Digital Archives Practice Where we are now and what needs to be done

1. Digital Archives PracticeWhere we are now and what needs to be done DLM Members Meeting Budapest, Friday, 12th May, 2011 Philip LordDigital Archiving Consultancy Limited, UK

2. This presentation: where we are now, the RM interface Stemming from: 15 years thinking on the issues in the DAC and in industry Developing and teaching digital archiving and preservationat the University of Dundee MSc/MLitt module “Digital Archiving and Preservation” Students are generally already in the work place in RM or archival positions Both Records Management and Archiving professionals My views only, not necessarily those of Susan Thomas (co-tutor) or the University of Dundee’s Background

3. MSc/MLitt module “Digital Archiving and Preservation” Delivered mainly by distance learning Running now for nearly 5 years Students generally both Records Management and Archiving professionals in emplyment: Ratio 2:1 of Archiving (MLitt) to Records Management (MSc) students An international background: from UK, Iceland, Netherlands, Malta, Korea, Lesthotho, USA, Canada, China . . . etc Very varied work backgrounds: National to local archives, schools, scientific and religious establishments, lawyers, … Now quite a few CPD (continuing professional development) students We use “Records Keeping” to cover both the records management and archiving disciplines The Dundee Course

4. Context of presentation Traditional RM Traditional archiving Paper, etc. Was mainstream ERM Digital archiving Will be mainstream Digital:

5. Context of presentation Traditional RM Traditional archiving Paper, etc. Was mainstream Hybrid forms ERM Digital archiving Will be mainstream Digital: All will persist but digital archiving still immature even though the digital information form is now dominant

6. Digital archivists’ concerns Traditional RM Traditional archiving Paper, etc. Hybrid forms ERM Digital archiving Digital: • Central concerns remain the same: • Authenticity • Context • Provenance • Integrity • Preservation • The long-term

7. Context Cultural, other contexts Traditional archiving Traditional RM Paper, etc. Hybrid forms ERM Digital archiving Digital: Cultural, other contexts Often operate in a wider context than ERM Often completely outside an RM context (e.g. scientific contexts – oceanographic and archaeological)

8. Summary of digital archiving issues Traditional RM Traditional archiving ERM Digital archiving Cultural, other contexts • Operational • What workflows? • Where does appraisal happen? • Obtaining metadata • Metadata and description structures and standards • Bridging the pre-ingest phase • Policy consequences • Lack of tools, software • Problematic, unproven preservation methods • Strategic • What is to be preserved • Lack of skilled resources • Costs • Vast data volumes (numbers of items) • Intractable information forms (databases, social media, etc.) • Lack of understanding of the issues outside digital archives (including IS/IT professionals) • Aligning with earlier paradigms, wider contexts

9. Workflows - traditional Traditional RM Traditional archiving ERM Digital archiving Cultural, other contexts Create/use record Acquire record Store Discovery Presentation Use Appraisal Archival description Preservation/ Conservation Disposition

10. Workflows - new ERM Digital archiving Cultural, other contexts Preservation Planning Producer Consumer Data Management SIP DIP AIP Ingest Access • But others too: • e.g. • InterPares • Jones/Beagrie • Ad hoc Archival Storage Administration SA Management

11. Operational: Where to appraise ERM Digital archiving Cultural, other contexts Preservation Planning Producer Consumer Data Management SIP DIP AIP Ingest Access Archival Storage Administration SA Management

12. Metadata and description ERM Digital archiving Cultural, other contexts Issues across the ERM-digital archival boundary • ERM tends to be item-orientated • Less focus on description as practiced in the archival community • Hierarchical metadata structures • Hierarchical description – ISAD(G) and related standards • Digital preservation metadata - item based description • E.g. PREMIS (not used in ERM contexts?) • Much better to collect this metadata at the early as possible in the life-cycle to increase likelihood successful preservation

13. Description and metadata The traditional description standard is ISAD(G) and related standards – which takes a hierarchical view of records description Pre-ingest metadata schemes for description generally take a more flat-file, item by item approach For digital preservation metadata the standard of choice is PREMIS (which takes a file-by-file approach) This is little used in a RM environment

14. Description and structure A traditional hierarchical view of data storage and description, E.g. Fonds /Sub-fonds / Sub-sub-fonds / item Important for recording context, and reflects older paper-based structures Digital favours item-by-item (file by file, relational) view – typical in the pre-ingest phase, RM view Traditional archives management systems (e.g. CALM, ADLIB) support the hierarchical data structures and description. Poor at the latter.

15. ISAD(G) structures

16. Bridging the pre-ingest boundary Traditional RM Traditional archiving ERM Digital archiving Contrary movements • ERM tending to give greater attention to the archival stage of the life-cycle • Short IT product lifecycles and obsolescence imply digital preservation concerns here • Digital archiving demands greater intervention in the early stages of the information life-cycle • Even before information creation? • Old vs new paradigms in the archiving sphere • Implications? • Merger/blending - • Closed collaboration, interchange standards? • New professional consensus?

17. Digital archiving: current status • Status: • Still a great lack of skills; need for more training – but what • Emerging practice – but mainly confined to large, (relatively well-resourced) institutions • Smaller archives struggling or in the dark • Operationally, much unfinished business: • Workflows • Appraisal – when, where, by whom? • Metadata assignment – when, where, by whom? • Synthesis and standards for metadata and metadata structures • Tools – including software systems • Preservation/conservation strategies • And • Need for cost-effective tools (N.B. ICA’s AtoM) • Increasing volumes of information • Increasing intractability of digital information forms • Costs

18. The Digital Archiving Consultancy Limited Independent archiving consultancy, established 2002 in the UK Alison Macdonald, Philip Lord directors Work at strategic, policy and operational levels on all archiving issues Specialists in digital preservation and archiving technical data Partner company in the UAE Work in English, French, German, Arabic, Spanish et al Clients include: European Commission British Library (UK) ICA (France) TNA (UK) NCDR (UAE) JISC (UK) UK Research Councils Wellcome Trust Commercial archives The DAC: who we are

19. Disjunction Disruption Incompletion Some keywords

20. The Digital Archiving Consultancy 2 Wayside Court Arlington Road Twickenham TW1 2BQ UK T: +44 20 8607 9102 F: +44 20 8744 9322 info@d-archiving.com