<....I am addressing the very sensible concern
expressed by several in this group that the archives should
not be considered as some kind of permanent physical object
to be tucked away in a time capsule to be discovered later.
Copying has been the method by which most records are
passed on from epoch to epoch, and the dynamic of making
copies must be part of the discussion.>
Another ingredient...in addition to viewing archives NOT as some kind of
permanent object...is viewing preservation NOT as a centralized
function. In the environment of machine memory we already realize that
the network distributes authority. Maybe we should consider strategies
of distribution of preservation actions to each participant.
Among the attractions of this distributed approach are (1.) valuable and
distinctive works will be preserved in spite of themselves, while
archives, composed primarily of less distinctive material, may be most
at risk (2.) the means of production of digital works are distributed so
widely that important achievements and valuable information can be
produced at the fringe and among unidentified participants, (3.) machine
memory can self-replicate with a potential to self-perpetuate...but at
the moment...only with human intervention.
One issue is to invert priestly activity into a popular hobby. But such
outward distribution should probably avoid intermediating backward loops
in reverse digital-analog conversion (i.e. hard copy). Such "hard copy"
approaches only layer analog preservation on top of digital
preservation. [ hard copy these days is based on the styrene / acrylic
engine fuse to alkaline stock].
We are in a transition zone where every participant is needed. And not
just in preservation activity, but also in the generation, duplication
and distribution of content...the projection of meaning...that
preservation may morph into.
Gary Frost
Library Conservator