|
|
|
Then came along the
AIHT project, which offered Stanford a substantial opportunity to:
|
|
-- design an
ingestion workflow for a real world digital archive,
|
|
and
|
|
-- build on our
previous format research and test our assessment methodology
|
|
and
|
|
-- by incorporating
the assessment process into the workflow, begin to consider how to generate
and record pertinent metadata
|
|
|
|
The test’s subject –
the 9/11 archive -- was a true “off the street” collection. Its heterogeneous
nature required us to expand the scope of our assessment tool to include a
number of format types.
|
|
|
|
Also, We recognized
the need to automate the assessment tool. Automation, we presumed, would
enable the methodology to scale sufficiently, would provide more realistic
and trustworthy data for technical assessment, and therefore would help us
maintain more control over workflow.
|
|
|
|
It would at the same
time allow us to treat a heterogeneous collection as a more manageable set of
object classes, enabling directed investment in preservation actions and the
possibility of levels of service beyond bit preservation for select classes.
|
|
|
|
|
