[Personal_archives] Original Order for digital records

[Hobbs, Catherine]

I too was caught by the new possibilities for exploring and making evident original order in digital archives and also presenting user-oriented orders.  Particularly the idea of expressing different orders, evolutions of orders or even parallel evolutions of orders depending on the number of types of uses of digital technology by the creator in combination with his/her various roles.  There are many factors at play here that need to be teased when determining arrangement (which have come up earlier in our discussion):  how does a choice to use a certain medium or free email service overlap with the creator's own ideas of what they are doing or role they are playing?  Which will become the defining factor in the arrangement?

I wonder, Sue, if the FutureArch project or further thoughts about the Paradigm project have presented new ways of appraisal or mapping of the creator's overlapping digital worlds in cases where the creator has an extremely complex digital life (using mobile media, traditional email and desktop, and storage of their documents on the web)?  Can we think of archival description as including diagrammes of the creators' lifestyle, for example? 

Secondly, what became of the whole issue of recovering erased files from old hard drives?  Have you had creators who have agreed to let these stand as records?   I work with some literary archival creators who seem to be open to the possibility of recovering erased files (i.e. they seem to be fairly comfortable with drafts of literary works being recovered, not necessarily correspondence).  Have you included issues of recovered files in transfer agreements?   The issue of what a creator meant to destroy and whether or not this choice to destroy can or should be reversed raises an ethical delemma if the creator is deceased (would you do this in cases where the creator could not be consulted and the estate was involved?) and new complexities to donor negotiations. 

Catherine



Rick's question about the relevance original order of digital collections
last night got me thinking quite a bit. Is it still relevant? If so, how do
we express it in our finding aids?

While finding the notion of a singular "original order" somewhat problematic
given that it only reflects a particular order at a particular time without
easily acknowledging how arrangement changes over time, I do believe the
concept remains relevant - perhaps more so than ever. Understanding where
people store their information, and with what other files, and how these
files are used and are moved over time from one storage media and/or device
(from floppy disk, to harddrive, to USB, to "the cloud", etc.) will provide
the context needed to allow for a richer understanding of the information.

The Survey questions ask for exactly this type of information. I wonder,
however, how aware people are of their own/their office's filing system.
Personally, I frequently have to do a bit of digging to find which of the
several email addresses I sent a particular message from or on which
harddrive or external HD or USB key I have a particular file saved.

Has the prompting through the Survey questions been successful in
identifying where donors' records are? [seeing Michael & Susan's last emails
which came in as I type it seems this question has been answered - helpful
as a starting point but may require follow-up].

The description of the Barbara Castle collection's catalog entry in Susan's
email from Tuesday, with multiple "orders" allowed their browser interface
is certainly intriguing. It could also be interesting to map the evolution
of a digital collection, tracing when & how files were created and moved
around, using the technical metadata held within the digital files (I am
only assuming this is possible given my rather limited technical
understanding of these sorts of things) or through comparing "snapshots" of
the disc images you describe. I am thinking or something along the lines of
the timelines on the Internet Archive's Wayback Machine except for personal
fonds instead of webpages. This certainly would acknowledge the fluid nature
of the creator's original order(s).


To briefly comment on Susan's question to me about the Sisters' personal
collections - you are correct, as an "in house" archives, the problem of
personal/professional it is less of a concern than it might be in a
collecting institution. Individually, the Sisters vary greatly on their
record creating/keeping and what gets transferred from the archives ranges
from a few items to many boxes. Typically the files are what you would find
in most people's personal collections - diaries & journals, correspondence,
diplomas, certificates & awards, photographs, art done by the Sisters, also
medical records and administrative records. To this date, however, very
little has been given digitally. What I do have from the Sisters' personal
digital collection is mostly photographs which I have acquired by getting
them to allow me to copy the pictures onto a cd or a usb, which I then house
on the Archives' computer. While many are computer literate, they still
print seemingly everything. And this is the unofficial position of the
administration here: if it is important it will be printed. I am not
entirely convinced however (there are occasional comments about "never
knowing what to keep" and "cleaning out my email/files" which send shivers
down my spine & despite telling the Sisters that I am more than happy to
help them out with their files I've yet to be asked to assist). I am
planning to to try to get copies of files off the Sisters' computers on a
regular basis. This will serve as a backup for them with the added benefit
of having a scheduled transfer to the archives..or at least that is how I
plan to sell it to them. We'll see how that works ...

Rodney

On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 7:47 PM, <RICKBARRY at aol.com> wrote:

>
>  [...]
> All of this also makes one think about another aspect -- the relevance of
> "original order" in digital collections.
>  [...]
> Regards,
>
> Rick
>
>
>