Week 5 Analytic Essay

This assignment was for my Digital Preservation class.  I was supposed to summarize and analyze the four required readings for the week, as well as lead class discussions with questions.

Please read the rules about posted assignments before reading onward.

The readings for the fifth week primarily deal with two ways to preserve digital files, via migration or emulation.  Both have their strengths and weaknesses, but in choosing one over the other librarians, museum curators, and archivists cast a vote in the great debate in digital preservation — what exactly does it mean to preserve a digital document?  Is it enough to preserve the content, and not the appearance, of a digital document?  Should it function in the same exact way as it did when it was created, or can it be updated to contemporary standards?  The readings try to answer these questions with research and surveys.

Though the articles dealt with similar topics, but each methodology presented vastly different ideas about digital preservation.  In “Accommodating the Unpredictable:  The Variable Media Questionnaire,” by Jon Ippolito (2003), a survey broke down each type of medium in the Guggenheim Museum into categories reflecting the truly multiple media projects.  Kenneth Thibodeau’s (2002) "Overview of Technological Approaches to Digital Preservation and Challenges in Coming Years," described each digital object as having three aspects, with preferable preservation techniques.  Remco Verdegem and Jacqueline Slats (2004), authors of “Practical experiences of the Dutch digital preservation test-bed” and members of the Nationaal Archief of The Netherlands, tried to answer the question by running tests on four specific types of digital documents.  To “wrap” the articles together, Brian Lavoie and Lorcan Dempsey (2004) in, "Thirteen Ways of Looking at ... Digital Preservation," offered a general outlook on issues of digital preservation.  Though they do not try to solve specific problems as the other articles, they ask questions to help steer readers in better understanding the complexities of preservation.

Both Ippolito and Thibodeau talked about trust, or an “ethical will,” that preservationists wield in their work (Ippolito p.52).  If, for example, an archivist needs to reinterpret an art piece in a way that was not covered in the “Variable Media Questionnaire,” that archivist must exercise his or her “ethical will” and make a decision on how to present the object (Ippolito).  The perennial question in library science courses of who makes the decision in what to preserve, has in fact a simple answer — it is up to the librarian, archivist, and museum curator to make that decision.  It is not, however, as simple an undertaking as preserving everything.  Dempsey & Lavoie stated it best, “preserving everything is not an option” (2004 part IV).

Dutch preservationists offered clear explanations of the two main types of digital preservation, migration and emulation.  Migration, as understood by the Archief, is “the conversion of records from one hardware and/or software environment to another” (Verdegem & Slats p.57).  Moving the logical object from one physical object to another is a type of migration tactic.  Emulation is defined as using a “device or program in place of a different one to achieve the same effect as using the original” (Verdegem & Slats p. 61).    Though different, both processes involve changing the digital object in some way, either by moving it physically or by using new software, to display the content.

In his article, Thibodeau encapsulated this idea in a shocking statement, that “it is impossible to preserve a digital document as a physical object.  One can only preserve the ability to reproduce the document” (Thibodeau p. 19).  This statement acknowledges that preservation of digital objects can only happen by changing the objects that make up the document.  In both migration and emulation, archivists try to preserve the digital object in the best possible way without any bit loss.  Though bit loss might not occur, the digital object will inevitably change for preservation purposes.

Thibodeau’s examination of digital objects helped to understand how the different types of preservation will change an aspect of a digital object.  In his article, digital objects are in fact three objects all at once: physical, logical, and conceptual.  The conceptual object is “contained” in the logical object, which must be “stored” in the physical object (Thibodeau p.14, p.7 ).  Each of these aspects need to have their own approaches to preservation.  Physical objects will eventually deteriorate, which means that the logical object stored on the physical object must be moved to another physical object.  In order for conceptual objects to be saved from obsolescence, they must be readable to the logical objects that encase them, either by moving them to another schema of logical objects or BY replicating the logical object with new technology.  These methods of preservation all rely on changing an aspect of the object.

The uniqueness and delicacy of each digital object, especially artistic expressions, make the question of preservation harder to answer.  The Guggenheim Museum, with a wide variety of media, is an institution in a perfect position to create standards for digital preservation.  Their technicians and archivists created the “Variable Media Questionnaire,” which ask artists important questions about their art works so to preserve them in ways the artist would approve.  For example, an artist might not approve of a migration tactic because it will “reinterpret” an art piece.  The questionnaire, however, could never become “a set of commandments carved in stone” for each art piece in the Guggenheim (Ippolito p.52).  Rather, the questionnaire serves as a reference guiding curators in how to best preserve the art piece in question.

Though not in the official title of this week’s class, XML is yet another option for preserving digital documents.  XML, or eXtensible Mark-up Language, is a viable option for preservation because both humans and machines can read the script, as well as it not being platform specific language (Verdegem & Slats p.60).  According to the w3schools, a site for XML tutorials, the markup language is limitless in possibilities because the language itself has no predefined tags (2010).

Thibodeau’s description of a recent XML project, the eXtensible Business Reporting Language (XBRL), exemplified the simplicity of XML.  A single XML schema defines the XBRL language, which in turn is used to format financial reports around the world.  As XML is a non-platform based language, and the language is easy to understand, the financial reports archived in XBRL should be accessible as long as basic accounting terms are used (Thibordeau p. 26).

Dempsey & Lavoie expressed the view that preserved materials with little or no access, or “dark archives,” must be avoided (Dempsey & Lavoie IX).  Unlike print materials, which usually have restricted access to preserved media, digital objects can be displayed without worrying about user-inflicted damage (Dempsey & Lavoie IX).  An open access approach to digital preservation makes it a public good; preserving a digital object for one institution actually, “preserve[s] for all” (Dempsey & Lavoie XIII).  It ties into the “ethical will” preservationists practice, while trying to balance complicated copyright issues (Dempsey & Lavoie VII).

No matter which method is chosen for the object, preservationists must ask one final question — will the end user actually use the preserved digital object (Dempsey & Lavoie XII)?  This question provides the framework that the librarian, museum curator, or archivist can work on to supply the answers to questions concerning digital preservation.  Such questions as, “Do most users have this version of a software?” or “Will users be able to use this emulator on their home computer?” need answers.  Most importantly, this may lead to answers for the hardest question preservationists must tackle: what must be preserved? 

Questions
1. Both Thibodeau and Verdegem & Slats talked about the “Universal Virtual Computer” (Thibodeau 2002; Verdegem & Slats 2004).  What do you imagine this “UVC” to look like, and how does it function?  Run it through Thibodeau’s four criteria for preservation possibilities: feasibility, sustainability, practicality, and appropriateness (2002 p.15).  When would the UVC fit these descriptions?

2. When professor DeCandido asked the class about their experience with XML, many people did not have any prior experiences before this class (myself included).  After reading these articles, would you consider learning XML?  How could you implement XML in your current work environment?

3. In Dempsey & Lavoie’s “Thirteen Ways of Looking at...Digital Preservation,” the idea of digital preservation being a “cooperative effort” and “disaggregated” was introduced (2004).  In these hard economic times, cooperation could be the answer for finding funds.  What steps should institutions take to ensure the positive outcome of dividing up the digital preservation process?


Reference List
Ippolito, J. (2003).  Accommodating the unpredictable: the variable media questionnaire. In A. Depocas, J. Ippolito and C. Jones (Eds.) The Variable Media Approach: Permanence Through Change, 47-55.

Lavoie, B. and Dempsey, L. (2004). Thirteen Ways of Looking at ... Digital Preservation. D-Lib Magazine 10(7/8). Available at: http://www.dlib.org/dlib/july04/lavoie/07lavoie.html.

Thibodeau, K. (2002).  Overview of technological approaches to digital preservation and     challenges in coming years.  In The State of Digital Preservation: An International Perspective Conference Proceedings, Washington, DC, April 24-25, 2002. Council on Library & Information Resources, Washington, DC, 4-31.

Verdegem, R. & Slats, J.  Practical Experiences of the Dutch Digital Preservation Test-Bed. Vine 34(2), 56-65.

W3Schools (n.d.).  XML Tutorial.  Retrieved from: http://www.w3schools.com/xml/default.asp