waibel presentation
TRANSCRIPT
Where museums, libraries, and archives intersect
From Asset Management to Digital Preservation
Günter Waibel/Program Officer, RLG
AAM 2006 ++ Günter Waibel/RLG ++ April 29 2006
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
Where I’m coming from…
RLG– Non-profit membership organization– “Where museums, libraries and archives intersect”– ~ 160 members internationally >> 26 museums / art
galleries RLG Programs
– long-standing commitment to digital preservation– developing community consensus and standards– For past and present projects:
• http://www.rlg.org/en/page.php?Page_ID=20897
AAM 2006 ++ Günter Waibel/RLG ++ April 29 2006
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
Your asset – your investment
IMLS Report “Status of Technology and Digitization”– issued January 2006, data from 2004– 28% captured 501-5000 digital images in 1 year– 53% priority to digitize collection items
The investment– the cost
• ~ $25 per capture• 5000 digital images = $125,000 investment
The asset– a high-resolution master image
• from website thumbnail to billboard– of long-term use
AAM 2006 ++ Günter Waibel/RLG ++ April 29 2006
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
Why? Web access core to museums
AAM 2006 ++ Günter Waibel/RLG ++ April 29 2006
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
Digital Asset Management Systems
…or DAMS, the solution to all our problems!– getting a grip on the massive amounts of digital assets created– concept and systems come out of commercial sphere– yet highly applicable to museum environment
A simple working definition– Digital Asset Management Systems centrally organize, store and
distribute the digital files of an institution so they can be located, retrieved and re-used as needed.
My view today– restricted to managing digital images of collection objects– however: DAMS can manage all digital assets of an institution
AAM 2006 ++ Günter Waibel/RLG ++ April 29 2006
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
DAMS in your institution
Activities a DAMS can support– online access– licensing– marketing (PR)– print publications– exhibition design– managing digitization projects
Digital Images are pervasive to many museum activities!
AAM 2006 ++ Günter Waibel/RLG ++ April 29 2006
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
Perception: DAMS = Digital Preservation
ClearStory (DAMS Vendor) survey (40 respondents) [October ‘05]– 47% consider DAM conformance to digital
preservation standards “very important”– “a DAM solution can serve as a singular platform for
digital image preservation, collections management, marketing communications, and exhibit innovations”
My informal survey (17 respondents) [February ‘06]– 76% define DAMS to include Digital Preservation
AAM 2006 ++ Günter Waibel/RLG ++ April 29 2006
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
Trusted Digital Repositories
concept from library / archive community concise articulation of circumstances enabling long-term
preservation of digital assets fulfills criteria established by RLG-NARA Audit Checklist
(2005) audit or certification possible
AAM 2006 ++ Günter Waibel/RLG ++ April 29 2006
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
Trusted Digital Repository vs DAMS, 1
TDR Audit Checklist Digital Asset Management System
Technologyfunctions on well-supported operating systemtests disaster plans regularly
DAM the System
Processesingest verifies completeness / correctness of datadocumented preservation strategies
DAMS functionality
Organizationmission reflects commitment to preservation
Organization running the system
Usabilitydefinition of user community
Content in the system
AAM 2006 ++ Günter Waibel/RLG ++ April 29 2006
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
DAMS and Digital Preservation
Capability of dealing with fundamental digital preservation challenges Challenge 1: Preserving the bits
DAMS with sophisticated check-summing / back-up
Challenge 2: Preserving the capability to interpret the bits? DAMS
01011001001001010000011110101001010100100101010011101010001110101001110101011010101001001000110100100000110101101100100010101010101010001001010101001…
AAM 2006 ++ Günter Waibel/RLG ++ April 29 2006
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
Trusted Digital Repository vs DAMS, 2
Trusted Digital Repositories– defining commitments, policies, and technological strategies
enabling long-term digital preservation– emphasis: long-term retention
• preserving the asset beyond the lifetime of the current technological environment
Digital Asset Management Systems (DAMS)– a technology (software)– emphasis: access and support of re-use
• access assets for use over the lifetime of the current technological environment
Take-aways– DAMS does not automatically equal digital preservation– Digital Preservation is not primarily a technological problem
AAM 2006 ++ Günter Waibel/RLG ++ April 29 2006
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
Present and future Mid-term: DAMS for managing digital assets
– complement technology with proper commitments and policies
– evaluate DAMS installation against Trusted Digital Repository
Long-term: Trusted Digital Repository for preserving digital assets– Either…
• DAMS evolve / become part of Trusted Digital Repositories
– Or…• DAMS in-house, preservation outsourced• Certification helps you find trusted partners
AAM 2006 ++ Günter Waibel/RLG ++ April 29 2006
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
Thank you!
Questions / Comments?– [email protected]
Narrative summary of this talk– http://hangingtogether.org/?p=104
Reading– RLG (2002). Trusted digital repositories: Attributes and responsibilities.
An RLG-OCLC Report. http://www.rlg.org/longterm/repositories.pdf– RLG (2005). An Audit Checklist for the Certification of Trusted Digital
Repositories. http://www.rlg.org/en/page.php?Page_ID=20769– ClearStory (2005). Museum Digital Preservation Initiatives (Survey).
http://www.clearstorysystems.com/info/Museum_archiving.asp– IMLS (2006). Status of Technology and Digitization in the Nation’s
Museums and Libraries. http://www.imls.gov/publications/TechDig05/Technology%2BDigitization.pdf
– Carol Vogel, “3 Out of 4 Visitors To the Met Never Make It To the Front Door,” The New York Times, March 29 2006.