|
Logo
Guidance for Donors, Dealers, and Archival Repositories

Comments by Commenter

  • anarchivist

    • Comment on A Word on Terminology on January 4th, 2013

      Does this need to be related to or distinguished from “accession” and/or “collection development”?

    • Comment on 1 Introduction on January 4th, 2013

      I feel as though the introduction could be stronger if this paragraph were placed closer to the beginning of it.

    • Comment on 1 Introduction on January 4th, 2013

      This is more of a comment on the whole document, regarding licensing. I’d strongly suggest considering a different Creative Commons license – perhaps CC-BY or CC-BY-SA. I find the use of a noncommercial use only license problematic here because there might be a dealer motivated to share this with potential customers (both repositories and donors). I’d also recommend rethinking the no derivative works aspect of the license.

    • Comment on 2 Initial Collection Review on January 4th, 2013

      Do you mean “integrity” in an archival sense? Definitions would be useful, depending on audience.

    • “General information” should include information about the content and context of the materials.

    • Sample technical characteristics should either be listed here or in an appendix.

    • While appraisal might be familiar in the sense used by archivists and appraisal might be familiar to some of the intended readers of this document, I suspect it might be problematic for donors and dealers, who may only think of appraisal in the sense of appraisal of monetary value.

    • This should probably be a higher level section – as such it feels somewhat out of place with the section on decryption.

    • Are you making recommendations about how to do this? In §2.2 you suggest avoiding manipulating data on original source media.

    • The checklists should specify that they come from this white paper/report – the license info on the PDFs doesn’t really make sense without it.

  • bertramlyons

    • Additionally, at this phase, an assessment might include an analysis of the relative uniqueness of the born-digital content. How much of the content is only to be found on this particular drive or storage medium? How much of the content is mirrored elsewhere in the world? What rights does the donor have to donate the born-digital content in question to the repository?

  • gredwine

    • Comment on General Comments on January 3rd, 2013

      Welcome to Born Digital! Thank you for taking the time to visit.

      My co-authors and I encourage you to pose questions, share your insights, and offer critical feedback on the report. Your suggestions will help us make Born Digital a truly useful resource.

      If you have trouble with the commenting interface or would prefer to offer feedback in some other format, please email me (Gabby Redwine) at gabriela.redwine@yale.edu.

    • Comment on 1 Introduction on January 3rd, 2013

      Welcome to Born Digital! Thank you for taking the time to visit.

      My co-authors and I encourage you to pose questions, share your insights, and offer critical feedback on the report. Your suggestions will help us make Born Digital a truly useful resource.

      If you have trouble with the commenting interface or would prefer to offer feedback in some other format, please email me (Gabby Redwine) at gabriela.redwine@yale.edu.

    • Comment on 1 Introduction on January 7th, 2013

      Good point! I’ve added a release date to the footer containing the licensing information.

      Gabby

  • joelminor

    • What are some examples of “technical specialists” that a donor (or repository) might want to employ? I think this is addressed more in 2.1.1, perhaps in reference there to the “digital specialists” who may be able to help. It’s a good idea to address this issue and strongly encourage all parties to take extra precaution with outdated hardware, software and file formats.

    • Are there any examples of these various policies, procedures and guidelines that might be included in an appendix for a repository to reference when drafting their own? These are central to a successful handling of born-digital records, and many–if not most–repositories and donors/dealers will not have current policies, procedures and guidelines in place yet.

  • John Faundeen

    • Noting the the use of ‘assessment’ and ‘evaluated’ it occurred to me that this section is dealing with appraisal of collections.  I wonder if it is worth mentioning that word in this section to resonate with soem readers.

  • kate stratton

    • The last sentence in this paragraph refers to “preservation for access in the longer-term” as an additional option when screening isn’t feasible. It might be helpful to clarify what this option entails and implies and how it is distinct from the previously mentioned access restrictions (which can be governed by dates/years passed since creation) and embargo periods.

  • Kevin Glick

    • Comment on 5.1 Physical condition on January 26th, 2013

      Data documenting assessment of digital media physical condition should not be stored only in the closed donor, purchase, or acquisition files. As this section states, physical condition may impact preservation planning. When planning, repository administrators should be able to compare physical condition assessment data against a range of other factors like intellectual access, research value, interest, etc. For example, the Archivists’ Toolkit has assessment records that allow one to assign numerical values for condition of material, physical access, intellectual access, interest, research value, as well as a series of other fields. These records can then be reported and analyzed in mass.

  • Lorcan Dempsey

    • Comment on 1 Introduction on January 3rd, 2013

      Did I miss a data of publication somewhere? Even if it is a date for this version for comment ……

      Lorcan

  • Matthew McKinley

  • Seth Shaw

    • Comment on 1 Introduction on January 4th, 2013

      I agree that a CC-BY-SA is preferable. This question was still in limbo at the time of release. We appreciate the feedback.

Source: http://mcpress.media-commons.org/borndigital/comments-by-commenter/
http://mcpress.media-commons.org/borndigital/comments-by-commenter/
mcpress.media-commons.org
crawl=CC-MAIN-2017-26
63762
application/http; msgtype=response
sha1:O7U26MCI6JFSCXITP6BYP3OGYP7CY2BY
<urn:uuid:2d58b7d8-b468-40be-bb44-6373e3db42d5>
2017-06-24T07:06:22Z
66.147.244.129
application/xhtml+xml
sha1:5JVBW6AH2KD7ZCNGFDE6N627IEEWPZ2E
<urn:uuid:222c1f99-46ab-403b-b3d9-93714aeb0ccd>
http://mcpress.media-commons.org/borndigital/comments-by-commenter/
response
<urn:uuid:536e38f0-9aa2-413f-be0d-31516c6f09cb>
robots: classic
hostname: ip-10-166-41-113.ec2.internal
software: Nutch 1.6 (CC)
isPartOf: CC-MAIN-2017-26
operator: Common Crawl Admin
description: Wide crawl of the web for June 2017
publisher: Common Crawl
format: WARC File Format 1.0
conformsTo: http://bibnum.bnf.fr/WARC/WARC_ISO_28500_version1_latestdraft.pdf