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.
Showing posts with label arrangement. Show all posts
Showing posts with label arrangement. Show all posts
Monday, 19 March 2012
Friday, 20 January 2012
AIMS White Paper now available
After a huge amount of effort the AIMS White Paper has finally been finished and is now available online.
The White Paper is intended as a framework for guide good practice in terms of archival tasks and objectives necessary for success. It builds upon the experiences of the four partner institutions - the universities of Hull, Stanford, Virginia and Yale - to process a range of collections with an array of format and media issues and using different software – we were keen to make this software agnostic and have gone back to the archival principles at the heart of the processes.
In many areas we found many similarities with existing practice with paper records and for some aspects we found there were multiple ways of achieving certain goals and we didn't want to be prescriptive in any way. So instead it highlights key decision points and aspects of policy that may be determined at an institutional level and is intended to help people making the same journey that we have made – finding out about projects, tools & case studies and starting to build knowledge, skills & infrastructure.
Although the publication of the White Paper officially marks the end of the AIMS project the institutions intend to continue collaborating and sharing their experiences on this blog.
We welcome your comments and feedback to the White Paper on this blog – whether you have implemented the framework or just found the guidance useful.
Friday, 2 September 2011
AIMS@SAA Part One: CREW Workshop
CREW: Collecting Repositories and E-Records Workshop
SAA 2011
Chicago, IL 8/23/2011
The AIMS partners hosted a workshop in the run-up to the 2011 SAA Annual Meeting in August. 45 participants from the US and Canada joined us in exploring the challenges, opportunities and strategies for managing born-digital records in collecting repositories.
The workshop was organized around the 4 main functions of stewardship that the AIMS project has focused on: Collection Development, Accessioning, Arrangement and Description, and Discovery and Access. In addition to the AIMS crew (no pun intended) presenting on the research done through the AIMS project, several guest presenters showcased case studies from their own hands-on approaches to managing born-digital materials. Seth Shaw, from Duke University discussed the evolution of electronic record accessioning at Duke University and his development of the Duke Data Accessioner. Gabriela Redwine discussed work done in arrangement and description at the Harry Ransom Center at the University of Texas at Austin. Finally, Erin O’Meara showcased work done at the University of the North Carolina at Chapel Hill to facilitate access to born-digital records through finding aid interfaces.
In between presentations the participants engaged in lively discussions around provocative questions and hypothetical scenarios. At the end of the event, the AIMS partners felt they had gained just as much from the day’s activities as they hoped the participants had. Ideas that were discussed and case study examples will help strengthen the findings of the white paper due out this fall.
See the workshop presentations after the jump!
SAA 2011
Chicago, IL 8/23/2011
The AIMS partners hosted a workshop in the run-up to the 2011 SAA Annual Meeting in August. 45 participants from the US and Canada joined us in exploring the challenges, opportunities and strategies for managing born-digital records in collecting repositories.
The workshop was organized around the 4 main functions of stewardship that the AIMS project has focused on: Collection Development, Accessioning, Arrangement and Description, and Discovery and Access. In addition to the AIMS crew (no pun intended) presenting on the research done through the AIMS project, several guest presenters showcased case studies from their own hands-on approaches to managing born-digital materials. Seth Shaw, from Duke University discussed the evolution of electronic record accessioning at Duke University and his development of the Duke Data Accessioner. Gabriela Redwine discussed work done in arrangement and description at the Harry Ransom Center at the University of Texas at Austin. Finally, Erin O’Meara showcased work done at the University of the North Carolina at Chapel Hill to facilitate access to born-digital records through finding aid interfaces.
In between presentations the participants engaged in lively discussions around provocative questions and hypothetical scenarios. At the end of the event, the AIMS partners felt they had gained just as much from the day’s activities as they hoped the participants had. Ideas that were discussed and case study examples will help strengthen the findings of the white paper due out this fall.
See the workshop presentations after the jump!
Tuesday, 22 February 2011
Arrangement and Description of born-digital archives
For the last two months the Digital Archivists have been trying to define the requirements of a tool to enable archivists to arrange and describe born-digital archives. To do this we have stood-back and reviewed the traditional skills and processes and whether changes are required or appropriate to accommodate the particular issues surrounding born-digital archives.
The components we identified were as follows:
• Graphical User Interface – needs to be clean and easy to use
• Intellectual Arrangement - must be easy and instinctive for archivists to use
• Appraisal – born-digital archives need to be appraised as much as their paper predecessors
• Rights and Permissions – to enable the management of access to the born-digital archives and also to demonstrate to 3rd part depositors that the material is safe in your care
• Descriptive Metadata – a term we have been using to relate to description information and to explicitly distinguish this from the technical metadata about each file
• Import/Export functionality – to import/export data with other tools
• Reporting – to provide a range of "views" for managing the digital assets
Through a series of user stories and scenarios we have sought to clearly explain the requirement and how this might relate to other functionality.
This work has been under-taken predominantly through the use of GoogleDocs and created a document that we can all access and edit, create diagrams and include screenshots as necessary. Over weeks hundreds of comments have been added, and the text subjected to a comprehensive review and refinement process by numerous staff across the four partners.
Each institution has now scored and prioritised these features and as befits a collaborative initiative like the AIMS project allow us to identify a core group of features and functionality that we feel will be of greatest use to our institution and the wider archival community.
With the exception of intellectual arrangement most tasks and processes are not unique to archives so there is already a body of knowledge and experience in how to approach the task. For intellectual arrangement we have to be clear and precise about what we need and want we didn’t, for example a single intellectual arrangement when multiple versions would be possible in a digital environment.
Over the next few months we will be refining and reviewing these requirements, very much aware that there are only seven months of the project remaining. We also intend to discuss those aspects we identified as "critical" in future blog postings.
Tell us what tools you use with born-digital archives...
The components we identified were as follows:
• Graphical User Interface – needs to be clean and easy to use
• Intellectual Arrangement - must be easy and instinctive for archivists to use
• Appraisal – born-digital archives need to be appraised as much as their paper predecessors
• Rights and Permissions – to enable the management of access to the born-digital archives and also to demonstrate to 3rd part depositors that the material is safe in your care
• Descriptive Metadata – a term we have been using to relate to description information and to explicitly distinguish this from the technical metadata about each file
• Import/Export functionality – to import/export data with other tools
• Reporting – to provide a range of "views" for managing the digital assets
Through a series of user stories and scenarios we have sought to clearly explain the requirement and how this might relate to other functionality.
This work has been under-taken predominantly through the use of GoogleDocs and created a document that we can all access and edit, create diagrams and include screenshots as necessary. Over weeks hundreds of comments have been added, and the text subjected to a comprehensive review and refinement process by numerous staff across the four partners.
Each institution has now scored and prioritised these features and as befits a collaborative initiative like the AIMS project allow us to identify a core group of features and functionality that we feel will be of greatest use to our institution and the wider archival community.
With the exception of intellectual arrangement most tasks and processes are not unique to archives so there is already a body of knowledge and experience in how to approach the task. For intellectual arrangement we have to be clear and precise about what we need and want we didn’t, for example a single intellectual arrangement when multiple versions would be possible in a digital environment.
Over the next few months we will be refining and reviewing these requirements, very much aware that there are only seven months of the project remaining. We also intend to discuss those aspects we identified as "critical" in future blog postings.
Tell us what tools you use with born-digital archives...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
