You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘European Conference on Digital Libraries’ tag.
William Kilbride’s lunchtime talk on the Digital Preservation Coalition today. William is from the Digital Preservation Coalition (sounds like a surprisingly good name for a Rap artist!), based in Glasgow. www.dpconline.org His talk gave a good run through the work of the DPC and was a good primer on some of the issues around Digital Preservation. A useful follow-up to some of the ECDL sessions where digital preservation was touched upon.
The DPC’s statement ‘Our digital memory accessible tomorow’ is a great aspiration and William explained how the DPC was going about trying to help to support and encourage making that a reality. Describing long term preservation as ‘trickier than we expected’ he first flagged up four issues:
- the growth in digital data
- the complexity of data
- the requirements of data
William illustrated the problems with a couple of great examples. 60% of the URLs in Hansard reports between 1997 and 2006 no longer work. And, the tapes from the Viking lander had to be recreated from a bitstream copy as the original tapes weren’t usable.
He outlined five good reasons why long-term access was required – regulatory requirements; financial risk; opportunity cost; reputational cost and heritage loss, and gave the example of NOFDigi, where only a proportion of that data (created at significant cost) was still available.
The DPC see their role as enabling and agenda-setting. They have a broad range of institutions involved from Universities to the BBC, to various research organisations, Museums, JISC and the MLA. In their enabling role they run the Digital Preservation Training Programme and produce Technology Watch reports, for example. In the Agenda-setting role they have been involved in reports including ‘Mind the Gap’ and ‘Digital Britain’.
William identified seven long-term challenges.
- He saw that ‘Digital information has little inherent meeting but is only rendered comprehensible by a combination of technologies and skills’. Access depends on configuration of hardware and software and the skills of the operator. Mitigation strategies are to document the configuration, use emulation and migration to access the content.
- Technology continues to change which creates obsolescence. Examples include changes in file formats. Mitigate by watching for changes that would lead to file formats becoming obsolete. Use tools such as Pronom or Droid from the National Archives to help with analysing which file formats are present on the network. Migration and emulation strategies can help
- Changes in storage media, e.g. the Domesday disk. Mitigate by refreshing and using slef-check methods
- Digital Preservation systems are also subject to obsolescence. Mitigate with standards such as OAIS and be modular
- Data being altered, corrupted or deleted. Mitigate with security and checksum tools
- Digital resources are intolerant of gaps in preservation. He suggested that automation and economies of scale have a role to play.
- There was also limited experience and rapid technology change.
It was commented that there was another issue around deciding what should be preserved. Issues around how much risk you would accept might determine your preservation strategy. One interesting comment was that a recent JISC report had noted that ingestion cost 70% of the overall costs. Although storage might be cheap to buy the environmental costs could be high.
One of the interesting follow-ups was that the difference between born digital and digitized content was that with born digital content you don’t have the original source material.
I recently had the opportunity to go to the European Conference on Digital Libraries. This three-day conference, held in Corfu this year, has been running for a number of years and is of interest to a range of different disciplines, from computer scientists to librarians and archivists. This year there were around 400 attendees, mainly from Europe but with a sprinkling of attendees from Asia and the Americas. With two keynote speakers, 30 papers and a range of posters and demonstrations the conference covered a good deal of ground and I’m going to put down a few of my impressions.
ECDL is quite scientific and academic in approach. Although the conference sub-title was ‘Digital Societies’ most of the papers approached the subject of Digital Libraries from quite a narrow technical view, investigating areas such as DL software performance, semantic search techniques or the impact of data-loss on images. A significant number of the papers were from Doctoral Students and many others outlined the latest state of research by groups of researchers.
‘The days are past when scholarly authority alone determines what is saved, learned and used’
The two keynote papers from Gary Marchionini and Peter Buneman provided two quite different perspectives on Digital Libraries. Marchionini’s paper flagged up how social networking is likely to impact on future Digital Libraries whilst Peter Buneman concentrated mainly on the need for Digital Libraries to reach out to the research communities and offer them a way of safeguarding their research materials.
Both saw the long-term storage cost of DLs as a significant issue and identified preservation as key issues for the future. Marchionini identified key differences between curated and community DLs, whilst Buneman concentrated on the importance of curation of research material as a key challenge.
Other conference papers
The conference also had a number of interesting sessions including a paper on the performance of DL systems – Fedora, DSpace and Greenstone – building large collections of material and stress-testing the systems to analyse their performance. Some of the papers presented covered quite complex technical solutions and models or methods, e.g. such as using visualisation or sound clues to aid search and retrieval.
Although the conference sub-title was ‘Digital Societies’ on reflection few papers other than the keynotes really got to grips with much beyond the technical issues surrounding Digital Libraries. The impact of Web 2.0 was touched upon but much of the content was still around building and managing monolithic database structures to contain vast repositories of data. Whilst that is a challenging activity in itself, the domain perhaps needs to move to a wider discussion of the impact of ‘Digital Societies’ It is possibly with this in mind that there are moves planned to change the name of the conference from 2011.