Comments on the Pages
“General information” should include information about the content and context of the materials.
Sample technical characteristics should either be listed here or in an appendix.
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
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.
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?
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.
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 It’s a good idea to address this issue and strongly encourage all parties to take extra precaution with outdated hardware, software and file formats.
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 firstname.lastname@example.org.
Did I miss a data of publication somewhere? Even if it is a date for this version for comment ……
I feel as though the introduction could be stronger if this paragraph were placed closer to the beginning of it.
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.
I agree that a CC-BY-SA is preferable. This question was still in limbo at the time of release. We appreciate the feedback.
Good point! I’ve added a release date to the footer containing the licensing information.
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
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.
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.
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.
Are you making recommendations about how to do this? In §2.2 you suggest avoiding manipulating data on original source media.
This should probably be a higher level section – as such it feels somewhat out of place with the section on decryption.
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.
Do you mean “integrity” in an archival sense? Definitions would be useful, depending on audience.
Does this need to be related to or distinguished from “accession” and/or “collection development”?
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.
23 April 2013 at 11:54 am
See in context
23 April 2013 at 11:08 am
26 January 2013 at 11:35 am
23 January 2013 at 10:49 am
16 January 2013 at 5:01 pm
15 January 2013 at 12:48 pm
8 January 2013 at 1:50 pm
8 January 2013 at 1:47 pm
8 January 2013 at 1:24 pm
7 January 2013 at 5:48 pm