echoes this view in his study of the conversion to digitization within libraries and archives, recommending that libraries:
"Continue to give pride of place to preservation quality environments and the buildings required to sustain them. Perhaps for decades to come, material culture artifacts will serve as the ultimate backups for their digital surrogates. Preservation environments buy time for careful decision making and represent highly tangible commitments to long-term preservation" (“Preservation in the Age of Google,” 75).
Even so, the Association for Research Libraries Preservation of Research Library Materials Committee notes that, with all preservation and reformatting options for paper-based library materials, there are benefits and shortcomings. The Committee stated in a June 2004 report that
"Digitization increases the capture capability for many types of paper-based material, such as oversize and color items, for which there has been no effective reformatting strategy to date. Functionality, such as zooming capabilities, allows users to examine more closely fine details and produce a variety of outputs to suit different needs. Digital facsimiles better reproduce the navigational experience of a book than does the linear format of microfilm" (“Recognizing Digitization As A Preservation Reformatting Method,” 2, http://www.arl.org/bm~doc/digi_preserv.pdf).
Even with these reasons to utilize digitization, it is important to note that the ARL recognizes, as the title of the report suggests, that digitization of paper-based materials for preservation is an issue of “reformatting,” not necessarily substitution of the digital surrogate for the original item. This goes counter to a popular attitude amongst library professionals, which is promoted, as Robert Bee discusses in an April 2008 Library Quarterly issue, by “The idea that texts are information that can be reformatted without loss permeates the professional library literature, a view that tends to ignore the importance of a text’s medium and physical format” (“The Importance of Preserving Paper-Based Artifacts in a Digital Age," 180).
Original formats of paper-based library materials carry with them unique “historical dents” created through the agency of various people and the impact of time’s wear. Reproducing these alterations and “dents” are difficult because of their variety on paper-based materials: “Faithful digital representation is even more difficult with manuscripts. Take a look at the Library of Congress’s online versions of the Works Progress Administration (WPA) Life Histories, which requires some complex notation just to represent a small handwritten correction” (Daniel J. Cohen and Roy Rosenzweig, “Digital History,” http://chnm.gmu.edu/ digitalhistory/digitizing/1.php). Digitization for preservation, despite its benefits for “reduce[ing] wear and tear on fragile items,” remains a tool that is to be fit within a library or archives overall preservation program, for “Preservation remains a secondary benefit of digital projects” (Trevor Jones, “An Introduction to Digital Projects for Libraries, Museums and Archives; http://images. library.uiuc.edu/resources/introduction.htm). There is no substitute of the original paper-based record. Searchability, unlimited access, and ready availability will continue to push digitization of library materials for preservation and research needs, and the public will understand only that they want the materials available digitally—not necessarily caring about the preservation issues involved. Public pressure and funding objectives will push libraries to use digitization as a primary means of preservation in the future.
Yet, as pointed out briefly already, Richard Rubin succinctly identifies the most pressing issue regarding digitization for preservation: “The problem is fixity. That is, print materials have some permanence, but electronic text is impermanent. Ironically, the ease with which digital material can be altered raises serious questions about its capacity to serve as a preservation technique” (Foundations of Library and Information Science, 3rd ed., 2010, 259). Long-term preservation of the digital formats most often used to capture digitized records (such as PDF and TIFF) are only reliable as a preservation medium if they can be migrated to newer formats, be able to have guaranteed continual access on technological devices, and have no or little loss of data representing the originally-scanned record. This is where digital preservation—or the long-term curation of digital materials—comes into play, and where the difficulties embodied within both digital preservation and digitization for preservation become joined together. There are no agreed upon long-term digital preservation formats. Rather, there are digital formats that limit or have no loss of digitized material within a certain amount of stored time or certain number of repeated uses of the original digital records. Bee points out that “Digitization offers the potential of much better surrogates for documents, but it also is fraught with danger. Digitized information erodes more quickly than print does, contains errors, must be continually “refreshed,” and is encoded on constantly changing software and hardware” (“The Importance of Preserving,”191).
The costs involved with creating, maintaining, and promoting digitized paper-based library materials can be just as expensive as microfilming, with the major distinction being the great disparity in length of longevity of the storage medium. Digitization relies on magnetic and optical media that require electricity for the basis of access. As more and more digitized library materials are places on the Web, access of these materials also becomes dependent on the type of web browsers used, computers and other digital devices utilized by users and patrons, and the ability of different people from different socio-economic backgrounds to be able to obtain access to those materials.
Digitized library materials give more opportunity for the public and researchers to discover the records without having to be physically present in the records’ repository. Even so, this wider access and discovery opportunity also brings up the “Google question” of copyright issues regarding digitized materials. Libraries do not have the luxury of time to check on the copyrighted nature of all the materials they digitize, though they must according to professional practice and legal restrictions. Thus, digitization offers great flexibility as a preservation tool, but not as the substitute for what others have produced or contributed to a particular produced record within a library’s collection: “Even after digitization, original documents and artifacts must still be cared for” (Jones, “An Introduction,” http://images.library.uiuc.edu/resources/introduction. htm).
In the end, digitization for preservation will continue to operate for the immediate future as a tool only for preservation for most materials, with some materials demanding digitization as the only way to save the information contained in the materials. Long-term, advances may be made to give digital records a storage and use stability of 25-50 years, yet a step below microfilm but a great improvement over current digital storage abilities. Rubin sees that “as new digital storage techniques are developed, digital preservation will become increasingly common” (Foundations of Library 2010, 260). Still, there will be no substitute for the preservation of original paper-based library materials in their original, non-digital format—-at least until digital-born publications and records begin to outnumber and to outperform the amount produced of and opportunities offered by hard copy paper-based materials. Digitization for preservation is a good weapon in the fight to preserve, but just like microfilm has not completely negated preserving the original paper-based materials, so too will digitization not—nor should it—replace the hard copies of the printed word.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)