RE: [-empyre-] authenticity
Luciana
I'm interested in your statement one message back:
Now, when the
software-hardware environment in which the object is generated and or
kept
begins to become obsolete, we upgrade it. This means that we are
changing
the bit-stream of the object, much of its form, and much of the
information
linked to the object.
I'm not a technician and am often struggling with this, but what I had
understood from listening to various people talk on this subject is that
we can fairly easily preserve/maintain the bit-stream, but that
rendering it authentically is the problem. Would you please comment
further on this?
Thanks everyone for the fabulous discussion. I'm alternatively moved,
inspired and challenged as the morning progresses.
Margaret
Margaret E Phillips
Director Digital Archiving
National Library of Australia
email: mphillips@nla.gov.au
phone: + 61 2 6262 1140
fax: + 61 2 6273 4322
-----Original Message-----
From: empyre-bounces@gamera.cofa.unsw.edu.au
[mailto:empyre-bounces@gamera.cofa.unsw.edu.au] On Behalf Of Luciana
Duranti
Sent: Wednesday, 9 February 2005 10:18 AM
To: soft_skinned_space
Subject: RE: [-empyre-] authenticity
Paul:
Preservation of authenticity does not mean preservation of the original.
The original (i.e. the first complete instantiation of an entity that
reached its purposes) disappears in the digital environment the first
time
it is saved. What we retrieve is a copy. We cannot preserve digital
entities. We can only preserve the ability to reproduce them over and
over
again. In this context, a preserved digital entity is considered
authentic
if it can be considered to be or, better, declared to be, an authentic
copy
by the preserver who would attest to its identity and integrity when
first
acquired and document the process of preservation (including any
migration
and its consequences on form and content) afterwards. In other words,
with
traditional media, authenticity was established on the object itself, so
the preserver did not need to be concerned because any user could
analyze
the object and reach conclusions about its authenticity. With digital
media, what the user needs to scrutinize is the authority and capacity
(competence) of the preserver, and the documentation of the preservation
process.
As to why we need to know that something is authentic, well, all
researcher
want to know whether they can trust their sources, and any spectator
wants
to know whether is looking at the real thing or some forgery, imitation,
or
surrogate. Besides, don't authors want to be given credit for what they
actually created rather than some bad imitation?
As on whether this is a selection issue, I would say that it is a
creation,
selection and preservation issue. If the chain is broken at any one
point,
authenticity is no longer there. It is a selection issue in the measure
in
which, when one select what to acquire, one has to be sure of its
identity
and can establish its degree of integrity and document it.
Luciana
At 09:29 AM 09/02/2005 +1100, you wrote:
>While I agree that authenticity and integrity over time is absolutely
>what we strive for in our preservation strategies, I'm not sure this is
>a "selection" issue. I mean, if our ability to ensure the absolute
>authenticity or integrity of an item is uncertain would we then make a
>decision not select something for preservation? Shouldn't we select on
>merit, as we see it and do the best preservation effort we can? This is
>partly what we tried to get to the nub of at the NLA when we beat our
>heads together trying to determine the significant properties of items.
>Basically we were left saying we need to preserve the entity in as
>authentic manner possible. But if that is not completely possible at
>least we can record and maintain the preservation metadata to declare
>the provenence of the item; that is, what has been done to the item
over
>time in order to preserve it. It may not be the authentic original but
>it may still be very useful and provided the preservation actions taken
>are documentated and delcared, this is still, to my mind, a valid
>preservation strategy.
>
>Paul
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: empyre-bounces@gamera.cofa.unsw.edu.au
>[mailto:empyre-bounces@gamera.cofa.unsw.edu.au] On Behalf Of Luciana
>Duranti
>Sent: Wednesday, 9 February 2005 7:12 AM
>To: soft_skinned_space
>Subject: Re: [-empyre-] authenticity was Who decides and what to
>preserve
>
>
>At 01:25 PM 08/02/2005 -0600, you wrote:
> >On Feb 8, 2005, at 10:14 AM, Luciana Duranti wrote:
> >> >3) selection must keep into account authenticity, which is often
>lost
> >> through >transmission through time and space. Much of what ends up
> >> preserved in digital >form is not the authentic output of the
>creator,
> >> and does not have identity and >integrity
> >
> >i am very curious about this issue of authenticity...
> >
> >are you referring to work that does not originate in a digital form
but
>
> >begins as analog or physical material, is transcoded to digital +
>thereby
> >loses authenticity, i.e. through this process itself, or unintended
> >results, or cultural uses, or aesthetic shifts, or technical
>constraints,
> >etc...?
>
>I am referring to born digital material.
>
> >also, how does transmission result in a loss of identity [+/or]
>undermine
> >integrity?
>
>transmission across space often alters the documentary form of the
>material, which does not look to the recipient the same way as it did
to
>
>the sender. When form is much of the substance, as it usually is in the
>arts, this is a problem because the received object is not what it
>purports
>to be. Transmission through time--preservation in other words--is a
>bigger
>problem. Every time we save a digital object we break it down in its
>digital components. Every time we retrieve it, we generate a
>reproduction
>of the original object that is always slightly different. Now, when the
>software-hardware environment in which the object is generated and or
>kept
>begins to become obsolete, we upgrade it. This means that we are
>changing
>the bit-stream of the object, much of its form, and much of the
>information
>linked to the object. Thus, the object risks losing its integrity (it
is
>no
>longer intact and the changes may have altered its meaning) and its
>identity, as demonstrated by its attributes (which might be expressed
in
>
>elements present in the form of the object or in metadata linked to the
>object) may be lost with the lost elements of form or lost links.
Unless
>
>the creator produces an object according to certain requirements that
>protect it, the risk of loss of authenticity is very high. And, from a
>legal point of view, if anybody is interested in copyright (which,
>remember, is always linked to form), even if the author recognizes
>something as its own, it is not authentic if he or she cannot
>demonstrate it.
>
>I cannot think now of examples in the arts, but I do have an example in
>government. When the Canadian army in Somalia was accused of abuse, the
>Commission of Inquiry scrutinized the messaging system of the
>headquarters
>of the Defense. The Commission could not find any evidence from the
>records
>in the system that abuse had been going on in Somalia, and it did not
>find
>evidence that the messaging system had been tampered with, but it could
>not
>find any evidence that the system had not been tampered with, so it was
>not
>able to clear the accused.
>
>InterPARES has many artists involved in its research because the
concern
>
>about authenticity is a very real one, especially authenticity over the
>long term, and we are developing parameters for each of the disciplines
>involved that help creators to generate things whose authenticity can
be
>
>proven over time, to maintain them, and to provide preservers with the
>documentation that will support the verification of authenticity at any
>given time in the future,
>
>If this is unclear, please, ask again,
>
>Luciana
>
>
>
>Luciana Duranti
>Chair and Professor, Archival Studies
>Director, InterPARES Project
>School of Library, Archival and Information Studies
>The University of British Columbia
>Suite 301 - 6190 Agronomy Road
>Vancouver, B.C.V6T 1Z3 Canada
>Tel. 604/822-2587
>FAX 604/822-6006
>www.interpares.org
>www.slais.ubc.ca/people/faculty/
>
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>empyre forum
>empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
>http://www.subtle.net/empyre
>
>_______________________________________________
>empyre forum
>empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
>http://www.subtle.net/empyre
Luciana Duranti
Chair and Professor, Archival Studies
Director, InterPARES Project
School of Library, Archival and Information Studies
The University of British Columbia
Suite 301 - 6190 Agronomy Road
Vancouver, B.C.V6T 1Z3 Canada
Tel. 604/822-2587
FAX 604/822-6006
www.interpares.org
www.slais.ubc.ca/people/faculty/
_______________________________________________
empyre forum
empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
http://www.subtle.net/empyre
This archive was generated by a fusion of
Pipermail 0.09 (Mailman edition) and
MHonArc 2.6.8.