{"id":633,"date":"2019-03-02T16:51:03","date_gmt":"2019-03-02T21:51:03","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/resources.culturalheritage.org\/emg-review\/?page_id=633"},"modified":"2019-03-02T17:02:08","modified_gmt":"2019-03-02T22:02:08","slug":"stevenson","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/resources.culturalheritage.org\/emg-review\/volume-4-2015-2016\/stevenson\/","title":{"rendered":"Conservation and Digital Preservation: (Where) Do the Two Roads Meet?"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

David Stevenson
The Electronic Media Review, Volume Four: 2015-2016<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Abstract<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

To\nstate the perhaps obvious, conservators are concerned with tangible things.\nObjects that we can see, assess, and address are central to all conservation\npursuits. Without the ability to observe and assess, as conservators we cannot\nmove forward in our efforts. To state another obvious fact, you cannot actually\nsee binary code, the basis of all digital information. Collecting institutions\nare in the earliest days of acquiring what will become a more prominent aspect\nof their collections: digital material. In years past, the word digital<\/em> in the context of archives,\nlibraries, and museums has evoked ideas of digital portable physical media,\nincluding hard drives and optical media. The real digital object is not the\nphysical information carrier, but rather, the digital file, with all of the\nintellectual, creative and informational content that it holds. However, unlike\nthe physical paper object, photo\u00adgraph, artifact, book or painting, the\nproperties of these files may not be immediately evident, or even accessible. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The\nmajority of digital preservation is non-tangible: the software or the operating\nsystem to support access to files, the bit stream of the file, or the metadata\nthat is buried in an associated file. And yet, preservation efforts are\nessential, as digital objects are constantly at risk and require attention and\nmonitoring over time. Also too, processes of preservation are unfamiliar for\nsome: metadata extraction, file normalization, and auditing. For\npreservationists, this deviation from our standard methodologies of observation\nand assessment raises so many concerns and questions. Can the mindset and\ntraining of the conservator, given our natural preoccupation with the physical\nobject, aid in understanding the esoteric digital object? Do digital objects\nhave artifactual prop\u00aderties? If preservation efforts necessitate change to the\ndigital object, what principles will guide us? Are there transferrable\nconcepts, or practices, between these two different, but neces\u00adsarily linked\nfields of practice? <\/p>\n\n\n\n

This\npresentation would aim to address the questions above, by using the Canadian\nCentre for Architecture as an example, while at the same time looking at the\nbigger picture from different perspectives.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

David Stevenson
Conservator
Canadian Centre for Architecture
Montr\u00e9al, Qu\u00e9bec, Canada
<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

David StevensonThe Electronic Media Review, Volume Four: 2015-2016 Abstract To state the perhaps obvious, conservators are concerned with tangible things. Objects that we can see, assess, and address are central to all conservation pursuits. Without the ability to observe and assess, as conservators we cannot move forward in our efforts. To state another obvious fact, … Continue reading “Conservation and Digital Preservation: (Where) Do the Two Roads Meet?”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":40,"featured_media":0,"parent":616,"menu_order":10,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":{"_exactmetrics_skip_tracking":false,"footnotes":""},"class_list":["post-633","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/resources.culturalheritage.org\/emg-review\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/633","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\/40"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/resources.culturalheritage.org\/emg-review\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=633"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/resources.culturalheritage.org\/emg-review\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/633\/revisions"}],"up":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/resources.culturalheritage.org\/emg-review\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/616"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/resources.culturalheritage.org\/emg-review\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=633"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}