Software Preservation Network: Community Roadmapping for Moving Forward

By Susan Malsbury

This is the fifth post in our series on the Software Preservation Network 2016 Forum.

Software Preservation Network logo

The final session of the Software Preservation Forum was a community roadmapping activity with two objectives: to synthesize topics, patterns, and projects that came up during the forum, and to articulate steps and the time frame for future work. This session built off of two earlier activities in the day: an icebreaker in the morning and a brainstorming activity in the afternoon.

For the morning icebreaker, participants –armed with blank index cards and a pen–found someone in the room they hadn’t met before. After brief introductions they each shared one challenge that their organization faced with software and/or software preservation, and they wrote their partner’s challenge on their own index card. After five rounds of this, participants returned to their tables for the opening remarks from the Jessica Meyerson and Zach Vowell, and Cal Lee.

At the afternoon brainstorming activity, participants took the cards form the morning icebreaker as well as fresh cards and again paired with someone they hadn’t met. Each pair looked over their notes from the morning and wrote out goals, tasks, and projects that could respond to the challenges. By that point, we had three excellent sessions as well as casual conversations over lunch and coffee breaks to further inform potential projects.

I paired with Amy Stevenson from the Microsoft Corporation. Even though her organization is very different from mine (the New York Public Library), we easily identified projects that would address our own challenges as well as the challenges we gathered in the morning. The projects we identified  included the need for a software registry, educational resources, and a clearinghouse to provide discovery for software. We then placed our cards on a butcher paper timeline at the front of the room that spanned from right now to 2022–a six-year time frame with the first full year being 2017.

During the fourth session on partnerships, Jessica Meyerson entered the goals, projects, and ideas from the timeline into a spreadsheet so that for the fifth session we were ready to get road mapping! For this session we broke into three groups to discuss the roadmap and to work on our own group’s copy of the spreadsheet. Our group subdivided into smaller groups who each took a year of the timeline to edit and comment on. While we all focused on our year, conversation between subgroups flowed freely and people felt comfortable moving projects into other years or streamlining ideas across the entire time frame. Links to the master spreadsheet and our three versions can be found here.

Despite having  three separate groups, it was remarkable how much our edited roadmaps aligned with the others. Not surprisingly, most people felt like it was important to front-load steps regarding research, developing platforms for sharing information, and identifying similar projects to form partnerships. Projects in the later years would grow from this earlier research: creating the registry, establishing a coalition, and developing software metadata models.

I found the forum and this session in particular to be energizing. I had attended the talk that Jessica Meyerson and Zach Vowell gave at SAA in 2014 when they first formed the Software Preservation Network. While I was intrigued by the idea of software preservation it seemed a far off concept to me. At that time, there were still many other issues regarding digital archives that seemed far more pressing. When I heard other people’s challenges at the forum, and had space to think about my own,  I realized how important and timely software preservation is. As digital archives best practices are being codified, more and more we are realizing how dependent we are on (often obsolete) software to do our work.


Susan Malsbury is the Digital Archivist for The New York Public Library, working with born digital archival material across the three research centers of the Library. In this role, she assists curators with acquisitions; oversees technical services staff handling ingest and processing; and coordinates with public service staff to design and implement access systems for born digital content. Susan has worked with archives at NYPL in various capacities since 2007.

Pathways to Automated Appraisal for Born-Digital Records: An SAA 2016 ERS Breakout Discussion Recap

By Lora Davis

In a stroke of brilliant SAA scheduling (or, perhaps, blind chance) the 2016 Electronic Records Section’s annual business meeting immediately followed Thursday afternoon’s session 201 “From 0 to 400 GB: Confronting the Challenges of Born-Digital Photographs.” During this session, panelists Kristen Yarmey, Ed Busch, Chris Prom, Molly Tighe, and Gregory Wiedeman discussed a variety of steps they’ve taken to answer the question “What next?” following the (physical or digital) delivery of born-digital campus photographs to their repositories. I listened intently as Wiedeman recounted how he has employed the API of his campus’ chosen cloud-based online public photo database (SmugMug) to automate the description of born-digital campus photographs at large scale. By reusing the existing photographer-generated descriptive metadata stored in SmugMug, Wiedeman’s campus photographs “describe themselves.” This struck a chord with me as I look forward to my own institution’s upcoming National Digital Stewardship Residency project “Large-Scale Digital Stewardship: Preserving Johns Hopkins University’s Born-Digital Visual History.” But, I wondered, could a similar method be employed to automate appraisal?

As the formal portion of the ERS business meeting concluded, the Section broke into several unconference-style small group discussions. Inspired by the above, I volunteered to lead one on potential methods for automating the appraisal of born-digital records. Breakout participant Tammi Kim kept discussion notes, as a group of about 20 ERS members engaged in discussion. As is often the case, our conversation occasionally deviated from the primary topic of appraisal, but even these tangents proved fruitful. Some of the topics discussed and questions raised include:

  • The differences and distinctions between born-digital appraisal and weeding. Is the goal of minimizing the total size of digital records ingested (say, reducing 50TB of born-digital campus photographs to 10TB) analogous to actually doing appraisal on these records?
  • Could the type of facial recognition software discussed in session 201 be used not only for description purposes, but also to identify VIPs and other photographic content that would inform appraisal decisions?
  • If the record’s creator (say, a campus photographer) assigned rights or permissions metadata to a digital object, might that rights metadata be employed for appraisal in an MPLP-like fashion?
  • What are the differences between photographic and text-based digital records? Is automated, machine-actionable appraisal more likely to succeed with one type of record than another? (E.g. It is easier to search for text in word processing documents and OCRed PDFs than it is to “search” in photographs.)
  • How can “micro-tools” like ArchiveFinder (product mentioned, but I cannot locate a GitHub page) and FileAnalyzer help with the appraisal of large, complex directories of digital files? Additionally, while tools like ExifTool can read, write, and edit embedded technical metadata, how useful is technical metadata to appraisal decisions?
  • How might content creators be brought into appraisal decisions after content has been transferred to a repository? Can we ask creators to enhance or add metadata after the fact?
  • Where does appraisal actually fit in with processing workflows, especially when working with larger files like video and disk images? How do you manage the need for increased storage even at the appraisal stage?
  • What “traditional” approaches to analog appraisal do not necessarily apply to digital? Where does potential future use of records fit in with born-digital appraisal decisions?
  • Are born digital archives even sustainable monetarily or ecologically? Are we building the Tower of Babel? What about server farms and the offset of dirty fuels?

I encourage anyone who attended this discussion to add to this post and/or correct any of my poor-memory-induced misstatements above by commenting below. Similarly, whether you attended the breakout or not, let’s continue this conversation in the comments section!

Lora Davis is Digital Archivist at Johns Hopkins University, where she is tasked with creating, documenting, and managing workflows for acquiring, describing, processing, preserving, and providing access to born‐digital materials. Prior to her appointment at JHU in January 2016, Lora worked at Colgate University and the University of Delaware.


Announcing the First-Ever #bdaccess Twitter Chats: 10/27 @ 2 and 9pm EST

By Jess Farrell and Sarah Dorpinghaus

This post is the fifteenth in a bloggERS series about access to born-digital materials.


Contemplating how to provide access to born-digital materials? Wondering how to meet researcher needs for accessing and analyzing files? We are too! Join us for a Twitter chat on providing access to born digital records.

*When?* Thursday, October 27 at 2:00pm and 9:00pm EST
*How?* Follow #bdaccess for the discussion
*Who?* Researchers, information professionals, and anyone else interested in using born-digital records

Newly-conceived #bdaccess chats are organized by an ad-hoc group that formed at the 2015 SAA annual meeting. We are currently developing a bootcamp to share ideas and tools for providing access to born-digital materials and have teamed up with the Digital Library Federation to spread the word about the project.

Understanding how researchers want to access and use digital archives is key to our curriculum’s success, so we’re taking it to the Twitter streets to gather feedback from digital researchers. The following five questions will guide the discussion:

Q1. _What research topic(s) of yours and/or content types have required the use of born digital materials?_

Q2. _What challenges have you faced in accessing and/or using born digital content? Any suggested improvements?_

Q3. _What discovery methods do you think are most suitable for research with born digital material?_

Q4. _What information or tools do/could help provide the context needed to evaluate and use born digital material?_

Q5. _What information about collecting/providing access would you like to see accompanying born digital archives?_

Can’t join on the 27th? Follow #bdaccess for ongoing discussion and future chats!


Jess Farrell is the curator of digital collections at Harvard Law School. Along with managing and preserving digital history, she’s currently fixated on inclusive collecting, labor issues in libraries, and decolonizing description.

Sarah Dorpinghaus is the Director of Digital Services at the University of Kentucky Libraries Special Collections Research Center. Although her research interests lie in the realm of born-digital archives, she has a budding pencil collection.

Software Preservation Network: Prospects in Software Preservation Partnerships

By Karl-Rainer Blumenthal

This is the fourth post in our series on the Software Preservation Network 2016 Forum.

Software Preservation Network logoTo me, the emphases on the importances of partnership and collaboration were the brightest highlights of August’s Software Preservation Network (SPN) Forum at Georgia State University. The event’s theme, “Action Research: Empowering the Cultural Heritage Community and Mapping Out Next Steps for Software Preservation,” permeated early panels, presentations, and brainstorming exercises, empowering as they did the attending stewards of cultural heritage and technology to advocate the next steps most critical to their own goals in order to build the most broadly representative community. After considering surveys of collection and preservation practices, and case studies evocative of their legal and procedural challenges, attendees collaboratively summarized the specific obstacles to be overcome, strategies worth pursuing together, and goals that represent success. Four stewards guided us through this task with the day’s final panel of case studies, ideas, and a participatory exercise. Under the deceptively simple title of “Partnerships,” this group grounded its discourse in practical cases and progressively widened its circle to encompass the variously missioned parties needed to make software preservation a reality at scale.

Tim Walsh (@bitarchivist), Digital Archivist at the Canadian Centre for Architecture (CCA), introduced the origins of his museum’s software preservation mission in its research program Archaeology of the Digital. Advancing one of the day’s key motifs–of software as environment beyond mere artifact–Walsh explained that the CCA’s ongoing mission to preserve tools of the design trades compels it to preserve whole systems environments in order to provide researcher access to obsolete computer-assisted design (CAD) programs and their files. “There are no valid migration pathways,” he assured us; rather emulation is necessary to sustain access even when it is limited to the reading room. Attaining even that level of accessibility required CCA to reach license agreements with the creators/owners of legacy software, one of the first, most foundational partnerships that any stewarding organization must consider. To grow further still, these partnerships will need to include technical specialists and resource providers beyond CCA’s limited archives and IT staff.

Aliza Leventhal (@alizaleventhal), Corporate Librarian/Archivist at Sasaki Associates, confronts these challenges in her role within a multi-disciplinary design practice, where unencumbered access to the products of at least 14 different CAD programs is a regular need. To meet that need she has similarly reached out to software proprietors, but likewise cultivated an expanding community of stewards in the form of the SAA Architectural Records Roundtable’s CAD/BIM Taskforce. The Taskforce embraces a clearinghouse role for resources “that address the legal, technical and curatorial complexities” of preserving especially environmentally-dependent collections in repositories like her own and Walsh’s. In order to do so, however, Leventhal reminded us that more definitive standards for the actual artifacts, environments, and documentation that we seek to preserve must first be established by independent and (inter-)national authorities like International Organization for Standardization (ISO), the American Institute of Architects (AIA), the National Institute of Building Sciences, and yet unfounded organizations in the design arts realm. Among other things, after all, more technical alignment in this regard could enable multi-institutional repositories to distribute and share acquisition, storage, and access resources and expertise.

Nicholas Taylor (@nullhandle), Web Archiving Service Manager at Stanford University Libraries, asked attendees to imagine a future SPN serving such a role itself–as a multi-institutional service partnership that distributes legal, technical, and curatorial repository management responsibilities in the model of the LOCKSS Program. Citing the CLOCKSS Archive and other private networks as a complementary example from the realms of digital images, government documents, and scholarly publications, Taylor posited that such a partnership would empower participants to act independently as centralizing service nodes, and together in overarching governance. A community-governed partnership would need to meet functional technical requirements for preservation, speak to representative use cases, and, critically, articulate a sustainable business model in order to engender buy-in. If successful though, it could among other things consolidate the broader field’s needs to for licensing and IP agreements like CCA’s.

In addition to meeting its member organizations’ needs, this version of SPN, or a partnership like it, could benefit an even wider international community. Ryder Kouba (@rsko83), Digital Collections Archivist at the American University in Cairo, spoke to this potential from his perspective on the Technology and Research Working Group of UNESCO’s PERSIST Project. The project has already produced guidance on selecting digital materials for preservation among UNESCO’s 200+ member states. Its longer term ambitions, however, include the maintenance of the virtual environments in which members’ legacy software can be preserved and accessed. Defining the functional requirements and features of such a global resource will take the sustained and detailed input of a similarly globally-spanning community, beginning in the room in which the SPN Forum took place, but continuing on to the International Conference on Digital Preservation (iPres) and international convocations beyond.

blumenthal_spn_ersblog_1 blumenthal_spn_ersblog_2







Attendees compose matrices of software preservation needs, challenges, strategies, and outcomes. Photos by Karl-Rainer Blumenthal (left) and @karirene69 (right), CC BY-NC 2.0.

The different scales of partnership thus articulated, the panelists ended their session by facilitating breakout groups in the mapping of discrete problems that partnerships can solve through their necessary steps and towards ideal outcomes. At my table, for instance, the issue of “orphaned” software–software without advocates for long-term preservation–was projected through consolidation in a kind of PRONOM-like registry to get the maintenance that they deserve from partners invested in a LOCKSS-like network. Conceptually simple as each suggestion could be, it could also prompt such different valuations and/or reservations from among just the people in the room as to illustrate how difficult the prioritization of software preservation work can be for a team of partners, rather than independent actors. To accomplish the Forum attendees’ goals equitably as well as efficiently, more consensus needed to be reached concerning the timeline of next steps and meaningful benchmarks, something that we tackled in a final brainstorming session that Susan Malsbury will describe next!


Karl-Rainer Blumenthal is a Web Archivist for the Internet Archive’s Archive-It service, where he works with 450+ partner institutions to preserve and share web heritage. Karl seeks to steward collaboration among diversely missioned and resourced cultural heritage organizations through his professional work and research, as we continuously seek new, broadly accessible solutions to the challenges of complex media preservation.

Software Preservation Network: Legal and Policy Aspects of Software Preservation

By Brandon Butler

This is the second post in our series on the Software Preservation Network 2016 Forum.

Software Preservation Network logoThe legal landscape surrounding software is a morass. (That’s a legal term of art; Black’s Law Dictionary tells us it is synonymous with “dumpster fire” and “Trump rally.”) Do you own the software on your computer? (Some of it, maybe, but some you merely lease.) Can you resell it? (In some cases you cannot.) Can you repair it? (Kinda! Or not….) Can you crack the DRM on software for research? (In a few, narrowly-defined contexts.) When are you bound by a 1000-page software license agreement—when you break a printed seal on a CD-Rom, check a box during an app store checkout process, or ignore the small print on a download website? (Don’t even try to sort that one; anarchy prevails.) Should some software even be copyrightable? (Don’t ask!) And on and on.

Those are just the questions we could ask about software in the abstract. Things get even more interesting when you talk about preserving and providing broad access to specific software titles, especially old ones. And so we did, at the very first session of the Software Preservation Network (SPN) Forum in Atlanta. (Notes and resources for the session are here.)

Our intrepid guides through this fog were Zach Vowell of California Polytechnic University, a Co-PI on the Software Preservation Network project, and Henry Lowood of Stanford University, whose Cabrinety Archive is a well-known trove of software history.

Zach kicked off the discussion with a brief description of the scope of the SPN’s IMLS-funded investigation. He then described what they had learned so far from the advice of Harvard Law School’s Cyberlaw Clinic, which SPN retained to help map the legal landscape. The Clinic identified several areas of law implicated by software preservation, and handicapped their relevance:

  • Copyright – the chief concern by far.
  • Contract law issues – another relatively big issue, given the prevalence of software license agreements.
  • The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) – significant where software is protected by DRM (like dongles, encryption, and so on).
  • Trademark dilution – because providing access to old software associated with valuable trademarks might harm the value of the brand. (This has been litigated and seems less worrisome, at least to me.)
  • Patent – a much shorter duration than copyright, and harder to obtain, but some software may be protected by patent.
  • The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) – an anti-hacking statute that mostly addresses unauthorized interaction with servers and networks, so only an issue for software that accesses a third-party server.

Zach suggested a two-tier/hybrid approach had emerged from the Clinic’s analysis:

  1. For older, orphaned, and relatively low-risk works (obscure or out-of-business publishers, etc.), fair use should in principle allow many research and preservation uses. The Clinic said there has not been a case specifically on point, but the general principles of fair use should favor archives.
  2. For newer works, with larger commercial owners still in business, libraries might pursue licenses to allow preservation and research use.

Henry Lowood brought the discussion down from abstract issues to more concrete questions he has faced in working with a substantial collection of software. Chief among them: what should a software deed of gift look like? Well, ideally it should convey copyrights or broad use rights (samples from Stanford treat IP ownership expressly and are in the Google Drive folder for this session, and the ARL Model Deed of Gift also does this well) as well as the physical property. This is often impossible, however, because software, like other media given to libraries, is often donated by mere owners of copies who have no copyrights to convey. For digital objects, copies without rights are especially problematic.

Perhaps the most remarkable part of Lowood’s discussion was his account of the relative futility of searching for copyright owners and asking permission. Like others before him, Lowood reported finding very few possible owners, and getting even fewer useful responses. Indeed, software seems to have a special version of the orphan works problem: even when you find a software publisher, they are often unable to say whether they still own the copyright, citing confusing, long-lost, and short-term agreements with independent developers. Lowood said that they could only find putative owners around 25-30% of the time, and, when found, 50% would disclaim ownership.

Discussion after the panel raised several interesting points. I suggested the use of “quitclaim deeds” that would allow putative owners to grant permission without requiring them to promise they were, indeed, the owners. Others suggested a clearinghouse of information about rights and of documents to use for licensing and transfer of software and IP. Participants also suggested leveraging current licensing negotiations with big firms to obtain perpetual rights (or “life of file” rights—models from video and ebook licensing were discussed), and perhaps rights to older titles. In general, it was agreed that advocacy was needed to put this issue on the radar for university counsel and others involved in negotiating software deals. There was agreement that reading room access should be an absolute floor of access, and that the community should push to adopt “virtual” reading rooms online as a reasonable extension of that practice into the online realm.


Brandon Butler is the first Director of Information Policy at the University of Virginia Library. He provides guidance and education to the Library and its user community on intellectual property and related issues, and advocates on the Library’s behalf for provisions in law and policy at the federal, state, local, and campus level that enable broad access to information in support of education and research. Butler is the author or co-author of a range of articles, book chapters, guides, presentations, and infographics about copyright, with a focus on libraries and the fair use doctrine.

Software Preservation Network Series

By Jessica Meyerson and Zach Vowell

This post is the first in our series on the Software Preservation Network 2016 Forum.


Software Preservation Network logoThe Software Preservation Network (SPN) 2016 Forum was held Monday, August 1st, 2016 on the Georgia State University campus in downtown Atlanta, Georgia. The SPN 2016 Forum theme, “Action Research: Empowering the Cultural Heritage Community and Mapping Out Next Steps for Software Preservation” reflected the mission of the Software Preservation Network (SPN) — to solicit community input and build consensus around next steps for preserving software at scale as part of the larger effort to ensure long-term access to digital objects. Over the next few weeks, bloggERS will be publishing a series of posts about the Forum, written by attendees. This blog post series speaks to the core beliefs of the Software Preservation Network team:

  • Reflection is essential to our practice. Our Volunteer Blog Post Authors represent a team of Reflective Practitioners — helping us to derive and articulate insights from their embodied experience as Forum attendees and participants.  
  • The practice of critical reflection around software preservation must incorporate members from complementary domains to actively participate in a coordinated effort to develop a sustainable, national strategy for proprietary software licensing and collection — pulling heavily from the collective, embodied experience and expertise of researcher-practitioners in law, archives, libraries, museums, software development and other domains.

Community participation was key to the Forum’s success and proposals were invited on topics including:

  • Current collaborations/consortial efforts
  • Collective software licensing approaches
  • Preservation efforts
  • Emulated or virtualized access options
  • Organizational structures that have worked for other multi-institutional initiatives that may work for software preservation

Our call for proposals received an enthusiastic response — so much so, that we embarked on a happy experiment to push the conversation forward, and closer to actionable next steps. We asked our participants to scrap their original proposal and work together in teams to identify overlaps/intersections across projects AND design an activity to facilitate meaningful engagement among attendees. They all said yes — to ambiguity, to experimentation, and to dedicating more of their time and energy towards making the Forum a valuable experience. The final Forum schedule can be found here, but for a preview of what you’ll be hearing about over the course of this blog post series, below is a list of sessions and their participants:


SESSION 1 – Legal and Policy Aspects of Software Preservation

  • Henry Lowood – Stanford University
  • Zach Vowell – Software Preservation Network

SESSION 2 – Current Collecting, Processing of and Access to Legacy Software

  • Glynn Edwards – Stanford University
  • Jason Scott – Internet Archive
  • Doug White – National Software Reference Library
  • Paula Jabloner – Computer History Museum

SESSION 3 – Research and Data on Software Preservation

  • Micah Altman – Massachusetts Institute of Technology
  • Jessica Meyerson & Zach Vowell – Software Preservation Network


SESSION 4 – Partnerships Forming Around Software Preservation

  • Aliza Leventhal – Sasaki Associates
  • Tim Walsh – Canadian Centre for Architecture
  • Nicholas Taylor – Stanford University
  • Ryder Kouba – The American University in Cairo

SESSION 5 – Community Roadmapping

As you read the posts in this series, if you are inspired to get involved with this growing community of dedicated colleagues, there are several ways to dive in:

  • Submit a use case. We ask, for the sake of easier analysis/comparison (finding common themes across use cases) that you follow this general structure.
  • We are scheduled to send out a version of our software preservation community roadmap on these listservs — please let us know if there are other groups of folks that might be interested.
  • Sign up to participate in the working groups that have been formed around the community roadmap.


Zach Vowell has worked with born-digital collection material since 2007, and has served as Digital Archivist at at the Robert E. Kennedy Library, California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo since 2013. At Cal Poly, he is co-primary investigator of the IMLS-funded Software Preservation Network project, and leads digital preservation efforts within Kennedy Library’s Special Collections. Zach has long recognized the need to strategically preserve software in order to provide long-term access to archival collections.

Jessica Meyerson is Digital Archivist at the Briscoe Center for American History at the University of Texas in Austin, where she is responsible for building infrastructure to support digital preservation and access. Jessica earned her M.S.I.S. from the University of Texas at Austin with specializations in digital archives and preservation. She is Co-PI on the IMLS-funded Software Preservation Network – a role that allows her to promote the essential role of software preservation in responsible and effective digital stewardship.

Call for Posts: International Perspectives on Digital Preservation

The BloggERS editorial team is planning a series of blog posts to present an international view on digital preservation, and we would like to invite you to participate.

We like to think of our topical blog series as a chance for digital archivists to share information about issues they are facing, solutions they have implemented, and new projects they are working on. We’ve had some great series in the past on digital processing and access, so we thought it might be valuable to get perspectives on digital preservation from various countries and cultures.

We have several goals that we hope the series might reach:

  1. We want to highlight similarities across borders, which will foster information sharing and can lead to fruitful collaborations;
  2. We want to discover differences in practice based on local laws, values, practices, histories; differences in practice give fresh perspective into one’s own work as well as provide new ideas for moving forward;
  3. We want to use the ERS blog to facilitate in the development of an international dialogue about the values, technologies, and practices that shape digital preservation needs across the globe;
  4. We hope to encourage future collaborative relationships by giving repositories worldwide a chance to describe their problems and solutions;
  5. We want to offer the blog as a common space for discussions of digital preservation with international points of view.

We want this series of posts to be useful to anyone working anywhere around the globe, not just in the United States. If you’ve run into issues specific to your country or culture and want to describe your issues and share your solutions, or if you’ve got a cool project that might interest an international audience, we’d love to hear from you.

Contact us with post ideas at

Also, check out our Guidelines for Writers.

The Best of BDAX: Five Themes from the 2016 Born Digital Archiving & eXchange

By Kate Tasker


Put 40 digital archivists, programmers, technologists, curators, scholars, and managers in a room together for three days, give them unlimited cups of tea and coffee, and get ready for some seriously productive discussions.

This magic happened at the Born Digital Archiving & eXchange (BDAX) unconference, held at Stanford University on July 18-20, 2016. I joined the other BDAX attendees to tackle the continuing challenges of acquiring, discovering, delivering and preserving born-digital materials.

The discussions highlighted five key themes to me:

1) Born-digital workflows are, generally, specific

We’re all coping with the general challenges of born-digital archiving, but we’re encountering individual collections which need to be addressed with local solutions and resources. BDAXers generously shared examples of use cases and successful workflows, and, although these guidelines couldn’t always translate across diverse institutions (big/small, private/public, IT help/no IT help), they’re a foundation for building best practices which can be adapted to specific needs.

2) We need tools

We need reliable tools that will persist over time to help us understand collections, to record consistent metadata and description, and to discover the characteristics of new content types. Project demos including ePADD, BitCurator Access, bwFLA – Emulation as a Service, UC Irvine’s Virtual Reading Room, the Game Metadata and Citation Project, and the University of Michigan’s ArchivesSpace-Archivematica-DSpace Integration project gave encouragement that tools are maturing and will enable us to work with more confidence and efficiency. (Thanks to all the presenters!)

3) Smart people are on this

A lot of people are doing a lot of work to guide and document efforts in born-digital archiving. We need to share these efforts widely, find common points of application, and build momentum – especially for proposed guidelines, best guesses, and continually changing procedures. (We’re laying this train track as we go, but everybody can get on board!) A brilliant resource from BDAX is a “Topical Brain Dump” Google doc where everyone can share tips related to what we each know about born-digital archives (hat-tip to Kari Smith for creating the doc, and to all BDAXers for their contributions).

4) Talking to each other helps!

Chatting with BDAX colleagues over coffee or lunch provided space to compare notes, seek advice, make connections, and find reassurance that we’re not alone in this difficult endeavor. Published literature is continually emerging on born-digital archiving topics (for example, born-digital description), but if we’re not quite ready to commit our own practices to paper magnetic storage media, then informal conversations allow us to share ideas and experiences.

5) Born-digital archiving needs YOU

BDAX attendees brainstormed a wide range of topics for discussion, illustrating that born-digital archiving collides with traditional processes at all stages of stewardship, from appraisal to access. All of these functions need to be re-examined and potentially re-imagined. It’s a big job (*understatement*) but brings with it the opportunity to gather perspective and expertise from individuals across different roles. We need to make sure everyone is invited to this party.

How to Get Involved

So, what’s next? The BDAX organizers and attendees recognize that there are many, many more colleagues out there who need to be included in these conversations. Continuing efforts are coalescing around processing levels and metrics for born-digital collections; accurately measuring and recording extent statements for digital content; and managing security and storage needs for unprocessed digital accessions. Please, join in!

You can read extensive notes for each session in this shared Google Drive folder (yes, we did talk about how to archive Google docs!) or catch up on Tweets at #bdax2016.

To subscribe to the BDAX email listserv, please email Michael Olson (mgolson[at]stanford[dot]edu), or, to join the new BDAX Slack channel, email Shira Peltzman (speltzman[at]library[dot]ucla[dot]edu).


ktasker-profile-picKate Tasker works with born-digital collections and information management systems at The Bancroft Library, University of California, Berkeley. She has an MLIS from San Jose State University and is a member of the Academy of Certified Archivists. Kate attended Capture Lab in 2015 and is currently designing workflows to provide access to born-digital collections.

bloggERS! has gone fishin’

We’re off to SAA! Will you be there too? Check out our list of ERS-recommended sessions on Sched.

If you can’t make it this year, then follow along on Twitter with #SAA16!

People fishing on Green Lake, circa 1950s. Item 31415, Ben Evans Recreation Program Collection (Record Series 5801-02), Seattle Municipal Archives


We’ll be back soon with recaps from recent conferences and plenty of other good stuff.