information is component of an information that holds the semantic and structural
components that proved the transparency required to ensure that a 'digital object'
can become an 'information object' in the hands of a designated community.
Arguably, representation information, is the unique characteristic that distinguishes
digital preservation from every other kind of content management. Representation
information is interpreted using representation information which, at face value,
implies a sort of recursive absurdity. OAIS avoids this in two ways: by linking
representation information into networks; and by accessing an underlying
knowledge base which we can take for granted. For example, a person who has a
Knowledge Base that includes an understanding of English will be able to read, and
understand, an English text. So the extent of representation information is mapped
against implicit knowledge between two agents within an information exchange.
Information objects are generated therefore through a mix of data object,
representation information and implied knowledge.
This has important consequences for anyone attempting to challenge privileged
narratives. If the link to an authoritative definition within a representation network
is one of the keys to unlocking meaning, then whoever gets to assign that link or
manage the end-point is a very important individual, a dependency that is open to
abuse. That's even more problematic when one considers the implied knowledge
that sits alongside representation information. How might the extent of implied
knowledge be established for a preservation process that evolves over decades? There
are two important themes here: the designated community and the mechanisms
that measure changes within it. OAIS assumes a special class of consumers that it
defines as the designated community, a class that should be able to understand the
preserved information. The designated community has a role to define (and thus set
boundaries to) the extent of representation information. So long as the OAIS charts
and tracks that community through time, then representation is manageable.
This is self-evidently useful because the alternative is recursive absurdity. But
reading that through the lens of three decades of cultural theory, it implies that, if
you're not part of the designated community, you're not expected to use or
understand the collection and the archive has no explicit responsibility to help you,
and no requirement to listen to you. This might be true in the context of academic
research where a relatively small but expert group of professionals would be expected
to use complex datasets and would be motivated enough to cope with opaque
documentation and annotations. It is altogether more concerning when identities,
actions or meanings are in dispute: where honest misunderstanding may arise or
faux conflicts be engineered and prolonged.
At present, best practice in the digital preservation community means that the
digital archivist is empowered, in fact is required, to exercise a kind of intellectual
exclusion that is out of step with just about every other kind of memory institution.
In summary, archives, libraries and museums have spent 30 years coming to terms
with inclusion and polysemy, challenges that were barely considered by the digital
preservation community in 2006.
Digital preservation: Community not Process
This article started by wondering why the role and mission of the digital
preservation community has remained relevant for so long, and in particular, if
anything can be gleaned from the experience of the Digital Preservation Coalition
that might inform the Dutch experience of digital preservation. Surely the problem
has been fixed? Surely we can get back to our real jobs?
The answer to both questions, for better or worse, seems to be an emphatic no, at
least in the context of the UK and Ireland where DPC was founded, and almost
certainly in the context of the Netherlands, too. Three themes emerge, which will
certainly influence the direction of the DPC and which, because they are universal
challenges, will invite ever closer collaboration with colleagues around the world.
Firstly, perhaps most obviously, the nature of the technical preservation challenge
continues to change and therefore the tools and approaches that have emerged need
constant renewal and revision. This need for renewal and revision creates a tension
for information managers who seek to ensure the integrity of their own processes.
Understanding how to update and automate procedures without compromising
them is a key challenge in the years ahead.
The community has been conspicuously successful in the provision of tools and
processes for data management, even if there is more to do. It has been less
successful at embedding the outcomes of research into practical workflows and
spent too little time considering how data loss arises in practical contexts on a daily
basis. These processes, not purely technical, will endure for as long as agencies,
corporations and individuals are able to shirk or defer requirements for preservation
that enable reasonable expectations of transparency and authenticity. We may never
make obsolescence obsolete, but it is certainly possible to identify those for whom
data loss is a convenient excuse of lucrative business model.
We have also been less effective in involving users in our discussions, especially on
selection, preservation planning and representational information. A sustained and
informed dialogue between repositories and their audiences is required. If it is
possible to capture and embed the potential of the data then such changes could
have a transformative effect. Digital preservation is not done for the good of the
data, but for audiences and communities that have hitherto been all but absent from
out literature. The coming challenge is to configure our processes around the needs
of people and the opportunities they seek to exploit.
In 2006 the DPC conceived of digital preservation as a series of gaps to be avoided
through timely interventions and adaptation of process. What's become apparent
since then is that digital preservation is not a process, it's a community. It's time to
stop minding the gaps: it's time to start seeing the opportunities.
hoofdstuk 3
182
william kilbride minding the gaps: digital preservation then and now
183