|
Logo
Guidance for Donors, Dealers, and Archival Repositories

All Comments

Comments on the Pages

  • 2.1 Preliminary assessment of digital media and files (7 comments)

    • Comment by anarchivist on January 4th, 2013

      “General information” should include information about the content and context of the materials.

      Comment by anarchivist on January 4th, 2013

      Sample technical characteristics should either be listed here or in an appendix.

      Comment by Matthew McKinley on January 8th, 2013

      The sample policy and collection surveys from the AIMS white paper are a great example/template for this, you could reference them or include something similar as an appendix: http://www2.lib.virginia.edu/aims/whitepaper/AIMS_final_appF.pdf

      Comment by John Faundeen on January 15th, 2013

      Noting the the use of ‘assessment’ and ‘evaluated’ it occurred to me that this section is dealing with appraisal of collections.  I wonder if it is worth mentioning that word in this section to resonate with soem readers.

      Comment by bertramlyons on January 16th, 2013

      Additionally, at this phase, an assessment might include an analysis of the relative uniqueness of the born-digital content. How much of the content is only to be found on this particular drive or storage medium? How much of the content is mirrored elsewhere in the world? What rights does the donor have to donate the born-digital content in question to the repository?

      Comment by anarchivist on January 23rd, 2013

      While appraisal might be familiar in the sense used by archivists and appraisal might be familiar to some of the intended readers of this document, I suspect it might be problematic for donors and dealers, who may only think of appraisal in the sense of appraisal of monetary value.

      Comment by joelminor on April 23rd, 2013

      What are some examples of “technical specialists” that a donor (or repository) might want to employ? I think this is addressed more in 2.1.1, perhaps in reference there to the “digital specialists” who may be able to help. It’s a good idea to address this issue and strongly encourage all parties to take extra precaution with outdated hardware, software and file formats.

  • 1 Introduction (6 comments)

    • Comment by gredwine on January 3rd, 2013

      Welcome to Born Digital! Thank you for taking the time to visit.

      My co-authors and I encourage you to pose questions, share your insights, and offer critical feedback on the report. Your suggestions will help us make Born Digital a truly useful resource.

      If you have trouble with the commenting interface or would prefer to offer feedback in some other format, please email me (Gabby Redwine) at gabriela.redwine@yale.edu.

      Comment by Lorcan Dempsey on January 3rd, 2013

      Did I miss a data of publication somewhere? Even if it is a date for this version for comment ……

      Lorcan

      Comment by anarchivist on January 4th, 2013

      I feel as though the introduction could be stronger if this paragraph were placed closer to the beginning of it.

      Comment by anarchivist on January 4th, 2013

      This is more of a comment on the whole document, regarding licensing. I’d strongly suggest considering a different Creative Commons license – perhaps CC-BY or CC-BY-SA. I find the use of a noncommercial use only license problematic here because there might be a dealer motivated to share this with potential customers (both repositories and donors). I’d also recommend rethinking the no derivative works aspect of the license.

      Comment by Seth Shaw on January 4th, 2013

      I agree that a CC-BY-SA is preferable. This question was still in limbo at the time of release. We appreciate the feedback.

      Comment by gredwine on January 7th, 2013

      Good point! I’ve added a release date to the footer containing the licensing information.

      Gabby

  • 2.1.1 Information and documentation sharing (2 comments)

    • Comment by Matthew McKinley on January 8th, 2013

      A brief mention of specific methods to avoid altering digital files, such as using write-blocking hardware/software or ensuring read-only access might be helpful

       

      Comment by joelminor on April 23rd, 2013

      Are there any examples of these various policies, procedures and guidelines that might be included in an appendix for a repository to reference when drafting their own? These are central to a successful handling of born-digital records, and many–if not most–repositories and donors/dealers will not have current policies, procedures and guidelines in place yet.

  • General Comments (1 comment)

    • Comment by gredwine on January 3rd, 2013

      Welcome to Born Digital! Thank you for taking the time to visit.

      My co-authors and I encourage you to pose questions, share your insights, and offer critical feedback on the report. Your suggestions will help us make Born Digital a truly useful resource.

      If you have trouble with the commenting interface or would prefer to offer feedback in some other format, please email me (Gabby Redwine) at gabriela.redwine@yale.edu.

  • 5.4 Recommendations for Donors and Dealers (1 comment)

    • Comment by Matthew McKinley on January 4th, 2013

      This is confusingly worded, and I’m not sure what action you’re recommending. It seems like it should be (and hopefully is) a declarative statement somewhere else in the document: damaged media/files HAVE lost at least some cultural value.

  • 5.1 Physical condition (1 comment)

    • Comment by Kevin Glick on January 26th, 2013

      Data documenting assessment of digital media physical condition should not be stored only in the closed donor, purchase, or acquisition files. As this section states, physical condition may impact preservation planning. When planning, repository administrators should be able to compare physical condition assessment data against a range of other factors like intellectual access, research value, interest, etc. For example, the Archivists’ Toolkit has assessment records that allow one to assign numerical values for condition of material, physical access, intellectual access, interest, research value, as well as a series of other fields. These records can then be reported and analyzed in mass.

  • 3.5 Recommendations for Donors and Dealers (1 comment)

    • Comment by anarchivist on January 4th, 2013

      Are you making recommendations about how to do this? In §2.2 you suggest avoiding manipulating data on original source media.

  • 3.4 Hidden content: password protection, firewalls, disk images (1 comment)

    • Comment by anarchivist on January 4th, 2013

      This should probably be a higher level section – as such it feels somewhat out of place with the section on decryption.

  • 3.2 Email and other digital correspondence (1 comment)

    • Comment by kate stratton on January 8th, 2013

      The last sentence in this paragraph refers to “preservation for access in the longer-term” as an additional option when screening isn’t feasible. It might be helpful to clarify what this option entails and implies and how it is distinct from the previously mentioned access restrictions (which can be governed by dates/years passed since creation) and embargo periods.

  • 2 Initial Collection Review (1 comment)

    • Comment by anarchivist on January 4th, 2013

      Do you mean “integrity” in an archival sense? Definitions would be useful, depending on audience.

  • A Word on Terminology (1 comment)

    • Comment by anarchivist on January 4th, 2013

      Does this need to be related to or distinguished from “accession” and/or “collection development”?

  • Appendix C: Checklists of Recommendations (1 comment)

    • Comment by anarchivist on January 4th, 2013

      The checklists should specify that they come from this white paper/report – the license info on the PDFs doesn’t really make sense without it.

Source: http://mcpress.media-commons.org/borndigital/all-comments/