Talk:Digital preservation
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
On the subject of the proposed merger of digital obsolescence with digital preservation: please keep the two issues seperate! Yes, they are linked, but digital preservation is a subject in it's own right, and millions of dollars is being invested globally to develop solutions. There's more to it than just digital obsolescence: authenticity, integrity, recordkeeping and archival issues, library considerations, metadata, curation... these are all important in digital preservation, and to consider it simply a technical issue (i.e. avoiding technological obsolescence) runs the risk of perpetuating a belief that these things aren't important when they're actually vital to a successful digital preservation strategy. —This unsigned comment was added by 138.38.146.60 (talk • contribs) .
Having read the stub on digital obsolescence, I would disagree with the previous comment. The digital obsolescence page refers to a good motivating example of digital preservation (the BBC Domesday disks). It doesn't do much on its own, but would add something to the digital preservation page. —This unsigned comment was added by 129.215.2.166 (talk • contribs) .
I too believe that the digital obsolescence page adds little on its own. The only value I can see is that some people might search for that term, and this page would then be a way to link them through to digital preservation, where more useful information can be found. —This unsigned comment was added by 129.215.2.164 (talk • contribs) .
I agree that the digital obsolescence page could be moved into digital preservation since it is a sub-issue of digital preservation. —This unsigned comment was added by Fmccown (talk • contribs) .
[edit] Merge or delete?
A number of these pages e.g. OAIS[1], Digital asset[2], OpenImaging[3], Representation Information[4], Digital curation[5], Digital object[6] seemed to have been created by new editors who then seem to have got bored and moved on to other (non-wikipedia) things e.g. Contributions/Mpennock, Contributions/Dgiaretta, Contributions/TBarregren, Contributions/Simonpockley, Contributions/Jmaferreira. (At about the same time, maybe it was part of a school project?) In any case, many of the pages have received few edits, and with the loss of their original editors I'm not sure what will become of them. Unless we can find an expert to merge these pages into something useable perhaps it would be better just to delete them? Ewlyahoocom 14:36, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
I would suggest leaving OAIS and Digital object as seperate entries since they really are not subsets of digitial preservation. I would suggest moving Digital curation into digital preservation. The other entries may be merged or deleted. fmccown 16:36, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
I think there is a strong argument for keeping Digital Curation and Digital Preservation separate at this time. Preservation may be a subset of curation (not vice versa), but most people will probably initially come at the concepts from the preservation angle. Curation is considerably broader, embodying other practices that merge towards good data management. We at the DCC (www.dcc.ac.uk) do intend to keep an eye on both these entries and update them from time to time.
BTW it's not clear what the criteria for merging entires are!
So, because someone edited a page and moved on, their edits are somehow less valuable? How peculiar. (ref :Ewlyahoocom above). Digital obsolescence is one of the drivers for Digital Preservation, but is certainly not synonymous or even parallel, so I suggest that they remain separate. If anything, reference DigOb as a subset of DigPres.
This discussion was brought to my attention as I am one of those took the time to make a contribution and then 'moved on'. It's not a case of getting bored, it's a case of making a contribution to this project based on my area of expertise - which is, by the way, digital preservation and digital curation, as it is for most of the other people named in the list above. Ewlyahoocom's suggestion that we were part of a school project is unnecessary, some would even say a bit insulting. The entry for digital curation clearly states that the process of digital preservation is part of digital curation, but that curation encompasses more that just preservation. Both issues are worthy of their own entries. What would therefore be the benefit of merging them?
leave them, there is no strong argument for the merge above, which are usually structured as 'they are the same thing'. as these things are clearly different and people could search on these topics, and there is no space or other limit that necessitates merging. they will eventually find their audience of editors, so leave them. merge has been up since april, taking it off--Buridan 11:24, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] The Digital Object issue
I (Contributions/Jmaferreira) have created the Digital object entry which is now missing from the wikipedia. BTW, I haven't move on... I just stood still to see how things evolved, but now it seems imperative for me to interfere.
Shall I recreate the "Digital Object" entry or is the general opinion that it should be dropped?
I would personally like to see it back. --Fmccown 19:27, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
I think we need a definition of "Digital Object" to refer to here (and some discussion of the various subtypes - electronic record, e-publication etc.), in order to be able to sensibly discuss what it is that DP seeks to preserve. As it has a wider relevance than simply to digital preservation, it would seem to merit a separate entry. --Malpertuis 20:08, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
- digital object was deleted 17 sept after having been marked with copyright violations since july. since no one responded in that time, it was deleted. to me, the lack of response is adequate reason to not recreate the page at this time.--Buridan 11:36, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
--
I have opened the 'Digital object' article. Yes, I did use a paragraph from a paper I had recently published. After the first appearence of the copyright violation notice I took some time to change that paragraph and at the same time adequately cite the paper so that no violations were in place. Nevertheless, the system recognised that paragraph as plagiarism. Not really sure what to do now. My guess is that whatever I insert in there will endup similar to something else. mferreira 10:30, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
actually it is just a human that notes the plagiarism. all you really needed to do was to cite your own paper then convey permission to resolve that. the real issue is more that the article was dropped in and not maintained. --Buridan 15:15, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
