{"id":1916,"date":"2023-12-03T18:53:00","date_gmt":"2023-12-03T23:53:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/resources.culturalheritage.org\/emg-review\/?page_id=1916"},"modified":"2026-06-13T15:50:50","modified_gmt":"2026-06-13T19:50:50","slug":"beyond-the-archive-preservation-and-access-for-web-based-interactive-data-journalism","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/resources.culturalheritage.org\/emg-review\/volume-7-2021-2022\/beyond-the-archive-preservation-and-access-for-web-based-interactive-data-journalism\/","title":{"rendered":"Beyond the Archive: Preservation and Access for Web-Based Interactive Data Journalism"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Josephine Jenks, Jessica Walthew, and Andrea Lipps
Electronic Media Review, Volume Seven: 2021-2022<\/em>
Full text PDF<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

As Cooper Hewitt, Smithsonian Design Museum builds its nascent born-digital collection, new formats and technologies are regularly introduced, each with their own acquisition and preservation needs. This article focuses on the museum\u2019s first effort to collect instances of interactive data journalism. Throughout the ongoing acquisition process, Cooper Hewitt is prioritizing public access and hands-on interaction. As our nation\u2019s design museum, our emphasis on collecting these works is centered on how the design and interaction enhance information access. Revisiting a selection of interactive web-based works already in the collection provided a starting point for developing strategies for documentation, preservation, and digital exhibition of these works. Central to these case studies is the reciprocal relationship between preservation and access, and a vision for how collecting institutions might harness one to further the other.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Introduction<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Over the past five years, Cooper Hewitt\u2019s Digital Acquisitions Working Group has fostered a nascent digital collection that includes emojis, typefaces, animations, and more. With each new category of digital design that enters the collection, the team works collaboratively across multiple departments to determine how the acquisition will take shape. Recently, the museum embarked on its first effort to collect instances of interactive data journalism. These stories expand the traditional definition of journalism by emphasizing visual design and taking full advantage of the digital and mobile environment. The proliferation of interactive digital journalism across the news media landscape began circa 2012, with a feature called Snow Fall<\/em> by New York Times <\/em>reporter John Branch about a deadly avalanche that had recently torn through a ski slope in Washington State. Snow Fall<\/em> featured several innovations that transformed the article into an immersive experience. Interactive insets for each skier expanded when clicked to reveal photographs of them with their family, or as children on the bunny hill\u2014contextualizing their dramatic accounts of the event with details from their day-to-day lives. Simulated animations and aerial footage made readers feel as though they themselves were on the mountain that day. The piece reverberated across the Internet as a momentous leap forward in digital storytelling.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Since then, the Times<\/em> has been producing ever more of these web-based experiences for their stories. In \u201cNew York\u2019s Subway Map Like You\u2019ve Never Seen It Before\u201d (December 2, 2019), readers virtually traverse the map while learning about its history and graphic design. Two stories likewise used the unique capabilities of the Times<\/em>\u2019 interactive platform to reach audiences against a backdrop of an overwhelming and frenetic news cycle in the early days of the COVID pandemic. \u201cHow the Virus Got Out\u201d (March 22, 2020) uses animations to trace the spread of coronavirus across the globe. \u201cAn Incalculable Loss\u201d uses a seemingly infinite scroll and snippets of obituaries from across the country to mark the grim milestone of 100,000 Americans lost to COVID-19. As websites that pull from a multitude of links, style sheets, and animation scripts, each of these stories has a complex, networked anatomy. They are testaments to a growing consensus that \u201cas performative digital objects\u2014\u2018software\u2019 in the broadest sense rather than digital simulacra of documents\u2014are sought to be preserved, object boundaries appear increasingly \u2018blurry\u2019\u201d (Espenschied and Rechert 2018, 1). To form a preservation strategy for these complex works, Cooper Hewitt revisited and experimented anew with a selection of digital works already in the collection. The result was a multitiered approach investigating documentation and web archiving, which has informed future plans for expanded public access.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Documentation Through Screen Captures and Videos<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Documentation for the following case studies took the form of screen captures and videos. In his article \u201cTaking Screenshots,\u201d Dragan Espenschied shares several guidelines on screen captures for the purposes of preservation. He advocates for including the browser\u2019s frame as an acknowledgment that web pages are inextricably linked to their browser environments. The visual details of our Google Chrome or Safari windows may seem commonplace to us, but \u201cin a year\u2019s time, the memory of that particular browser version will already have faded away\u201d (Espenschied 2021). He also recommends ensuring that a website\u2019s full URL is visible, as \u201cit signifies ownership and control, and is often subject to artistic choices\u201d (Espenschied 2021). Armed with Espenschied\u2019s guidelines, Cooper Hewitt created screenshots of the Times<\/em> stories and several other digital works already in the collection.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Nearly as simple to produce as screenshots are screen recordings. One challenge, however, was the sheer amount of scrolling required, particularly by \u201cAn Incalculable Loss.\u201d At 33,565 pixels long, the story\u2019s exceedingly long format was a purposeful design choice, intended to underscore the unthinkable number of COVID deaths in America. It was difficult to avoid slipping up during a recording\u2014mistakenly scrolling past text or receiving a notification halfway through. Inevitably, the pace would be inconsistent. The solution to many of these issues turned out to be automated scrolling. For the desktop screen recording, testing a few different Chrome plug-in extensions eventually led to one that allows a user to pause and resume as needed. For the mobile version, Shortcuts, the Apple app that comes preloaded onto iPhones, was the answer. A Shortcut called Safari Autoscroll<\/em> offers a variety of speeds and, once installed, appears as an option whenever one visits a web page. The result of the automated scrolling was a screen recording that appeared much smoother and more professional, giving this solemn story the gravity that it deserved. Last, over-the-shoulder videos were created to capture context about the websites\u2019 native hardware environments and the way in which a user physically interacts with each story (fig. 1). Although born-digital works are often described as intangible, they all have material elements. Software and web pages cannot exist without our laptops, iPhones, servers, or us. Over-the-shoulder videos are one way to avoid obfuscating a work\u2019s physical reality.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n
\"\"
Fig. 1. Over-the-shoulder videos of web-based works document their native hardware environments and user interaction.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Screenshots and videos are dependable forms of documentation because they are easy to create and their file types are relatively stable and compatible across most environments. In addition to being tools of preservation, Cooper Hewitt relies on them for its YouTube channel and blog posts\u2014important forms of outreach and education. Moreover, they captured the Times<\/em> stories in their desktop and <\/em>mobile formats, which is more difficult using the tools described in the following. The downside, of course, is that recordings are not interactive. For this reason, they may not be the ideal representation of a work in an exhibition context. As Daisy Abbott argues in \u201cPreserving Interaction,\u201d \u201cThere is a danger of relying on the heritage of conservation studies and fixating on the curation of the more manageable, tangible and static aspects of the work at the expense of the more difficult (and resource-intensive) but more meaningful representations of essence\u201d (Abbott 2012, 65). Interactivity is part of the essence of these works and a priority for Cooper Hewitt; this led the museum to explore web archiving.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Preservation Through Web Archiving<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Web archiving is a process by which either a person or a bot systematically browses a website and saves all of its content and data in an archival format. As the original, live website is updated or redesigned, the web archive will remain the same and serve as a snapshot of the past. Web archiving began in earnest in 1996 with the Internet Archive, a digital library that now holds more than 600 billion websites and a platform for playback called the Wayback Machine. Web archives have a \u201c.warc\u201d file type that can be downloaded and stored locally but played back and viewed in a browser environment (Blumenthal 2021). Users navigate the archived site just as they would a normal web page. Web archiving is routine practice at many libraries, and in this context, a subscription-based service called Archive-It, also part of the Internet Archive, is popular for conducting automated and repeated crawls at a mass scale. Yet, for Cooper Hewitt\u2019s small collection of media-rich, web-based artworks, some of the features of Archive-It are overly advanced, whereas others do not offer enough control.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

One leading alternative is Webrecorder, a free, open-source web archiving service that comes in the form of a Chrome browser extension or a full desktop application. Unlike Archive-It, Webrecorder does not use automated crawlers. Instead, an archive is recorded as a user manually browses the desired site. This model gives a conservator more control over a capture, and it worked well for several Cooper Hewitt collection items. Similarly effective was Conifer by Rhizome, which developed out of the same initial project as Webrecorder and employs many of the same open-source components, including manual browsing. Conifer is free to use for up to 5 GB of storage, provides space for descriptive metadata, and has the option of making archives public or private. It also has the capacity to capture and play back archives in emulated legacy browsers that support Adobe Flash. This feature was instrumental for one work in the Cooper Hewitt collection titled Ten Thousand Cents <\/em>(fig. 2). <\/em>Created by Aaron Koblin (b. 1982) and Takashi Kawashima (b. 1985) in 2008, Ten Thousand Cents<\/em> relies on the now obsolete Flash software to depict a $100 bill made up of 10,000 drawings, executed by 10,000 different people. Completely inaccessible using modern browsers, the work functioned exactly as intended when visited via Conifer\u2019s built-in emulators.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"
Fig. 2. Aaron Koblin and Takashi Kawashima, Ten Thousand Cents<\/em>, 2007-8. Processing, Adobe Flash CS3, PHP\/MySQL, Amazon Mechanical Turk, Adobe Photoshop, Adobe After Effects. Cooper Hewitt 2014-41-2.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Saving and storing a web archive of Ten Thousand Cents<\/em>, however, proved more complicated. The work consists of 10,000 links; clicking on any one of its individual drawings will produce a magnified version, highlighting that particular author\u2019s style. Because Webrecorder and Conifer only capture those squares that are manually clicked on, it would take hours to achieve a complete capture without the use of scripted or programmatic intervention in the recording. The Times<\/em> stories, however, can be archived in a matter of minutes. This contrast points to a broader distinction that can be applied to many other web-based works: some are linear in structure, whereas others branch off into a multitude of possible pathways. Abbott refers to these pathways as \u201ctrajectories\u201d and the users who explore them as \u201cspect-actors\u201d\u2014viewers, as well as creators, of their own experiences. She writes, \u201cA trajectory through an artwork is the whole user experience, the \u2018narrative\u2019 of the work as defined jointly by the work itself and its interfaces, and spect-actor knowledge and choices\u201d (Abbott 2012, 63\u201364). A key aspect of documenting interactive works involves \u201cmapping these trajectories of interaction and the reasons why the experience unfolded as it did\u201d (Abbott 2012, 64). The number of possible trajectories within a given work can necessitate different strategies for providing public access.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Access and Accessibility<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Even more sprawling than Ten Thousand Cents<\/em> is a site called Watercolor Maptiles<\/em> by Stamen Design. Created in 2012, in development through 2015, and maintained to the present by the design firm, it was acquired by Cooper Hewitt in 2021. It is a web-based open-source mapping tool with the textures and qualities of a hand-painted watercolor. Like Ten Thousand Cents<\/em>, Watercolor Maptiles<\/em> would be difficult, if not impossible, to create a web archive for because it relies on millions of image files to function, and there are as many possible user experiences of the site as there are places in the world. In this case, the best option for preserving and providing access to the work was to launch a live website (https:\/\/watercolormaps.collection.cooperhewitt.org). The original Watercolor Maptiles<\/em> still exists under the Stamen domain (http:\/\/maps.stamen.com\/#watercolor), and the firm is theoretically free to change, update, or even stop maintaining it. Existing in parallel is the site hosted by Cooper Hewitt, which features information about the work and its acquisition, and it will remain as the designers initially intended. With this method, interactivity and open access\u2014hallmarks of the web\u2014are preserved.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The challenges involved in executing such an approach are not insignificant. Cooper Hewitt\u2019s Digital Acquisitions Working Group considered what it would entail for the Times <\/em>sites. The \u201cSubway Map\u201d story alone calls on several JavaScript files, CSS style sheets, and a total of 81 videos of the moving map\u2014some for desktops and others for mobile users. Upon obtaining the backend code, the museum would need to parse through it and remove those lines which point at the Times\u2019<\/em> internal servers. It would have to be adapted to fit the Smithsonian\u2019s strict security requirements and regularly updated and maintained by Smithsonian staff, in coordination with Cooper Hewitt. There would need to be close collaboration between the acquiring and gifting institutions, as well as Smithsonian web departments that do not normally work with art objects or collection items. Preserving Maptiles<\/em> in this way was a feat and an invaluable proof of concept. The linear, easily archivable nature of the Times <\/em>stories, however, meant that there was a simpler solution. A solution proposed by Small Data Industries\u2019 Cass Fino-Radin is to use a Webrecorder tool called Embedded Replay, which allows one to embed the playback of a .warc file within another website, just as a YouTube video might be embedded in a blog post. In this scenario, an archive embedded within a Cooper Hewitt web platform would provide users with access to digital works without the experience being mediated through a third-party\u2019s graphic interface. This approach is being used already for an upcoming loan of one of Cooper Hewitt\u2019s interactive works to another institution.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

With each of these methods\u2013the live, parallel website and the embedded archive\u2014the time-based work is continuously activated, and able to be accessed by virtual visitors on any day, at any moment. An institution\u2019s engagement with the public need not stop here. In the future, Cooper Hewitt hopes to post the source code for some of its collection of web-based works on GitHub, using the platform as a transparent collections repository that will foster crowdsourced preservation solutions. There are certain barriers to this model\u2014as Glenn Wharton points out in \u201cPublic Access in the Age of Documented Art,\u201d some artists might feel protective of their intellectual property, whereas others may \u201cwant the public to experience their work in the gallery or online without technical knowledge about how the work was produced. This \u2018black box\u2019 approach to exhibiting preserves the mystery or magic by offering an unencumbered experience\u201d (Wharton 2015, 187). Despite exceptions like these, \u201cmuseums need to open their archives for public access to and contributions from outside sources\u201d while respecting the wishes of individual artists (Wharton 2015, 183). Whereas traditional media rarely encourage visitor interventions, time-based artworks often feature distributed authorship and audience participation, a fact that conservators \u201cwill have to take into account and can benefit from,\u201d by embracing \u201cvariability rather than creating a freeze state\u201d (Dekker 2014, 82). Living, networked artworks call for a living, networked approach to their preservation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Thus far, Cooper Hewitt\u2019s experience with crowdsourced conservation has been a surprisingly positive one. In 2014, the museum collected an iOS app called Planetary<\/em>, which visualizes a user\u2019s personal music collection as a network of celestial bodies. The app soon became outdated and unable to run on today\u2019s iPhones or iPads (Walthew 2022). The museum had made the source code available on GitHub, however, and during the pandemic a software developer across the globe, Kemal Enver, updated it to run seamlessly on the current iOS\u2014a gratifying example of what Annett Dekker refers to as \u201cnetworks of care\u201d (Dekker 2014, 79). Because GitHub has built-in version control, the original code is saved and the contributor\u2019s changes are able to be tracked as branches or merged into the main codebase. Given the varying options presented by GitHub of envisioning the relationship of new code to old, some work will be needed to negotiate how these terms translate to museum ontologies about the naming and valuing of versions, iterations, and refabrications. It is also worth noting that although Git, the version control software on which GitHub relies, is open source, GitHub as a whole is not (Barok et al. 2019, 99). Truly open-source repository managers, such as GitLab, can and should be explored as well.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Inextricably linked to the matter of access<\/em> is that of inclusive accessibility. <\/em>Alternative text, zoom functionality, keyboard inputs, and many other design and engineering features could enable people with disabilities, older users, and those with bandwidth restrictions to better interact with the works in Cooper Hewitt\u2019s digital collection. The next step for the museum in evolving its digital acquisition practices will be exploring how to improve web accessibility, particularly while maintaining an artwork\u2019s integrity and respecting a designer\u2019s intent. Already, acquisitions like Watercolor Maptiles<\/em> and Planetary<\/em> demonstrate the reciprocal relationship between preservation and access; investing in the work\u2019s accessibility will help ensure its longevity.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Conclusions<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Each of the tools and strategies described here have a time and a place. Screenshots and screen recordings are essential for documenting web-based works, especially in a mobile environment. Web archiving allows for preservation through a stable file format and access through embedded replay. Full-fledged, parallel websites are an option for works that are difficult or time consuming to capture completely as an archive. GitHub holds promise as a platform for collaboration between institutions and the public. Even before the point of acquisition, the work of preservation begins, because \u201cdocumentation is not a task that can be left until the \u2018completion\u2019 of a work or installation\u201d (Abbott 2012, 68). In this case, Cooper Hewitt looked to its existing collection to make a plan for the potential incoming of a new design category\u2014digital journalism. The hope is that through a multifaceted approach, the museum will be prepared for the unpredictability of the future, without sacrificing what is most important: access and interaction.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

The authors would like to thank Cass Fino-Radin of Small Data Industries for advising and assisting in the documentation and archiving of Cooper Hewitt\u2019s web-based works. Emma Dickson also contributed to conservation of some of the works described here. We gratefully acknowledge the National Collections Program for funding this work.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

REFERENCES<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Abbott, Daisy. 2012. \u201cPreserving Interaction.\u201d In The Preservation of Complex Objects, Volume 2: Software Art<\/em>, edited by Leo Konstantelos, Janet Delve, David Anderson, Clive Billenness, Drew Baker, and Milena Dobreva. Portsmouth: University of Portsmouth. 61\u201370. http:\/\/radar.gsa.ac.uk\/2806\/1\/pocos_vol_2_final_release[1].pdf<\/a> (accessed 08\/15\/22).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Blumenthal, Karl-Rainer. 2021. \u201cThe Stack: An Introduction to the WARC File.\u201d Archive-It Blog<\/em>. https:\/\/web.archive.org\/web\/20210415041508\/https:\/\/archive-it.org\/blog\/post\/the-stack-warc-file\/<\/a> (accessed 08\/15\/22).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Barok, Du\u0161an, Julie Boschat Thorez, Annet Dekker, David Gauthier, and Claudia Roeck. 2019. \u201cArchiving Complex Digital Artworks.\u201d Journal of the Institute of Conservation <\/em>42 (2): 94\u2013113. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1080\/19455224.2019.1604398<\/a> (accessed 08\/15\/22).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Dekker, Annet. 2014. \u201cEnabling the Future, or How to Survive FOREVER: A Study of Networks, Processes, and Ambiguity in Net Art and the Need for an Expanded Practice of Conservation.\u201d PhD dissertation. University of London. https:\/\/research.gold.ac.uk\/id\/eprint\/11155\/1\/CCS_thesis_DekkerA2014.pdf<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Espenschied, Dragan. 2021. \u201cTaking Screenshots.\u201d Rhizome Almanac<\/em>. https:\/\/almanac.rhizome.org\/pages\/taking-screenshots<\/a> (accessed 08\/15\/22).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Espenschied, Dragan, and Klaus Rechert. 2018. \u201cFencing Apparently Infinite Objects.\u201d Paper presented at the 15th iPres International Conference on Digital Preservation, Boston and Cambridge Massachusetts. https:\/\/osf.io\/pw5dq<\/a> (accessed 08\/15\/22).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Walthew, Jessica. 2022. \u201cA Love Letter to Planetary.\u201d Cooper Hewitt<\/em>. www.cooperhewitt.org\/2022\/02\/16\/a-love-letter-to-planetary\/<\/a> (accessed 08\/15\/22).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Wharton, Glenn. 2015. \u201cPublic Access in the Age of Documented Art.\u201d Revista de Hist\u00f3ria da Arte <\/em>4: 180\u201391. https:\/\/revistaharte.fcsh.unl.pt\/rhaw4\/RHAw4.pdf<\/a> (accessed 08\/15\/22).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

FURTHER READING<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Dekker, Annet. 2014. \u201cAssembling Traces, or the Conservation of Net Art.\u201d NECSUS<\/em> Traces (Spring)<\/em>. https:\/\/necsus-ejms.org\/assembling-traces-conservation-net-art\/. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Fino-Radin, Ben. 2012. \u201cConservation in Collections of Digital Works of Art.\u201d Paper presented at the Electronic Media Group Session, AIC 40th Annual Meeting, Albuquerque, New Mexico. https:\/\/resources.culturalheritage.org\/emg-review\/volume-two-2011-2012\/conservation-in-collections-of-digital-works-of-art\/<\/a> (accessed 08\/15\/22).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Rubio, Fernando Dom\u00ednguez, and Glenn Wharton. 2020. \u201cThe Work of Art in the Age of Digital Fragility.\u201d Public Culture <\/em>32 (1): 215\u201345. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1215\/08992363-7816365<\/a> (accessed 08\/15\/22).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

SOURCES OF MATERIALS<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Conifer by Rhizome: https:\/\/conifer.rhizome.org\/<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Webrecorder: https:\/\/webrecorder.net\/<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Josephine Jenks
Mellon Foundation Fellow in Time-Based Media Art Conservation
The Conservation Center at the Institute of Fine Arts, New York University
New York, NY
jbj6526@nyu.edu <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Jessica Walthew
Conservator
Cooper Hewitt, Smithsonian Design Museum
New York, NY
walthewj@si.edu<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Andrea Lipps
Contemporary Design Curator
Cooper Hewitt, Smithsonian Design Museum
New York, NY
lippsa@si.edu<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Josephine Jenks, Jessica Walthew, and Andrea LippsElectronic Media Review, Volume Seven: 2021-2022Full text PDF As Cooper Hewitt, Smithsonian Design Museum builds its nascent born-digital collection, new formats and technologies are regularly introduced, each with their own acquisition and preservation needs. This article focuses on the museum\u2019s first effort to collect instances of interactive data journalism. … Continue reading “Beyond the Archive: Preservation and Access for Web-Based Interactive Data Journalism”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":341,"featured_media":0,"parent":1811,"menu_order":15,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":{"_exactmetrics_skip_tracking":false,"footnotes":""},"class_list":["post-1916","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/resources.culturalheritage.org\/emg-review\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/1916","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/resources.culturalheritage.org\/emg-review\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/resources.culturalheritage.org\/emg-review\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/resources.culturalheritage.org\/emg-review\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/341"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/resources.culturalheritage.org\/emg-review\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1916"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/resources.culturalheritage.org\/emg-review\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/1916\/revisions"}],"up":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/resources.culturalheritage.org\/emg-review\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/1811"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/resources.culturalheritage.org\/emg-review\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1916"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}