Advertisement

Digital Object Formats

Abstract

All documents to be shared must conform to widely known structural schema. Information protocol and representation standards are also criti-cal. Many such standards are used to facilitate interchange between oth-erwise autonomous individuals and agencies.232 However, having too many standards can present more difficulties than having too few. For in-stance, the National Alliance for Health Information Technology identifies more than 450 mandatory and voluntary standards, more than 200 organi-zations with standards working groups, and more than 900 standards publications!

Keywords

File Format Health Information Technology Digital Audio Uniform Resource Identifier Digital Preservation 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 233.
    Miller 2004. Toward the Digital Aquifer, discusses current efforts by UK agencies to collaborate on a Common Information Environment (CIE) that meets the diverse needs of consumers of digital content and services.Google Scholar
  2. 236.
    Järnefors 1996, A short overview of ISO/IEC 10646 and Unicode, http://www.nada.kth.se/i18n/ucs/unicode-iso10646-oview.html. Korpela 2001, A Tutorial on Character Code Issues, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/chars.html, provides comprehensive citations to Unicode resources and explanations that include descriptions of idiosyncrasies and pitfalls of character representation.Google Scholar
  3. 237.
    Yergeau 1996, UTF-8, A Transformation Format for Unicode, http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2044.txt. Kuhn 2001, UTF-8 and Unicode FAQ for Unix/Linux, http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~mgk25/unicode.html.Google Scholar
  4. 238.
    European Task Force for Permanent Access to the Records of Science 2005, Strategic Action Programme 2006–2010, http://www.knaw.nl/cfdata/epic/announcerechts.cfm#212.Google Scholar
  5. 240.
    Abrams 2005, The role of format in digital preservation. Clausen 2004, Handling File Formats, http://www.netarchive.dk/Web site/publications/ FileFormats-2004.pdf. University of Leeds 2003, Survey and assessment of information on file formats..., http://www.jisc.ac.uk/uploaded_documents/FileFormatsreport.pdf. Lawrence 2000, Risk Management of Digital Information: A File Format Investigation.Google Scholar
  6. 241.
    Levy 1998, Heroic Measures: Reflections on the Possibility and Purpose of Digital Preservation, comments: “Within the archival community, whose focus... has been on paper, microform, and [so on], the predominant answer to [“preserving what?”] has shifted over time.... [I]n the early nineteenth century, archivists took their mission to be the preservation of the information contained in documents rather than the original documents themselves.... It was only... in the twentieth century, that advances in preservation theory and practice... made... possible... preserving... original materials. The pendulum thus swung from... preserving the information content of documents to... preserving the artifacts themselves.” Beedham 2005, Assessment of UKDA and TNA Compliance with OAIS and METS Standards, p. 89, presents a U.K. viewpoint.Google Scholar
  7. 242.
    JSTOR/Harvard Object Validation Environment, http://hul.harvard.edu/jhove/.Google Scholar
  8. 243.
    NISO Z39.87-200x Data Dictionary — Technical Metadata for Digital Still Images, http://www.niso.org/standards/standard_detail.cfm?std_id=731.Google Scholar
  9. 244.
    AES metadata standard for digital audio via http://www.aes.org/publications/standards/.Google Scholar
  10. 245.
    From Nelson 2005, Archive Ingest and Handling Test: The Old Dominion University Approach.Google Scholar
  11. 246.
    Internet Assigned Numbers Authority, Mime Media Types, http://www.iana.org/assignments/media-types/.Google Scholar
  12. 247.
    Abrams 2003, Towards a global digital format registry.Google Scholar
  13. 248.
    Darlington 2003, PRONOM—A Practical Online Compendium of File Formats. Brown 2005, Automating Preservation... in the PRONOM Service.Google Scholar
  14. 250.
    Global Digital Format Registry, http://hul.harvard.edu/gdfr/.Google Scholar
  15. 251.
    ISO 19005, Document management — Electronic document file format for long-term preservation at http://www.iso.org/iso/en/commcentre/pressreleases/2005/Ref974.html. Gilheany 2000, Permanent Digital Records and the PDF Format, http://www.archivebuilders.com/whitepapers/.Google Scholar
  16. 253.
    Fioretti 2005, Everybody’s Guide to OpenDocument, http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/8616.Google Scholar
  17. 254.
    OASIS 2005, The OpenDocument Format for Office Applications (OpenDocument) v1.0 Specification. In May 2006, this was approved by the International Standards Organization, with the same name, as ISO/IEC 26300.Google Scholar
  18. 255.
    OpenOffice free office suite, http://www.openoffice.org/, which is described at http://home.iprimus.com.au/ozcolour/open_office.htm.Google Scholar
  19. 256.
    Archive Builders White Papers, http://www.archivebuilders.com/whitepapers/.Google Scholar
  20. 257.
    Technical Advisory Service for Images, http://www.tasi.ac.uk/.Google Scholar
  21. 258.
    W3C 2003, Scalable Vector Graphics.Google Scholar
  22. 259.
    Standard for the Exchange of Product Model Data, http://www.steptools.com/library/standard/. A new European initiative is considering such data: LOTAR — LOng-term Archiving and Retrieval of digital technical product documentation. http://www.aecma-stan.org/Lotar.html.Google Scholar
  23. 260.
    This perception is from a NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology) March 2006 workshop on Long-term Knowledge Retention: Archival and Representation Standards.Google Scholar
  24. 261.
    Chisholm 2004, Archiving Interactive Digital Television, describes research into the archiving of as-transmitted interactive content. See http://www.bbc.co.uk/rd/pubs/whp/whp096.shtml.Google Scholar
  25. 262.
    Calas 1996, La conservation des documents sonores. Pohlmann 2000, Principles of Digital Audio.Google Scholar
  26. 263.
    Independent Media Arts Preservation, http://www.imappreserve.org/. Its Preservation 101 summarizes processes for video, audio, and film.Google Scholar
  27. 264.
    Figure 2 of AAF Association 2001, AAF Object Specification, http://www.aafassociation.org/html/specs/aafobjectspec-v1.1.pdf.Google Scholar
  28. 265.
    ISO N6823, Coding of Moving Pictures and Video, available via http://www.chiariglione.org/mpeg/standards/mpeg-a/mpeg-a.htm.Google Scholar
  29. 266.
    Bekaert 2003, Using MPEG-21 DIDL to Represent Complex Digital Objects.Google Scholar
  30. 267.
    Edmonson 2004, Audiovisual Archiving.Google Scholar
  31. 268.
    Mann 2002, Why the cybergurus are wrong about libraries.Google Scholar
  32. 269.
    Gracy 2004, The Preservation of Moving Images, also comments, “If the lack of standards for video preservation makes conservation-minded information professionals uneasy, the state of digital preservation is likely to incite a full-fledged panic attack. No longer are we merely coping with the chemical instability of the recording media; the obsolescence of the recording formats takes precedent [sic] as the new preservation challenge. And in the last twenty years, we have seen a staggering array of digital formats—with more being developed on what seems like a weekly basis.”Google Scholar
  33. 270.
    Teruggi 2004, Can We Save Our Audio-visual Heritage?Google Scholar
  34. 271.
    Seadle 2004, Sound Preservation, §II.C. Media Matters 2004, Digital Video Preservation Report of the Dance Heritage Coalition, http://www.danceheritage.org/preservation/Digital_Video_Preservation_Report.doc.Google Scholar
  35. 272.
    Williams 2002, Preserving TV and Broadcast Archives, communicates that the BBC holds about 1.7 million items of film and videotape, about 800,000 radio recordings, four million items of sheet music, three million photographs, and 22.5 million newspaper clippings. See also Wright 2004, Digital preservation of audio, video and film. Wright communicated that the BBC collection occupies about 100 kilometers of shelves. Its video media formats include 2,” 1,” 3/4″ = UMatic, BetaSP, DigiBeta, D3, DVCPRO, DVCAM tapes. Its audio media formats include 78, 33, 45 rpm discs, 1/4″ tape, CD, and minidisks in various encoding formats, Moving films occur on 35 and 16 mm tape, some black-and-white and some color, with several kinds of sound tracks (optical, magnetic; on the same carrier as the images or separate) on several kinds of film stock.Google Scholar
  36. 273.
    Fagin 1977, Multivalued dependencies and a new normal form for relational databases. See also Ashley 2004, The preservation of databases.Google Scholar
  37. 274.
    Codd 1970, A Relational Model of Data for Large Shared Data Banks.Google Scholar
  38. 275.
    Heuscher 2004, Providing Authentic Long-term Archival Access to Complex Relational Data, describes a prototype interactive interface to help manage these choicesGoogle Scholar
  39. 276.
    A Cover page tracks progress toward completing the MPEG-21 Standard definition. See http://xml.coverpages.org/ni2002-08-26-b.html.Google Scholar
  40. 277.
    Vittiello 2004, Identifiers and Identification Systems; Dack 2001, Persistent Identification Systems, http://www.nla.gov.au/initiatives/persistence/PIcontents.html; and W3C, Naming and Addressing: URIs, URLs,..., http://www.w3.org/Addressing/.Google Scholar
  41. 278.
    OAIS 2005, XRI 2.0 FAQ, http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/tc_home.php?wg_abbrev=xri.Google Scholar
  42. 279.
    Lynch 1999, Canonicalization... to facilitate preservation... of digital information.Google Scholar
  43. 280.
    Renear 2003, Toward Identity Conditions for Digital Documents, http://www.siderean.com/dc2003/503_Paper71.pdf.Google Scholar
  44. 281.
    Less rigorous methods are problematic. For example, see Lagoze 2006, Metadata aggregation and “automated digital libraries,” §7.2.Google Scholar
  45. 282.
    Sollins 1994, Functional Requirements for Uniform Resource Names, http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1737.txt.Google Scholar
  46. 283.
    W3C 2001. URIs, URLs, and URNs, http://www.w3.org/TR/uri-clarification.Google Scholar
  47. 284.
    Paskin 2003, The DOI Handbook, http://www.doi.org/hb.html.Google Scholar
  48. 285.
    Sollins 1998, Architectural Principles of Uniform Resource Name Resolution, http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2276.txt.Google Scholar
  49. 286.
    Rivest 1996, A Simple Distributed Security Infrastructure (SDSI), http://theory.lcs.mit.edu/~cis/sdsi.html, teaches that the public keys of asymmetric key encryption could be used as identifiers.Google Scholar
  50. 287.
    These details are part of what can make a normative syntax specification difficult to read, as in OAIS 2005, Extensible Resource Identifier (XRI) Syntax, V2.0, draft.Google Scholar
  51. 288.
    Berners-Lee 1998, Uniform Resource Identifiers, §2.3 describes these limitations. See http://ftp.ics.uci.edu/pub/ietf/uri/rfc2396.txt.Google Scholar
  52. 289.
    An implementation is sketched in Van de Sompel 2005, aDORe: a Modular, Standards-based Digital Object Repository, §2.2 and §4.Google Scholar
  53. 290.
    Van de Sompel 2005, The “info” URI Scheme for Information Assets with Identifiers in Public Namespaces, http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-vandesompel-info-uri-04.txt.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2007

Personalised recommendations