2.1.2 Collection survey

¶ 1 Leave a comment on paragraph 1 0 A collection survey is a process by which repository staff members gather information about a collection, including the quantity, forms, condition, and location of digital materials. There are two main strategies for conducting surveys of born-digital materials prior to acquisition: an on-site viewing, conducted in person, and a remote preview conducted over the Internet, via phone, or by some other method.

¶ 2 Leave a comment on paragraph 2 0 On-site assessment has several advantages, particularly when the proposed acquisition comprises a considerable amount of material. On-site surveys usually take place wherever a donor works or collection material is stored and may involve:

¶ 3 Leave a comment on paragraph 3 0
Preliminary evaluation and discussion of a donor’s born-digital materials
An integrated survey of the digital and paper portions of the proposed acquisition or independent assessments of the two components at different times
Copying the donor’s files or directory structures for further evaluation upon return to the repository, where staff will have more time and possibly additional tools at their disposal

¶ 4 Leave a comment on paragraph 4 0 Before a repository considers copying a donor’s files for the purpose of later assessment, staff will want to work with the donor to put in place an agreement that specifies how the files will be copied, stored, and securely deleted in the event that either party decides not to proceed with the acquisition or the repository needs to re-capture copies of the original materials.

¶ 5 Leave a comment on paragraph 5 0 In situations where a donor and collection materials are located some distance from a repository, conducting a survey remotely might make more sense than doing a site visit. Likewise, repositories in geographically isolated locations or with small travel budgets may need to evaluate materials remotely. Remote surveys can be conducted via email or other means of communication. One strategy is to send a formal survey tool (e.g., a list of initial questions developed by a repository) to a donor via email or postal mail, ask the donor to respond, and then continue the conversation through a further exchange of letters, emails, or telephone calls. A remote survey might also include a document created by the dealer or donor that lists number and type of digital media and provides a general characterization of the contents. Alternatively, a donor might provide a repository with access over the Internet, via FTP (File Transfer Protocol) or secure peer-to-peer communication providing remote access to the donor’s desktop. This approach could allow staff to preview the files in order to generate a survey, discuss the logistics of a possible transfer, and decide whether to make the acquisition.

Page 7

Recent Comments in this Document

joelminor
23 April 2013 at 11:54 am

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.

See in context
joelminor
23 April 2013 at 11:08 am

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.

See in context
Kevin Glick
26 January 2013 at 11:35 am

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.

See in context
anarchivist
23 January 2013 at 10:49 am

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.

See in context
bertramlyons
16 January 2013 at 5:01 pm

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?

See in context
John Faundeen
15 January 2013 at 12:48 pm

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.

See in context
Matthew McKinley
8 January 2013 at 1:50 pm

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

See in context
Matthew McKinley
8 January 2013 at 1:47 pm

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

See in context
kate stratton
8 January 2013 at 1:24 pm

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.

See in context
gredwine
7 January 2013 at 5:48 pm

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

Gabby

See in context