RLG DigiNews June 15, 2003, Volume 7, Number 3

June 15, 2003, Volume 7, Number 3

ISSN 1093-5371

Saving Digital Heritage—A UNESCO Campaign

Colin Webb
National Library of Australia

Considering that the disappearance of heritage in whatever form constitutes an impoverishment of the heritage of all nations …
Recognising that … resources of information and creative expression are increasingly produced, distributed, accessed and maintained in digital form, creating a new legacy—the digital heritage …
Understanding that this digital heritage is at risk of being lost and that its preservation for the benefit of present and future generations is an urgent issue of worldwide concern …

So begins an important new document being prepared for submission to the General Conference of UNESCO, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation. The Draft Charter on the Preservation of the Digital Heritage was positively received by a recent session of the UNESCO Executive Board, which asked for further consultations during preparation of a final draft for consideration. The Draft Charter is one very visible element in an international campaign to address the barriers to digital continuity and to head off the emergence of a second “digital divide,” in which the tools of digital preservation are restricted to the heritage of a well-resourced few.

As well as the Charter, other elements of UNESCO’s strategy for promoting digital preservation include widespread consultations, the development of practical and technical guidelines, and a range of pilot projects. UNESCO has been critical in fostering the understanding and preservation of other kinds of heritage through avenues such as the World Heritage Convention and the Memory of the World program. Given the organisation’s commitment to the safeguarding of recorded knowledge evident in its Information for All program, it is not surprising that UNESCO has been concerned at the prospect of the loss of vast amounts of digital information.

Digital technology’s immense potential for human benefit in so many areas—communication, expression, knowledge sharing, education, community building, accountability, to name just a few—is a tantalizing promise so easily denied by the lack of means, knowledge, or will to deal with its other great potential: rapid loss of access.

The impetus for this campaign was embedded in a resolution passed by the UNESCO General Conference at its previous meeting in 2000. That resolution, drafted in part by the Council of Directors of National Libraries (CDNL), highlighted the need to safeguard endangered digital memory. Following that, as a basis for developing a UNESCO strategy, the European Commission on Preservation and Access (EPCA) was commissioned to prepare a discussion paper outlining the issues in digital preservation for debate.

Consultation Process

As well as circulating for comment the draft papers produced in the campaign to governments and nongovernment organisations and experts all over the world, the campaign has featured a number of regional consultation meetings convened specifically to raise issues of regional concern and to provide comment on the Preliminary Draft Charter and Draft Guidelines on the Preservation of Digital Heritage. The meetings were held between November 2002 and March 2003, in Canberra, Australia (for Asia and the Pacific); in Managua, Nicaragua (for Latin America and the Caribbean); in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia (for Africa); in Riga, Latvia (for the Baltic states); and in Budapest, Hungary (for Eastern Europe).

All the meetings confirmed the need for urgent action and the great distance to be traveled before preservation of digital heritage is a reality in most countries. In total, around 175 experts and stakeholders from eighty-six countries participated in the five meetings, representing libraries, records archives, museums, audiovisual archives, data archives, producers and publishers of digital content, lawyers, universities and academies, governments, standardization agencies, community development organisations, computer industries, and researchers, among others.

Draft Charter on the Preservation of the Digital Heritage

Charters and declarations promulgated by UNESCO are meant to be “normative” documents that member states agree to through a vote of acceptance rather than by individual ratification. They are not binding and do not require any specific action on the part of governments, but they do express aspirations and priorities. In this case the purpose of the Draft Charter is to focus worldwide attention on the issues at stake and to encourage responsible preservation action wherever it can be taken.

The Draft Charter explains that the digital heritage

consists of unique resources of human knowledge and expression, whether cultural, educational, scientific or administrative, while embracing technical, legal, medical and other kinds of information that more and more are being created digitally, or converted into digital form from existing analogue resources.… Many of these resources have lasting value and significance, and therefore constitute a heritage that should be protected and preserved for current and future generations. This heritage may exist in any language, in any part of the world, and in any area of human knowledge or expression.

The purpose of preserving this heritage is to ensure that it can be accessed. The Draft Charter recognizes that this involves a tension and seeks a “fair balance between the legitimate rights of creators and other rights holders and the interests of the public to access digital heritage materials” in line with existing international agreements. It recognizes that some digital information is sensitive or of a personal nature and that some restrictions on access and on opportunities to tamper with information are necessary. Sensibly, it asserts the responsibility of each member state to work with “relevant organisations and institutions in encouraging a legal and practical environment which would maximise accessibility of the digital heritage.”

Threats to this digital heritage are highlighted, including rapid obsolescence of the technologies for access, an absence of legislation that fosters preservation, and international uncertainties about resources, responsibilities, and methods. Urgent action is called for, ranging from awareness raising and advocacy to practical programs that address preservation threats throughout the digital life cycle.

In discussing the measures that are needed, the Draft Charter emphasizes the importance of deciding what should be kept, taking account of the significance and enduring value of materials, and noting that the digital heritage of all regions, countries, and communities should be preserved and made accessible. It discusses the legislative and policy frameworks that will be needed and calls on member states to designate agencies with coordinating responsibility. It also calls on governments to provide adequate resources for the task.

Many agencies have a role to play, both within and outside governments. Agencies are urged to work together to pursue the best possible results and to democratize access to digital preservation methods and tools. The Draft Charter proposes a UNESCO commitment to foster cooperation, build capacity, and establish standards and practices that will help. Although this document is meant to inspire rather than dictate action, its adoption by UNESCO will be an important opportunity to raise digital preservation issues with governments and others who can influence how laws, budgets, and expectations are framed to help or hinder continuity of the digital heritage.

Guidelines for the Preservation of Digital Heritage

While the Charter focuses on advocacy and public policy issues, the Guidelines present practical principles on which technical decisions can be based throughout the life cycle of a wide range of digital materials. The Guidelines, prepared by the National Library of Australia on commission from the UNESCO Division of Information Society, have been published on the UNESCO CI (Communication and Information) Web site.

The guidelines address at least four kinds of readers with different but overlapping needs:

policy makers looking for information on which to base policy commitments regarding digital preservation
high-level managers who are seeking to understand the concepts of digital preservation and the key management issues their programs will face
line managers involved in making day-to-day decisions who need a more-detailed understanding of practical issues
operational practitioners responsible for implementing programs who need a perspective on how various practical issues and processes fit together as an integrated whole.

The structure of the guidelines is intended to make it easy for readers to find the information most relevant to their needs. The regional consultation process highlighted the fact that many people who feel they have a preservation responsibility are operating with very limited resources. Specific suggestions have been included to provide some starting points, although comprehensive, reliable digital preservation is a resource-intensive business.

Material in the Guidelines is organized around two approaches: basic concepts behind digital preservation (explaining concepts of digital heritage, digital preservation, preservation programs, responsibility, management, and cooperation) and more- detailed discussion of processes and decisions involved in various stages of the digital life cycle, including deciding what to keep, working with producers, taking control and documenting digital objects, managing rights, protecting data, and maintaining accessibility.

Although the guidelines were directly produced by the National Library of Australia, they were very extensively informed by input from reading and comments from a wide range of contacts, in addition to responsive comments from the formal consultation meetings. The text does not reflect any new research, but does try to reflect current thinking about the maintenance of accessibility, the core issue in digital preservation (although certainly not the only important issue).

For some readers the level of technical detail will be disappointing. The detail required to meet all the needs of practitioners is very situation-specific and quickly dated. As the Guidelines are intended to be useful in a very wide range of sectors and circumstances, the emphasis is on technical and practical principles that should enable practical decisions. It is to be hoped that UNESCO will complement the Guidelines with a Web site offering a growing body of technical details and tips aimed at specific sectors.

To give readers a sense of the approaches taken, a few of the principles asserted in the Guidelines, are appended to this paper. The UNESCO Guidelines for the Preservation of Digital Heritage will be published in a number of languages. At the time of writing, they are available in English from the UNESCO Web site.

Sample Principles from the UNESCO Guidelines for the Preservation of Digital Heritage

1. Not all digital materials need to be kept, only those that are judged to have ongoing value: these form the digital heritage.

3. Digital materials cannot be said to be preserved if access is lost. The purpose of preservation is to maintain the ability to present the essential elements of authentic digital materials.

4. Digital preservation must address threats to all layers of the digital object: physical, logical, conceptual, and essential.

5. Digital preservation will happen only if organisations and individuals accept responsibility for it. The starting point for action is a decision about responsibility.

6. Everyone does not have to do everything; everything does not have to be done all at once.

7. Comprehensive and reliable preservation programs are highly desirable, but they may not be achievable in all circumstances of need. Where necessary, it is usually better for noncomprehensive and nonreliable action to be taken than no action at all. Small steps are usually better than no steps.

8. In taking action, managers should recognize that there are complex issues involved. It is important to do no harm. Managers should seek to understand the whole process and the objectives that eventually need to be achieved and avoid steps that will jeopardize later preservation action.

15. Preservation programs must clarify their legal right to collect, copy, name, modify, preserve, and provide access to the digital materials for which they take responsibility.

24. Authenticity is best protected by measures that ensure the integrity of data is not compromised and by documentation that maintains the clear identity of the material.

26. The goal of maintaining accessibility is to find cost-effective ways of guaranteeing access whenever it is needed, in both the short- and long-term.

27. Standards are an important foundation for digital preservation, but many programs must find ways to preserve access to poorly standardised materials, in an environment of changing standards.

28. Preservation action should not be delayed until a single ‘digital preservation standard’ appears.

29. Digital data is always dependent on some combination of software and hardware tools for access, but the degree of dependence on specific tools determines the range of preservation options.

30. It is reasonable for programs to choose multiple strategies for preserving access, especially to diverse collections. They should consider the potential benefits of maintaining the original data streams of materials as well as any modified versions, as insurance against the failure of still-uncertain strategies.

32. Preservation programs are often required to judge acceptable and unacceptable levels of loss in terms of items, elements, and user needs.

33. Waiting for comprehensive, reliable solutions to appear before taking responsible action will probably mean material is lost.

34. Preservation programs require good management that consists largely of generic management skills combined with enough knowledge of digital preservation issues to make good decisions at the right time.

35. Digital preservation incorporates the assessment and management of risks.

39. While suitable service providers may be found to carry out some functions, ultimately responsibility for achieving preservation objectives rests with preservation programs and with those who oversee and resource them.

Publishing Information

RLG DigiNews (ISSN 1093-5371) is a Web-based newsletter conceived by the RLG preservation community and developed to serve a broad readership around the world. It is produced by staff in the Department of Research, Cornell University Library, in consultation with RLG and is published six times a year at www.rlg.org.

Materials in RLG DigiNews are subject to copyright and other proprietary rights. Permission is hereby given to use material found here for research purposes or private study. When citing RLG DigiNews, include the article title and author referenced plus "RLG DigiNews,

." Any uses other than for research or private study require written permission from RLG and/or the author of the article. To receive this, and prior to using RLG DigiNews contents in any presentations or materials you share with others, please contact Jennifer Hartzell (jlh@notes.rlg.org), RLG Corporate Communications.

Please send comments and questions about this or other issues to the RLG DigiNews editors.

Co-Editors: Anne R. Kenney and Nancy Y. McGovern; Associate Editor: Robin Dale (RLG); Technical Researcher: Richard Entlich; Contributor: Erica Olsen; Copy Editor: Martha Crowe; Production Coordinator: Carla DeMello; Assistant: Valerie Jacoski.

All links in this issue were confirmed accurate as of June 13, 2003.


		RLG DigiNews		BROWSE ISSUES		SEARCH		RLG