Interpretive Materials
Interpretive Materials
 |
||
|
Text, graphics, videos, and other content that is used in gallery and exhibition spaces to guide audiences and provide learning experiences. |
||
|
Digital Species: Museum and Gallery, Social Media |
Trend in 2024:
|
Consensus Decision |
|
Added to List: 2019 Rescoped: 2023 |
New Rescoped Entry |
|
|
Imminence of Action Action is recommended within three years, and detailed assessment within one year. |
Significance of Loss The loss of tools, data or services within this group would impact on many people and sectors. |
Effort to Preserve | Inevitability It would require a small effort to preserve materials in this group, requiring the application of proven tools and techniques. |
|
Examples These may include explanatory text and diagrams. This type of content typically sits alongside objects being exhibited. This information may also be used in other forms of digital public engagement, including within websites and social media. |
||
|
‘Critically Endangered’ in the Presence of Aggravating Conditions Poor or no documentation; lack of repository and preservation infrastructure; external dependencies; poor storage; significant volumes or diversity of data; digital content being left unmanaged with Exhibitions teams (e.g., not going through any Records Management, Recordkeeping, being passed to the archives, or having preservation even considered); uncertainty over IPR or the presence of orphaned works. |
||
|
‘Vulnerable’ in the Presence of Good Practice Strong documentation; preservation capability; good recordkeeping principles, practices, and management in place; strong repository and preservation technical infrastructure; well-developed migration pathways. |
||
|
2023 Review This entry was added in 2019 under ‘Digital Materials in Museums and Galleries’ and previously rescoped in 2021 to ‘Supporting Digital Materials for Museums and Galleries’. The 2023 Bit List Council superseded the entry, splitting it into six discrete entries as the scope of the single entry was too broad to provide the guidance needed. The recommendation to break this entry down was also made by the 2021 Jury, as the types of digital collections content in museums can be vast and offer particular risks in museum and gallery contexts. This entry was added to focus on risks tied to interpretive materials in museums and galleries. These materials may be tailored to various audience demographics and may take into account a variety of learning styles. These materials can also provide significant insight into how display and interpretation of objects has changed over time. While some interpretive materials may be text or still image based, others may be more technically complex as they may be time-based (e.g., video) or even a complex digital object in its own right. |
||
|
2024 Interim Review The 2024 Council identified a trend towards even greater risk. The species group noted this content may not be seen to be of long-term value to the museum, however, may be of value to the researcher and, in light of the 2023 British Library Cybersecurity incident, the Imminence of Action was changed from five years to less than three years. To add further clarity, those in the Social Media added that the description for this entry seems to address two separate types of digital content: 1) interpretive materials used to support users’ experiences of an exhibition, and 2) museum and gallery public engagement via social media. With that they have recommended that Council or species reviewers should discuss if a separate Museum (or even Collecting Institution) public engagement on social media entry should be created and sit in Social Media rather than individual organisation types. |
||
|
Additional Comments Interpretive outputs through websites may have reduced risk as web outputs if captured as part of national web archiving initiatives. See also:
|
||
Towards even greater riskFirst Nations Secret/Sacred Cultural Material
First Nations Secret/Sacred Cultural Material
| |
||
|
This entry refers broadly to digital secret and sacred cultural material and documentation of First Nations peoples’ heritage in all forms of media. This can include born-digital materials directly or indirectly produced as outputs of research, community projects, oral histories, private or personal recordings, and/or data in databases and online platforms which have not been sustained or future-proofed. |
||
|
Digital Species: Community Archives |
Trend in 2024:
|
Consensus Decision |
|
Added to List: 2023 |
New Entry |
|
|
Imminence of Action Action is recommended within twelve months, detailed assessment is a priority. |
Significance of Loss The loss of tools, data or services within this group would impact on people and sectors around the world. |
Effort to Preserve | Inevitability Loss seems likely: by the time tools or techniques have been developed the material will likely have been lost. |
|
Examples Examples are wide-ranging but can generally include: born-digital material produced as an output of funded research, produced as an indirect output of community projects (e.g. funded projects to provide technology, devices and training to First Nation community members to record content); video or oral histories depicting secret/sacred stories, traditional ceremonies, dances or sacred sites; private, personal video or oral history recordings on personal devices; data and content in databases and online platforms. |
||
|
‘Critically Endangered’ in the Presence of Aggravating Conditions Lack of understanding within collecting institutions about cultural restrictions and complex levels of access permissions; distrust of ‘official’ archives due to lack of culturally appropriate handling of restricted/sensitive material; lack of technical infrastructure within the (remote/rural) community to preserve the content; low internet accessibility to rural/remote regions or disadvantaged cohorts (the digital divide); non-ideal environmental conditions for storing digital carriers (e.g. SD card, digital video device storage, mobile phone); uncertainty over IPR or the presence of orphaned works. |
||
|
‘Vulnerable’ in the Presence of Good Practice Improved internet accessibility (especially in rural/remote regions to enable cloud storage); funding to improve technical infrastructures within communities (e.g. government or national funding); funded programs to improve digital literacy within communities (e.g. government or national funding); well-developed and considered outreach and awareness-raising efforts/collaborations to increase education to community members about the risks of losing digital content and possible digital preservation solutions; education and uptake amongst archives and collecting institutions in culturally appropriate approaches for handling and preservation of secret/sacred digital material; positive reciprocal collaboration and relationships between local First Nation community Knowledge Centres, collecting and research institutions, and government infrastructures to empower First Nations People in the decision-making in preservation, archiving, description and determination of appropriate accessibility to the content. |
||
|
2023 Review This was a new Bit List entry added in 2023 to provide greater awareness and specificity in approaching the digital preservation of secret/sacred, sensitive and private materials. While this entry can be considered very wide-ranging, covering different kinds of digital materials, it was added to draw attention to risks and issues not fully addressed by existing entries: those relating to the significance of material created and support for preservation within and in the context of the communities. While the 2023 Council all agreed on the importance of including this entry, there was also much discussion about the need for further rescoping and presentation of the entry in a considered and appropriate way. For example, differentiating between First Nations cultural material (which can include sacred/secret material) and secret/sacred or other culturally restricted materials more broadly. The discussion touched on the challenges to assign one overall risk classification, significance and impact within the existing structure of the Bit List, and also on providing recommendations for practice in and outside of organizational contexts (taking into account creation, ownership, intervention, misappropriation, legal and ethical considerations that need to be taken when considering these cultural materials). The 2023 Council additionally recognized that further scoping and input are needed for this entry and recommended that the next major review for the Bit List revisit and restructure the entry, in particular looking at scoping the role and importance of creators and communities. It is needing further work to tease out the issues for rural and remote as well as sacred /secret and community archives. Input and guidance from First Nations contributors is necessary. |
||
|
2024 Interim Review These risks remain on the same basis as before, with no significant trend towards even greater or reduced risk (‘No change’ to trend). |
||
|
Additional Comments Consultation with the relevant community knowledge holder or representative is the first consideration when dealing with traditional knowledge issues. The content and creator are both important to assessing risks and approaches. The secret/sacred nature of the content may deem the material to be restricted to be accessed only by appropriate First Nation community members. However, in the long term, it also has an impact on the relevant nation's history and heritage. In any case, custodians should take into account permissions and authorization. There will be similarities and differences between First Nation communities and within individual continents. There is an education piece for cultural institutions. When secret/sacred material comes in we are having to rethink workforces as an archive in how to take in and process and how to make it as safe as possible for viewing and being respectful of the content (e.g., male and female content stored separately, etc.) Time constraints are unknown, and required actions have a lot to do with government funding It may be better to score and structure this entry into two, with one for materials from marginalized and/or threatened communities, and another for sacred and/or other culturally restricted materials. Both of these are resistant to centralized and saviourism/colonialism approaches and benefit from community empowerment. If considering a widening of scope to other culturally restricted materials more broadly, this should also contain any material that is dangerous for the individual to hold, such as LGBTQ+ materials in countries where it is illegal. Case Studies or Examples:
See also:
|
||
No ChangeCustom Online Databases
Custom Online Databases
| |
||
|
Data collected, presented and disseminated in custom online databases that is not stored elsewhere, particularly data at risk when it is locked in the database because no export or harvest options are available. |
||
|
Digital Species: Databases, Research Outputs, Web |
Trend in 2024:
|
Consensus Decision |
|
Added to List: 2023 |
New Entry |
|
|
Imminence of Action Action is recommended within three years, detailed assessment within one year |
Significance of Loss The loss of tools, data or services within this group would impact on different people and sectors. |
Effort to Preserve | Inevitability It would require a small effort to preserve materials in this group, requiring the application of proven tools and techniques. |
|
Examples Custom databases created project websites for research, citizen science. |
||
|
‘Critically Endangered’ in the Presence of Aggravating Conditions Lack of export options; lack of system maintenance; expired domain; lack of export functionality; lack of technical knowledge and skills; limited or dysfunctional data management planning; web capture challenges that means unlikely to be picked up by automatic crawlers; uncertainty over IPR or the presence of orphaned works. |
||
|
‘Vulnerable’ in the Presence of Good Practice Backup and documentation; preservation capability in designated repository; use of open formats and open source or other licencing that enables preservation; enabled export options; robust data management planning; documented and managed professionally. |
||
|
2023 Review This was a new Bit List entry nominated and approved by the 2023 Council to draw attention to the particular challenges of preservation for custom online databases. This entry focuses on distinct risks relating to online databases that cannot go through traditional web archiving tools. While there are challenges to preserving databases both off- and online, it was nominated in the context of projects which set up a custom online database to record, present, and disseminate collected data, but this data is not stored elsewhere (e.g. in a long-term digital archive) and often is locked in the database because no export or harvest options are available. Identified areas of risks for these online databases can include: the maintenance of the system after the end of a project when it is not ensured, and online databases disappear because of security issues or because the domain expires; not all data is open and, after the end of a project, no one is responsible for granting access; the data is not stored elsewhere (e.g. in some trusted repository); the data is locked in and cannot be exported in (e.g. CSV) for further re-use. Additionally, the nomination of the entry also highlighted a gap in the Bit List for databases more broadly. The 2023 Council agreed a new higher-level Databases digital species group should be created to address this gap, inviting nominations for other database-related entries to be considered for the next major revision of the Bit List. |
||
|
2024 Interim Review These risks remain on the same basis as before, with no significant trend towards even greater or reduced risk (‘No change’ to trend). |
||
|
Additional Comments The preservation is highly dependent on the software used but, no matter what, once the project has reached its end, it starts to become vulnerable. Often, the online databases are of interest to a sub-discipline-specific group of people, e.g. archaeologists specialized on cuneiform tablets. But the material itself often is then invaluable for this group because of the great effort invested in compiling it. Databases for citizen science also provide an example where the upload of information directly into it makes it distinctive. Emulation can be used to preserve these databases. For example, Yale University is preserving databases, especially SQL databases for websites, using EAASI. There are technical challenges, but the databases can be preserved, and have found issues are often around access to data and workforce development of technical skills to undertake preservation actions. There is a risk, however, that some of the databases cannot be exposed to the web as they have no survival time and/or cannot make them available as they were intended to be used. See also:
|
||
Content Published on the Web Which Cannot Easily Be Captured Through Conventional Web Archiving Practices
Content Published on the Web Which Cannot Easily Be Captured Through Conventional Web Archiving Practices
| |
||
|
Material that is not capturable via conventional web-archiving practices (i.e. remote capture with a non-browser-based crawler). The common characteristic of the material is not so much the type of content, or the context but rather the preservation risk posed to the material as a result of decisions made by the website creators, to use technologies and make design decisions that do not support the capture of the content, combined with the limitations of current web archiving processes. |
||
|
Digital Species: Web |
Trend in 2024:
|
Consensus Decision |
|
Added to List: 2023 |
New Entry |
|
|
Imminence of Action Immediate action necessary. Where detected should be stabilized and reported as a matter of urgency. |
Significance of Loss The loss of tools, data or services within this group would impact on people and sectors around the world. |
Effort to Preserve | Inevitability Loss seems likely: by the time tools or techniques have been developed the material will likely have been lost. |
|
Examples Examples are wide-ranging but include: 1. Interactive content such as maps, charts, 3D models, multi-page forms etc.; 2. Content that is only accessible through search (and does not support a blank search with pagination URLs; 3. Content that is only accessible via POST or Ajax requests (i.e. 'Load More' issues); 4. Content hosted on sites which aggressively block crawlers; 5. Content hosted on proprietary platforms whose technical implementation makes web archiving difficult (Wix, Medium etc.). |
||
|
‘Critically Endangered’ in the Presence of Aggravating Conditions Creation and design decisions that do not support the capture of the content; limitations of current web archiving processes; uncertainty over IPR or the presence of orphaned works. |
||
|
‘Vulnerable’ in the Presence of Good Practice Continued development of tools that can capture some types of this material; continued resourcing of the web archiving community and developers working in this space; longer-term work towards a cultural change that prioritizes accessibility and achievability. |
||
|
2023 Review This was a new Bit List entry added in 2023 to draw attention to the particular challenges of web content that is not capturable via conventional web-archiving practices. While this entry can be considered very wide-ranging, covering different kinds of content in and across different entries represented in the Bit List, it was added to draw attention to risks and issues not fully addressed by these entries: those relating to material created and designed with technologies that do not support the capture of the content combined with the limitations of current web archiving processes. Given the ephemeral nature of the web, any material that is not preserved in a web archive is at risk; However, this entry focuses on material that is not accessible to conventional crawlers that is considerably less likely to be preserved because: 1. While the development of alternative capture tools (i.e. forms of browser-based capture) provide potential options to mitigate some of these issues, they remain imperfect and using such tools requires significant time and resources, meaning they are unlikely to be applied to very large-scale crawls; and 2. While website creators can be influenced to avoid such problematic technologies, even in the context of current work (e.g. within the UK Government), this can be difficult. |
||
|
2024 Interim Review These risks remain on the same basis as before, with no significant trend towards even greater or reduced risk (‘No change’ to trend). |
||
|
Additional Comments The online experience is becoming increasingly ‘mediated’ and, due to the prevalence of personalized experiences, there is little that can be seen as ‘generic’ which can be meaningfully captured. Add-ons such as ad, tracker and script blockers also fundamentally change how users experience the web compared to others. There is no specific time constraint but given the relatively ephemeral nature of the web, it is likely that there is an ongoing and constant loss of material. Given the broad scope of the entry, it can be difficult to assign an overall significance level, with some examples being trivial and others being highly important. Quantifying the impact of loss of this entry is also difficult, but it would be fair to say that it would have a significant impact on the ability of citizens to hold their governments to account and on the completeness of the historical record. Given that these issues are common across the web archiving community, this thus becomes a global problem. Some important examples from this entry includes highly significant content of national interest that is currently difficult to capture, for instance maps showing proposed changes to electoral boundaries, government blogs and published datasets which can only be accessed through search or via 'Load more', and whole sites of national importance that aggressively block crawlers. Other pertinent examples include PowerBI and Tableau which are both increasingly widely adopted visualization tools and are very difficult to capture and also to replay. They are used to disseminate data about all sorts of things but particularly government transparency information. The mitigating action of publishing the underlying data (for example as CSV or XLS(S)) is not often observed on the web. See also:
|
||
Virtual Reality Materials and Experiences
Virtual Reality Materials and Experiences
| |
||
|
Virtual reality (VR) refers to a set of technologies which build on existing 3D rendering technologies, with the aim of creating experiences which completely immerse a user in a virtual environment. The related term of Immersive Media (also known by the acronym XR) refers to a set of technologies used to create experiences, which either completely immerse a user in a virtual environment (Virtual Reality), augment the real world with virtual elements (Augmented Reality) or combine elements of the two (Mixed Reality). Key technologies include headsets, tracking systems, real-time 3D software and 360 video. |
||
|
Digital Species: Media Art |
Trend in 2023:
|
Consensus Decision |
|
Added to List: 2021 |
Trend in 2024:
|
Previously: Endangered |
|
Imminence of Action Action is recommended within three years, detailed assessment within one year. |
Significance and Impact The loss of tools, data or services within this group would impact on a large group of people and sectors. |
Effort to Preserve | Inevitability It would require a major effort to prevent or reduce losses in this group, including the development of new preservation tools or techniques. |
|
Examples Oculus Rift, VR tours, art installations. |
||
|
‘Critically Endangered’ in the Presence of Aggravating Conditions Lack of skills, commitment or policy from corporate owners; lack of established frameworks and tools; technology is relatively poorly understood in the digital preservation domain; many of the technologies are proprietary; technology is seen as inherently fragile and therefore risky to collect and preserve; emulators do not currently support XR applications; expected to be difficult and costly to migrate, a process itself dependent on access to vulnerable source materials; uncertainty over IPR or the presence of orphaned works. |
||
|
‘Vulnerable’ in the Presence of Good Practice Effective replication; emulation; strong technical documentation; preservation pathway; good descriptive cataloguing; trusted repository. |
||
|
2023 Review This entry was added in 2021. VR technologies are finding use in many sectors, including archaeology, architecture, contemporary art, documentary film, gaming, forensics, science and engineering. While these technologies are not new per se, having experienced a first wave in the 1990s, they have experienced renewed interest recently as a result of a new generation of hardware. There are overlaps with other entries relating to both Media Art and Gaming, but it was added as an entry to emphasize the issues of preservation that pertain to the interconnected set of specific hardware and software components that access to XR experiences is contingent on. VR is challenging to document due to the individual nature of the experience, and components tend to become rapidly obsolete due to a fast rate of technological change as the industry pushes newer, higher fidelity hardware and software. This results in the potential to lose access to XR software applications, as old VR applications can no longer communicate with new XR hardware. The reliance on proprietary software and hardware components, as well as the lack of industry standards, poses a further risk. The 2022 Taskforce agreed that the risks remained on the same basis, with no change to trend. The 2023 Council agreed with the classification of Endangered with overall risks remaining on the same basis as before (‘No change’ to trend). |
||
|
2024 Interim Review These risks remain on the same basis as before, with no significant trend towards even greater or reduced risk (‘No change’ to trend). |
||
|
Additional Comments The current wave of materials made using XR technologies represent a unique point in time for the continued development of the technology and therefore represent a significant piece of computing history. Individual materials/experiences created using XR technologies present their own significance beyond this, which, noted elsewhere in this entry, can be represented in a wide range of sectors. The impacts of the loss of access to virtual reality materials could be widely felt, given their wide-ranging uses across many sectors — most notably collections and archives containing materials accessed using these technologies. Simultaneously there is a risk of a loss of understanding of this technologies' development during the 2010-present period, which is likely to be of historical significance in and of itself. Media artworks are often made with a network of knowledge that can be precarious. Documentation around production processes can be minimal, and hence acting quickly with known processes can gather information before the knowledge and people networks start to disperse. This can mean preservation of production environments and associated workflows can be preserved alongside the media. Case Studies or Examples:
See also:
|
||
Current Portable Magnetic Media
Current Portable Magnetic Media
| |
||
|
Materials saved to magnetic tape, portable hard disks or other magnetic media in the last five years where the reader devices are still supported and can be integrated easily into hardware infrastructure. |
||
|
Digital Species: Portable Media |
Trend in 2023:
|
Consensus Decision |
|
Added to List: 2019 |
Trend in 2024:
|
Previously: Endangered |
|
Imminence of Action Action is recommended within three years, detailed assessment within one year. |
Significance of Loss The loss of tools, data or services within this group would impact on people and sectors around the world. |
Effort to Preserve | Inevitability It would require a small effort to preserve materials in this group, requiring the application of proven tools and techniques. |
|
Examples LTO tapes; portable hard disks. |
||
|
‘Critically Endangered’ in the Presence of Aggravating Conditions Poor storage conditions; encryption; digital rights management; uncertainty over IPR or the presence of orphaned works; lack of replication; lack of documentation; lack of periodic testing; lack of refreshment pathway; lack of access to readers; out of manufacturer warranty or no warranty; storage within paper files. |
||
|
‘Vulnerable’ in the Presence of Good Practice Regular review and testing; replication; refreshment plan; comprehensive documentation; high quality storage; regular maintenance of readers; multiple readers available. |
||
|
2023 Review This entry was added in 2019 to ensure that the range of media storage is properly assessed and presented. The 2019 Jury noted magnetic media is typically more fragile than optical media because it is susceptible to ‘bitrot’ and magnetic damage in ways that optical media are not. The 2021 Jury commented on how the types of magnetic media used had improved the last five years, notably the use of LTO, increasing good practice and therefore identified a 2021 trend towards reduced risk in this respect. They added it is important to note that LTO tapes come in different generations. Some pose greater preservation risks now (e.g., an organization with no equipment or way of reading content), so the use of LTO is good practice so long as it includes the active management of associated risks. The 2022 Taskforce agreed the risks remained on the same basis as before (no change to trend). The 2023 Council agreed with the risk classification of Endangered with the overall risks remaining on the same basis as before (‘No change’ to trend). |
||
|
2024 Interim Review The 2024 Council identified a trend towards even greater risk in consideration of how magnetic tape, and data tapes, are also very much dependent on the readers and software that is used to access and write to them. Additionally, those in the Integrated Storage species group raised areas of potential overlap with the Portable Media species group (see ‘Current Hard Disk Technologies’). As people increasingly select other storage methods, such as cloud, they are less likely to maintain existing content on portable hard disks, which means the portable hard disks are more likely to be overlooked or ignored (e.g., left in drawers) rather than checked and refreshed. Questions arise concerning hard drives and SSDs packaged as portable devices, and for this reason further cross-species review is recommended for the next 2025 review. |
||
|
Additional Comments This entry is highly dependent on who is looking after the portable media but made more difficult over time. The lack of granularity in the definition means that only general advice can be offered, such as to refresh media. In time, it may yet be more useful to split all storage media (maybe 100 items long) with an indication of how long these can be expected to last. In many cases, specialists can recover obsolete media, but the cost of employing them can become an aggravating condition. It is important to emphasize that the short lifetime of many storage devices is not a problem to be solved with new long-lasting storage technologies (and indeed, many inventions have come and gone). Cheap commodity storage has been purposely designed to deliver value at a low price for a short time. Therefore, management and preservation processes for monitoring and refreshment need to take these characteristics into account. |
||
Research Materials and Outputs in Museums and Galleries
Research Materials and Outputs in Museums and Galleries
| |
||
|
Digital material used in, or resulting from, research carried out on materials, digital or otherwise, held in galleries, museums, or similar. Research outcomes may not be formally published, and supporting datasets may not be formally accessioned or archived by an organization or a related organization. Access to these research materials and outcomes may only be made available for internal use, to inform other public outcomes, or for individual researchers. |
||
|
Digital Species: Museum and Gallery, Research Outputs |
Trend in 2024:
|
Consensus Decision |
|
Added to List: 2023 |
New Rescoped Entry |
|
|
Imminence of Action Action is recommended within three years, detailed assessment within one year. |
Significance of Loss The loss of tools, data or services within this group would impact on people and sectors around the world. |
Effort to Preserve Loss seems likely: by the time tools or techniques have been developed the material will likely have been lost. |
|
Examples Unpublished or published research papers, datasets, databases and other supplementary materials. |
||
|
‘Critically Endangered’ in the Presence of Aggravating Conditions Lack of documentation; uncertainty over IPR or the presence of orphaned works; unstable funding for repository; external dependencies. |
||
|
‘Vulnerable’ in the Presence of Good Practice Strong data management planning; preservation capability; good documentation; deposit into trusted repository. |
||
|
2023 Review This entry was added in 2019 under ‘Digital Materials in Museums and Galleries’ and previously rescoped in 2021 to ‘Supporting Digital Materials for Museums and Galleries’. The 2023 Bit List Council superseded the entry, splitting it into six discrete entries as the scope of the single entry was too broad to provide the guidance needed. The recommendation to break this entry down was also made by the 2021 Jury, as the types of digital collections content in museums can be vast and offer particular risks in museum and gallery contexts. This entry on Research Materials and Outputs within the scope of Museums and Galleries differs from the ones found in Research Outputs, with the latter focus around institutional supporting higher education institutions but lacking for museums and gallery contexts. They agreed with the 2021 Jury Review recommendations that Museum & Gallery entries require further rescoping. In regards to this entry, the 2023 Council recommended that a future review should further rescope of Oral Histories and Research Materials and Outputs due to overlaps/cross referencing which, due to time constraints, was unable to be done for the 2023 review cycle. |
||
|
2024 Interim Review These risks remain on the same basis as before, with no significant trend towards even greater or reduced risk (‘No change’ to trend). While there are no changes to the risk trend, they note an influencing factor over the past year is the potential shift in funder requirements around Open Access, and sometimes preservation. With that in mind, they recommend a full international review in 2025 to see globally where funder requirements are placed for both preservation and (long-term) Open Access |
||
|
Additional Comments To add further clarity, it might be worth differentiating use cases—for research outputs as digital material resulting from research carried out in Museums and Galleries, and for digital material used in research. This research may be publicly or philanthropically funded. While research materials - used and/or developed in the course or research - and research outputs may not be made publicly available, they may be used to inform other outputs, e.g. exhibition, interpretation, conservation, etc. Exhibition catalogues and interpretation of collections are often published online in research papers. |
||
Oral Histories
Oral Histories
|
|
|
|
|
Oral histories including both audio and audiovisual (video and sound), and their accompanying transcripts and/or time-pointed summaries. |
||
|
Digital Species: Museum and Gallery, Community Archives, Sound and Vision |
Trend in 2024:
|
Consensus Decision |
|
Added to List: 2019 Rescoped: 2023 |
New Rescoped Entry |
|
|
Imminence of Action Action is recommended within five years, detailed assessment within three years. |
Significance of Loss The loss of tools, data or services within this group would impact on many people and sectors. |
Effort to Preserve | Inevitability It would require a small effort to preserve materials in this group, requiring the application of proven tools and techniques. |
|
Examples Examples are wide ranging but can generally include born-digital or digitized material produced as an output of oral history projects; video or oral histories; transcripts, summaries, and other accompanying materials. |
||
|
‘Critically Endangered’ in the Presence of Aggravating Conditions Poor documentation; external dependencies; storage on old or degrading media; storage on consumer portable media; lack of preservation planning; lack of sustained funding; lack of ongoing investment in changing preservation requirements; lack of capability; poor documentation; dependence on small staff or volunteer resources; lack of standardized file naming; uncertainty over IPR or the presence of orphaned works. |
||
|
‘Vulnerable’ in the Presence of Good Practice Preservation capability; high quality storage; meticulous and consistent replication; stored in a trusted repository; preservation requirement understood; intellectual property managed to enable preservation; good descriptive cataloguing; persistent identifiers. |
||
|
2023 Review This entry was added in 2019 under ‘Digital Materials in Museums and Galleries’ and previously rescoped in 2021 to ‘Supporting Digital Materials for Museums and Galleries’. The 2023 Bit List Council superseded the entry, splitting it into six more discrete entries as the scope of the single entry was too broad to provide the guidance needed. The recommendation to break this entry down was also made by the 2021 Jury, as the types of digital collections content in museums can be vast and offer particular risks in museum and gallery contexts. Approaches to preservation are dependent on whether these oral history recordings are on analogue and digital portable media (e.g., external hard disk drives, audio or video tapes), or are in a somewhat managed networked environment. If held on portable media, guidance for portable media should be followed. They agreed with the 2021 Jury Review recommendations that Museum & Gallery entries require further rescoping. In regards to this entry, the 2023 Council recommended a review and rescope of Oral Histories and Research Materials and Outputs due to overlaps/cross referencing which, due to time constraints, was unable to be done for the 2023 review cycle. |
||
|
2024 Interim Review The 2024 Council identified a trend towards even greater risk, in light of increased Imminence of Action from five years to less than three years and given the context of Deadline 2025, for museums and galleries that have oral history recordings on physical media (tapes, reels etc.). It is critical that museums take their Oral History collections seriously and put in place plans for digitisation. The Council recommend that in 2025, the full review considers whether in light of Deadline 2025, if the museums and galleries have not started (or who have made minimal progress towards) digitising audiovisual recordings (and whether the balance between oral histories as born-digital and those remaining on physical format carriers justifies this) if the classification might be raised to Critically Endangered. They also note how have discovered over the past year that there are a lot more audiovisual recordings that while they have been referred to as oral histories, do not quite fit the format of an oral history recording, and are instead better classified as an interview. With this in mind, they recommend that the 2025 review consider a possible cross-species review with Research Outputs, and whether scope could slightly change to ‘Oral Histories and Audiovisual Interviews’ or something that is more inclusive. |
||
|
Additional Comments There may be a need for clarifying what falls under oral histories in the context of preservation at the organization - whether it includes audio and/or video recordings recorded for the purposes of creating oral history recordings (to be added to an organization’s collection), or for internal-only use. In addition, there may be some misidentification of oral history recordings, where the intent may have been to capture the recording as a research interview or as vox pops. See also:
|
||
Collections Information Management Data and Systems
Collections Information Management Data and Systems
|
|
|
|
|
Descriptive information and data, covering both the systems (databases) and the data they contain. This includes information made publicly available, and information only available for internal use. |
||
|
Digital Species: Museum and Gallery |
Trend in 2024:
|
Consensus Decision |
|
Added to List: 2023 |
New Rescoped Entry |
|
|
Imminence of Action Action is recommended within three years, detailed assessment within one year. |
Significance of Loss The loss of tools or services within this group would have a global impact. |
Effort to Preserve | Inevitability It would require a major effort to prevent or reduce losses in this group, possibly requiring the development of new preservation tools or techniques. |
|
Examples Covered under this entry are third-party and in-house collections information management systems and databases, current and legacy, both large and small (e.g., Microsoft Access, FileMaker Pro). |
||
|
‘Critically Endangered’ in the Presence of Aggravating Conditions Poor or no documentation; lack of technical and preservation infrastructure; complex interdependencies on specific hardware, software or operating systems; significant volumes or diversity of data; conflation of access with preservation; dependence on proprietary products; lack of preservation capacity in museum or gallery; poorly developed or no processes for migration or normalization; uncertainty over IPR or the presence of orphaned works. |
||
|
‘Vulnerable’ in the Presence of Good Practice Strong documentation; preservation capability; strong repository and preservation technical infrastructure; good descriptive cataloguing; use of open formats and open source software; considered data management planning; licencing that enables preservation. |
||
|
2023 Review This entry was added in 2019 under ‘Digital Materials in Museums and Galleries’ and previously rescoped in 2021 to ‘Supporting Digital Materials for Museums and Galleries’. The 2023 Bit List Council superseded the entry, splitting it into six discrete entries as the scope of the single entry was too broad to provide the guidance needed. The recommendation to break this entry down was also made by the 2021 Jury, as the types of digital collections content in museums can be vast and offer particular risks in museum and gallery contexts. For this entry on collections information management data and systems, context is important. For example, smaller 'in-house developed' and 'cottage industry' systems may be at higher risk than larger third-party systems with significant international buy-in and support. They additionally recommended that the next major 2025 review consider whether or not to split out the data held in Collections Information Management Systems from the systems themselves. |
||
|
2024 Interim Review These risks remain on the same basis as before, with no significant trend towards even greater or reduced risk (‘No change’ to trend). While there are no changes to the risk trend, the context in the wider cultural sector of the 2023 British Library Cybersecurity incident should be taken into account that this type of data may be impacted if museum and galleries are on the receiving end of cybersecurity incidents. Museums and galleries may have older legacy systems in place (and potentially with fewer backups and redundancies built in), and so the impact may be significant for them. |
||
|
Additional Comments Databases and catalogues can have a knock-on effect. The information they contain is valuable for contextualizing and understanding the resources they describe. Without them, meaning may be lost even if bits are not. Case Studies or Examples:
|
||
Proceedings in Court
Proceedings in Court
|
|
|
|
|
Digital materials generated through legal proceedings in court. |
||
|
Digital Species: Legal Data |
Trend in 2023:
|
Consensus Decision |
|
Added to List: 2017 |
Trend in 2024:
|
Previously: Endangered |
|
Imminence of Action Action is recommended within three years, detailed assessment within one year. |
Significance of Loss The loss of tools, data or services within this group would impact on people and sectors around the world. |
Effort to Preserve | Inevitability It would require a major effort to address losses in this group, possibly requiring the development of new preservation tools or techniques. |
|
Examples Digital records of proceedings; digital records of rulings, and all manner of quasi-judicial proceedings and tribunals. |
||
|
‘Critically Endangered’ in the Presence of Aggravating Conditions Loss of context; loss of integrity; external dependencies; poor storage; lack of understanding; churn of staff; significant or diversity of data; poorly developed specifications; ill-informed records management; poorly developed transfer protocols; poorly developed migration or normalization; longstanding protocols or procedures that apply unsuitable paper processes to digital materials; Uncertainty over IPR or the presence of orphaned works. |
||
|
‘Vulnerable’ in the Presence of Good Practice Well managed data infrastructure; preservation enabled at ingest; carefully managed authenticity; use of persistent identifiers; finding aids; well managed records management processes; recognition of preservation requirements at highest levels; strategic investment in digital preservation; preservation roadmap; participation in the digital preservation community. |
||
|
2023 Review This entry is a subset of a previous 2019 entry, ‘Proceedings and Evidence in Court,’ which was itself created as a subset of entry in 2017 for ‘Digital Legal Records and Evidence.’ The 2021 Jury split ‘Proceedings and Evidence in Court’ into two more discrete entries to highlight their distinct preservation challenges and risk profiles. This entry includes court proceedings and recognizes that courts have a responsibility to provide robust preservation that ensures the authenticity of these records. The 2022 Taskforce noted no change to the trend. The 2023 Council agreed with the Endangered classification with the overall risks remaining on the same basis as before (‘No change’ to trend). |
||
|
2024 Interim Review These risks remain on the same basis as before, with no significant trend towards even greater or reduced risk (‘No change’ to trend). |
||
|
Additional Comments Recordings of proceedings in court may include the AV recording of the court session, which may pose particular preservation risks associated with the video files. Temporary courts are continuing to gradually close and decisions about preservation and management of their archives are being made hurriedly and at the last minute. Some of the decisions are placing materials at high risk due to; materials being split all over the place. including to entities with no capacity or capability to preserve them, a seeming lack of understanding that preservation and management of the archives has no completion date, an unwillingness to invest in preservation or a drive to keep costs low which is resulting in negative implications for preservation, hurried choices on preservation measures which are not allowing for proper testing of approaches to safeguard authenticity and legal admissibility (e.g. extracting digital data from complex systems in formats that can then potentially not be restored. Standard Records Management processes within designated agencies should be able to take care of the preservation of materials like this but given that it is likely to involve complex types of data, such agencies may not be equipped to deliver preservation effectively. It is surprising that courts are not more prominent in the digital preservation community, where solutions now exist. Case Studies or Examples:
|
||