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

Periodiekviewer Koninklijke Vereniging van Archivarissen

Jaarboeken Stichting Archiefpublicaties | 2018 | | pagina 92