[Rdap] What makes an 'Archive Quality' Digital Object?

[Michael J. Giarlo]

On 04/22/2011 02:11 PM, Joe Hourcle wrote:
>
> As part of the side discussion about defining what a dataset is, an issue
> got raised about what about a given object makes it of 'archive quality'?
>

That's a doozy, Joe!  Good question to ponder as a group.

This strikes me as something of a glib non-answer, but here goes.

The first bit I have trouble wrapping my mind around is that the notion 
of archival quality is binary, that an object can be of archival quality 
or not.

To be perfectly frank, I don't think we know enough yet about what 
archival quality really means in the digital context; *most* of us have 
been managing files for, what, 10-15 years?

Combining these thoughts, archival quality feels like a bit of guesswork 
informed by our professional expertise, more like a confidence level 
associated with an object being preserved based upon:

  * Retention period -- I have fair-to-high confidence that just about 
any digital object is preservable for 1 year, and very low confidence 
that just about any digital object is preservable for 100.

  * File formats -- I have higher confidence in open formats than 
proprietary formats, in widely used rather than narrowly used formats, 
in self-descriptive rather than opaque formats.

  * Metadata/documentation richness -- The richer and more interoperable 
and more widely understood the metadata, the higher my confidence will be.

  * Use contexts -- I'd worry a lot more about an object with few or no 
use contexts ("dark archives") than others.

  * A whole lot more that escapes me, such as issues around the archive 
itself and its organizational, technical, and financial sustainability.

Thanks for raising the question, Joe.

-Mike