This article was downloaded by: [University of Connecticut]On: 10 October 2014, At: 15:30Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Australian Academic & ResearchLibrariesPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/uarl20

Preserving the Past, Conceptualising theFuture: Research Libraries and DigitalPreservationToby Burrowsa

a Toby Burrows is Principal Librarian, Scholars' Centre, The Universityof Western Australia Library, Nedlands WA 6907. Email:Published online: 28 Oct 2013.

To cite this article: Toby Burrows (2000) Preserving the Past, Conceptualising the Future: ResearchLibraries and Digital Preservation, Australian Academic & Research Libraries, 31:4, 142-153, DOI:10.1080/00048623.2000.10755131

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00048623.2000.10755131

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, ouragents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to theaccuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions andviews expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and arenot the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should notbe relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information.Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands,costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arisingdirectly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of theContent.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Preserving the Past, Conceptualising the Future: Research Libraries and Digital Preservation

TOBY BURROWS

ABSTRACT The change from analogue to digital materials requires research libraries to reconceptualise their preservation strategies. Should we attempt to save everything, with all the problems this raises? Or select what really matters- and how are these items to be chosen? Finally, once items are chosen for preservation, who should be responsible for this?

One of the more unusual publications held in the Special Collections of the University of Western Australia Library is a 1990 edition of the works of the philosopher David Hume, contained on eight 5'4''

diskettes. It has been joined more recently by several similar diskettes containing early drafts of writings by the West Australian poet John Kinsella. ;None of these diskettes can be used on any of the computers currently owned by the library, even though the Hume texts are in 'plain ASCII' format and the Kinsella texts are accompanied by the long-obsolete software used to create them.

These are minor curiosities, perhaps, as long as they are seen as a tiny part of the Library's collections. But they take on a new and larger significance in the light of the recent agreement between most of the major Australian university libraries and the Elsevier publishing group over the ScienceDirect electronic journal service (www.sciencedirect. com). As a result of this agreement, the libraries' subscriptions to Elsevier journals will be converted to electronic form from 2001. Print subscriptions will, for the most part, be abandoned. This decision is a watershed in the history of access to knowledge in Australia, given the importance and cost of these journals. It also raises the topic of digital preservation to the first rank. Until now, there has been a tendency in Australian research libraries to regard this as a specialised issue which can be left to the National Library and its

Toby Burrows is Principal Librarian, Scholars' Centre, The University of Western Australia Library, Nedlands WA 6907. Email: tburrows@library.uwa.edu.au

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 1

5:30

10

Oct

ober

201

4

Burrows: Preserving the Past

internationally recognised PANDORA project (www.nla.gov.aulpandora/). But as digital materials move from the periphery to the centre of Australia's knowledge base, the question of their preservation becomes increasingly urgent.

The technical aspects of digital preservation have been discussed in numerous articles, books, conference papers and websites, and I do not intend to go over that ground again here. Instead, I will focus on some of the key conceptual issues associated with digital preservation. Unless we tackle these issues first, we are in danger of asking the wrong questions, making the wrong assumptions, and allowing what is technically _possible to take precedence over what we need to do.

I will also be focusing primarily on research libraries and their future role in digital preservation. Other institutions - especially archives - also have a major role to play, but the details of their activities are, for the most part, beyond the scope of this paper.

Some definitions also need to be clarified. The term 'digital preservation' is widely used but ambiguous. In this paper, I am using it to mean the preservation of digital objects, not the use of digitisation as a preservation technique for physical objects. The term 'digital archiving' is sometimes used as if it were a synonym for digital preservation, but Oya Rieger argues that it should be reserved for 'initiatives assumed by institutions with a mandated responsibility to maintain digital information for legal, fiscal, evidential, or historical purposes' .I Digital preservation has a broader meaning: the retention of digital collections so that they can be used for as long as required.

The Digital Era and its Preservation The 'digital era' might be said, strictly speaking, to have begun with the creation of the first digital data in the 1940s. In subsequent decades, the volume of digital data has grown inexorably, but for a long time it continued to be perceived as subsidiary to the 'real' - the definitive - record of intellectual, cultural, commercial and social activities, embodied in printed or written form. Only in the 1990s, with the ubiquity of the Internet and the World Wide Web, have digital materials moved into a dominant position. The digital era has now begun, in the sense that the human record is now predominantly digital. This brings with it - amongst numerous other upheavals - entirely new challenges in maintaining and preserving that record in its digital form.

143

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 1

5:30

10

Oct

ober

201

4

AARL, December 2000

Research libraries are products of the 'pre-digital' era. Until very recently, they adhered resolutely to principles drawn from their role as custodians of books, journals, manuscripts, and other physical materials. There was general agreement that such libraries should retain their local collection indefinitely, with the possible exception of duplicate copies and some rapidly superseded material. There were undoubtedly some successful areas of collaborative activity, such as the preservation of newspapers, but for the most part research libraries went it alone. The existence of multiple libraries with similar aims and functions was considered to be a guarantee of the continued existence of the printed intellectual and cultural heritage.

It was possible, in most cases, to define quite clearly the library's responsibility for preservation. It only extended to the materials which the library itself owned and held. Other collections - whether personal or institutional - were the responsibility of their respective owners. In research libraries there was a general feeling that 'benign neglect' was enough for the preservation of most kinds of materials, as long as they were kept in air­conditioned buildings under reasonable security. The redundancy in the system meant that active preservation was unnecessary for all but the most unique and specialised treasures.

The picture is now changing rapidly and dramatically. We are experiencing the much-heralded 'paradigm shift' from local ownership, ·retention and preservation to access to materials physically stored elsewhere (usually on the publisher's website). There is a prodigious amount of material which is nominally available through libraries' web services, but which is actually held on personal or institutional websites around the world. This has completely blurred the old distinction between personal and institutional information. As far as electronic materials are concerned, the importance of a local collection is iri rapid decline. The emergence of ScienceDirect as an electronic-only journal collection is a case in point and a harbinger of things to come.

In this new world, the concept of preservation takes on an entirely different meaning. It is no longer a case of ensuring that locally stored materials remain physically accessible and usable. Most of the important electronic resources are not under an individual library's control. Nor is this just a problem for the scientific and medical areas, with their remotely accessed electronic journals and data repositories. The need is also becoming acute in the humanities as remote sites like Perseus (www.perseus.tufts.edu) and Literature Online (lion.chadwyck.com) take on a growing importance for

144

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 1

5:30

10

Oct

ober

201

4

Burrows: Preserving the Past

teaching and research. In addition, most of the important reference works -notably the Oxford English Dictionary (dictionary.oed.com) and the Grove Dictionary of Music (www.grovemusic.com) - are now migrating to an electronic form, and are accessed remotely.

The most obvious candidates for digital preservation are those materials which are only available in digital form - the so-called 'born digital' materials. But equally important are those digital versions which are different from their non-digital precursors and add something to them. Perseus, for example, contains digital versions of various Latin and Greek texts, dictionaries, and atlases which exist in printed form - but their combination and interlinking in digital form is unique and goes beyond what was possible with the originals. The OED Online is making available new entries for the third edition, which will not be published in printed form for some years.

Conceptualising the Future Developing a reliable and workable 'solution' for the preservation of physical cultural objects like books and journals has taken centuries. It involves a cooperative and interlocking framework where the roles of the different players are quite clearly delineated, the costs are reasonably well known, the materials involved are largely fixed in type, and the relative stability of the system is only threatened by continual growth in the quantity and cost of material being produced. None of these factors are in place for the new digital era. The roles of the stakeholders are still being determined, the costs are uncertain but probably higher, the nature of the materials themselves is highly unstable and more ephemeral, the amount of data being produced is immense, and the whole meaning of 'publication' is changing.

The difficulties in developing organisational and technical strategies for this situation are, first and foremost, conceptual. On the one hand, we are faced with the problem of grasping the long-term significance of rapid and fundamental change. On the other is our inheritance from the past,. an elaborate and relatively successful system to which we have a deep professional commitment and in which we have a huge emotional investment. This produces an understandable tendency to try and find solutions which build on the existing structure, but it also leads to a more subtle difficulty: the tendency to express our perception of the problem in terms of the existing solutions. This can be seen in the continued use of terminology from the pre-digital era. Talking about 'digital libraries' is akin

145

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 1

5:30

10

Oct

ober

201

4

AARL, December 2000

to talking about the 'horseless carriage'. As Peter Lyman observes, libraries are 'old technology' .2

These conceptual difficulties are multiplied by changes in some of the fundamental assumptions underlying the humanities and social sciences -those disciplines which are concerned with interpreting past and present human culture, and which rely on the preservation of the cultural record for most of their source material. The previous consensus that some cultural products are inherently more worthy of preservation than others has taken a battering in recent years, particularly from the postmodemists. The idea of 'the canon' has been displaced to the sidelines. The 'master narratives' -religious, Marxist, scientific/ rationalist - which provided the underlying framework for decisions about selection and retention have largely been abandoned. The dominant voice is now that of cultural relativism, where all objects are potentially of cultural value and all types of materials are equally legitimate sources of cultural and social understanding. There is a strong tendency to characterise any attempt at selectivity as 'cultural imperialism' .3

Should We Save Everything? The initial - and crucial - conceptual problem is that of deciding what should be preserved. Libraries and archives have traditionally been in the business of selection and have developed elaborate guidelines for identifying which materials to retain and which to reject. But this situation did not arise solely for pragmatic reasons of space and cost. Today's research libraries are- the postmodemists would say - a product of the rational and scientific 'master narrative' of the Enlightenment, and their approach to selectivity in collecting has been fundamentally shaped by the nature of knowledge in the modem university. The cultural relativity espoused by the new humanities and social sciences is increasingly bringing into question the principles on which this selectivity is based. Even for non-digital materials, libraries are under pressure to collect more of what used to be dismissed as ephemeral and 'popular'.

The novelty and instability of the digital era raise the issue of 'collecting everything' with far greater urgency than before. Cultural relativity, when allied with our pervasive faith in the power of technology to solve every problem, leads to an expectation that everything can and should be preserved. But should we actually be aiming to save everything? The conceptual confusion which underlies our attempts to answer this question can be seen

146

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 1

5:30

10

Oct

ober

201

4

Burrows: Preserving the Past

quite clearly in the discussions at the Getty Center's 'Time & Bits' meeting in 1998.4 Howard Besser observes at one point:

The issue is not trying to save everything. No one is advocating that. But other participants talk as though they are advocating just that. Stewart Brand speaks about 'managing the future' by 'keeping options open', and tries to reconcile the need to avoid 'past overload' with the need not to burn our cultural bridges. He seems to be suggesting that we keep everything but store it somewhere out of immediate reach. Peter Lyman talks of being motivated by a 'fear of loss' and exhorts us to build the digital equivalent of the Library of Alexandria out of 'this digital rubble'. The problems with trying to preserve all our digital data are many: the

sheer volume of data involved, the cost and complexities of the technical solutions required, and the ephemerality of much ofthe material. The largest­scale attempt at this kind of digital preservation is probably Brewster Kahle's Internet Archive- of which Peter Lyman is a co-director (www.archive.org). Although it aims to collect and preserve 'the entire Web' each day, it currently only covers ASCII text on publicly accessible websites and no longer collects images or other media, let alone Usenet or FTP sites. The data involved are constantly changing and disappearing, with the mean lifetime of a web page estimated to be 70 days. The scale is enormous, with the equivalent of the entire physical holdings of the US National Archives and Records Administration being produced every eight minutes on the web.5 In his recent assessment of the state of play in digital preservation, Seamus Ross acknowledges that 'the sheer quantity of the data... makes its retention difficult even in a world of falling storage costs'. 6

There is also a more philosophical objection to the preservation of everything. If we do succeed in preserving such a huge amount of data, do we run the risk of paralysing our social and cultural sensibilities with a global version of 'information overload'? The musician Brian Eno was presumably thinking along these lines when he warned against 'subverting the natural process of cultural memory, in which forgetting is as important as remembering' .7 The historian Pierre Nora has also sounded a sceptical note, as part of his analysis of the replacement of social memory by professional history. 'The indiscriminate production of archives,' he writes, 'is ... the clearest expression of the terrorism ofhistoricised memory' .8

147

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 1

5:30

10

Oct

ober

201

4

AARL, December 2000

Saving What Really Matters? In Stephen Poliakoffs television drama 'Shooting the Past', a rapacious American businessman urges the curator of a theatened photographic collection to 'save what really matters.' If it is impossible to save everything, what should be saved? We face a real danger of being caught between two contradictory imperatives: the universalist, Alexandrian demands of cultural relativism, and the limitations imposed by technology, cost and organisational structures. Cultural relativism and postmodernism make it increasingly difficult to reach any consensus on defining 'what really matters', while insufficient funding and inadequate technology make it very difficult to achieve the goal of archiving everything.

Librarians have had a major role in making decisions about selectivity and retention for the pre-digital era, but this will not necessarily continue to be the case. In the digital era, selecting what to retain may well be based mainly on technical and commercial considerations. Several scenarios of this kind can already be seen in action: • Preserve what is easiest to preserve. This is a version of the business

strategy of 'picking the low-hanging fruit' - beginning with what is easiest to achieve straightaway, before moving on to more difficult goals. The obvious danger is that there may be little relationship between data which are easy to preserve in a technical sense and data which are of particular cultural value.

• Allow the marketplace to decide. If something is important enough and the demand for it is great enough, a way will be found to preserve it. The drawback is that the definition of 'value' in this context may be almost entirely short-term and linked primarily to commercial considerations.

• Select on the ba~is of the type of material involved. This raises more questions than it answers. Are websites more important to preserve than Usenet postings, as the Internet Archive implies? Are 'born digital' objects (with no physical equivalent) more important than those which have a physical equivalent? Are commercial digital publications -especially scientific journals - more important than publicly available data?

• Select on the basis of the most endangered material. This approach has been labelled 'digital triage' by Terry Kuny9- implying that we are in a situation where, like the emergency ward or the battlefield, crucial decisions must be made with very little time to do so, and where only the

148

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 1

5:30

10

Oct

ober

201

4

Burrows: Preserving the Past

'saveable' should be saved. Terry Sanders' film Into the Future presents several examples of this situation, especially in the area of government data from the 1960s and 1970s. In contrast, surprisingly little consideration has been given by the

research library community to the development of criteria for appraising and selecting digital objects for preservation. The only proposal of this type emanating from the 'Time & Bits' meeting was a concept called the Golden Canon.IO Envisaged by its proponents as consisting of 10,000 'great books', the Golden Canon appears to ignore the uniquely digital data of recent decades, as well as flying in the face of the deconstruction ·of the 'canon' by postmodernist thinkers. It attracted immediate criticism.

This is an area where librarians would do well to learn from archivists, who have already done considerable work in rethinking selection criteria for the retention of records in a digital environment. II

Defining the Digital Object Once a digital object has been selected for preservation, another major conceptual problem emerges. The digital era raises significant difficulties with defining the 'object' which is to be preserved. Pre-digital objects like books or manuscripts usually exist as discrete physical entities. But the boundaries of the digital object are much harder to draw, for two main reasons. Firstly, the content is hard to separate from the infrastructure which is required to gain access to it. If a writer's texts are held on a diskette using proprietary software - especially when the diskette is in the obsolete 5W' format and the software used is no longer available - is it enough to preserve the raw text? What is the effect of not preserving the original software and the physical medium?

Secondly, the boundaries of digital objects which consist of numerous interlinked components are very hard to define. Does it make sense to preserve only some of the components of a highly integrated product like ·the Perseus Website? Or can it only be preserved as a complete package? If a site contains numerous links to other sites, as the Internet Movie Database (www.imdb.com) does, is it enough to preserve only the central site without the links? Carla Hesse writes of the mixture of 'liberatory exhilaration and terror' induced by this 'possibility of boundless textual promiscuity and miscegenation'.I2 More prosaically, it also produces a major conceptual difficulty for anyone who attempts to define the boundaries of a digital object which is to be preserved.

149

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 1

5:30

10

Oct

ober

201

4

AARL, December 2000

If the aim is to preserve the complete digital object in the broadest sense, there are three possible approaches: • retain the original format and/or software - which is likely to require

maintaining the original hardware too • emulate the original software, but on a more recent form of hardware • migrate the materials to a newer form of software and a current format, or

to a 'platform-independent' format such as SGML/XML or TIFF, rather than PDF or GIF. Migration of materials, it might be argued, alters the digital object

significantly - the equivalent of a new edition in the world of print. Emulating the software has been called 'the ideal approach' ,13 but even this produces a result which is different from the original, though in a more subtle way - perhaps the equivalent of a facsimile reprint. There may be an analogy here with the distinction often drawn in the pre-digital era between 'preservation' of the content and 'conservation' of the original. Many historians, for example, would argue that they need access to original books, newspapers, and similar material, because the originals have a range of visual and tactile information which is missing from microfilm copies.

Who is Responsible? In the world of print, the creator of a work - or its copyright owner -generally passes on the responsibility for its preservation to libraries. The reasons for this are obvious: authors do not usually publish and distribute their own works, and they do not normally have the means to ensure the continuing availability of those works. The World Wide Web changes the situation significantly, by giving individuals a vehicle for the relatively easy publication and distr:ibution of their creations. Not for nothing has it been labelled the greatest vanity press ever invented.

In the world of print, the publisher of a work also usually passes on the responsibility for its preservation to libraries. Books and journals go out of print increasingly quickly, and publishers see no role for themselves in maintaining stocks of their publications. In the digital world, on the other hand, publishers have an increasing role in making their works available on a continuing basis over the Web. Libraries pay a subscription fee for access to the data rather than buying a copy for ownership and retention. Some publishers see no obligation to offer any rights of continuing access after a subscription is cancelled. But even where agreements with publishers about

150

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 1

5:30

10

Oct

ober

201

4

Burrows: Preserving the Past

maintaining archival access to these materials are negotiated (as has been the case with ScienceDirect), there is room for doubt about the longevity of such arrangements. As the authors of a recent report to the Library of Congress observe, 'the dynamics of the commercial world do not favor long-term archiving' .14

This trend towards the privatisation of preservation15 creates a new and complex range of problems. These include legal issues, since ownership and access tend to be controlled by license agreements rather than copyright law. Legal deposit does not yet apply to digital publications. Lyman and Kahle16 draw an analogy with the early days of film, television and radio. Because these new media were not initially subject to the copyright and deposit laws which applied to printed material, there is now no comprehensive archive of early publications of this type. There is a very real danger that the same situation will apply to digital data in the future and that public institutions like libraries will be reduced to preserving only what is in the public domain.

If the legal position in relation to copyright and legal deposit does become more favourable for libraries, the existing model of numerous collections which have a similar core surrounded by more unique material, is almost certainly unworkable. The scale of the data involved, and the cost of their preservation, are too unwieldy for individual institutions to handle. Cooperative approaches to preservation, through consortia of libraries and other cultural heritage institutions, are essential. Instead of a number of libraries cooperating to harmonise their collections, they need to cooperate to ensure access to a single copy of the core materials while retaining only unique data locally. There are various possible models for such collaboration, based on geographical area, subject area, or data type. Responsibility for maintaining the core may be centralised or decentralised. Specialist preservation agencies may take on responsibility for particular types of data, as is beginning to be the case with OCLC (www.oclc.org), JSTOR (www.jstor.org), and the Arts and Humanities Data Service in the UK (ahds.ac.uk).

One essential line of action is cross-sectoral collaboration between research libraries and other cultural heritage institutions. Traditionally, different institutions have specialised in preserving different types of physical objects and there has been only limited cooperation between the sectors. But digital objects- whether 'born digital' or digitised from existing materials­have the same basic characteristics, regardless of the sector they derive from. This means, in particular, that research libraries need to rethink their role and

151

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 1

5:30

10

Oct

ober

201

4

AARL, December 2000

responsibilities vis-a-vis those of archives, and ought to be learning from the work being done by archivists on the preservation of electronic records.l7

In the Australian context there is a major additional complication: the fact that almost all the commercial material is produced outside this country. Should we rely entirely on overseas preservation arrangements for meeting our future cultural needs? To what extent do we need to pursue local mirror sites? The National Library of Australia's PANDORA project is a laudable initiative, but it only covers a selection of freely available, Web-based materials produced in Australia. There is a prodigious amount of work still to do, in terms of defining the extent of Australia's digital cultural heritage and identifying responsibilities and methodologies for selection and preservation.

Conclusion In the pre-digital era, selection necessarily preceded preservation. Once a book or journal had been acquired, a decision could be made about its long­term retention. The mere act of placing it in a library was often seen as a sufficient method of preservation in itself. In the digital era things are very different. 'Digital records don't just survive by accident', observes Margaret Hedstrom.l8 As a result, a lack of preservation is tantamount to de-selection.

Digital preservation is being tackled in a conceptual framework characterised by confusion. What should be preserved: everything, or only "'what really matters'? If the latter, what grounds can we use for selecting those materials which are to be preserved? Even if we can clear up this conceptual confusion, it will be hard to agree on an agenda for action. Who is responsible for digital preservation? What methods should be used? The institutions and approaches of the pre-digital era are unlikely to be those most suited to the digital era. We will need agreement on how to share the responsibilities, what technical approaches to adopt, and how to find the money. Our cultural heritage depends on it.

Notes I 0 Rieger 'Projects to Programs: Developing a Digital Preservation Policy' in:

Kenney & Rieger (eds) Moving Theory into Practice: Digital Imaging for Libraries and Archives Mountain View CA Research Libraries Group 2000 ppl35-152

2 T Sanders Into the Future: On the Preservation of Knowledge in the Electronic Age [video recording] Santa Monica CA American Film Foundation 1997

3 M MacLean and B H Davis (eds) Time & Bits: Managing Digital Continuity Los Angeles J Paul Getty Trust 1998 p53

4 MacLean & Davis 1998 pp62-64

152

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 1

5:30

10

Oct

ober

201

4

Burrows: Preserving the Past

5 MacLean & Davis 1998 p39 6 S Ross Changing Trains at Wigan: Digital Preservation and the Future of

Scholarship London National Preservation Office 2000 p9 7 MacLean & Davis 1998 p62 8 P Nora 'Between Memory and History: Les Lieux de Memoire' Representations 26

1989 pl4 9 T Kuny 'The Digital Dark Ages?: Challenges in the Preservation of Electronic

Information' International Preservation News 17 May 1998. http://www .ifla.org!VI/4/news/17-98.htm

10 MacLean & Davis 1998 pp67-68; Ross 2000 ppl3-16 II L Sarno (ed) Authentic Records in the Electronic Age: Proceedings of an

International Symposium Vancouver InterPARES Project & Istituto Italiano di Cultura Vancouver 2000

12 C Hesse 'Humanities and the Library in the Digital Age' in Alvin Kernan (ed) What's Happened to the Humanities? Princeton NJ Princeton University Press 1997 pll3

13 J Rothenberg Avoiding Technological Quicksand: Finding a Viable Technical Foundation for Digital Preservation Washington DC Council on Library and Information Resources 1999 pp 16-19

14 LC21. 2000. LC21: a Digital Strategy for the Library of Congress. Washington DC National Academy of Sciences http://www.nap.edu/openbook/0309071445/html/

15 Kuny 1998 16 P Lyman and B Kahle 'Archiving Digital Cultural Artifacts: Organizing an Agenda

for Action' D-Lib Magazine July-August 1998 http://www.dlib.org/dlib/july98/07lyman.html

17 Sarno 2000 18 Sanders 1997

153

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 1

5:30

10

Oct

ober

201

4