futureofthebook.com
preservation and persistence of the changing book

Introduction

Commentary

Reports

Workshops

Store

Links

Role of the Artifact

Comments before the report (January 15, 2001)

"Today, great sums of money are being spent to digitize materials for broader access. In many cases, electronic availability has boosted demand for the original. Nevertheless, concern with preserving the original seems to have fallen out of fashion." Preface to Preservation Science Survey, CLIR, 2000

The 18 months should be up for the Task Force on the Role of the Artifact. Its CLIR Report is due. My guess is that they will not mention the most obvious connection between originals and surrogates. I bet the task force won't even mention that originals are the backup for digital delivery systems.

There will be much detail of the qualities of originals that scholars utilize and much detail on scholarly need for digital access and its role in the absense of original documents. There will be factors such as limited space and funding that impose disposal of originals. There will be factors of risk regarding the useful life of originals. And there will be factors of migration of scholarly interest to questions that must be researched in an on-line reading mode.

But what about the backup precept that originals enable subsequent recaptures either to convey previously hidden or discounted content...perhaps via a new delivery technology...or just to be there redundantly over the long term?

There are a number of reasons why the factor of originals as the backup for digital delivery systems will not be mentioned in the CLIR Report.One that comes to mind is the premise of "one time capture" which has long been established by the Commission on Preservation and Access. I am not sure why this premise has been established...in and of itself...unless such a premise entrains other desired logic. But this premise has a flaw or two. One flaw is that it disregards the "on-demand" scenario which can impose no storage. Another flaw is that if the source original is discarded, an equally appealing idea of a "two time capture" is not possible.

Another reason that the factor of the original as the backup for digital delivery systems will not be mentioned is that it is just not in the mind set of the task force considerations. It should be, but the factor is a hybrid consideration somewhere in between administrative, academic and technological relevance. Take a look at the following blurb to illustrate the domain of task force considerations.

"The task force will ask when it is necessary to retain work in its original form, and when it is sufficient and appropriate to capture intellectual content through reformatting, be it microfilming or digital conversion. Digitizing texts and images is in many ways desirable—far more desirable than microfilming—because it vastly increases access. Digital technology, while not freeing us entirely from media (think of magnetic tape, CD-ROMs, and the paper on which files are printed), is, in its essence, disembodied and therefore allows use that defies the constraints of time and place. But the digital surrogate is quite different from the original. Microfilm, difficult as it often is to use, is at least a miniature picture of the original. A digital surrogate is a reconstructed version of the original, and the implications of that for scholarship are serious. Not surprisingly, this amazing new technology has thrown into high relief the distinctive and irreplaceable characteristics of artifacts."

This blurb does suggest that originals contain hidden content and therefore, easily uncaptured content. But there is still an icy choice of originals, originals and delivered surrogate, or, possibly, surrogate only access. The dependence of scholarship on the continued role of the source original in the context of digital delivery does not seem to emerge as the pivital premise or that the promise of digital scholarship is greatly dependent on the backup function of source originals.

the back-up role

What is meant by the idea that originals are the back-up for digital delivery systems? The idea means several things besides a suspicion that digital back-up systems may not be maintained.Other things meant include (1) that the concept is inherent in digital delivery (2) that advancing delivery technologies impose the concept and (3) that the concept accords with library organization based on fixed bibliographical reference.

(1) Whenever analog, or for that matter period digital, originals are captured for transmission via digital delivery the resulting transmission product is not a replacement for the original. The issue is not that, for example, a painted copy of a painting can or cannot replace the original, but rather that the copy is delivered in a different reading mode. In this view the copy is a reading of the original.

(2)Ironically, advancing delivery technologies impose the originals as delivery system back up. The improved capacity of digital delivery systems to render qualities of the original brings attention to its incapacity to do so. For example, monochrome microfilm was long accepted as adequate to render print on paper. This assumpution was retired by systems that assume color rendering. With improved capacity the originals are themselves more closely examined for inherent color and colored surrogate presentations can then be judged to be deficient.

On a parallel track, hidden or previously undisclosed content in originals may also be revealed by improving delivery systems. As an example, 19th c. Sanborn firemaps of presumed content are now futher revealed as a basis for graphical reconstruction of virtual 19th c. town tours.

Another factor (which is especially accentuated with digital source originals, but is common to all stored information) is a readership preference for delivery via the latest system rather than via a system contemporary to the period of the production of the original. Here obsolescene becomes a virtue both motivating reliable forward migration from source to current delivery system as well as providing the likeliest scenario for the continuing role of the source original.

(3)Library organization is based on fixed bibliographical reference. This is as true of the world wide web as it is for a monastic library. Fixed bibliographical reference means that sources are individuallly and persistently identified and these records can be postioned and repositioned among others without loss of identity. Its true that I have made up this premise of library organization but it seems so obvious that it must apply. At least such a premise must be an invisible infrastructure. The premise of fixed bibliographical reference also defines the relation of copy and original with the copy reference as a variant of the fixed original reference.

I am sure any librarian could correct, improve and extend this original as back up discussion on the spot. Any librarian could do this while multi-tasking. I use the term “leaf master” to identify a paper source original that engenders digital delivery products. Its all part of the invisible infrastructure of stored and conveyed knowledge. Most likely it won’t be mentioned.

So is the FotB prediction both weird and wrong? Let's find out in the Report. (due out this spring, 2001)

Comments after the report (April 11. 2001)

Geez!...I told you so! The CLIR draftof the Task Force Report on the Artifact in Library Collections doesn't even mention the most obvious role of an original; the role of the original as backup for digital delivery. If anything, they have managed to partition further the role of the original from the surge of access technologies.

Boy, if Nicholson Baker thinks he is onto states of denial in preservation precepts...he hasn't even begun! The reason that the precept is not posed is because it suggests that both originals and copies must be cultivated and curated together. But in terms of the Report it would be too messy if copies and originals are in continuously adjusted and modified interaction with meaning existing in between and with meaning crippled with the demise of the interaction.

And if you do suspect the too easy segregation of the roles of original and copy, the report tries to scare you into acceptance. Saying your collections are "rotting on the shelves" enables a dismissive view of the longevity of originals. Nothing will rot on library shelves because the library environment is so biocidal and no paper will deteriorate beyond scannability and no film based media need deteriorate beyond playability. Who is scaring who?

Also scholars are not likely to be duped into answering the rigged question whether they "participate in the decision making about the disposition of original materials after preservation". Who would want to participate in their "disposition"? Who would want to participate in their disposition "after preservation"? Which scholar would not, contrarily assume, that the copy and original offer two different readings, frequently accentuated by different reading modes. Which scholar would not guess that disposal of an original will disrupt its interaction with a copy.

Nicholson will love this quote since it took him some time to assimilate the meaning of the term newspaper file. "Preserving one or more instances (that is runs of newspapers) poses enormous...challenges". And another reason for the infeasibility of preserving newspaper; "All were produced for the mass market using the cheapest and most available materials." (Yeah, we are much better off preserving works produced for an elite using the most expensive and rarest materials.)

The whole narrative is posed in terms of the original OR surrogate, when it should be discussing the original AND surrogate. "There is nothing intrinsically valuable about an artifact" (p.56) EXCEPT ITS CONTINUING ROLE IN THE CONTEXT OF DIGITAL DELIVERY.

The draft report continues with the tired partition of the role of the artifact and its delivered copy and, in my opinion, misses the fundamental role of originals as a back up for digital delivery. It even shot itself in the foot, deflecting criticism of newspaper collecting, by focusing on the sad history of moving image film preservation.

No one seems to want to address the messy reality (neither Nicholson Baker or our own leadership) that the meaning of research resources is dynamic to the interaction of original and copy and that that meaning is crippled with the demise of the interaction.

looking directly at the interaction of original and copy

The discard of bound newspapers and library books for replacement by microfilm is an issue which is best positioned in the ongoing history of library automation rather than in the field of preservation management. Such replacement has been a symptom of enthusiasm for a larger agenda to convert libraries to a database reading mode.

Many reasons are offered as to why microform conversion of library materials never proved highly successful. But two of the reasons most crucial are missed. Microfilm was never a success inpart because (1) there was no previously installed base of an on-screen reading mode and (2) the ongoing interaction of the original and copy was arbitrarily stopped by the discard of filmed originals.

Think about it for a minute. Microfilm reading of the 1970's if somehow introduced today, would be better received now than it was then. Not!....you say. Now wait....add to the interface the expert asistance of the reference librarian of the 1970's and you essentially have the full text services, such as on-line newspaper files, that we now serve to appreciative readers.

And think of how much advantage retention of the originals would have meant to the dynamic of microfilm acceptance. Readership would have been provided choice and years of transition to another mode. Whats more, the originals would still be here to enable another generation image capture for the current on-line reading mode.

The sweeping agenda of library automation can both extoll and dismiss the dynamic role of the interaction of copy and original. It is a large agenda connected to the transmission of knowledge. But what if the continuing interaction of copy and original is equivalent to the transmission of knowledge? What if that is it? What if the various research and reading methods of the disciplines are to a immense degree particular interactions of originals and copies?

(a new perspective on the importance of the artifact)

What if documentary knowledge is actually a product of the interplay of original and copy? The draft of the CLIR Report on the artifact states the charge "to seek several perspectives on the importance of the artifact". But only one perpective is pursued; the separate examinations of original and copy in their particular, self-referencial attributes.

Another perspective would examine original and copy in terms of the attributes of their interactions. Let's see how this other perspective might influence the "crucial questions" posed to the task force (p.4)

"What qualities of an original are useful or necessary to retain in their original form? Under what circumstances are original materials required for research?"

This question can now be reoriented into a statement; The quality of an original useful and necessary for research is its continuing role as an exemplar for copies or readings and the circumstances in which originals are required are those in which the meaning derived from the interaction of original and copy is incomplete.

"When is it sufficient and appropriate to capture intellectual content through reformatting and not necessary to retain the original?"

The measurement of "sufficient and appropriate" is always captive to current research patterns and disciplinary agendas. Time itself is the better selector. Such time imposed selection is logical in the perspective of a continuing interaction of original and copy.

"Which preservation options provide the most appropriate and cost effective means of preserving the original?"

From the perspective of interaction, non-circulating storage augmented with continually enhanced surrogate delivery is a primary preservation option.

"From both custodial and scholarly perspectives, what are the advantages and disadvantages of these various preservation options?"

In terms of the single option mentioned; the advantages are that the originals are stored as dynamic backups in the event of problems with copy archiving or copy adequacy. The disadvantages are the unknown dimensions of shifting the preservation function from preservation of physical holdings (both copies and originals) to preservation of meaning (an abstract of the interaction of original and copy).

Now let's see how our different perspective informs other aspects of the draft narrative. For example on page ten;

"...photographs of the Civil War by Alexander Gardner can be used to study the battles; the public's reception of the war in the North; the history of clothing, medicine, or gender; or even the medium of photography itself. Which subject interest and methodology would require the use of the original, which could make duo with copy prints, which could make use of only the original photographs in their original presentation portfolios, and which would be enhanced by access to the images through digital delivery, which could then be manipulated to magnify details?"

Here we have a wonderfully observed interaction between original and copy, without a mention of that interaction. The original and copies are partitioned into separate roles. Given the different perspective, other paragraphs rewrite themselves.

"For many purposes, a high-quality surrogate may even convey this information better than does the original. The surrogate may enable access and use that would otherwise be impossible; for example, it allows a user to view an object that is physically distant, or to enhance images or perform full-text searches. Surrogates do not obviate some scholars' need to consult the object itself; however, in many cases, a surrogatecan serve scholarly needs as well as, or better than, the artifact itself." p.11

The interactivity of original and copy conveys additional meaning. The surrogate may enable access and use that would otherwise be impossible; for example, it allows a user to view an object that is physically distant, or to enhance images or perform full-text searches. Surrogates do not obviate some scholars' need to consult the object itself; however, in many cases, the interactivity can serve scholarly needs as well as, or better than, either the original or copy.

Its amazing how close the narrative gets to another perpective, yet cannot cross the threshold. Note this example that comes so close to providing a model for institutional enculturation of meaning from the interaction of original and copy;

"Scholars must engage in identifying and defining categories of exemplars and begin to work with librarians to locate the finest and best-preserved specimens. Exemplars have a long history; they played a special role in keeping texts more or less acurate during the days when they were copied by hand. Exemplares were canonical versions of texts that were retained by centers of learning to be lent out to copyists at other centers to keep errors from creeping in and proliferating (Lebvre and Martin 1997). The houses of learning developed strict protocols (and pricing schemes) for the creation and lending of these exemplars. Similar norms for the identification or classification of exemplars could be created by communities of scholars today and, in cooperation with libraries, access to these carefully documented and preserved "best copies" could be facilitated by the holding institutions." p.24

Geez...this so close to a proposing a scholarly examination of the meaning and value of enculturating a lively and continuous interaction of original and copies. But note the seclusion of the exemplars in the contemporary adaptation of the manuscript era copy centers. Here history is much closer to the future, and to the ozone of a QuickPrint or Ginney's.

Another deflection in the Report is the use of the word "artifact".

An artifact is a physical object produced at some time in the past and attesting to a given set of practices, thinking and ways of viewing the world, but whose importance will be defined by present and foreseeable future needs and use. The value of the artifact is strongly influenced, but not completely determined, by its unique features.

The initial problem here is that the artifact can be both an original or a copy. The definition also suggests that the value of the artifact is highly variable and without any consistant meaning for research. Such omitted considerations eventually lead the report into murky distinctions in the context of the "Digital Realm".

A new difficulty in the digital realm is that the whole orginal and copy interaction, including other layers of interaction across reading modes, is now mediated through a single interface. Photo to newspaper to microfilm thresholds disappear in the presence of composite, on-line delivery. We now have a cloud artifact which is in continuous and highly interactive transaction between original and copy.

Perhaps another difficulty is the added issue of preserving reading modes themselves as contrasted with preserving artifacts, whether copies or originals. Finally we would be collecting "everything".

A number of preservation approaches seem to be "stood on their heads" (or set on their feet?) in the digital realm. Resources cannot be preserved by protective storage, but depend on pro-active treatment and invested useage. The issue of wide and difuse distribution has always been a valuable approach though it does seem odd from the perspective of past reformatting agendas where "duplication of effort" was avoided. Finally there is the assignment or distribution of preservation responsibility, up stream, with the author or creator.

The repeated use of the interesting word "fungible" also plays into the efficacy of preservation by distribution. At the same time it also reveals the particular perspective of the Report.

Fungible means capable of mutual subsitution. It is used to describe distributed print copies where "one (artifactual) copy is as good as another". That's understandable but it also suggests the distributed copies are a single entity which at one level produces mere copy redundancy. Missed here is the equal reality of the copies as independent manifestations at independent locations used by separate patrons to engender unique readings. Kind of a subtle thing...but reflective of the voice of the Report.

Fungible is also used in contrast to intrinsic. In this consideration the concept does approach the interactivity of original and copy, but poses the interactivity within single given items that are selected for either fungible or intrinsic meaning. The introduced concept is followed with the question "How does one distinguish?" (p.41) In the context of digital information the fungible aspect is the distribution itself while the intrinsic aspect is the authentication itself. Again a different perspective positioning interactivity as the premise.

Finally, from the patron's view, telephone directories and copies of Tom Sawyer are fungible. (p.38) Yet the patrons readings of specific directory entries or river adventures are not. In other words, the Report is necessarily up-stream of much of the interaction of original and copy. To some extent library perspective is focused on the organization, rather than meaning, of collections. Yet, possibly, more meaning is downstream of the library enterprise and more preservation attention should be shifted there, toward the preservation of meaning rather than the preservation of physical media.

tons of wacky FotB revisions

p.57 "Each generation must engage the issue on its own terms and must do so actively, rather than passively, if preservation is to be effective." This flies in the face of the whole Report. The premise here is that a curatorial string of "yeses" can be broken by a single "no".

Why is the Report littered with whinning about a need for preservation funding? If there was absolutely no money it would be possible to discuss directly the role of the artifact. It is also apparent that the least costly option is to store the artifact rather than afford any reformatting option.

p.46 copyright is not a barrier to preservation. It is a barrier to collection or thematic reformatting. And not even there. Publishers would welcome EMU (excerpt mediated use) where the title page and contents are attached image files. EMU would also be great retrospectively where specialized reading skills can evaluate expressions used in the table of contents.

p.43 (contradiction) "Digital preservation, unlike book preservation, cannot be passive." I don't remember the Commission on Preservation and Access taking a passive approach to book preservation.

p.42 The transition to digital preservation is more complex as we shift our attention downstream to the preservation of the reading or access mode. The access device of print is the reader but with digital preservation it is a technology of delivery which must be preserved in tandum with content.

p.38 i am probably way off, but I suspect that the reason that "artifact" has proven an ambiguous concept in the Report has to do with its encompass of both original and copy. The concept is further undescribed whenever the Report refers to multiple copies of originals.

p.37 "In sum, there are many ways in which this new technology can create adequate and at times superior access to information in physical artifacts. There are also instances in which no surrogate, no matter how splendid, will serve the scholar's needs." This is an instance where the partition of original and copy without specific focus on their interaction, ends up omitting the needed observation. The two extremes described don't define the typical interaction.

Anyone who has QCed a microfilm or collated a photocopy could have come up with the needed description of the interaction. Basically the interaction is composed of three activities; (1) looking both ways back and forth between original and copy (2) looking at the effectveness of any reading mode transition and (3) using the original as the base line for resolution. There is also need for a sense of quality and detail in the transformation that is not unlike the care of scholarship.

When can a digital surrogate stand in for its source? When can a digital surrogate replace its source? When might a digital surogate be superior to its source?

Of course the fourth bullet could be; When might digital access interact with originals to engender or convey new meaning? Or in the next paragraph; "The research tools available for digital materials such as full-text searching, may make the surrogates more accessible to research questions than the originals are." This could also be rendered; may make the surrogates more interactive with the originals. Or, "There is a growing consensus that digital rather than analog reformatting will best meet....." Here the lacking observation is the cycles of copying extending both ways in time. The expression suggests that there are only two copy options rather than a continuous interactivity. And what about the important digital to analog transition that even better encompasses current print production?

p.34 "When the access copy or preservation copy does not adequately and fully capture the information, it must be retained for future use because of the probability of advances in technology."

p.32 This may be a Republican vs. Democrat type thing (a polarity in which the FotB has absolutely no interest), but the occasional use of the expression "endangered species" to refer to media types which are most a risk...is loaded. A Republican might consider preservation of a vulnerable remnant to be silly or counter-productive. A Democrat might consider preservation of a vulnerable remnant a doable priority. If this is a poor polar depiction, it does suggest that the expression is still a polarizing motif for higher risk media.

p.32 "Technology is increasing the fidelity of reformatting so successfully that most scholars do not need access to the original."

I find a subtle suggestion here, if not a conspiracy theory. What if the word "direct" was introduced? In other words scholars do not need direct access because the copy is such a perfect surrogate. This is a real likelyhood and a real circumstance. It seems, in terms of simulation, that there are only a few esoteric features of an original, aside from any physical attributes of medium, that cannot be reproduced digitally. One of these is not regularly relevant which is the reproduction of the reading mode of the original. The only minor feature that cannot be simulated for sure is the association of the original with the period and context of its production.

p.30 The "image enhancement" vs. "image intergrity" debate is fueled on both sides by software development and is pretty much unstoppable in both directions. What is needed is more apparent and transparent provenaunce of the original, especially as a accompanyment of delivered copies. The virtual reference desk services should be able to plug in attributes, assurances and location of source originals. That might even raise preservation awareness.

p.29, I have heard of acidified photo prints, but are there any photoprints "printed on acid paper"!

p.25 I remember Barclay Ogden's definition of a brittle book as a book "with a loose leaf". He was thinking of the practical implication of the combination of weakened paper and library binding oversewing. In the line about Congress thinking about preservation and the "...value of the information trapped on disintegrating pages", the real keyword is "trapped". An important portion of brittle book symptoms in libraries were caused, not by brittle paper, but by an interaction of library binding oversewing and weakened paper that produced the fatal loose leaf at initial openings.

p.23 Once a library has created scans of sufficient quality to serve as full surrogates and has put in place a feasible plan to maintain those resources over time, the next question is what to do with the original source material. Any material that is rare and of artifactual value should be retained, even if retired from active duty and stored. Items that are common, such as journals, and that have content value but no artifactual value may also be sent to storage. However, if hard copies exist at other sites, there is no compelling reason to retain them, unless the local patrons have a history of using hard copy even when digital files are available."

Does this sound a bit pre-emptive and prescriptive, even a little meaningless? Would the situation be less simple if there is any kind of continuing interactivity between originals and surrogates? What might that interactivity be? Well consider patron photocopying. Its been known to occur in libraries and it could illustrate the continuing interactivity of original and copy.

p.22 This one is a whooper. The insight needed here is that the distinction between original and copy is minor compared with a distinction between reading modes. Any associated transformation of reading modes makes the interaction of original and copies a drama of another magnitude.

This page is talking about one of the most dramatic interactivities between originals and copies; the transformation from a print reading mode to an on-line reading mode. The on-line reading mode is a technology assisted composite reading mode interrelating an oral mode, writing mode and print mode.

When the narrative speaks of scholars becoming "hooked" on digital resources it is actually refering to the enjoyment scholars find in a composite, technology assisted reading mode. That says nothing specific about their disregard of the traditional reading modes. It just says that they are addicted to reading. In fact scholars also recognize the distinctive applications of the various modes and probably even suspect that primary, original information cannot reside in a composite mode.

But if you doubt this page is a bit uppidy, check this; "Redundant collections of materials that are not rare will become untenable....What will the next generation of scholars think of....obscure (materials) that languish in dead storage?" My guess is that the next generation of scholars will understand that resources are found in various reading modes and convey their distinctive meanings by virtue of their reading modes and in proportion to the scope of a scholar's reading skills.

the Role of the Artifact continues atp.20

(illustration at top = Samuel van Hoogstraten, Letter Board, c. 1666-1678, Rijksmuseum)