Brith Gof

Last week I was fortunate to be invited to a two day workshop hosted by the National Library of Wales (NLW) at Aberystwyth. The workshop brought together archivists, academics, library and ICT staff and students to discuss the “challenges” surrounding the Brith Gof and Clifford McLucas collections. The primary focus was on aspects of the digital preservation – with a range of media and carriers including floppy disks, zip drives, SyQuest cartridges (a new one to me) and Mac Book G4 amongst these two collections.

Discussions touched a wide range of topics and issues including digital forensics, cataloguing hybrid collections, digital curation, emulation and access. There was also a reminder of the complexity of intellectual property rights for performance material where different rights might be held for the set design, the score etc etc.

There was also a public event where a number of items from the collections were used as prompts by Professor Mike Pearson, co-founder of Brith Gof, to stimulate his recollections of Brith Gof. The range of items selected highlighted the rich nature of the collections that includes photographs, videos, set designs, huge banners (aswell as the more traditional paper archives). One aspect that is also being considered is how to capture/record the impact that Brith Gof had on those watching the performance.

I talked about the AIMS project and highlighted a number of the questions and issues that had arisen from our shared experiences that we have captured in our White Paper. I really enjoyed the discussions, the informal nature and the reminder about making a deliberate effort to engage and attract a range of audiences.

Today is International Archives Day (twitter #archday12) to see what everybody has been saying.

Archives and Society

Two weeks ago I spoke at the Archives and Society series of tasks held at the Institute of Historical Research about the progress and work at Hull as a result of the AIMS project. Whilst highlighting the AIMS White Paper the bulk of the talk was about the practical steps we had taken at Hull with born-digital archives; starting with a simple survey of collections and then followed by photography of media and creating a forensic workstation (a tale told in multiple parts see - part 1, part 2 and part 3).

I sought to encourage those present to download software like Karen's Directory Printer and DROID and to have a go - using a few test files will help increase your familiarity with many of the issues associated with digital preservation.

I managed to stop in time for questions - and these included aspects relating to the fact that the issues I raised were not "new" and whether we would still be making the same case in 5 years time (I hope not) and the need for automated tools to help us cope with the sheer volume of material (an obvious need) and the associated risk of releasing material that you haven't explicitly checked because of the sheer volume of files..

A PDF version of the slides is available - the talk was also recorded and I will add a link to the podcast when it is available.

Day of Digital Archives – some personal reflections

To mark the Day of Digital Archives I thought I would add a personal note about the “journey” I have made in the last two years. It was about this time in 2009 that it was announced that the AIMS Project was being funded by the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and that I would be seconded from my post as Senior Archivist to that of Digital Archivist for the project.

At the time I had considerable experience of digitisation but very little about digital archives. So I began reading a few texts and following references and links to other sources of information until I had a pile of paper several inches high of things to read. At first there was a huge amount to take-in – new acronyms, especially from the frightening OAIS, and plenty of projects like the EU funded Planets initiative. It seemed that the learning would never stop – there was always another link to follow another article to read and it was really difficult to determine how much was making sense.

Talking to colleagues who were already active in this field also revealed how little digital media we actually had at the University of Hull Archives – just over two years ago we literally had a handful of digital media whilst others were already talking about terabytes of stuff. Fortunately the AIMS project sought to breakdown the workflow into four distinct sub-functions and placed emphasis on understanding the process compared to ‘traditional’ paper archives which reduced the sense of being overwhelmed by it all.

Since then I feel I have come along way – I have attended a large number of events and spoken at a fair few and quickly become both familiar and comfortable with the language. I do appreciate the time I have been able to dedicate solely to the issue of digital archives and that many colleagues are embracing this “challenge” without this luxury.

The biggest recommendation I can make is to start having a play with the software – many of the tools that we use at Hull University are free – Karen’s Directory Printer for creating a manifest of records including checksums that have been received; FTK Imager for disc images etc etc. Nor do you have to wait for digital archives or risk changing key metadata whilst you are experimenting – you can use any series of digital files or old media that are lurking in the way of a drawer. We have also created a forensic workstation and shared our experiences via this blog.

Once we had started to experiment, we created draft workflows and documentation and refined this as we experimented further – all tasks from photography of media to using write-blockers do become less daunting the more frequently you do them. Having learnt from many colleagues we have started to add content to the born-digital archives section of the History Centre website. I have also used some of my own email to play with the MUSE visualisation tool to understand how it might allow us to provide significantly enhanced access to this material in the future.

Although the project funding has now finished and I have returned to my “normal” job I do think that digital archives has now become part of my normal work and each depositor is now specifically asked about digital archives and in public tours of the building we explicitly mention the challenges and the opportunities of digital archives. We don’t have all of the answers yet – archiving e-mail in particular still scares me, but don’t feel as daunted as I did two years ago.

Forensic Workstation pt3

A guest posting from Nicola Herbert, Digital Project Preservation Assistant at Hull University Archives

Once we had the forensic workstation up and running (see part 1 and part 2 in this on-going series) we installed MS Office and Mozilla Thunderbird (for working with Outlook .pst files). We also installed FTK Imager, Karen’s Directory Printer, DROID and the MUSE e-mail visualisation tool (in beta, but provides a very interesting perspective on the data). We are also planning to purchase Quickview Plus, a piece of software that enables viewing a range of file formats without requiring the original software on your PC.

We had already played around with these tools on our normal PCs and had run them on files copied from digital media prior to setting up the workstation.

Having received our two Tableau write-blockers we were eager to combine the separate processes we had developed into an integrated workflow. We have two write-blockers, one for USB devices (T8-R2) and one for internal hard drives from PCs and laptops (T35es). Simon’s visit to Jeremy John at the British Library had whetted our appetite for getting our mini digital forensics lab in operation.

USB devices
After a thorough read-through of the instructions we tested out the USB write-blocker first. Setting it up is relatively simple; the vital thing is to make the connections between device and write-blocker, write-blocker and forensic PC before switching on power to the write-blocker. The forensic workstation recognises the USB device as normal, and off you go.

We then run FTK Imager to create a logical image of the device. We tested the various formats and settings available and eventually decided that creating true forensic images would raise too many trust issues with potential depositors with regard to us being able to restore deleted files. For this reason we will create ‘Folder contents only’ forensic images which recreate the device as it would appear in normal use. From here we are exploring our options for exporting the files from the disk image, but we have found that the exported files display an altered Accessed date – any comments/suggestions on this issue would be gratefully received.

We also create directory listings of the contents with MD5 and SHA-1 checksums. From the disk image and directory listing we can start to consider the arrangement for the collection, using Quickview Plus to preview file contents.

Our second write-blocker can be used with IDE and SATA hard drives...but more of this in part 4!