DLF Wiki - User contributions [en]

NDSA:June 16, 2014 Standards and Practices Working Group Notes

2014-08-01T19:13:32Z

Winston Atkins:

== New member introduction ==
* Maureen McCormick Harlow (PBS)

== Announcements & Project Updates ==
* Kate Zwaard will rotate off as the Working Group's co-chair; Kate Murray will become the new co-chair in her place.
* The Digital Preservation 2014 conference will include a Standards and Practices WG Dinner following the poster session on the first night, 22 July.
* The Working Group is ready to launch its upcoming survey, "Ranking Stumbling Blocks for Video Preservation."
** It opens on 7July and closes 2 August
** We designed the survey to allow respondents to rank the issues they have in preserving video.
** The findings should help our Working Group identify and prioritize preservation issues, and lead to useful solution development for this class of media.
* Update: "Checking Your Digital Content: What is Fixity and When Should I Be Checking It?"
** The report currently is with the Infrastructure WG
** They are incorporating comments received following the latest draft release for public comment; see:[http://blogs.loc.gov/digitalpreservation/2014/02/check-yourself-how-and-when-to-check-fixity/ The Signal], 7 February 2014.
** The coordinating committee will review it once more prior to final release.

== Today's discussion topic: Digital Art ==
Speakers:
<div style="column-count:2;-moz-column-count:2;-webkit-column-count:2">
* Ben Fino-Radin (MoMA)
* Kate Lewis (MoMA)
* Isabel Meyer (Smithsonian Institution)
* Crystal Sanchez (Smithsonian Institution)
* Erica Titkemeyer (Smithsonian Institution)
* Mickey Casad (Cornell University)
* Dianne Dietrich(Cornell University)
* Jill Sterrett (San Francisco MOMA)
* Martina Haidvogl (San Francisco MOMA)
* Mark Heller (San Francisco MOMA)
</div>

=== Questions ===
1: For all speakers: What makes preserving digital-art more challenging than other types of media? How can other areas of the cultural heritage community learn from your experiences? (''Submitted by Kate Murray'')

: Some works, e.g., web-based pieces, are always on, always visible, and so are always monitored. The constant visibility means that staff must actively engage with the works to keep them running in a manner that respects the artists' intention and the works' integrity. We can look at other works not just as files, but as files with relationships that link them; those relationships eventually will fail. The question becomes: How can we make the relationships portable over time? So many variables already affect the display and we do not know the impact of the future.

: These materials are new, and the challenge comes from a deficit in our understanding of them as a material to curate. We do not have real archival practices yet. For example, what are the best practices for preserving the essential characteristics? A benefit, however, has been new areas of collaboration among departments that would not normally work together in this arena. IT departments have not typically been involved in museum practice. It is crucial to involve them, however, and engage in the conversations. Neither department will have the expertise of the other.

2: For all speakers: I have been seeing a lot of recent masters graduates seeking careers specializing in the preservation of either digital art (or somewhat related, video games). What advice would you give them? Is this a growth area to the extent that it makes sense now for them to try to specialize in this or would you recommend that they try to broaden their skills and knowledge so that they would qualify for more positions? (''Submitted by Andrea Goethals'')

: All panelists agreed that the expertise is in short supply, that there is more work to do than there are people to do it, and some noted that responsibilities are distributed among people as add-ons. When an institution hires new staff with relevant expertise, curators throughout the institution are vying for that person's assistance.

: Particular recommendations included a good foundation in IT: knowing how computers work, understanding UNIX and operating systems are seen as important, as is becoming good with a programming language to gain an understanding of how software works. That lesson will be generalizable and enable the person to discuss the issues with others, even though a work might use a different program.

: Nevertheless, it is too soon to specialize in digital art, despite the demand pent up in many collections. The resources are not there to count on making this a career. Furthermore, these skills are becoming crucial for any information professional. And it is not necessary to go through a curriculum to make them part of your skill set.

3: For All speakers: I am aware of a tension with regards to the playback/viewing of digital art: is emulation of hardware "good enough" or should we strive to also preserve original hardware? What are the challenges of each strategy, and how can we address these challenges? (''Submitted by Michelle Paolillo'')

: There is no one approach to apply to every work. Some works, e.g., a piece drawing from content from the Internet, may not rely on the setting that the hardware provides; emulation may be adequate here. Console-based settings, such as a Nintendo might provide, may require a different approach. Establishing the right approach may involve extensive discussions with the artist to determine whether any aspects of a work can change.

: Hardware remains a significant challenge. We cannot assume that the original creating technology will be available in the future and smaller institutions may not find preserving hardware viable. Furthermore, hardware processors are increasingly fast, changing the original presentation, so documenting the original hardware specifications is a critical part of documenting the artist's original intent.

: Although the challenges of hardware make emulation an important strategy, it is never good enough; at least, not out of the box. Qualitative analysis of the emulated work, side by side with the original, is critically important. That analysis demands that we understand the work's critical properties. As an example, arcade and video game emulations handle game execution well, but not the display. In general, accurate emulation of CRT monitors does not exist for flat panel monitors. And we must remain aware that eventually, we will need to migrate the emulators, too.

4: For all speakers: Is preserving the bits enough? Do we need more than the usual documentation of how/why something was created? (''Submitted by Winston Atkins via Kate Murray; this question actually kicked off the initial discussion'')

: The bits are never enough. We must understand its varied characteristics, such as:
:* How did the artist install the work?
:* What is core to the installation?
:* What is core to the artist?
:* Which equipment can be exchanged?
:* What do we need to look out for?

: A single emulation may not be sufficient; providing different renderings through different emulations may give a better sense of what the work may have been like.

: In terms of the OAIS model, documenting the representation information's "meaningful concepts" means documenting "as the artist intended" and extends to our need for the artist's documentation. Given the complexity of these works, it also means that the diverse perspectives provided by different branches of the collecting institution (e.g., the IT staff) are a necessary part of developing a holistic approach to curatorial documentation and making the work renderable.

: Incorporating all the perspectives necessary to preserve the works requires attention. Each work's uniqueness makes a firm decision tree impossible. Exhibition meetings often generate questions, for instance. Newly acquired works' latent complexity makes an acquisitions meeting between the curator, conservator, and artist important. Such a meeting develops an institutional understanding of questions about what the work is, and what is the expression that the institution hopes to collect.

: It is important to acquire source code, not just the video file. The source code "may be as close as we can get to the archival master." Interviewing the developer responsible for the coding may provide important documentation. If the artists do their own coding, understanding their decisions may be interesting.

5: Closely linked to the question above, what metadata schema are you using to capture technical and intellectual description of preserved assets? What types work best for what "portions" of documentation? (''Submitted by Michelle Paolillo'')

: When assessing the available metadata standards or schema, you should consider the degree to which each of them can leverage your curatorial responsibilities for your collections. Indexing metadata elements allows an institution to work usefully; for instance, by creating a database that allows curators to identify works using particular codecs, and systematically address issues common to all. It is inefficient to create such a database as a separate entity. Nevertheless, we must also remember that computer code is a language and metadata alone cannot adequately document a piece. Unified Modeling Language could provide a useful generalization of how a program works, but the process for creating these visualizations is not automated.

Following up on the discussion topics, Josh Sternfeld (NEH) briefly described an open forum session at the Digital Preservation 2014 conference in which he will participate. The forum will address fostering an active R& D community around digital heritage, including digital art. He anticipates the discussion will begin uncovering the elements necessary to that work, bringing out the technical elements, the educational core, and the communication needed.

[Note: See Josh Sternfeld's piece in [http://blogs.loc.gov/digitalpreservation/2014/07/research-and-development-for-digital-cultural-heritage-preservation-a-virtual-and-in-person-open-forum/ The Signal], 3 July 2014, and in [http://qanda.digipres.org/153/what-research-development-needs-digital-cultural-heritage Digital Preservation Q&A] for additional information.]

== Wrap-Up ==
* Digital Preservation 2014 meeting will pre-empt the July conference call
* The next conference call will be 18 August at 1 o'clock. A possible topic will be consideration of an Optical Discs Deep Dive.
* Be on the lookout this autumn for a possible workshop on email preservation.

NDSA:June 16, 2014 Standards and Practices Working Group Notes

2014-08-01T19:03:10Z

Winston Atkins: /* Announcements & Project Updates */

== New member introduction ==
* Maureen McCormick Harlow (PBS)

== Announcements & Project Updates ==
* Kate Zwaard will rotate off as the Working Group's co-chair; Kate Murray will become the new co-chair in her place.
* The Digital Preservation 2014 conference will include a Standards and Practices WG Dinner following the poster session on the first night, 22 July.
* The Working Group is ready to launch its upcoming survey, "Ranking Stumbling Blocks for Video Preservation."
** It opens on 7July and closes 2 August
** We designed the survey to allow respondents to rank the issues they have in preserving video.
** The findings should help our Working Group identify and prioritize preservation issues, and lead to useful solution development for this class of media.
* Update: "Checking Your Digital Content: What is Fixity and When Should I Be Checking It?"
** The report currently is with the Infrastructure WG
** They are incorporating comments received following the latest draft release for public comment; see:[http://blogs.loc.gov/digitalpreservation/2014/02/check-yourself-how-and-when-to-check-fixity/ The Signal], 7 February 2014.
** The coordinating committee will review it once more prior to final release.

== Today's discussion topic: Digital Art ==
Speakers:
<div style="column-count:2;-moz-column-count:2;-webkit-column-count:2">
* Ben Fino-Radin (MoMA)
* Kate Lewis (MoMA)
* Isabel Meyer (Smithsonian Institution)
* Crystal Sanchez (Smithsonian Institution)
* Erica Titkemeyer (Smithsonian Institution)
* Mickey Casad (Cornell University)
* Dianne Dietrich(Cornell University)
* Jill Sterrett (San Francisco MOMA)
* Martina Haidvogl (San Francisco MOMA)
* Mark Heller (San Francisco MOMA)
</div>

=== Questions ===
1: For all speakers: What makes preserving digital-art more challenging than other types of media? How can other areas of the cultural heritage community learn from your experiences? (''Submitted by Kate Murray'')

Some works, e.g., web-based pieces, are always on, always visible, and so are always monitored. The constant visibility means that staff must actively engage with the works to keep them running in a manner that respects the artists' intention and the works' integrity. We can look at other works not just as files, but as files with relationships that link them; those relationships eventually will fail. The question becomes: How can we make the relationships portable over time? So many variables already affect the display and we do not know the impact of the future.

These materials are new, and the challenge comes from a deficit in our understanding of them as a material to curate. We do not have real archival practices yet. For example, what are the best practices for preserving the essential characteristics? A benefit, however, has been new areas of collaboration among departments that would not normally work together in this arena. IT departments have not typically been involved in museum practice. It is crucial to involve them, however, and engage in the conversations. Neither department will have the expertise of the other.

2: For all speakers: I have been seeing a lot of recent masters graduates seeking careers specializing in the preservation of either digital art (or somewhat related, video games). What advice would you give them? Is this a growth area to the extent that it makes sense now for them to try to specialize in this or would you recommend that they try to broaden their skills and knowledge so that they would qualify for more positions? (''Submitted by Andrea Goethals'')

All panelists agreed that the expertise is in short supply, that there is more work to do than there are people to do it, and some noted that responsibilities are distributed among people as add-ons. When an institution hires new staff with relevant expertise, curators throughout the institution are vying for that person's assistance.

Particular recommendations included a good foundation in IT: knowing how computers work, understanding UNIX and operating systems are seen as important, as is becoming good with a programming language to gain an understanding of how software works. That lesson will be generalizable and enable the person to discuss the issues with others, even though a work might use a different program.

Nevertheless, it is too soon to specialize in digital art, despite the demand pent up in many collections. The resources are not there to count on making this a career. Furthermore, these skills are becoming crucial for any information professional. And it is not necessary to go through a curriculum to make them part of your skill set.

3: For All speakers: I am aware of a tension with regards to the playback/viewing of digital art: is emulation of hardware "good enough" or should we strive to also preserve original hardware? What are the challenges of each strategy, and how can we address these challenges? (''Submitted by Michelle Paolillo'')

There is no one approach to apply to every work. Some works, e.g., a piece drawing from content from the Internet, may not rely on the setting that the hardware provides; emulation may be adequate here. Console-based settings, such as a Nintendo might provide, may require a different approach. Establishing the right approach may involve extensive discussions with the artist to determine whether any aspects of a work can change.

Hardware remains a significant challenge. We cannot assume that the original creating technology will be available in the future and smaller institutions may not find preserving hardware viable. Furthermore, hardware processors are increasingly fast, changing the original presentation, so documenting the original hardware specifications is a critical part of documenting the artist's original intent.

Although the challenges of hardware make emulation an important strategy, it is never good enough; at least, not out of the box. Qualitative analysis of the emulated work, side by side with the original, is critically important. That analysis demands that we understand the work's critical properties. As an example, arcade and video game emulations handle game execution well, but not the display. In general, accurate emulation of CRT monitors does not exist for flat panel monitors. And we must remain aware that eventually, we will need to migrate the emulators, too.

4: For all speakers: Is preserving the bits enough? Do we need more than the usual documentation of how/why something was created? (''Submitted by Winston Atkins via Kate Murray; this question actually kicked off the initial discussion'')

The bits are never enough. We must understand its varied characteristics, such as:
* How did the artist install the work?
* What is core to the installation?
* What is core to the artist?
* Which equipment can be exchanged?
* What do we need to look out for?

A single emulation may not be sufficient; providing different renderings through different emulations may give a better sense of what the work may have been like.

In terms of the OAIS model, documenting the representation information's "meaningful concepts" means documenting "as the artist intended" and extends to our need for the artist's documentation. Given the complexity of these works, it also means that the diverse perspectives provided by different branches of the collecting institution (e.g., the IT staff) are a necessary part of developing a holistic approach to curatorial documentation and making the work renderable.

Incorporating all the perspectives necessary to preserve the works requires attention. Each work's uniqueness makes a firm decision tree impossible. Exhibition meetings often generate questions, for instance. Newly acquired works' latent complexity makes an acquisitions meeting between the curator, conservator, and artist important. Such a meeting develops an institutional understanding of questions about what the work is, and what is the expression that the institution hopes to collect.

It is important to acquire source code, not just the video file. The source code "may be as close as we can get to the archival master." Interviewing the developer responsible for the coding may provide important documentation. If the artists do their own coding, understanding their decisions may be interesting.

5: Closely linked to the question above, what metadata schema are you using to capture technical and intellectual description of preserved assets? What types work best for what "portions" of documentation? (''Submitted by Michelle Paolillo'')

When assessing the available metadata standards or schema, you should consider the degree to which each of them can leverage your curatorial responsibilities for your collections. Indexing metadata elements allows an institution to work usefully; for instance, by creating a database that allows curators to identify works using particular codecs, and systematically address issues common to all. It is inefficient to create such a database as a separate entity. Nevertheless, we must also remember that computer code is a language and metadata alone cannot adequately document a piece. Unified Modeling Language could provide a useful generalization of how a program works, but the process for creating these visualizations is not automated.

Following up on the discussion topics, Josh Sternfeld (NEH) briefly described an open forum session at the Digital Preservation 2014 conference in which he will participate. The forum will address fostering an active R& D community around digital heritage, including digital art. He anticipates the discussion will begin uncovering the elements necessary to that work, bringing out the technical elements, the educational core, and the communication needed.

[Note: See Josh Sternfeld's piece in [http://blogs.loc.gov/digitalpreservation/2014/07/research-and-development-for-digital-cultural-heritage-preservation-a-virtual-and-in-person-open-forum/ The Signal], 3 July 2014, and in [http://qanda.digipres.org/153/what-research-development-needs-digital-cultural-heritage Digital Preservation Q&A] for additional information.]

== Wrap-Up ==
* Digital Preservation 2014 meeting will pre-empt the July conference call
* The next conference call will be 18 August at 1 o'clock. A possible topic will be consideration of an Optical Discs Deep Dive.
* Be on the lookout this autumn for a possible workshop on email preservation.

NDSA:June 16, 2014 Standards and Practices Working Group Notes

2014-08-01T19:02:39Z

Winston Atkins: /* Questions */

== New member introduction ==
* Maureen McCormick Harlow (PBS)

== Announcements & Project Updates ==
* Kate Zwaard will rotate off as the Working Group's co-chair; Kate Murray will become the new co-chair in her place.
* The Digital Preservation 2014 conference will include a Standards and Practices WG Dinner following the poster session on the first night, 22 July.
* The Working Group is ready to launch its upcoming survey, "Ranking Stumbling Blocks for Video Preservation."
** It opens on 7July and closes 2 August
** We designed the survey to allow respondents to rank the issues they have in preserving video.
** The findings should help our Working Group identify and prioritize preservation issues, and lead to useful solution development for this class of media.
* Update: "Checking Your Digital Content: What is Fixity and When Should I Be Checking It?"
** The report currently is with the Infrastructure WG
** They are incorporating comments received following the latest draft release for public comment; see:[http://blogs.loc.gov/digitalpreservation/2014/02/check-yourself-how-and-when-to-check-fixity/ The Signal], February 7,2014.
** The coordinating committee will review it once more prior to final release.

== Today's discussion topic: Digital Art ==
Speakers:
<div style="column-count:2;-moz-column-count:2;-webkit-column-count:2">
* Ben Fino-Radin (MoMA)
* Kate Lewis (MoMA)
* Isabel Meyer (Smithsonian Institution)
* Crystal Sanchez (Smithsonian Institution)
* Erica Titkemeyer (Smithsonian Institution)
* Mickey Casad (Cornell University)
* Dianne Dietrich(Cornell University)
* Jill Sterrett (San Francisco MOMA)
* Martina Haidvogl (San Francisco MOMA)
* Mark Heller (San Francisco MOMA)
</div>

=== Questions ===
1: For all speakers: What makes preserving digital-art more challenging than other types of media? How can other areas of the cultural heritage community learn from your experiences? (''Submitted by Kate Murray'')

Some works, e.g., web-based pieces, are always on, always visible, and so are always monitored. The constant visibility means that staff must actively engage with the works to keep them running in a manner that respects the artists' intention and the works' integrity. We can look at other works not just as files, but as files with relationships that link them; those relationships eventually will fail. The question becomes: How can we make the relationships portable over time? So many variables already affect the display and we do not know the impact of the future.

These materials are new, and the challenge comes from a deficit in our understanding of them as a material to curate. We do not have real archival practices yet. For example, what are the best practices for preserving the essential characteristics? A benefit, however, has been new areas of collaboration among departments that would not normally work together in this arena. IT departments have not typically been involved in museum practice. It is crucial to involve them, however, and engage in the conversations. Neither department will have the expertise of the other.

2: For all speakers: I have been seeing a lot of recent masters graduates seeking careers specializing in the preservation of either digital art (or somewhat related, video games). What advice would you give them? Is this a growth area to the extent that it makes sense now for them to try to specialize in this or would you recommend that they try to broaden their skills and knowledge so that they would qualify for more positions? (''Submitted by Andrea Goethals'')

All panelists agreed that the expertise is in short supply, that there is more work to do than there are people to do it, and some noted that responsibilities are distributed among people as add-ons. When an institution hires new staff with relevant expertise, curators throughout the institution are vying for that person's assistance.

Particular recommendations included a good foundation in IT: knowing how computers work, understanding UNIX and operating systems are seen as important, as is becoming good with a programming language to gain an understanding of how software works. That lesson will be generalizable and enable the person to discuss the issues with others, even though a work might use a different program.

Nevertheless, it is too soon to specialize in digital art, despite the demand pent up in many collections. The resources are not there to count on making this a career. Furthermore, these skills are becoming crucial for any information professional. And it is not necessary to go through a curriculum to make them part of your skill set.

3: For All speakers: I am aware of a tension with regards to the playback/viewing of digital art: is emulation of hardware "good enough" or should we strive to also preserve original hardware? What are the challenges of each strategy, and how can we address these challenges? (''Submitted by Michelle Paolillo'')

There is no one approach to apply to every work. Some works, e.g., a piece drawing from content from the Internet, may not rely on the setting that the hardware provides; emulation may be adequate here. Console-based settings, such as a Nintendo might provide, may require a different approach. Establishing the right approach may involve extensive discussions with the artist to determine whether any aspects of a work can change.

Hardware remains a significant challenge. We cannot assume that the original creating technology will be available in the future and smaller institutions may not find preserving hardware viable. Furthermore, hardware processors are increasingly fast, changing the original presentation, so documenting the original hardware specifications is a critical part of documenting the artist's original intent.

Although the challenges of hardware make emulation an important strategy, it is never good enough; at least, not out of the box. Qualitative analysis of the emulated work, side by side with the original, is critically important. That analysis demands that we understand the work's critical properties. As an example, arcade and video game emulations handle game execution well, but not the display. In general, accurate emulation of CRT monitors does not exist for flat panel monitors. And we must remain aware that eventually, we will need to migrate the emulators, too.

4: For all speakers: Is preserving the bits enough? Do we need more than the usual documentation of how/why something was created? (''Submitted by Winston Atkins via Kate Murray; this question actually kicked off the initial discussion'')

The bits are never enough. We must understand its varied characteristics, such as:
* How did the artist install the work?
* What is core to the installation?
* What is core to the artist?
* Which equipment can be exchanged?
* What do we need to look out for?

A single emulation may not be sufficient; providing different renderings through different emulations may give a better sense of what the work may have been like.

In terms of the OAIS model, documenting the representation information's "meaningful concepts" means documenting "as the artist intended" and extends to our need for the artist's documentation. Given the complexity of these works, it also means that the diverse perspectives provided by different branches of the collecting institution (e.g., the IT staff) are a necessary part of developing a holistic approach to curatorial documentation and making the work renderable.

Incorporating all the perspectives necessary to preserve the works requires attention. Each work's uniqueness makes a firm decision tree impossible. Exhibition meetings often generate questions, for instance. Newly acquired works' latent complexity makes an acquisitions meeting between the curator, conservator, and artist important. Such a meeting develops an institutional understanding of questions about what the work is, and what is the expression that the institution hopes to collect.

It is important to acquire source code, not just the video file. The source code "may be as close as we can get to the archival master." Interviewing the developer responsible for the coding may provide important documentation. If the artists do their own coding, understanding their decisions may be interesting.

5: Closely linked to the question above, what metadata schema are you using to capture technical and intellectual description of preserved assets? What types work best for what "portions" of documentation? (''Submitted by Michelle Paolillo'')

When assessing the available metadata standards or schema, you should consider the degree to which each of them can leverage your curatorial responsibilities for your collections. Indexing metadata elements allows an institution to work usefully; for instance, by creating a database that allows curators to identify works using particular codecs, and systematically address issues common to all. It is inefficient to create such a database as a separate entity. Nevertheless, we must also remember that computer code is a language and metadata alone cannot adequately document a piece. Unified Modeling Language could provide a useful generalization of how a program works, but the process for creating these visualizations is not automated.

Following up on the discussion topics, Josh Sternfeld (NEH) briefly described an open forum session at the Digital Preservation 2014 conference in which he will participate. The forum will address fostering an active R& D community around digital heritage, including digital art. He anticipates the discussion will begin uncovering the elements necessary to that work, bringing out the technical elements, the educational core, and the communication needed.

[Note: See Josh Sternfeld's piece in [http://blogs.loc.gov/digitalpreservation/2014/07/research-and-development-for-digital-cultural-heritage-preservation-a-virtual-and-in-person-open-forum/ The Signal], 3 July 2014, and in [http://qanda.digipres.org/153/what-research-development-needs-digital-cultural-heritage Digital Preservation Q&A] for additional information.]

== Wrap-Up ==
* Digital Preservation 2014 meeting will pre-empt the July conference call
* The next conference call will be 18 August at 1 o'clock. A possible topic will be consideration of an Optical Discs Deep Dive.
* Be on the lookout this autumn for a possible workshop on email preservation.

NDSA:June 16, 2014 Standards and Practices Working Group Notes

2014-08-01T19:01:33Z

Winston Atkins:

== New member introduction ==
* Maureen McCormick Harlow (PBS)

== Announcements & Project Updates ==
* Kate Zwaard will rotate off as the Working Group's co-chair; Kate Murray will become the new co-chair in her place.
* The Digital Preservation 2014 conference will include a Standards and Practices WG Dinner following the poster session on the first night, 22 July.
* The Working Group is ready to launch its upcoming survey, "Ranking Stumbling Blocks for Video Preservation."
** It opens on 7July and closes 2 August
** We designed the survey to allow respondents to rank the issues they have in preserving video.
** The findings should help our Working Group identify and prioritize preservation issues, and lead to useful solution development for this class of media.
* Update: "Checking Your Digital Content: What is Fixity and When Should I Be Checking It?"
** The report currently is with the Infrastructure WG
** They are incorporating comments received following the latest draft release for public comment; see:[http://blogs.loc.gov/digitalpreservation/2014/02/check-yourself-how-and-when-to-check-fixity/ The Signal], February 7,2014.
** The coordinating committee will review it once more prior to final release.

== Today's discussion topic: Digital Art ==
Speakers:
<div style="column-count:2;-moz-column-count:2;-webkit-column-count:2">
* Ben Fino-Radin (MoMA)
* Kate Lewis (MoMA)
* Isabel Meyer (Smithsonian Institution)
* Crystal Sanchez (Smithsonian Institution)
* Erica Titkemeyer (Smithsonian Institution)
* Mickey Casad (Cornell University)
* Dianne Dietrich(Cornell University)
* Jill Sterrett (San Francisco MOMA)
* Martina Haidvogl (San Francisco MOMA)
* Mark Heller (San Francisco MOMA)
</div>

=== Questions ===
1: For all speakers: What makes preserving digital-art more challenging than other types of media? How can other areas of the cultural heritage community learn from your experiences? (''Submitted by Kate Murray'')

Some works, e.g., web-based pieces, are always on, always visible, and so are always monitored. The constant visibility means that staff must actively engage with the works to keep them running in a manner that respects the artists' intention and the works' integrity. We can look at other works not just as files, but as files with relationships that link them; those relationships eventually will fail. The question becomes: How can we make the relationships portable over time? So many variables already affect the display and we do not know the impact of the future.

These materials are new, and the challenge comes from a deficit in our understanding of them as a material to curate. We do not have real archival practices yet. For example, what are the best practices for preserving the essential characteristics? A benefit, however, has been new areas of collaboration among departments that would not normally work together in this arena. IT departments have not typically been involved in museum practice. It is crucial to involve them, however, and engage in the conversations. Neither department will have the expertise of the other.

2: For all speakers: I have been seeing a lot of recent masters graduates seeking careers specializing in the preservation of either digital art (or somewhat related, video games). What advice would you give them? Is this a growth area to the extent that it makes sense now for them to try to specialize in this or would you recommend that they try to broaden their skills and knowledge so that they would qualify for more positions? (''Submitted by Andrea Goethals'')

All panelists agreed that the expertise is in short supply, that there is more work to do than there are people to do it, and some noted that responsibilities are distributed among people as add-ons. When an institution hires new staff with relevant expertise, curators throughout the institution are vying for that person's assistance.

Particular recommendations included a good foundation in IT: knowing how computers work, understanding UNIX and operating systems are seen as important, as is becoming good with a programming language to gain an understanding of how software works. That lesson will be generalizable and enable the person to discuss the issues with others, even though a work might use a different program.

Nevertheless, it is too soon to specialize in digital art, despite the demand pent up in many collections. The resources are not there to count on making this a career. Furthermore, these skills are becoming crucial for any information professional. And it is not necessary to go through a curriculum to make them part of your skill set.

3: For All speakers: I am aware of a tension with regards to the playback/viewing of digital art: is emulation of hardware "good enough" or should we strive to also preserve original hardware? What are the challenges of each strategy, and how can we address these challenges? (''Submitted by Michelle Paolillo'')

There is no one approach to apply to every work. Some works, e.g., a piece drawing from content from the Internet, may not rely on the setting that the hardware provides; emulation may be adequate here. Console-based settings, such as a Nintendo might provide, may require a different approach. Establishing the right approach may involve extensive discussions with the artist to determine whether any aspects of a work can change.

Hardware remains a significant challenge. We cannot assume that the original creating technology will be available in the future and smaller institutions may not find preserving hardware viable. Furthermore, hardware processors are increasingly fast, changing the original presentation, so documenting the original hardware specifications is a critical part of documenting the artist's original intent.

Although the challenges of hardware make emulation an important strategy, it is never good enough; at least, not out of the box. Qualitative analysis of the emulated work, side by side with the original, is critically important. That analysis demands that we understand the work's critical properties. As an example, arcade and video game emulations handle game execution well, but not the display. In general, accurate emulation of CRT monitors does not exist for flat panel monitors. And we must remain aware that eventually, we will need to migrate the emulators, too.

4: For all speakers: Is preserving the bits enough? Do we need more than the usual documentation of how/why something was created? (''Submitted by Winston Atkins via Kate Murray; this question actually kicked off the initial discussion'')

The bits are never enough. We must understand its varied characteristics, such as:
* How did the artist install the work?
* What is core to the installation?
* What is core to the artist?
* Which equipment can be exchanged?
* What do we need to look out for?

A single emulation may not be sufficient; providing different renderings through different emulations may give a better sense of what the work may have been like.

In terms of the OAIS model, documenting the representation information's "meaningful concepts" means documenting "as the artist intended" and extends to our need for the artist's documentation. Given the complexity of these works, it also means that the diverse perspectives provided by different branches of the collecting institution (e.g., the IT staff) are a necessary part of developing a holistic approach to curatorial documentation and making the work renderable.

Incorporating all the perspectives necessary to preserve the works requires attention. Each work's uniqueness makes a firm decision tree impossible. Exhibition meetings often generate questions, for instance. Newly acquired works' latent complexity makes an acquisitions meeting between the curator, conservator, and artist important. Such a meeting develops an institutional understanding of questions about what the work is, and what is the expression that the institution hopes to collect.

It is important to acquire source code, not just the video file. The source code "may be as close as we can get to the archival master." Interviewing the developer responsible for the coding may provide important documentation. If the artists do their own coding, understanding their decisions may be interesting.

5: Closely linked to the question above, what metadata schema are you using to capture technical and intellectual description of preserved assets? What types work best for what "portions" of documentation? (''Submitted by Michelle Paolillo'')

When assessing the available metadata standards or schema, you should consider the degree to which each of them can leverage your curatorial responsibilities for your collections. Indexing metadata elements allows an institution to work usefully; for instance, by creating a database that allows curators to identify works using particular codecs, and systematically address issues common to all. It is inefficient to create such a database as a separate entity. Nevertheless, we must also remember that computer code is a language and metadata alone cannot adequately document a piece. Unified Modeling Language could provide a useful generalization of how a program works, but the process for creating these visualizations is not automated.

Following up on the discussion topics, Josh Sternfeld (NEH) briefly described an open forum session at the Digital Preservation 2014 conference in which he will participate. The forum will address fostering an active R& D community around digital heritage, including digital art. He anticipates the discussion will begin uncovering the elements necessary to that work, bringing out the technical elements, the educational core, and the communication needed.

[Note: See Josh Sternfeld's piece in [http://blogs.loc.gov/digitalpreservation/2014/07/research-and-development-for-digital-cultural-heritage-preservation-a-virtual-and-in-person-open-forum/ The Signal], July 2014, and in [http://qanda.digipres.org/153/what-research-development-needs-digital-cultural-heritage Digital Preservation Q&A] for additional information.]

== Wrap-Up ==
* Digital Preservation 2014 meeting will pre-empt the July conference call
* The next conference call will be 18 August at 1 o'clock. A possible topic will be consideration of an Optical Discs Deep Dive.
* Be on the lookout this autumn for a possible workshop on email preservation.

NDSA:June 16, 2014 Standards and Practices Working Group Notes

2014-08-01T19:00:52Z

Winston Atkins:

== New member introduction ==
* Maureen McCormick Harlow (PBS)

== Announcements & Project Updates ==
* Kate Zwaard will rotate off as the Working Group's co-chair; Kate Murray will become the new co-chair in her place.
* The Digital Preservation 2014 conference will include a Standards and Practices WG Dinner following the poster session on the first night, 22 July.
* The Working Group is ready to launch its upcoming survey, "Ranking Stumbling Blocks for Video Preservation."
** It opens on 7July and closes 2 August
** We designed the survey to allow respondents to rank the issues they have in preserving video.
** The findings should help our Working Group identify and prioritize preservation issues, and lead to useful solution development for this class of media.
* Update: "Checking Your Digital Content: What is Fixity and When Should I Be Checking It?"
** The report currently is with the Infrastructure WG
** They are incorporating comments received following the latest draft release for public comment; see:[http://blogs.loc.gov/digitalpreservation/2014/02/check-yourself-how-and-when-to-check-fixity/ The Signal], February 7,2014.
** The coordinating committee will review it once more prior to final release.

== Today's discussion topic: Digital Art ==
Speakers:
<div style="column-count:2;-moz-column-count:2;-webkit-column-count:2">
* Ben Fino-Radin (MoMA)
* Kate Lewis (MoMA)
* Isabel Meyer (Smithsonian Institution)
* Crystal Sanchez (Smithsonian Institution)
* Erica Titkemeyer (Smithsonian Institution)
* Mickey Casad (Cornell University)
* Dianne Dietrich(Cornell University)
* Jill Sterrett (San Francisco MOMA)
* Martina Haidvogl (San Francisco MOMA)
* Mark Heller (San Francisco MOMA)
</div>

=== Questions ===
1: For all speakers: What makes preserving digital-art more challenging than other types of media? How can other areas of the cultural heritage community learn from your experiences? (''Submitted by Kate Murray'')

Some works, e.g., web-based pieces, are always on, always visible, and so are always monitored. The constant visibility means that staff must actively engage with the works to keep them running in a manner that respects the artists' intention and the works' integrity. We can look at other works not just as files, but as files with relationships that link them; those relationships eventually will fail. The question becomes: How can we make the relationships portable over time? So many variables already affect the display and we do not know the impact of the future.

These materials are new, and the challenge comes from a deficit in our understanding of them as a material to curate. We do not have real archival practices yet. For example, what are the best practices for preserving the essential characteristics? A benefit, however, has been new areas of collaboration among departments that would not normally work together in this arena. IT departments have not typically been involved in museum practice. It is crucial to involve them, however, and engage in the conversations. Neither department will have the expertise of the other.

2: For all speakers: I have been seeing a lot of recent masters graduates seeking careers specializing in the preservation of either digital art (or somewhat related, video games). What advice would you give them? Is this a growth area to the extent that it makes sense now for them to try to specialize in this or would you recommend that they try to broaden their skills and knowledge so that they would qualify for more positions? (''Submitted by Andrea Goethals'')

All panelists agreed that the expertise is in short supply, that there is more work to do than there are people to do it, and some noted that responsibilities are distributed among people as add-ons. When an institution hires new staff with relevant expertise, curators throughout the institution are vying for that person's assistance.

Particular recommendations included a good foundation in IT: knowing how computers work, understanding UNIX and operating systems are seen as important, as is becoming good with a programming language to gain an understanding of how software works. That lesson will be generalizable and enable the person to discuss the issues with others, even though a work might use a different program.

Nevertheless, it is too soon to specialize in digital art, despite the demand pent up in many collections. The resources are not there to count on making this a career. Furthermore, these skills are becoming crucial for any information professional. And it is not necessary to go through a curriculum to make them part of your skill set.

3: For All speakers: I am aware of a tension with regards to the playback/viewing of digital art: is emulation of hardware "good enough" or should we strive to also preserve original hardware? What are the challenges of each strategy, and how can we address these challenges? (''Submitted by Michelle Paolillo'')

There is no one approach to apply to every work. Some works, e.g., a piece drawing from content from the Internet, may not rely on the setting that the hardware provides; emulation may be adequate here. Console-based settings, such as a Nintendo might provide, may require a different approach. Establishing the right approach may involve extensive discussions with the artist to determine whether any aspects of a work can change.

Hardware remains a significant challenge. We cannot assume that the original creating technology will be available in the future and smaller institutions may not find preserving hardware viable. Furthermore, hardware processors are increasingly fast, changing the original presentation, so documenting the original hardware specifications is a critical part of documenting the artist's original intent.

Although the challenges of hardware make emulation an important strategy, it is never good enough; at least, not out of the box. Qualitative analysis of the emulated work, side by side with the original, is critically important. That analysis demands that we understand the work's critical properties. As an example, arcade and video game emulations handle game execution well, but not the display. In general, accurate emulation of CRT monitors does not exist for flat panel monitors. And we must remain aware that eventually, we will need to migrate the emulators, too.

4: For all speakers: Is preserving the bits enough? Do we need more than the usual documentation of how/why something was created? (''Submitted by Winston Atkins via Kate Murray; this question actually kicked off the initial discussion'')

The bits are never enough. We must understand its varied characteristics, such as:
* How did the artist install the work?
* What is core to the installation?
* What is core to the artist?
* Which equipment can be exchanged?
* What do we need to look out for?

A single emulation may not be sufficient; providing different renderings through different emulations may give a better sense of what the work may have been like.

In terms of the OAIS model, documenting the representation information's "meaningful concepts" means documenting "as the artist intended" and extends to our need for the artist's documentation. Given the complexity of these works, it also means that the diverse perspectives provided by different branches of the collecting institution (e.g., the IT staff) are a necessary part of developing a holistic approach to curatorial documentation and making the work renderable.

Incorporating all the perspectives necessary to preserve the works requires attention. Each work's uniqueness makes a firm decision tree impossible. Exhibition meetings often generate questions, for instance. Newly acquired works' latent complexity makes an acquisitions meeting between the curator, conservator, and artist important. Such a meeting develops an institutional understanding of questions about what the work is, and what is the expression that the institution hopes to collect.

It is important to acquire source code, not just the video file. The source code "may be as close as we can get to the archival master." Interviewing the developer responsible for the coding may provide important documentation. If the artists do their own coding, understanding their decisions may be interesting.

5: Closely linked to the question above, what metadata schema are you using to capture technical and intellectual description of preserved assets? What types work best for what "portions" of documentation? (''Submitted by Michelle Paolillo'')

When assessing the available metadata standards or schema, you should consider the degree to which each of them can leverage your curatorial responsibilities for your collections. Indexing metadata elements allows an institution to work usefully; for instance, by creating a database that allows curators to identify works using particular codecs, and systematically address issues common to all. It is inefficient to create such a database as a separate entity. Nevertheless, we must also remember that computer code is a language and metadata alone cannot adequately document a piece. Unified Modeling Language could provide a useful generalization of how a program works, but the process for creating these visualizations is not automated.

Following up on the discussion topics, Josh Sternfeld (NEH) briefly described an open forum session at the Digital Preservation 2014 conference in which he will participate. The forum will address fostering an active R& D community around digital heritage, including digital art. He anticipates the discussion will begin uncovering the elements necessary to that work, bringing out the technical elements, the educational core, and the communication needed.

[Note: See Josh Sternfeld's piece in {http://blogs.loc.gov/digitalpreservation/2014/07/research-and-development-for-digital-cultural-heritage-preservation-a-virtual-and-in-person-open-forum/ The Signal], July 2014, and in [http://qanda.digipres.org/153/what-research-development-needs-digital-cultural-heritage Digital Preservation Q&A] for additional information.]

== Wrap-Up ==
* Digital Preservation 2014 meeting will pre-empt the July conference call
* The next conference call will be 18 August at 1 o'clock. A possible topic will be consideration of an Optical Discs Deep Dive.
* Be on the lookout this autumn for a possible workshop on email preservation.

NDSA:June 16, 2014 Standards and Practices Working Group Notes

2014-08-01T18:50:27Z

Winston Atkins: Created page with '== New member introduction == * Maureen McCormick Harlow (PBS) == Announcements & Project Updates == * Kate Zwaard will rotate off as the Working Group's co-chair; Kate Murray w…'

== New member introduction ==
* Maureen McCormick Harlow (PBS)

== Announcements & Project Updates ==
* Kate Zwaard will rotate off as the Working Group's co-chair; Kate Murray will become the new co-chair in her place.
* The Digital Preservation 2014 conference will include a Standards and Practices WG Dinner following the poster session on the first night, 22 July.
* The Working Group is ready to launch its upcoming survey, "Ranking Stumbling Blocks for Video Preservation."
** It opens on 7July and closes 2 August
** We designed the survey to allow respondents to rank the issues they have in preserving video.
** The findings should help our Working Group identify and prioritize preservation issues, and lead to useful solution development for this class of media.
* Update: "Checking Your Digital Content: What is Fixity and When Should I Be Checking It?"
** The report currently is with the Infrastructure WG
** They are incorporating comments received following the latest draft release for public comment; see:[http://blogs.loc.gov/digitalpreservation/2014/02/check-yourself-how-and-when-to-check-fixity/ The Signal], February 7,2014.
** The coordinating committee will review it once more prior to final release.

== Today's discussion topic: Digital Art ==
Speakers:
<div style="column-count:2;-moz-column-count:2;-webkit-column-count:2">
* Ben Fino-Radin (MoMA)
* Kate Lewis (MoMA)
* Isabel Meyer (Smithsonian Institution)
* Crystal Sanchez (Smithsonian Institution)
* Erica Titkemeyer (Smithsonian Institution)
* Mickey Casad (Cornell University)
* Dianne Dietrich(Cornell University)
* Jill Sterrett (San Francisco MOMA)
* Martina Haidvogl (San Francisco MOMA)
* Mark Heller (San Francisco MOMA)
</div>

=== Questions ===
1: For all speakers: What makes preserving digital-art more challenging than other types of media? How can other areas of the cultural heritage community learn from your experiences? Submitted by Kate Murray

Some works, e.g., web-based pieces, are always on, always visible, and so are always monitored. The constant visibility means that staff must actively engage with the works to keep them running in a manner that respects the artists' intention and the works' integrity. We can look at other works not just as files, but as files with relationships that link them; those relationships eventually will fail. The question becomes: How can we make the relationships portable over time? So many variables already affect the display and we do not know the impact of the future.

These materials are new, and the challenge comes from a deficit in our understanding of them as a material to curate. We do not have real archival practices yet. For example, what are the best practices for preserving the essential characteristics? A benefit, however, has been new areas of collaboration among departments that would not normally work together in this arena. IT departments have not typically been involved in museum practice. It is crucial to involve them, however, and engage in the conversations. Neither department will have the expertise of the other.

2: For all speakers: I have been seeing a lot of recent masters graduates seeking careers specializing in the preservation of either digital art (or somewhat related, video games). What advice would you give them? Is this a growth area to the extent that it makes sense now for them to try to specialize in this or would you recommend that they try to broaden their skills and knowledge so that they would qualify for more positions? (''Submitted by Andrea Goethals'')

All panelists agreed that the expertise is in short supply, that there is more work to do than there are people to do it, and some noted that responsibilities are distributed among people as add-ons. When an institution hires new staff with relevant expertise, curators throughout the institution are vying for that person's assistance.

Particular recommendations included a good foundation in IT: knowing how computers work, understanding UNIX and operating systems are seen as important, as is becoming good with a programming language to gain an understanding of how software works. That lesson will be generalizable and enable the person to discuss the issues with others, even though a work might use a different program.

Nevertheless, it is too soon to specialize in digital art, despite the demand pent up in many collections. The resources are not there to count on making this a career. Furthermore, these skills are becoming crucial for any information professional. And it is not necessary to go through a curriculum to make them part of your skill set.

3: For All speakers: I am aware of a tension with regards to the playback/viewing of digital art: is emulation of hardware "good enough" or should we strive to also preserve original hardware? What are the challenges of each strategy, and how can we address these challenges? (Submitted by Michelle Paolillo)

There is no one approach to apply to every work. Some works, e.g., a piece drawing from content from the Internet, may not rely on the setting that the hardware provides; emulation may be adequate here. Console-based settings, such as a Nintendo might provide, may require a different approach. Establishing the right approach may involve extensive discussions with the artist to determine whether any aspects of a work can change.

Hardware remains a significant challenge. We cannot assume that the original creating technology will be available in the future and smaller institutions may not find preserving hardware viable. Furthermore, hardware processors are increasingly fast, changing the original presentation, so documenting the original hardware specifications is a critical part of documenting the artist's original intent.

Although the challenges of hardware make emulation an important strategy, it is never good enough; at least, not out of the box. Qualitative analysis of the emulated work, side by side with the original, is critically important. That analysis demands that we understand the work's critical properties. As an example, arcade and video game emulations handle game execution well, but not the display. In general, accurate emulation of CRT monitors does not exist for flat panel monitors. And we must remain aware that eventually, we will need to migrate the emulators, too.

4: For all speakers: Is preserving the bits enough? Do we need more than the usual documentation of how/why something was created? (Submitted by Winston Atkins via Kate Murray; this question actually kicked off the initial discussion)

The bits are never enough. We must understand its varied characteristics, such as:
* How did the artist install the work?
* What is core to the installation?
* What is core to the artist?
* Which equipment can be exchanged?
* What do we need to look out for?

A single emulation may not be sufficient; providing different renderings through different emulations may give a better sense of what the work may have been like.

In terms of the OAIS model, documenting the representation information's "meaningful concepts" means documenting "as the artist intended" and extends to our need for the artist's documentation. Given the complexity of these works, it also means that the diverse perspectives provided by different branches of the collecting institution (e.g., the IT staff) are a necessary part of developing a holistic approach to curatorial documentation and making the work renderable.

Incorporating all the perspectives necessary to preserve the works requires attention. Each work's uniqueness makes a firm decision tree impossible. Exhibition meetings often generate questions, for instance. Newly acquired works' latent complexity makes an acquisitions meeting between the curator, conservator, and artist important. Such a meeting develops an institutional understanding of questions about what the work is, and what is the expression that the institution hopes to collect.

It is important to acquire source code, not just the video file. The source code "may be as close as we can get to the archival master." Interviewing the developer responsible for the coding may provide important documentation. If the artists do their own coding, understanding their decisions may be interesting.

5: Closely linked to the question above, what metadata schema are you using to capture technical and intellectual description of preserved assets? What types work best for what "portions" of documentation? (Submitted by Michelle Paolillo)

When assessing the available metadata standards or schema, you should consider the degree to which each of them can leverage your curatorial responsibilities for your collections. Indexing metadata elements allows an institution to work usefully; for instance, by creating a database that allows curators to identify works using particular codecs, and systematically address issues common to all. It is inefficient to create such a database as a separate entity. Nevertheless, we must also remember that computer code is a language and metadata alone cannot adequately document a piece. Unified Modeling Language could provide a useful generalization of how a program works, but the process for creating these visualizations is not automated.

At the Digital Preservation 2014 conference, Josh Sternfeld (NEH) briefly described an open forum session in which he will participate. The forum will address fostering an active R& D community around digital heritage, including digital art. He anticipates the discussion will begin uncovering the elements necessary to that work, bringing out the technical elements, the educational core, and the communication needed.

[Note: See Josh Sternfeld's piece in {http://blogs.loc.gov/digitalpreservation/2014/07/research-and-development-for-digital-cultural-heritage-preservation-a-virtual-and-in-person-open-forum/ The Signal], July 2014, and in [http://qanda.digipres.org/153/what-research-development-needs-digital-cultural-heritage Digital Preservation Q&A] for additional information.]

== Wrap-Up ==
* Digital Preservation 2014 meeting will pre-empt the July conference call
* The next conference call will be 18 August at 1 o'clock. A possible topic will be consideration of an Optical Discs Deep Dive.
* Be on the lookout this autumn for a possible workshop on email preservation.

NDSA:Standards and Best Practices Working Group

2014-08-01T15:30:27Z

Winston Atkins: /* Meeting Schedules, Minutes and Agendas */

= Standards and Practices Working Group =

[[NDSA:Standards and Practices Working Group Charter ]] (December 10, 2010)

= Current Members =
A list of current members is posted here: [[NDSA:Standards and Practices Working Group Members]].

= Statement of Purpose =

The Standards and Practices Working Group will work to facilitate a community-wide understanding of the role and benefit of standards in digital preservation and how to use them effectively to ensure durable and usable collections. The Group will also develop, recommend, promote, and disseminate information about effective methods for selecting, organizing, describing, managing, preserving and serving digital content, in collaboration with other individuals and organizations where appropriate.

= Current Projects =

Working group members may initiate and engage in new work at any time by forming Action Teams focused on specific projects or tasks.

== TDR Self-assessment and Audit: Understanding options for addressing standards and requirements ==


* [[NDSA:TDR Self-assessment and Audit: Understanding Options for Addressing Standards and Requirements| Project Charter]]

With the release of ISO 16363 that specifies the requirements for the audit and certification of trustworthy digital repositories, the digital community would benefit from a review of current options for organizations to demonstrate comformance and from ongoing monitoring as options emerge and evolve.

== Digital video exploration ==

* [[NDSA:Digital video exploration]]
* [[NDSA:Digital video exploration meeting notes]]
* [[NDSA:Survey drafting team members]]
* [[NDSA:Digital Video Survey Distribution List]]
* [[NDSA:Video survey announcement text]]

= Past Projects =

== Digital Preservation Wikipedia ==
This is an ambitious and on-going project using Wikipedia to promote the use of digital preservation standards and best practices. The objectives are to:
* identify and describe '''existing''' digital preservation standards and best practices
* identify '''gaps''' in digital preservation standards and best practices coverage that could be addressed by this working group in collaboration with others
* sustain this activity by building a community of Wikipedians to join us in this activity

The categories of digital preservation standards and best practices we will focus on include: Content models, Content packaging, Content transfer, Digital preservation strategies and techniques, Digital preservation terms and concepts, File formats, Encodings, Metadata exchange, Metadata schemas, Repository architecture, Repository certification and trustworthiness, Repository operations, Repository policies

Status of activities and deliverables:

* creation of Digital Preservation "WikiProject" within Wikipedia as an umbrella for collaborating with others on this project -- '''COMPLETE 6/2012'''
* redevelop the current Wikipedia "Digital Preservation" page so that it can serve as an appropriate launch page to more detailed information about standards and best practices -- '''IN PROGRESS, 11/2012-'''

* create / update pages describing current standards and best practices in the field of digital preservation
* consult with others involved in digital preservation to encourage their input and contributions to the effort
* report back to the NDSA steering committee with updates and proposals as to how to continue this effort into the future

Links related to this project:
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Digital_Preservation Digital Preservation WikiProject Page]
* [[NDSA:Existing DP-Related Wikipedia Pages]]
* [[NDSA:Survey Template]]
* [[NDSA:Sources of Information about DP Standards and Best Practices]]
* [[NDSA:Categories and Action Teams]] (sign up for an action team here)
* [[NDSA:Parking Spot for other DP-related Standards and Best Practices]]

== Survey of digital preservation staffing ==

* [[NDSA:Staffing survey planning page]]

== Related action team on distributed digital preservation ==

* [[NDSA:DDP_OAIS_Frameworks | Describing a Framework for Applying OAIS to Distributed Digital Preservation]]

== Items related to the exploration of the challenges of preserving PDFs, especially PDF/A documents, including PDF/A-3 ==

* [[NDSA:PDF Exploration]]

One of the great strengths of PDF, including the recent PDF/A-3 standard, is its ability to contain a variety of sometimes complex digital objects within a single file. Long term preservation of these files, however, can be problematic because current digital preservation tools are not able to consistently identify the existence of the embedded content nor identify its format. The NDSA Standards sub group is interested in exploring the boundaries of applicability for PDF in preservation environments, especially as a carrier of complex formats such as audio, video and geospatial information.

The interest in this project grew out of a Signal blog post on PDF/A-3 by Butch Lazorchak (LOC) about embedded files in PDF/A (http://blogs.loc.gov/digitalpreservation/2012/11/all-in-embedded-files-in-pdfa/) as well as discussions between NARA and depositing agencies who are starting to use PDF/A-3 as a de facto normalization wrapper format to contain many media types including audio and video. Caroline Arms (LOC) has already produced a helpful background document to kick start this work.

= In-depth Explorations =

== Member Interests ==

* [[NDSA:New_Work | Brainstorming new project ideas (Nov, 2012)]]
* [[NDSA:National_Agenda_Standards_Brainstorm | Ideas for the 2014 National Agenda]]

== Digital and Software-Based Art ==

* Presentations
** Museum of Modern Art: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B6D9_az1wwWedm1SQWoyVEFCU00/edit?usp=sharing
** San Francisco Museum of Modern Art: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B6D9_az1wwWeVXozZk9iSnVRN0k/edit?usp=sharing
** Smithsonian Time-based Media Art: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B6D9_az1wwWeZExRcEZXd0xFMWM/edit?usp=sharing

* Questions for Presenters
** Add questions to Google Drive document: https://docs.google.com/document/d/129lPPa4fRDp2VG-90Kt2NgXGf6zV_kux1nkXFTiSekU/edit?usp=sharing

= Resources =

* [[NDSA:Activity_Charter_Template | Template for describing new projects]]
* NDSA Standards Working Group Listserv Archives (login required): http://list.digitalpreservation.gov/SCRIPTS/WA-DIGITAL.EXE?A0=NDSA-STANDARDS&X=25F57E4CACD543490D&Y

= Meeting Schedules, Minutes and Agendas =
* (July 2014 - no call)
* [[NDSA:June 16, 2014 Standards and Practices Working Group Notes]]
* [[NDSA:May 19, 2014 Standards and Practices Working Group Notes]]
* (April 2014 - no call)
* [[NDSA:March 24, 2014 Standards and Practices Working Group Notes]]
* [[NDSA:February 24, 2014 Standards & Practices Working Group Notes]]
* [[NDSA:January 27, 2014 Standards & Practices Working Group Notes]]
* [[NDSA:December 16, 2013 Standards & Practices Working Group Notes]]
* [[NDSA:November 18, 2013 Standards & Practices Working Group Notes]]
* [[NDSA:September 16, 2013 Standards & Practices Working Group Notes]]
* [[NDSA:August 19, 2013 Standards & Practices Working Group Notes]]
* [[NDSA:June 17, 2013 Standards & Practices Working Group Notes]]
* [[NDSA:May 20, 2013 Standards & Practices Working Group Notes]]
* (April 2013 - no call)
* [[NDSA:March 18, 2013 Standards Working Group Notes]]
* [[NDSA:February 25, 2013 Standards Working Group Notes]]
* [[NDSA:January 28, 2013 Standards Working Group Notes]]
* [[NDSA:December 17, 2012 Standards Working Group Notes]]
* [[NDSA:November 26, 2012 Standards Working Group Notes]]
* [[NDSA:October 24, 2012 Standards Working Group Notes|October 24, 2012 Standards & Practices Working Group Notes]]
* [[NDSA:August 20, 2012 Standards Working Group Notes]]
* [[NDSA:June 18, 2012 Standards Working Group Notes]]
* [[NDSA:May 16, 2012 Standards Working Group Notes]]
* [[NDSA:April 18, 2012 Standards Working Group Notes]]
* [[NDSA:March 13, 2012 Standards Working Group Notes]]
* [[NDSA:February 22, 2012 Standards Working Group Notes]]
* [[NDSA:January 17, 2012 Standards Working Group Notes]]
* [[NDSA:November 7, 2011 Standards Working Group Notes and Agenda]]
* [[NDSA:June 6, 2011 Standards Working Group Notes and Agenda]]
* [[NDSA:May 2, 2011 Standards Working Group Notes and Agenda]]
* [[NDSA:April 4, 2011 Standards Working Group Notes and Agenda]]
* [[NDSA:Digital Preservation Metadata Action Team -- March 15, 2011]]
* [[NDSA:March 7, 2011 Standards Working Group Notes and Agenda]]
* [[NDSA:February 7, 2011 Standards Working Group Notes and Agenda]]
* [[NDSA:January 12, 2011 Standards Working Group Notes and Agenda]]
* [[NDSA:December 6, 2010 Standards Working Group Notes]]
* [[NDSA:November 17, 2010 Standards Working Group Notes]]

= Workshops =
* I can haz standards workshop, NDIPP 2011 [[NDSA:I can haz standards workshop notes]]

NDSA:Digital Video Survey Distribution List

2014-06-26T15:11:02Z

Winston Atkins:

Return to the [[NDSA:Standards and Best Practices Working Group#Digital video exploration | Digital video exploration]]

Add the name of an institution or person who should receive the digital video stumbling blocks survey

Please write your name after it if you will send it to this list/group, etc.

The Signal blog (Kate)

NDSA-ALL listserv (Kate)

NDSA-Standards listserv (Kate)

digipres@ala.org (Andrea)

archives@forums.archivists.org

Digital Curation google group (Andrea)

International Internet Preservation Consortium (IIPC) preservation working group list (Andrea)

Association of Moving Image Archivists (AMIA)/AMIA-L@LSV.UKY.EDU

Association of Recorded Sound Collections (ARSC)/ARSCLIST@LISTSERV.LOC.GOV

Museum Computer Network (MCN) list: mcn-l@mcn.edu <mcn-l@mcn.edu>

International Association of Sound and Audiovisual Archives (IASA)

Digital Preservation Coalition

Preservation Administrators Discussion Group (PADG - ALA PARS) (Winston)

Digital Library Federation members list (DLF-Announce)

NDSA:March 24, 2014 Standards and Practices Working Group Notes

2014-04-04T18:01:56Z

Winston Atkins: Created page with 'Return to Meeting Schedules, Minutes and Agendas == Participants on the Call == *Amy Kir…'

Return to [[NDSA:Standards and Best Practices Working Group#Meeting Schedules, Minutes and Agendas | Meeting Schedules, Minutes and Agendas]]

== Participants on the Call ==
*Amy Kirchhoff
*Andrea Goethals
*Carolyn Campbell
*Hannah Frost
*John Spencer
*Joshua Sternfeld
*Kate Murray
*Kevin DeVorsey
*Melitte Buchman
*Midge Coates
*Paula De Stefano
*Robert Spangler
*Winston Atkins

== New Members ==
*Don Chalfant (NARA)
*Lynda Schmitz Fuhrig (Smithsonian Institution Archives)

== News and Project Updates ==
*Listserv change - Barrie Howard
**Reminder that the listserv will be hosted at The Library of Congress enterprise domain, LISTSERV.LOC.GOV, rather than on the NDIIPP digital preservation domain, LIST.DIGITALPRESERVATION.GOV.
**The address for this list will change to NDSA-STANDARDS@LISTSERV.LOC.GOV

*Call for participation for Digital Preservation 2014: **Contact Andrea if you are attending and want to meet.

*National Agenda: Contact Andrea, Kate, or Barrie if you have issues to add.

*Digital video exploration - Kate Murray
**Kate has publicized this subgroup's work to NDSA and is pleased that members from other working groups are interested in participating.
**The group developed a preliminary list of the biggest issues we face in dealing with digital video, and in its 31 March meeting, will use that list to develop a one-question survey.
**The list is available at the [[NDSA:Digital video exploration]] page.

*PDF/A-3 Document (published!) - Kate Murray
**The document has generated many questions, so Don Chalfant and Kevin DeVorsey have joined the call for the discussion.
**The report has also generated a lot of discussion within PDF/A community.

*Fixity document and blog posts - Kate Murray
**Blog post to be shaped into a more formal document
**Kate's blog post on fixity in video generated good discussion.

*Metadata packaging discussion - Andrea Goethals
**Last meeting included a discussion on metadata packaging.
**Some interest in using the discussion to create a Signal blog post, with a paragraph from each of the institutions who spoke up. This needs a coordinator to develop a guest post, though.
**No volunteers came forward, so the blog post was tabled.

*Self-assessment and audit project – Andrea Goethals
**Archivematica is now hosting the Drupal-based self-assessment tool.
**Additional activity to begin in April.

== Discussion: Email Formats and Preservation ==
*Background
**Kate will write blog post on preserving email for the 4 April issue of Signal. It will include high-level information from today’s discussion.
**It will make the point that email messages are not typical formats; they are more like web-based or WARC content.
**Digitalpreservation.gov’s Format Description Categories includes two email formats in the Texts category, with five more descriptions in the wings. The complexity of email formats will soon lead to creation of a separate category for email, and the extant descriptions will be moved there from Text.

==== NARA's New Guidance (Kevin and Don)====
*NARA hase developed new approach to email (Capstone) which transferred entire bodies of content, rather than requiring selection of individual messages. Consequently, NARA faces processing large number of messages at once.
* They have identified formats they feel best suited for aggregation and for individual messages:
**PST and MBOX for aggregation
**MSG, EML, XML, MBOX for individual messages.
*In addition, NARA must address accessioning messages from Lotus Notes, which is used heavily in the classified sections of the government.
**Notes is particularly troublesome because it is proprietary, and with a limited number of export options.
*NARA's approach to deciding which formats to ingest made them address several complex issues, including:
**What is normal?
***There are many formats in use;
***Should we let odd formats disappear if they were not used for permanent records; and
***How to approach the long time horizon, during which a format may be used, become superseded, and only afterwards transferred to NARA.
*NARA’s new guidance to agencies will help NARA maintain header information
**Previous guidance on submitting email was not sufficient, so the new guidance is more prescriptive.
**This is possible because NARA has a new technical team that can build on existing technical guidance; it intends the new guidance to be more detailed and able to base procedures on the technical infrastructures agencies are most likely to employ. This should lead to more predictable deposits.

==== Smithsonian Institution Archives email accessioning (Lynda) ====
*Currently: All of the Smithsonian Institution uses same system (Outlook), which has been a benefit for older accessions
**The scale of accessions has grown sharply, though, and it is not unusual to receive large (2GB) file accessions.
**Furthermore, content in Outlook's PST format can become corrupted easily.
**The accessioning process runs email through a parser.
**Tool: MessageSave converts PST files to MBOX: http://www.techhit.com/messagesave/.
**Tool: The SIA is also working with Stanford on ePADD (Email Process Appraise Discover Deliver), a project funded by the NHPRC that will result in MBOX files going into a system that enables selection by archivists. [http://library.stanford.edu/blogs/digital-library-blog/2013/02/special-collections-receives-funds-pilot-project-regarding-email More here]

==== Harvard's Email Accessioning and Ingest (Andrea) ====
* Harvard is using a tool similar to ePADD, which normalizes email from a variety of formats (e.g., Eudora, Mac mail, Thunderbird, and others)
**Tool: Emailchemy http://www.weirdkid.com/products/emailchemy/
*Harvard's email ingest process has uncovered additional challenges, including:
**Eudora dissociates attachments from the email message, so Harvard must develop means to rebuild info regarding attachments;
**Email content is different
***For the first time, Harvard has included personally sensitive data in repository;
***This led to the re-architecture of the repository to accept and manage HRCI (high risk confidential information)
**Currently, the are also developing the means to record pre-repository normalization events in PREMIS, which doesn't handle it well.

== Future Meetings ==

*Think about other topics you want to explore, or guest speakers you would like to invite.
*Our discussions on video, packaging, email have led to deeper and interesting discussions.
*Please send email to the list to suggest topics.

* Next call: April 21 1:00 EDT

NDSA:Standards and Best Practices Working Group

2014-04-04T14:25:37Z

Winston Atkins: /* Meeting Schedules, Minutes and Agendas */

= Standards and Practices Working Group =

[[NDSA:Standards and Practices Working Group Charter ]] (December 10, 2010)

= Current Members =
A list of current members is posted here: [[NDSA:Standards and Practices Working Group Members]].

= Statement of Purpose =

The Standards and Practices Working Group will work to facilitate a community-wide understanding of the role and benefit of standards in digital preservation and how to use them effectively to ensure durable and usable collections. The Group will also develop, recommend, promote, and disseminate information about effective methods for selecting, organizing, describing, managing, preserving and serving digital content, in collaboration with other individuals and organizations where appropriate.

= Current Scope of Work =

Working group members may initiate and engage in new work at any time by forming Action Teams focused on specific projects or tasks.

== Survey and document the digital preservation standards landscape ==
This is an ambitious and on-going project using Wikipedia to promote the use of digital preservation standards and best practices. The objectives are to:
* identify and describe '''existing''' digital preservation standards and best practices
* identify '''gaps''' in digital preservation standards and best practices coverage that could be addressed by this working group in collaboration with others
* sustain this activity by building a community of Wikipedians to join us in this activity

The categories of digital preservation standards and best practices we will focus on include: Content models, Content packaging, Content transfer, Digital preservation strategies and techniques, Digital preservation terms and concepts, File formats, Encodings, Metadata exchange, Metadata schemas, Repository architecture, Repository certification and trustworthiness, Repository operations, Repository policies

Status of activities and deliverables:

* creation of Digital Preservation "WikiProject" within Wikipedia as an umbrella for collaborating with others on this project -- '''COMPLETE 6/2012'''
* redevelop the current Wikipedia "Digital Preservation" page so that it can serve as an appropriate launch page to more detailed information about standards and best practices -- '''IN PROGRESS, 11/2012-'''

* create / update pages describing current standards and best practices in the field of digital preservation
* consult with others involved in digital preservation to encourage their input and contributions to the effort
* report back to the NDSA steering committee with updates and proposals as to how to continue this effort into the future

Links related to this project:
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Digital_Preservation Digital Preservation WikiProject Page]
* [[NDSA:Existing DP-Related Wikipedia Pages]]
* [[NDSA:Survey Template]]
* [[NDSA:Sources of Information about DP Standards and Best Practices]]
* [[NDSA:Categories and Action Teams]] (sign up for an action team here)
* [[NDSA:Parking Spot for other DP-related Standards and Best Practices]]

== Survey of digital preservation staffing ==

* [[NDSA:Staffing survey planning page]]

== Survey on adoption of digital preservation standards and best practices ==

* [[NDSA:Standards survey planning page]]

== Related action team on distributed digital preservation ==

* [[NDSA:DDP_OAIS_Frameworks | Describing a Framework for Applying OAIS to Distributed Digital Preservation]]

== Items related to the exploration of the challenges of preserving PDFs, especially PDF/A documents, including PDF/A-3 ==

* [[NDSA:PDF Exploration]]

One of the great strengths of PDF, including the recent PDF/A-3 standard, is its ability to contain a variety of sometimes complex digital objects within a single file. Long term preservation of these files, however, can be problematic because current digital preservation tools are not able to consistently identify the existence of the embedded content nor identify its format. The NDSA Standards sub group is interested in exploring the boundaries of applicability for PDF in preservation environments, especially as a carrier of complex formats such as audio, video and geospatial information.

The interest in this project grew out of a Signal blog post on PDF/A-3 by Butch Lazorchak (LOC) about embedded files in PDF/A (http://blogs.loc.gov/digitalpreservation/2012/11/all-in-embedded-files-in-pdfa/) as well as discussions between NARA and depositing agencies who are starting to use PDF/A-3 as a de facto normalization wrapper format to contain many media types including audio and video. Caroline Arms (LOC) has already produced a helpful background document to kick start this work.

== TDR Self-assessment and Audit: Understanding options for addressing standards and requirements ==


* [[NDSA:TDR Self-assessment and Audit: Understanding Options for Addressing Standards and Requirements| Project Charter]]

With the release of ISO 16363 that specifies the requirements for the audit and certification of trustworthy digital repositories, the digital community would benefit from a review of current options for organizations to demonstrate comformance and from ongoing monitoring as options emerge and evolve.

== Digital video exploration ==

* [[NDSA:Digital video exploration]]
* [[NDSA:Digital video exploration meeting notes]]
* [[NDSA:Survey drafting team members]]

= Brainstorming =

* [[NDSA:New_Work | Brainstorming new project ideas (Nov, 2012)]]
* [[NDSA:National_Agenda_Standards_Brainstorm | Ideas for the 2014 National Agenda]]

= Resources =

* [[NDSA:Activity_Charter_Template | Template for describing new projects]]
* NDSA Standards Working Group Listserv Archives (login required): http://list.digitalpreservation.gov/SCRIPTS/WA-DIGITAL.EXE?A0=NDSA-STANDARDS&X=25F57E4CACD543490D&Y

= Meeting Schedules, Minutes and Agendas =
* [[NDSA:March 24, 2014 Standards and Practices Working Group Notes]]
* [[NDSA:February 24, 2014 Standards & Practices Working Group Notes]]
* [[NDSA:January 27, 2014 Standards & Practices Working Group Notes]]
* [[NDSA:December 16, 2013 Standards & Practices Working Group Notes]]
* [[NDSA:November 18, 2013 Standards & Practices Working Group Notes]]
* [[NDSA:September 16, 2013 Standards & Practices Working Group Notes]]
* [[NDSA:August 19, 2013 Standards & Practices Working Group Notes]]
* [[NDSA:June 17, 2013 Standards & Practices Working Group Notes]]
* [[NDSA:May 20, 2013 Standards & Practices Working Group Notes]]
* (April 2013 - no call)
* [[NDSA:March 18, 2013 Standards Working Group Notes]]
* [[NDSA:February 25, 2013 Standards Working Group Notes]]
* [[NDSA:January 28, 2013 Standards Working Group Notes]]
* [[NDSA:December 17, 2012 Standards Working Group Notes]]
* [[NDSA:November 26, 2012 Standards Working Group Notes]]
* [[NDSA:October 24, 2012 Standards Working Group Notes|October 24, 2012 Standards & Practices Working Group Notes]]
* [[NDSA:August 20, 2012 Standards Working Group Notes]]
* [[NDSA:June 18, 2012 Standards Working Group Notes]]
* [[NDSA:May 16, 2012 Standards Working Group Notes]]
* [[NDSA:April 18, 2012 Standards Working Group Notes]]
* [[NDSA:March 13, 2012 Standards Working Group Notes]]
* [[NDSA:February 22, 2012 Standards Working Group Notes]]
* [[NDSA:January 17, 2012 Standards Working Group Notes]]
* [[NDSA:November 7, 2011 Standards Working Group Notes and Agenda]]
* [[NDSA:June 6, 2011 Standards Working Group Notes and Agenda]]
* [[NDSA:May 2, 2011 Standards Working Group Notes and Agenda]]
* [[NDSA:April 4, 2011 Standards Working Group Notes and Agenda]]
* [[NDSA:Digital Preservation Metadata Action Team -- March 15, 2011]]
* [[NDSA:March 7, 2011 Standards Working Group Notes and Agenda]]
* [[NDSA:February 7, 2011 Standards Working Group Notes and Agenda]]
* [[NDSA:January 12, 2011 Standards Working Group Notes and Agenda]]
* [[NDSA:December 6, 2010 Standards Working Group Notes]]
* [[NDSA:November 17, 2010 Standards Working Group Notes]]

= Workshops =
* I can haz standards workshop, NDIPP 2011 [[NDSA:I can haz standards workshop notes]]

NDSA:Standards and Best Practices Working Group

2014-04-04T14:19:33Z

Winston Atkins: /* Meeting Schedules, Minutes and Agendas */

= Standards and Practices Working Group =

[[NDSA:Standards and Practices Working Group Charter ]] (December 10, 2010)

= Current Members =
A list of current members is posted here: [[NDSA:Standards and Practices Working Group Members]].

= Statement of Purpose =

The Standards and Practices Working Group will work to facilitate a community-wide understanding of the role and benefit of standards in digital preservation and how to use them effectively to ensure durable and usable collections. The Group will also develop, recommend, promote, and disseminate information about effective methods for selecting, organizing, describing, managing, preserving and serving digital content, in collaboration with other individuals and organizations where appropriate.

= Current Scope of Work =

Working group members may initiate and engage in new work at any time by forming Action Teams focused on specific projects or tasks.

== Survey and document the digital preservation standards landscape ==
This is an ambitious and on-going project using Wikipedia to promote the use of digital preservation standards and best practices. The objectives are to:
* identify and describe '''existing''' digital preservation standards and best practices
* identify '''gaps''' in digital preservation standards and best practices coverage that could be addressed by this working group in collaboration with others
* sustain this activity by building a community of Wikipedians to join us in this activity

The categories of digital preservation standards and best practices we will focus on include: Content models, Content packaging, Content transfer, Digital preservation strategies and techniques, Digital preservation terms and concepts, File formats, Encodings, Metadata exchange, Metadata schemas, Repository architecture, Repository certification and trustworthiness, Repository operations, Repository policies

Status of activities and deliverables:

* creation of Digital Preservation "WikiProject" within Wikipedia as an umbrella for collaborating with others on this project -- '''COMPLETE 6/2012'''
* redevelop the current Wikipedia "Digital Preservation" page so that it can serve as an appropriate launch page to more detailed information about standards and best practices -- '''IN PROGRESS, 11/2012-'''

* create / update pages describing current standards and best practices in the field of digital preservation
* consult with others involved in digital preservation to encourage their input and contributions to the effort
* report back to the NDSA steering committee with updates and proposals as to how to continue this effort into the future

Links related to this project:
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Digital_Preservation Digital Preservation WikiProject Page]
* [[NDSA:Existing DP-Related Wikipedia Pages]]
* [[NDSA:Survey Template]]
* [[NDSA:Sources of Information about DP Standards and Best Practices]]
* [[NDSA:Categories and Action Teams]] (sign up for an action team here)
* [[NDSA:Parking Spot for other DP-related Standards and Best Practices]]

== Survey of digital preservation staffing ==

* [[NDSA:Staffing survey planning page]]

== Survey on adoption of digital preservation standards and best practices ==

* [[NDSA:Standards survey planning page]]

== Related action team on distributed digital preservation ==

* [[NDSA:DDP_OAIS_Frameworks | Describing a Framework for Applying OAIS to Distributed Digital Preservation]]

== Items related to the exploration of the challenges of preserving PDFs, especially PDF/A documents, including PDF/A-3 ==

* [[NDSA:PDF Exploration]]

One of the great strengths of PDF, including the recent PDF/A-3 standard, is its ability to contain a variety of sometimes complex digital objects within a single file. Long term preservation of these files, however, can be problematic because current digital preservation tools are not able to consistently identify the existence of the embedded content nor identify its format. The NDSA Standards sub group is interested in exploring the boundaries of applicability for PDF in preservation environments, especially as a carrier of complex formats such as audio, video and geospatial information.

The interest in this project grew out of a Signal blog post on PDF/A-3 by Butch Lazorchak (LOC) about embedded files in PDF/A (http://blogs.loc.gov/digitalpreservation/2012/11/all-in-embedded-files-in-pdfa/) as well as discussions between NARA and depositing agencies who are starting to use PDF/A-3 as a de facto normalization wrapper format to contain many media types including audio and video. Caroline Arms (LOC) has already produced a helpful background document to kick start this work.

== TDR Self-assessment and Audit: Understanding options for addressing standards and requirements ==


* [[NDSA:TDR Self-assessment and Audit: Understanding Options for Addressing Standards and Requirements| Project Charter]]

With the release of ISO 16363 that specifies the requirements for the audit and certification of trustworthy digital repositories, the digital community would benefit from a review of current options for organizations to demonstrate comformance and from ongoing monitoring as options emerge and evolve.

== Digital video exploration ==

* [[NDSA:Digital video exploration]]
* [[NDSA:Digital video exploration meeting notes]]
* [[NDSA:Survey drafting team members]]

= Brainstorming =

* [[NDSA:New_Work | Brainstorming new project ideas (Nov, 2012)]]
* [[NDSA:National_Agenda_Standards_Brainstorm | Ideas for the 2014 National Agenda]]

= Resources =

* [[NDSA:Activity_Charter_Template | Template for describing new projects]]
* NDSA Standards Working Group Listserv Archives (login required): http://list.digitalpreservation.gov/SCRIPTS/WA-DIGITAL.EXE?A0=NDSA-STANDARDS&X=25F57E4CACD543490D&Y

= Meeting Schedules, Minutes and Agendas =
* [[NDSA:March 24, 2014 Standards & Practices Working Group Notes]]
* [[NDSA:February 24, 2014 Standards & Practices Working Group Notes]]
* [[NDSA:January 27, 2014 Standards & Practices Working Group Notes]]
* [[NDSA:December 16, 2013 Standards & Practices Working Group Notes]]
* [[NDSA:November 18, 2013 Standards & Practices Working Group Notes]]
* [[NDSA:September 16, 2013 Standards & Practices Working Group Notes]]
* [[NDSA:August 19, 2013 Standards & Practices Working Group Notes]]
* [[NDSA:June 17, 2013 Standards & Practices Working Group Notes]]
* [[NDSA:May 20, 2013 Standards & Practices Working Group Notes]]
* (April 2013 - no call)
* [[NDSA:March 18, 2013 Standards Working Group Notes]]
* [[NDSA:February 25, 2013 Standards Working Group Notes]]
* [[NDSA:January 28, 2013 Standards Working Group Notes]]
* [[NDSA:December 17, 2012 Standards Working Group Notes]]
* [[NDSA:November 26, 2012 Standards Working Group Notes]]
* [[NDSA:October 24, 2012 Standards Working Group Notes|October 24, 2012 Standards & Practices Working Group Notes]]
* [[NDSA:August 20, 2012 Standards Working Group Notes]]
* [[NDSA:June 18, 2012 Standards Working Group Notes]]
* [[NDSA:May 16, 2012 Standards Working Group Notes]]
* [[NDSA:April 18, 2012 Standards Working Group Notes]]
* [[NDSA:March 13, 2012 Standards Working Group Notes]]
* [[NDSA:February 22, 2012 Standards Working Group Notes]]
* [[NDSA:January 17, 2012 Standards Working Group Notes]]
* [[NDSA:November 7, 2011 Standards Working Group Notes and Agenda]]
* [[NDSA:June 6, 2011 Standards Working Group Notes and Agenda]]
* [[NDSA:May 2, 2011 Standards Working Group Notes and Agenda]]
* [[NDSA:April 4, 2011 Standards Working Group Notes and Agenda]]
* [[NDSA:Digital Preservation Metadata Action Team -- March 15, 2011]]
* [[NDSA:March 7, 2011 Standards Working Group Notes and Agenda]]
* [[NDSA:February 7, 2011 Standards Working Group Notes and Agenda]]
* [[NDSA:January 12, 2011 Standards Working Group Notes and Agenda]]
* [[NDSA:December 6, 2010 Standards Working Group Notes]]
* [[NDSA:November 17, 2010 Standards Working Group Notes]]

= Workshops =
* I can haz standards workshop, NDIPP 2011 [[NDSA:I can haz standards workshop notes]]

NDSA:Digital video exploration

2014-02-24T14:23:48Z

Winston Atkins:

Please feel free to list questions for the initial digital video survey below. For example:

* what are the technical specifications (formats, file characteristics, etc) you use?
* Do you have guidelines for preferred/accepted digital video formats? Would you be able to share them?
* Are you doing video reformatting in-house, through out-sourcing or a combination? If you are outsourcing some of this how did you decide which to outsource?
* Are you storing any technical metadata for video and if so, in what form/schema?
* What are your biggest challenges related to video?
* Are you delivering the video you preserve, and if so using what tools/platforms/services?
* Do you index any technical metadata and if so, which fields? (Duke)
* Do you store your preservation master files in institutionally managed storage, through a commercial service, or both? (Duke)
* What analog-to-digital interface do you use (i.e., SAMMA, BlackMagic, Kona, AJA)? (Duke)
8 What compression engine do you use to create access derivatives (i.e., Front Porch, Nero MPEG-Streamclip, Apple Compressor)? (Duke--this question may cover some of the same ground as the "Are you delivering ..." question, above.)

NDSA:Categories and Action Teams

2014-02-06T14:30:29Z

Winston Atkins:

This page shows some of the interest areas for Working Group members.

Following is a short list of categories for the Standards Survey project. Feel free to edit these as you see fit and add more of your own. The whole idea here is that we work on what we're interested in so that we leverage our individual expertise in this project. Please put your name and email address under the category or categories you're interested in working on.

'''[[NDSA:Audiovisual File Formats]]'''

Courtney Michael - courtney_michael@wgbh.org

Kate Murray - kate.murray1@nara.gov

John Spencer - jspencer@bmschace.com

Jimi Jones - jjones@loc.gov

'''[[NDSA:Preservation Metadata]]'''

Mary Vardigan - vardigan@umich.edu

Jennifer Waxman - jennifer.waxman@nyu.edu

Amy Rudersdorf - amy.rudersdorf@ncdcr.gov

'''[[NDSA:Preservation Models & Evaluation Metrics]]'''

Matt Schultz - matt.schultz@metaarchive.org

Meg Phillips - Meg.phillips@nara.gov

'''[[NDSA:Preservation Infrastructure]]'''

Kris Carpenter - kcarpenter@archive.org

'''[[NDSA:Preservation Practices]]'''

Andrea Goethals - andrea_goethals@harvard.edu

'''[[NDSA:Audit and Certification]]'''

Nancy McGovern - nancymcg@mit.edu

Mary Vardigan - vardigan@umich.edu

Winston Atkins - winston.atkins@duke.edu

'''''Add Your Own!'''''

[http://www.loc.gov/extranet/wiki/osi/ndiip/ndsa/index.php?title=Standards_and_Best_Practices_Working_Group NDSA Standards Group Home]

NDSA:December 16, 2013 Standards and Practices Working Group Notes

2013-12-16T19:24:25Z

Winston Atkins: /* Common Themes from our Roundtable Discussion */

== Participants on the Call ==
Carl Fleischhauer

John Spencer

Emily Shaw

Dina Sokolova

Kate Murray

Mary Vardigan

Michelle Paolillo

Midge Coates

Paula De Stefano

Vika Zafrin

Winston Atkins

Andrea Goethals

Butch Lazorchak

Meg Phillips

Kate Zwaard

== New Members ==

Paula De Stefano - NYU

== Project Status ==

Updates

Kate: The Signal blog post for the staffing survey should go out today or tomorrow.

2014 Schedule:

Generally will meet on the 3rd Tuesday of every month, which just a few exceptions.

Jan 27th
Feb 24th
Will also try to schedule an in-person meetup in conjunction with the annual meeting instead of the regularly scheduled call.

Next all is Jan 27, 2014.

== "What are you working on" -- Roundtable Discussion (continued) ==

Emily is the new digital preservation librarian at the Universty of Iowa library. She's working on strategic planning, looking at fixity tools, and wrangling legacy collections. Looking to us for sanity

Paula De Stefano at NYU
Head of Preservation Department
Divided up the responsibilities, others most involved in content and repository development.

Digitizing unique audio and video content.
Producign master and access
Broadcast WAV for audio, CD for access files.

Storing on modified Dspace, using OAIS reference modoel, working toward TRAK compliance

Interested in best practices for fixity checking.

Would like to see a survey of how people are approaching file naming. They're using Archivists Tookliket reference number. Now migrating to ArchiveSpace, which will mean a new approach to file naming.

There was a question about how they've modified Dspace.

== Common Themes from our Roundtable Discussion ==

'''Discussion at Dec 16 meeting:'''

Suggestion to have the next meeting focus on video.
Paula would be glad to talk more about what they're doing.
John said major record labels are doing assessments of formats. Will be happy to report out when they actually issue a report on their findings.

There are clusters of people interested in a number of other topics that we could follow up on. Many people are interested in assessments and certifications. This group started a project on this last year; perhaps we should reinvigorate it.

There are also a number of people interested in SIP/ packaging. That group of people are mainly interested in information sharing across the group.

Kate asked if there was interest in discussion of any issues related to BagIt. Attendees did not report on any issues that needed discussion. Those who were familiar with it love it, and several people noted that just not enough people know about it.

Attendees should add their names to the list below if the notes don't reflect your institution's interests and activities.

* Repository infrastructure and tools
** Specific tools or platforms:
*** '''BagIt''' (LC, Georgetown Law, ITHAKA, Boston University)
*** Fedora (Duke)
** '''Understanding/surveying an institution's complex repository landscape''' (Cornell, Harvard)
** Software development (LC)
** '''Workflows''' (University of Minnesota, Columbia, Boston University)

* Assessments/audits/certifications
** '''Repository assessments and audits''' (Harvard, ITHAKA, ICPSR)
** Specific models:
*** '''Levels of Digital Preservation''' (Harvard, Cornell, ICPSR, Duke)
*** Data Seal of Approval (ICPSR)
*** TRAC/ISO (Duke, Boston University)

* Content and metadata packages
** '''Packaging forms/SIP components/metadata''' (MXF AS-07, METS)(LC, Harvard, Georgetown Law, Cornell, ITHAKA, NARA, Duke)
** Transfer between repositories (ITHAKA)
** Identifiers (ITHAKA)

* Techniques and practices
** '''Fixity checking''' (LC, Boston University, Duke)
** Digital forensics (Georgetown Law)
** Participating on standards bodies (LC)

* Formats
** '''Format assessment''' (LC, Harvard, Record labels?)
** '''Format guidelines/requirements''' (for creation, digitization, transfer)(Georgetown Law, Cornell, University of Minnesota, Harvard, NARA, Boston University, Duke)
** Particular genres and categories of formats
*** '''Video''' (LC, Harvard, Columbia, ICPSR, Duke, Boston University)
*** '''Born-digital''' (LC, Columbia, Boston University)
*** '''Email''' (LC, Columbia)
*** Databases (Columbia)
*** PDF/A (LC, Boston University)

* Other topics
** '''Engagement with "users"''' (curators, content creators) (LC, Cornell)
** '''Adequately resourcing programs''' (Cornell, Boston University)

NDSA:December 16, 2013 Standards and Practices Working Group Notes

2013-12-16T19:22:20Z

Winston Atkins: /* Common Themes from our Roundtable Discussion */

== Participants on the Call ==
Carl Fleischhauer

John Spencer

Emily

Dina Sokolova

Kate Murray

Mary Vardigan

Michelle Paolillo

Midge Coates

Paula De Stefano

Vika Zafrin

Winston Atkins

Andrea Goethals

Butch Lazorchak

Meg Phillips

Kate Zwaard

== New Members ==

== Project Status ==

Updates

Kate: The Signal blog post for the staffing survey should go out today or tomorrow.

2014 Schedule:

Generally will meet on the 3rd Tuesday of every month, which just a few exceptions.

Jan 27th
Feb 24th
Will also try to schedule an in-person meetup in conjunction with the annual meeting instead of the regularly scheduled call.

Next all is Jan 27, 2014.

== "What are you working on" -- Roundtable Discussion (continued) ==

Emily is the new digital preservation librarian at the Universty of Iowa library. She's working on strategic planning, looking at fixity tools, and wrangling legacy collections. Looking to us for sanity

Paula De Stefano at NYU
Head of Preservation Department
Divided up the responsibilities, others most involved in content and repository development.

Digitizing unique audio and video content.
Producign master and access
Broadcast WAV for audio, CD for access files.

Storing on modified Dspace, using OAIS reference modoel, working toward TRAK compliance

Interested in best practices for fixity checking.

Would like to see a survey of how people are approaching file naming. They're using Archivists Tookliket reference number. Now migrating to ArchiveSpace, which will mean a new approach to file naming.

There was a question about how they've modified Dspace.

== Common Themes from our Roundtable Discussion ==

'''Discussion at Dec 16 meeting:'''

Suggestion to have the next meeting focus on video.
Paula would be glad to talk more about what they're doing.
John said major record labels are doing assessments of formats. Will be happy to report out when they actually issue a report on their findings.

There are clusters of people interested in a number of other topics that we could follow up on. Many people are interested in assessments and certifications. This group started a project on this last year; perhaps we should reinvigorate it.

There are also a number of people interested in SIP/ packaging. That group of people are mainly interested in information sharing across the group.

Kate asked if there was interest in discussion of any issues related to BagIt. Attendees did not report on any issues that needed discussion. Those who were familiar with it love it, and several people noted that just not enough people know about it.

Attendees should add their names to the list below if the notes don't reflect your institution's interests and activities.

* Repository infrastructure and tools
** Specific tools or platforms:
*** '''BagIt''' (LC, Georgetown Law, ITHAKA, Boston University)
*** Fedora (Duke)
** '''Understanding/surveying an institution's complex repository landscape''' (Cornell, Harvard)
** Software development (LC)
** '''Workflows''' (University of Minnesota, Columbia, Boston University)

* Assessments/audits/certifications
** '''Repository assessments and audits''' (Harvard, ITHAKA, ICPSR)
** Specific models:
*** '''Levels of Digital Preservation''' (Harvard, Cornell, ICPSR, Duke)
*** Data Seal of Approval (ICPSR)
*** TRAC/ISO (Duke, Boston University)

* Content and metadata packages
** '''Packaging forms/SIP components/metadata''' (MXF AS-07, METS)(LC, Harvard, Georgetown Law, Cornell, ITHAKA, NARA, Duke)
** Transfer between repositories (ITHAKA)
** Identifiers (ITHAKA)

* Techniques and practices
** Fixity checking (LC, Boston University, Duke)
** Digital forensics (Georgetown Law)
** Participating on standards bodies (LC)

* Formats
** '''Format assessment''' (LC, Harvard, Record labels?)
** '''Format guidelines/requirements''' (for creation, digitization, transfer)(Georgetown Law, Cornell, University of Minnesota, Harvard, NARA, Boston University, Duke)
** Particular genres and categories of formats
*** '''Video''' (LC, Harvard, Columbia, ICPSR, Duke, Boston University)
*** '''Born-digital''' (LC, Columbia, Boston University)
*** '''Email''' (LC, Columbia)
*** Databases (Columbia)
*** PDF/A (LC, Boston University)

* Other topics
** '''Engagement with "users"''' (curators, content creators) (LC, Cornell)
** '''Adequately resourcing programs''' (Cornell, Boston University)

NDSA:September 16, 2013 Standards and Practices Working Group Notes

2013-10-21T19:42:57Z

Winston Atkins: Created page with '== Minutes: September 16, 2013 == New Members to the Working Group: # Deborah Kempe: Chief, Collections Management and Access, Frick Art Library; and NYArt Resources Consortium…'

== Minutes: September 16, 2013 ==

New Members to the Working Group:
# Deborah Kempe: Chief, Collections Management and Access, Frick Art Library; and NYArt Resources Consortium <http://nyarc.org/>.

Project: Audit and Certification:
# The work is organized around three activities:
## CommunityContext: Developed a set of brief milestones in the form of a timeline that documents the development and current status of self-assessment, audit, and certification of digital repositories.
## Implementation Examples: These efforts are focused on a template for recording information from institutions that have undertaken a self-assessment or audit in a standard form.
## Options for Undertaking a Review : Artefactual has the current version of the Drupal-based TRAC Review site. They expect to post a downloadable and standalone version on the Artefactual site soon.

Project: Staffing Survey Report:
# Project nearing completion:
# Final report draft is complete
## Members of the Standards Working Group can review it prior to final submittal: <http://bit.ly/17tps4k>
## We are also working with LC on publishing options and hope to publish it on their website with and include a handle identifier.
## The data files have also been archived successfully at ICPSR.

Project: PDF/A-3 Scoping Project:
# Project members are working on a report, but it's still in the draft phase.
# When the draft is finalized, the PDF/A group will release it for review by the full standards working group.

Project: Wikipedia "Digital Preservation" Project
# Project members feel they have made significant progress and completed the work they can do effectively; additionally, their increasing responsibilities mean they need to hand the project off. To make the handoff successful, though, they request assistance and clarification of some issues
# Issues to address include
## Scope and structure of the entry
### Is the article's current direction addressing the need the working group identified initially?
### Digital Preservation cannot be covered in one article. It is a complex set of articles. Project members found that articles that this entry should link to have not been created.
#### Do we write them?
#### Do we incorporate the information into our central article.
## Articles created outside this project, but relevant to it, vary in their accuracy and currency. Editing and revising these articles creates editorial and logistical complications.
## Wikipedia's documentation policy, which mandates that high-level observations must have documentation and cannot rely on the writer's own knowledge.
## It has been very hard to get working group members to participate in this project. Several possible strategies were proposed , including getting a Lib School class, internship,etc., to participate.
### To take over writing.
### Or pull in others from outside as an outside review group?
# For the October Agenda: These issues were laid out in more detail in Stephen's email to the working group (16 Sept 2013). Working group members will review the email in preparation for making this a larger agenda item next meeting.

NDSA Report Publication Practices:
# As part of the NDSA's Outreach Toolkit, "the Outreach Working Group is developing formatting and design guidance for NDSA reports to create a common 'look and feel.'"
# Although the guidelines are still under development, preliminary ideas regarding that guidance may be seen at: http://www.loc.gov/extranet/wiki/osi/ndiip/ndsa/index.php?title=Outreach_Toolkit#NDSA_Report_Information
# The report "Issues in the Appraisal and Selection of Geospatial Data" serves as an interim template: <http://www.loc.gov/extranet/wiki/osi/ndiip/ndsa/images/1/15/AppraisalSelection_whitepaper_ndsa-draft6.doc>

Pre-Project Discussion: What Role Should This Group Play, Moving Forward?
# Are there National Agenda issues we should address? If so, what are the best ways to move those issues into discussion?
## NDSA IdeaScale site: http://ndsa.ideascale.com/a/ideafactory.do?id=4760&mode=recent&discussionFilter=active
### IdeaScale allows members to determine which tools are valued most
### We can also use IdeaScale to communicate outside NDSA
# Using the Self-Assess and Audit Project as a model, we can extend our review of other management tools and provide guidance for identifying content needing preservation.
## Point to existing tools
## Use Levels of Preservation as a guide
### Levels of Preservation depends on the project or dataset under review.
## Provide examples to back up the expectations.
# What needs to happen will grow out of local efforts. We're all in different places regarding our initiatives. Is there a way to share our efforts to bring issues to the surface?
## Some interest in meeting at IDCC: http://www.cni.org/event/idcc14/.
## How can we focus the conversation?
## We need to determine how much work our members can absorb before we can establish a realistic means to spread the Working Group's responsibilities.
## Some members have roles that are focused on monitoring developments, and they note it is hard to know how to jump in and contribute to the Working Group in a way that is useful.
# What other activities should we consider?
## Speakers?
# What do we want to know more about vis-a-vis standards and best practices
## List issues important to us
## Perhaps get speakers or have discussions.

===== For our next call: Remember to review the Wiki pages! =====

NDSA:Standards and Best Practices Working Group

2013-10-21T18:49:44Z

Winston Atkins: /* Meeting Schedules, Minutes and Agendas */

= Standards and Practices Working Group =

[[NDSA:Standards and Practices Working Group Charter ]] (December 10, 2010)

= Current Members =
A list of current members is posted here: [[NDSA:Standards and Practices Working Group Members]].

= Statement of Purpose =

The Standards and Practices Working Group will work to facilitate a community-wide understanding of the role and benefit of standards in digital preservation and how to use them effectively to ensure durable and usable collections. The Group will also develop, recommend, promote, and disseminate information about effective methods for selecting, organizing, describing, managing, preserving and serving digital content, in collaboration with other individuals and organizations where appropriate.

= Current Scope of Work =

Working group members may initiate and engage in new work at any time by forming Action Teams focused on specific projects or tasks.

== Survey and document the digital preservation standards landscape ==
This is an ambitious and on-going project using Wikipedia to promote the use of digital preservation standards and best practices. The objectives are to:
* identify and describe '''existing''' digital preservation standards and best practices
* identify '''gaps''' in digital preservation standards and best practices coverage that could be addressed by this working group in collaboration with others
* sustain this activity by building a community of Wikipedians to join us in this activity

The categories of digital preservation standards and best practices we will focus on include: Content models, Content packaging, Content transfer, Digital preservation strategies and techniques, Digital preservation terms and concepts, File formats, Encodings, Metadata exchange, Metadata schemas, Repository architecture, Repository certification and trustworthiness, Repository operations, Repository policies

Status of activities and deliverables:

* creation of Digital Preservation "WikiProject" within Wikipedia as an umbrella for collaborating with others on this project -- '''COMPLETE 6/2012'''
* redevelop the current Wikipedia "Digital Preservation" page so that it can serve as an appropriate launch page to more detailed information about standards and best practices -- '''IN PROGRESS, 11/2012-'''

* create / update pages describing current standards and best practices in the field of digital preservation
* consult with others involved in digital preservation to encourage their input and contributions to the effort
* report back to the NDSA steering committee with updates and proposals as to how to continue this effort into the future

Links related to this project:
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Digital_Preservation Digital Preservation WikiProject Page]
* [[NDSA:Existing DP-Related Wikipedia Pages]]
* [[NDSA:Survey Template]]
* [[NDSA:Sources of Information about DP Standards and Best Practices]]
* [[NDSA:Categories and Action Teams]] (sign up for an action team here)
* [[NDSA:Parking Spot for other DP-related Standards and Best Practices]]

== Survey of digital preservation staffing ==

* [[NDSA:Staffing survey planning page]]

== Survey on adoption of digital preservation standards and best practices ==

* [[NDSA:Standards survey planning page]]

== Related action team on distributed digital preservation ==

* [[NDSA:DDP_OAIS_Frameworks | Describing a Framework for Applying OAIS to Distributed Digital Preservation]]

== Items related to the exploration of the challenges of preserving PDFs, especially PDF/A documents, including PDF/A-3 ==

* [[NDSA:PDF Exploration]]

One of the great strengths of PDF, including the recent PDF/A-3 standard, is its ability to contain a variety of sometimes complex digital objects within a single file. Long term preservation of these files, however, can be problematic because current digital preservation tools are not able to consistently identify the existence of the embedded content nor identify its format. The NDSA Standards sub group is interested in exploring the boundaries of applicability for PDF in preservation environments, especially as a carrier of complex formats such as audio, video and geospatial information.

The interest in this project grew out of a Signal blog post on PDF/A-3 by Butch Lazorchak (LOC) about embedded files in PDF/A (http://blogs.loc.gov/digitalpreservation/2012/11/all-in-embedded-files-in-pdfa/) as well as discussions between NARA and depositing agencies who are starting to use PDF/A-3 as a de facto normalization wrapper format to contain many media types including audio and video. Caroline Arms (LOC) has already produced a helpful background document to kick start this work.

== TDR Self-assessment and Audit: Understanding options for addressing standards and requirements ==


* [[NDSA:TDR Self-assessment and Audit: Understanding Options for Addressing Standards and Requirements| Project Charter]]

With the release of ISO 16363 that specifies the requirements for the audit and certification of trustworthy digital repositories, the digital community would benefit from a review of current options for organizations to demonstrate comformance and from ongoing monitoring as options emerge and evolve.

= Brainstorming =

* [[NDSA:New_Work | Brainstorming new project ideas (Nov, 2012)]]
* [[NDSA:National_Agenda_Standards_Brainstorm | Ideas for the 2014 National Agenda]]

= Resources =

* [[NDSA:Activity_Charter_Template | Template for describing new projects]]
* NDSA Standards Working Group Listserv Archives (login required): http://list.digitalpreservation.gov/SCRIPTS/WA-DIGITAL.EXE?A0=NDSA-STANDARDS&X=25F57E4CACD543490D&Y

= Meeting Schedules, Minutes and Agendas =
* [[NDSA:September 16, 2013 Standards & Practices Working Group Notes]]
* [[NDSA:August 19, 2013 Standards & Practices Working Group Notes]]
* [[NDSA:June 17, 2013 Standards & Practices Working Group Notes]]
* [[NDSA:May 20, 2013 Standards & Practices Working Group Notes]]
* (April 2013 - no call)
* [[NDSA:March 18, 2013 Standards Working Group Notes]]
* [[NDSA:February 25, 2013 Standards Working Group Notes]]
* [[NDSA:January 28, 2013 Standards Working Group Notes]]
* [[NDSA:December 17, 2012 Standards Working Group Notes]]
* [[NDSA:November 26, 2012 Standards Working Group Notes]]
* [[NDSA:October 24, 2012 Standards Working Group Notes|October 24, 2012 Standards & Practices Working Group Notes]]
* [[NDSA:August 20, 2012 Standards Working Group Notes]]
* [[NDSA:June 18, 2012 Standards Working Group Notes]]
* [[NDSA:May 16, 2012 Standards Working Group Notes]]
* [[NDSA:April 18, 2012 Standards Working Group Notes]]
* [[NDSA:March 13, 2012 Standards Working Group Notes]]
* [[NDSA:February 22, 2012 Standards Working Group Notes]]
* [[NDSA:January 17, 2012 Standards Working Group Notes]]
* [[NDSA:November 7, 2011 Standards Working Group Notes and Agenda]]
* [[NDSA:June 6, 2011 Standards Working Group Notes and Agenda]]
* [[NDSA:May 2, 2011 Standards Working Group Notes and Agenda]]
* [[NDSA:April 4, 2011 Standards Working Group Notes and Agenda]]
* [[NDSA:Digital Preservation Metadata Action Team -- March 15, 2011]]
* [[NDSA:March 7, 2011 Standards Working Group Notes and Agenda]]
* [[NDSA:February 7, 2011 Standards Working Group Notes and Agenda]]
* [[NDSA:January 12, 2011 Standards Working Group Notes and Agenda]]
* [[NDSA:December 6, 2010 Standards Working Group Notes]]
* [[NDSA:November 17, 2010 Standards Working Group Notes]]

= Workshops =
* I can haz standards workshop, NDIPP 2011 [[NDSA:I can haz standards workshop notes]]

NDSA:August 19, 2013 Standards and Practices Working Group Notes

2013-09-16T16:43:36Z

Winston Atkins:

== Agenda ==

1. New member introduction
* Leah Prescott, Georgetown University Law Center Library

2. Update on projects
* Audit/Certifications (Nancy McGovern)
** Nancy has updated the NDSA extranet’s “TDR Self-assessment and Audit” page to reflect progress in this project.
** Three facets to the project (see TDR page, Statement of Problem section for additional context):
*** Community context: Work has focused on the Timeline element of this facet
*** Implementation examples:
**** Hope to have a template in place before next call
**** Nancy has refined the brief template's format and expects to have an example available for comment by the 16 September call. It will provide guidance for institutions engaging in self-audits.
*** Review options
**** Drupal-based TRAC review to go up on Artefactual, who will host for download
**** Guidance on what a peer review should look like
**** Anyone can download the Drupal tarball
**** The site will include an About page.
***** Drupal questions should be addressed either locally or by Drupal users groups.
***** TRAC review questions may be addressed by Nancy or this group. The questions will inform what we do.
***** The working group will set up a conference call to assess next steps.

* Staffing survey (5 minutes)
** Report team (Andrea Goethals)
*** The final text is very close close to complete. It lacks some information (e.g., the Executive Summary)
*** The text needs final resolution of the few remaining questions, and final revision.
** Data archiving team (Winston Atkins)
*** The data are also very close to being ready for deposit.
*** The group needs final resolution on the few questions that remain open; then final revision to enable deposit in ICPSR.
** Mary Vardigan will set up a conference call to finalize both parts of the project.

* PDF/A-3 (Kate Murray – information updated after the call).
** Sheila Morrissey presented an overview of the project at the PDF Association's PDF/A Day (There was some last-minute rearranging of the agenda to include this talk but we are pleased that Sheila was able to share this work with the PDF community)
** The Working Group’s Report is close to initial release, with Sheila and Caroline Arms doing the heavy lifting on final revisions on the draft they will make public for comment.
*** The intent is to open it for comment by the Standards Working Group
*** Following the Working Group's review, it will be opened to the wider NDSA for comments.
** Because of the potentially widespread interest within the NDSA to learn more, we discussed the possibility of an open call.

3. New project ideas?
* n/a.

4. Anything else?
* Andrea Goethals noted that she has seen a lot of activity on the NDSA Levels of Digital Preservation document.
** SAA Annual Conference, 2013:
*** Jefferson Bailey presented on the topic at SAA's Annual Conference in August 2013.
*** He also told Andrea that he went to several SAA presentations at which people referred to it.
** The Signal blog has several posts on the it.
** Andrea will give a workshop presentation at iPres 2013, incorporating Harvard's experience using the NDSA levels of preservation.

5. Next call, September 16th 1 p.m. (Eastern Daylight Time)

== Call info ==
* https://issevents.webex.com/issevents/j.php?ED=179983787&UID=-1&PW=NMmEzMGMxZjAx&RT=MiMxMQ%3D%3D
* Password: 2Preserve
* Phone number: 1-866-469-3239
* Access code: 763 713 482

NDSA:August 19, 2013 Standards and Practices Working Group Notes

2013-09-16T16:36:28Z

Winston Atkins:

== Agenda ==

1. New member introduction
#A. Leah Prescott, Georgetown University Law Center Library

2. Update on projects
#A. Audit/Certifications (Nancy McGovern)
##a. Nancy has updated the NDSA extranet’s “TDR Self-assessment and Audit” page to reflect progress in this project.
##b. Three facets to the project (see TDR page, Statement of Problem section for additional context):
###i. Community context: Work has focused on the Timeline element of this facet
###ii. Implementation examples:
####1) Hope to have a template in place before next call
####2) Nancy has refined the brief template's format and expects to have an example available for comment by the 16 September call. It will provide guidance for institutions engaging in self-audits.
###iii. Review options
####1) Drupal-based TRAC review to go up on Artefactual, who will host for download
####2) Guidance on what a peer review should look like
####3) Anyone can download the Drupal tarball
####4) The site will include an About page.
#####a) Drupal questions should be addressed either locally or by Drupal users groups.
#####b) TRAC review questions may be addressed by Nancy or this group. The questions will inform what we do.
#####c. The working group will set up a conference call to assess next steps.

#B. Staffing survey (5 minutes)
##a. Report team (Andrea Goethals)
###i. The final text is very close close to complete. It lacks some information (e.g., the Executive Summary)
###ii. The text needs final resolution of the few remaining questions, and final revision.
##b. Data archiving team (Winston Atkins)
###i. The data are also very close to being ready for deposit.
###ii. The group needs final resolution on the few questions that remain open; then final revision to enable deposit in ICPSR.
##c. Mary Vardigan will set up a conference call to finalize both parts of the project.

#C. PDF/A-3 (Kate Murray – information updated after the call).
##a. Sheila Morrissey presented an overview of the project at the PDF Association's PDF/A Day (There was some last-minute rearranging of the agenda to include this talk but we are pleased that Sheila was able to share this work with the PDF community)
##b. The Working Group’s Report is close to initial release, with Sheila and Caroline Arms doing the heavy lifting on final revisions on the draft they will make public for comment.
###i. The intent is to open it for comment by the Standards Working Group
###ii. Following the Working Group's review, it will be opened to the wider NDSA for comments.
##c. Because of the potentially widespread interest within the NDSA to learn more, we discussed the possibility of an open call.

3. New project ideas?
#• n/a.

4. Anything else?
#A. Andrea Goethals noted that she has seen a lot of activity on the NDSA Levels of Digital Preservation document.
##a. SAA Annual Conference, 2013:
###i. Jefferson Bailey presented on the topic at SAA's Annual Conference in August 2013.
###ii. He also told Andrea that he went to several SAA presentations at which people referred to it.
##b. The Signal blog has several posts on the it.
##c. Andrea will give a workshop presentation at iPres 2013, incorporating Harvard's experience using the NDSA levels of preservation.

5. Next call, September 16th 1 p.m. (Eastern Daylight Time)

== Call info ==
* https://issevents.webex.com/issevents/j.php?ED=179983787&UID=-1&PW=NMmEzMGMxZjAx&RT=MiMxMQ%3D%3D
* Password: 2Preserve
* Phone number: 1-866-469-3239
* Access code: 763 713 482

NDSA:August 19, 2013 Standards and Practices Working Group Notes

2013-09-16T16:35:17Z

Winston Atkins:

== Agenda ==

1. New member introduction
#A. Leah Prescott

2. Update on projects
#A. Audit/Certifications (Nancy McGovern)
##a. Nancy has updated the NDSA extranet’s “TDR Self-assessment and Audit” page to reflect progress in this project.
##b. Three facets to the project (see TDR page, Statement of Problem section for additional context):
###i. Community context: Work has focused on the Timeline element of this facet
###ii. Implementation examples:
####1) Hope to have a template in place before next call
####2) Nancy has refined the brief template's format and expects to have an example available for comment by the 16 September call. It will provide guidance for institutions engaging in self-audits.
###iii. Review options
####1) Drupal-based TRAC review to go up on Artefactual, who will host for download
####2) Guidance on what a peer review should look like
####3) Anyone can download the Drupal tarball
####4) The site will include an About page.
#####a) Drupal questions should be addressed either locally or by Drupal users groups.
#####b) TRAC review questions may be addressed by Nancy or this group. The questions will inform what we do.
#####c. The working group will set up a conference call to assess next steps.

#B. Staffing survey (5 minutes)
##a. Report team (Andrea Goethals)
###i. The final text is very close close to complete. It lacks some information (e.g., the Executive Summary)
###ii. The text needs final resolution of the few remaining questions, and final revision.
##b. Data archiving team (Winston Atkins)
###i. The data are also very close to being ready for deposit.
###ii. The group needs final resolution on the few questions that remain open; then final revision to enable deposit in ICPSR.
##c. Mary Vardigan will set up a conference call to finalize both parts of the project.

#C. PDF/A-3 (Kate Murray – information updated after the call).
##a. Sheila Morrissey presented an overview of the project at the PDF Association's PDF/A Day (There was some last-minute rearranging of the agenda to include this talk but we are pleased that Sheila was able to share this work with the PDF community)
##b. The Working Group’s Report is close to initial release, with Sheila and Caroline Arms doing the heavy lifting on final revisions on the draft they will make public for comment.
###i. The intent is to open it for comment by the Standards Working Group
###ii. Following the Working Group's review, it will be opened to the wider NDSA for comments.
##c. Because of the potentially widespread interest within the NDSA to learn more, we discussed the possibility of an open call.

3. New project ideas?
#• n/a.

4. Anything else?
#A. Andrea Goethals noted that she has seen a lot of activity on the NDSA Levels of Digital Preservation document.
##a. SAA Annual Conference, 2013:
###i. Jefferson Bailey presented on the topic at SAA's Annual Conference in August 2013.
###ii. He also told Andrea that he went to several SAA presentations at which people referred to it.
##b. The Signal blog has several posts on the it.
##c. Andrea will give a workshop presentation at iPres 2013, incorporating Harvard's experience using the NDSA levels of preservation.

5. Next call, September 16th 1 p.m. (Eastern Daylight Time)

== Call info ==
* https://issevents.webex.com/issevents/j.php?ED=179983787&UID=-1&PW=NMmEzMGMxZjAx&RT=MiMxMQ%3D%3D
* Password: 2Preserve
* Phone number: 1-866-469-3239
* Access code: 763 713 482

NDSA:December 17, 2012 Standards Working Group Notes

2013-01-08T15:00:35Z

Winston Atkins: Meeting Notes, 2012 December 17

Date: 17 December 2012
Attending: Aaron Trehub, Amy Kirchhoff, Andrea Goethals, Butch Lazorchak, Carl Fleischhauer, Caroline Arms, Carol Kussman, Chris Dietrich, Dina Sokolova, Emily Shaw, Gina Jones, Kate Murray, Kate Zwaard, Linda Tadic, Mary Vardigan, Meg Philips, Sheila Morrissey, Stephen Davis, Winston Atkins (note taker).

# New Member introduction and Announcements
## New Member: Chris Dietrich (NPS)
## Scheduling regular time for monthly conference calls: Andrea will send out a Doodle poll.
# Update on existing projects
## Stephen Davis and Dina Sokolova report that the WikiProject continues to progress.
### Content added to fifteen sections, three sections revised.
### Received agreement to remove Editorial and Crystal Ball tags.
### The intent of “Digital preservation best practices section” was to focus on best practices for digital preservation, but many of our best practices documents address digitization.
#### Stephen and Dina are trying to develop this section as hybrid list that includes digitization and digital preservation
#### Is the “Audio preservation” subsection the right approach for this information?
### Questions to address:
#### How much of the focus should be on the entire article, and how much on the best practices section?
#### When to open the article to outside editing and expertise.
#### Publicizing the article when it is opened.
##### NDSA Outreach Working Group
##### Signals blog: Stephen will help create an initial draft for the blog post.
##### We will have one last review before publishing the blog entry.
#### What is the Working Group’s role with the article: will it be a one-time project or ongoing?
# Staffing survey
## Final Report: Andrea Goethals, Meg Philips, Carol Kussmann, and Mary Vardigan are working on the final report, which is due next spring.
## Survey data:
### Mary Vardigan provided information on how best to create SPSS files of the data for deposit, and Andrea made the data available via a Google drive.
### If we're to archive at ICPSR, the most efficient approach is to deposit the data into their Publication-Related Archive [http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/icpsrweb/deposit/pra/index.jsp], and coordinate deposit with the report’s release.
## Recommendation: As a service for other NDSA groups, record information on the formats we chose for storing the data, why, and how to tie the report and data together.
# Activity Charter Template
## See: [http://www.loc.gov/extranet/wiki/osi/ndiip/ndsa/index.php?title=Activity_Charter_Template]
## The WG approved the template as a way to determine whether project scoped well enough and if sufficient interest exists within the working group.
# New projects
## PDF/A: (Issue) PDF/A-3 seems to embody a change of intent.
### Scope: the project should look across all of PDF/A to give the pros and cons across the range.
### Define boundaries of PDF-A3 in a preservation context. When is appropriate, inappropriate?
### Sheila Morrissey, Chris Dietrich, Kate Murray will scope out project for template.
## Discussion of other projects tabled for January call.
# Meeting adjourned.

NDSA:Standards and Best Practices Working Group

2013-01-08T14:42:01Z

Winston Atkins: /* Meeting Schedules, Minutes and Agendas */

== Standards and Practices Working Group ==

[[NDSA:Standards and Practices Working Group Charter ]] (December 10, 2010)

== Current Members ==
A list of current members is posted here: [[NDSA:Standards and Practices Working Group Members]].

== Statement of Purpose ==

The Standards and Practices Working Group will work to facilitate a community-wide understanding of the role and benefit of standards in digital preservation and how to use them effectively to ensure durable and usable collections. The Group will also develop, recommend, promote, and disseminate information about effective methods for selecting, organizing, describing, managing, preserving and serving digital content, in collaboration with other individuals and organizations where appropriate.

== Current Scope of Work ==

Working group members may initiate and engage in new work at any time by forming Action Teams focused on specific projects or tasks.

===1. Survey and document the digital preservation standards landscape===
This is an ambitious and on-going project using Wikipedia to promote the use of digital preservation standards and best practices. The objectives are to:
* identify and describe '''existing''' digital preservation standards and best practices
* identify '''gaps''' in digital preservation standards and best practices coverage that could be addressed by this working group in collaboration with others
* sustain this activity by building a community of Wikipedians to join us in this activity

The categories of digital preservation standards and best practices we will focus on include: Content models, Content packaging, Content transfer, Digital preservation strategies and techniques, Digital preservation terms and concepts, File formats, Encodings, Metadata exchange, Metadata schemas, Repository architecture, Repository certification and trustworthiness, Repository operations, Repository policies

Status of activities and deliverables:

* creation of Digital Preservation "WikiProject" within Wikipedia as an umbrella for collaborating with others on this project -- '''COMPLETE 6/2012'''
* redevelop the current Wikipedia "Digital Preservation" page so that it can serve as an appropriate launch page to more detailed information about standards and best practices -- '''IN PROGRESS, 11/2012-'''

* create / update pages describing current standards and best practices in the field of digital preservation
* consult with others involved in digital preservation to encourage their input and contributions to the effort
* report back to the NDSA steering committee with updates and proposals as to how to continue this effort into the future

Links related to this project:
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Digital_Preservation Digital Preservation WikiProject Page]
* [[NDSA:Existing DP-Related Wikipedia Pages]]
* [[NDSA:Survey Template]]
* [[NDSA:Sources of Information about DP Standards and Best Practices]]
* [[NDSA:Categories and Action Teams]] (sign up for an action team here)
* [[NDSA:Parking Spot for other DP-related Standards and Best Practices]]

----

===2. Survey of digital preservation staffing===

* [[NDSA:Staffing survey planning page]]

----

===3. Survey on adoption of digital preservation standards and best practices===

* [[NDSA:Standards survey planning page]]

----

===4. Related action team on distributed digital preservation===

* [[NDSA:DDP_OAIS_Frameworks | Describing a Framework for Applying OAIS to Distributed Digital Preservation]]

----

===5. Items related to the exploration of the challenges of preserving PDFs, especially PDF/A documents, including PDF/A-3===

* [[NDSA:PDF Exploration]]

One of the great strengths of PDF, including the recent PDF/A-3 standard, is its ability to contain a variety of sometimes complex digital objects within a single file. Long term preservation of these files, however, can be problematic because current digital preservation tools are not able to consistently identify the existence of the embedded content nor identify its format. The NDSA Standards sub group is interested in exploring the boundaries of applicability for PDF in preservation environments, especially as a carrier of complex formats such as audio, video and geospatial information.

The interest in this project grew out of a Signal blog post on PDF/A-3 by Butch Lazorchak (LOC) about embedded files in PDF/A (http://blogs.loc.gov/digitalpreservation/2012/11/all-in-embedded-files-in-pdfa/) as well as discussions between NARA and depositing agencies who are starting to use PDF/A-3 as a de facto normalization wrapper format to contain many media types including audio and video. Caroline Arms (LOC) has already produced a helpful background document to kick start this work.

----

== Ideas for New Work ==

* [[NDSA:New_Work | Brainstorming new project ideas (Nov, 2012)]]

== Meeting Schedules, Minutes and Agendas==

* [[NDSA:December 17, 2012 Standards Working Group Notes]]
* [[NDSA:November 26, 2012 Standards Working Group Notes]]
* [[NDSA:October 24, 2012 Standards Working Group Notes|October 24, 2012 Standards & Practices Working Group Notes]]
* [[NDSA:August 20, 2012 Standards Working Group Notes]]
* [[NDSA:June 18, 2012 Standards Working Group Notes]]
* [[NDSA:May 16, 2012 Standards Working Group Notes]]
* [[NDSA:April 18, 2012 Standards Working Group Notes]]
* [[NDSA:March 13, 2012 Standards Working Group Notes]]
* [[NDSA:February 22, 2012 Standards Working Group Notes]]
* [[NDSA:January 17, 2012 Standards Working Group Notes]]
* [[NDSA:November 7, 2011 Standards Working Group Notes and Agenda]]
* [[NDSA:June 6, 2011 Standards Working Group Notes and Agenda]]
* [[NDSA:May 2, 2011 Standards Working Group Notes and Agenda]]
* [[NDSA:April 4, 2011 Standards Working Group Notes and Agenda]]
* [[NDSA:Digital Preservation Metadata Action Team -- March 15, 2011]]
* [[NDSA:March 7, 2011 Standards Working Group Notes and Agenda]]
* [[NDSA:February 7, 2011 Standards Working Group Notes and Agenda]]
* [[NDSA:January 12, 2011 Standards Working Group Notes and Agenda]]
* [[NDSA:December 6, 2010 Standards Working Group Notes]]
* [[NDSA:November 17, 2010 Standards Working Group Notes]]

== NDSA Standards Working Group Listserv Archives==

The archives of the Standards Working Group Listserv can be found here (login will be required): http://list.digitalpreservation.gov/SCRIPTS/WA-DIGITAL.EXE?A0=NDSA-STANDARDS&X=25F57E4CACD543490D&Y

== Workshops ==
* I can haz standards workshop, NDIPP 2011 [[NDSA:I can haz standards workshop notes]]

== Deprecated pages kept for historical reasons ==
* [[NDSA:2011 NDIIPP Partners' Meeting Attendees]]
* NDSA Standards Working Group Google Group Space (we never ended up using this): http://groups.google.com/group/ndsa-standards-working-group?hl=en