[Personal_archives] FW: dialogue on arrangement and digital personal archives

Wed Apr 18 11:07:40 EDT 2012

Hello all,

In talking with Jer and looking at some of the intake of electronic 
records I very much agree with the need for an elastic band idea. I am 
unsure how some digital files will fit into our ideas of levels of 
arrangement with the need for equality or evenness of levels across 
description. Opening an electronic file folder you unveil other folders( 
which may also have folders) as well as singular items, etc... how do 
you describe consistently across that - the item and the folder(file) 
often exist on the same hierarchical level within the users realm. I am 
not sure how to deal with that in current description practices other 
than to ignore the lower levels and merely describe at the upper levels. 
For me it feels particularly disingenuous in the electronic environment 
to create a miscellaneous series for all the stray items because they 
are not strays, but decidedly maintained within a structure... maybe the 
"item-level series (or sub-sub-sub series)"? As Jer said -- could be 
crazy-making.

It also makes me think of the Rushdie project where the "computer" is 
maintained (or emulated). I tell you, the luddite in me is drawn back to 
arrangement according to media-type again. How about the "personal 
computer series" with an emulation of their computer you could download. 
But I don't know that that is really dealing with the issues here, 
perhaps it is just avoiding.

I am also worried about donor's digital lives beyond their personal 
computing environment - not just their digital documents or websites. As 
Catherine mentioned there is the cloud environment, but how much of 
people's time, creativity and output exist only within external 
proprietary realms. All that correspondence on facebook, all of their 
photos on flicker, all of their fanfic within game worlds ... the list 
goes on. So much of it only exists there and nowhere else, so much of it 
only makes sense there and nowhere else - as you asked Catherine: how is 
this complex context revealed? but also, can it even be acquired. It 
makes me think of sites of creation in multiple ways as well -- the 
personal computer as site of creation, the internet as site of creation, 
"world of warcraft" as site of creation, "second life" as site of 
creation, etc. And while it may be there and accessible now what about 
10 years, 20 years in the future.. look at what happened to geocities, 
myspace, ad infinitum.

my last minute blatherings,
Heather

On 17/04/2012 11:06 PM, Jeremy Heil wrote:
> Hi Catherine and everyone else!
>
> I have to admit that my reticence has been entirely due to the amount of work I've been trying to get done over the past week - but a portion of this has been in the practical considerations of arrangement of digital personal archives, working on the transfer of records from a donor's computer.  It's been an eye-opener, to say the least.
>
> I spent the greater part of Friday afternoon chatting with the donor on her arrangement structure.  A survey I developed for examining the context and content of digital creation asks, among other things: How do you organize your files on your computer? Does your organization change depending on the project? Has your organizational approach changed over time? Do your computer file and paper file organization match?  Her answers certainly provided some detail upon which I could base arrangement decisions.  With records creators still living and working, one of the first questions I've encountered is "how would you like us to arrange our files?" - and this applies to both the paper and the electronic.  Even just this evening, the donor has been going through her files to move folders to their "proper" place, and I suspect this behavior stems from her sensibilities as a seasoned researcher - she's trying to ensure future researchers can find files easily.  Perhaps it is telling that when a creator actively considers and tinkers with the arrangement of their files, devoting time to this activity before transfer, they are really just imposing their ideal order on their records; one that they never had the time to complete before.
>
> On further examination of her actual arrangement, I can imagine going crazy trying to identify potential series, sub-series and beyond just by following the folder hierarchies.  The truth is, we sometimes (or oftentimes) need to treat a computer folder less as a file in the traditional sense, and more as the equivalent of a paperclip or elastic band in the paper world - that is, the subfolder ties related items together, but forms only a part of the greater whole within the "file" (at whatever level that may exist).
>
> There should be recognition that de facto arrangement (such as the default Windows folder structure) has played, and will continue to play, an important role in how digital records are maintained.  I believe there are many people who simply can't be bothered organizing their files beyond what folder structures already exist on their computers: My Documents hold all of their Word creations; My Pictures all of their camera downloads; etc.  Sarah poses a number of really interesting questions in the "Life with digital technology" section that could shed light on some of these considerations: that the comfort level of an individual with the technology they use can reveal much about how complex their arrangement might be.  Or perhaps they truly will structure their computer files to mirror their paper files.  I'd be really interested if any patterns emerged on the relationship of comfort with technology to complexity of arrangement.
>
> On the topic of software, we certainly do need to be cautious that we are not driven by what programs can do for us.  Forensic software, like AccessData FTK, is a solid way to collect the information necessary for processing, arranging and describing digital records, but I'm not convinced it's the best tool to actually process (in the archival sense) and arrange those same records (and that's not what it was intended for).  Software suites like Archivematica and the Archivists Toolkit at least have the needs of archives first and foremost in mind in their design, but I believe they work best when you have the information gathered from software like FTK to feed into the system.
>
> Indeed, identifying what information needs to be captured during the process (before copying records over to the Archives) is one of the most important activities we can undertake in safeguarding the original order and authenticity of the records.  In my mind, the digital version of the site visit photographs would probably best take the form of a detailed print of the directory structure and files contained within (something I plan on doing, if only to make sure I've captured all I need).  Despite the length of this process (3 days in and I haven't transferred any records yet), I have found it to be an excellent opportunity to get a broad overview of the records, and make many selection and arrangement notes along the way.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Jeremy
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: personal_archives-bounces at mailman.yale.edu [mailto:personal_archives-bounces at mailman.yale.edu] On Behalf Of Hobbs, Catherine
> Sent: April-17-12 2:44 PM
> To: Personal_archives at mailman.yale.edu
> Subject: Re: [Personal_archives] FW: dialogue on arrangement and digital personal archives
>
> Your last question, Rodney, hits on one of my concerns:
>
> I think that one limitation of a software-based approach may be that there is or will be an increased reliance on form first and then a determination of the series later.  If you look at the FTK video round about minute 2.3 we see the downloading of documents by document type;  later on (minute 9.39) we see the selection of documents into series based on what, we don't really know.  If this donor is living and the archivist has the capacity to trace the arrangement in his/her workspaces (both digital and  physical), then there should be some insertion of that series arrangement information during this process.  We can hope that this type of analysis is taking place after the documents are recovered from the hard-drive, but I think that we're probably in a situation where the emphasis is on the technology and on the recovery, followed by composing series because documents appear to be related by virtue of the archivist's subject knowledge, rather than any transfer of what we might term an understanding of original order (i.e. the person processing is putting documents together whose content seems to be related without first trying to understand how the documents functioned together in the creator's contexts).  Of course, this type of information is only available when the archivist has access to the creator and can gain knowledge of the work spaces, but that is no different from what we've experienced in the past.
>
> Having said that, as those who were able to see Jeremy Leighton John at the ACA at UBC Symposium or who are familiar with the high-resolution site visit photographs taken at Stanford will know that these archivists are attempting to have a better understanding of the site of creation merge with description.  I am left wondering if the kind of semantic understanding archivists have had in the past about sites of creation and original order can still find a place here to bridge the gap between the site photographs and the records.  I worry that archival appraisal fact-gathering is unjustly falling out of fashion because of how we tend to champion technology and large scale solutions....  Does the technology for recovery make us start at the back end?
>
> Catherine
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rodney Carter [mailto:rgscarter at gmail.com]
> Sent: April-17-12 1:50 PM
> To: Hobbs, Catherine
> Cc: Personal_archives at mailman.yale.edu
> Subject: Re: [Personal_archives] FW: dialogue on arrangement and digital personal archives
>
> In my current position, the proportion of digital records I come across is quite small. Other than the odd file here or there (mostly digital photographs) I have not had to contend with the acquisition let alone arrangement of large groups of digital files. I am quite thankful that the Sisters still print a great deal and have not, to my knowledge, started using any cloud storage.
>
> The only exception to this was when a Sister left the position of Superior last year, I copied her "My Documents" folder onto the Archives' external harddrive. I haven't dealt with her fonds yet, but the paper and digital files appear to mesh quite well together. There is some overlap with files she had printed and, by and large, the filing system echoed that used previously (minutes to council meetings; correspondence; financial matters; files on Sisters; photographs etc).
>
> My (extremely limited) experience here suggests that the archival principles underlining arrangement - based on function or form - remain the same. Even with this rather straightforward example, documents exist in multiple locations in multiple formats and capturing that in the description will be important. Noting which documents were printed and which were not (or not kept in printed
> version) might be important to demonstrate importance or use. I am not terribly concerned about the arrangement of these records but description might be tricky -- the metadata (folder and file names) are rather sketchy, particularly with the photographs. At least the technical metadata provides a date of creation.
>
> Because of my limited experience to date arranging digital files I feel that I am rather ill equipped to comment on many of the issues raised in Catherine's emails. However, I am sure there are folks out there who have begun to delve into digital arrangement issues in a serious way.
>
> I was fascinated by the video of the FTK software and would love to hear if anyone here has had experience using that or similar software.
> Have people had success using it to assist with arrangement? Are there limitations to a software-based approach?
>
>
> Rodney
>
> On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 11:29 AM, Hobbs, Catherine<Catherine.Hobbs at bac-lac.gc.ca>  wrote:
>    
>> Hi There,
>> We seem to be lagging a bit with this dialogue but we still have two days so I hope you'll give it another go and share your thoughts and reflections.
>>
>> I have some questions to put to you:
>>
>> For those of you who are considering arrangement for digital personal archives you are treating, can you reflect on how this might be different when we look at current technologies (including the Cloud and removable media)?  What would your strategies be for capturing these fast-changing and complex contexts?  Are there types of modelling that come to mind, for example?
>>
>> For those of you who haven't weighed in on digital arrangement, can you tell us why?  I think this topic has the double disadvantage of combining two topic that archivists find difficult:  arrangement and technology.  In the same way that the NASARM guidelines and other documents in the last dialogue provided some clarity about when to decide on a series, and how to discern elements of arrangement, is there guideline that needs to be created that speaks directly to the digital?
>>
>> Something to chomp on,
>> Catherine
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: personal_archives-bounces at mailman.yale.edu
>> [mailto:personal_archives-bounces at mailman.yale.edu] On Behalf Of Sarah
>> Kim
>> Sent: April-06-12 5:18 PM
>> To: Personal_archives at mailman.yale.edu
>> Subject: Re: [Personal_archives] dialogue on arrangement and digital
>> personal archives
>>
>> Hello all,
>> I would like to add something to previous comments related to diskettes.
>>
>> "The diskette seemed to be acting as we normally understand the file to act in traditional physical archives. (Catherine Hobbs)": I share the thought that diskettes are more than temporary storage media. In some cases, they indeed function as folders, thus they are part of the "original order" of a collection showing how the creator categorized/grouped her files. Pat Galloway at UT Austin has taught a digital collection preservation class. In her class, she experiments how to incorporate diskettes in the arrangement of personal digital collections. Once personal digital collections are processed and deposited into institutional repositories, it is possible to build multiple virtual arrangement structures without actually re-arranging individual files. A diskette base arrangement can provide an additional picture of "the character of personal archives" and the personality of a creator.
>>
>> "I would say that this is changing rapidly, but has reflected the way in which the creators have seen this material - as different from the other material but unified through its difference. (Heather Home)":
>> Adding to this, I also think old diskettes as physical objects evoke and bring out some sort of sentimentality and/or historical aspects of personal digital collections. Many of my research participants said that they still keep their old floppy diskettes (e.g., 5.25" and 3.5") that they cannot render anymore. In some cases, people already transferred files on them to newer storage like their current personal computers or external hard drives but still keep the diskettes.
>>
>> It is highly likely that personal digital collections will be transferred or donated to archives in a very different form and method in the relatively near future (probably no more diskettes at some point and probably less, a lot less analog documents): thinking of the increasing use of cloud storage where the IT service providers get involved more deeply in the formation of personal digital collections at the first place and where the word "archives" is often used without clear distinction from backup data or date warehousing (e.g., "Gmail's "archive" feature (Rodney Carter)" is an example!). Since floppy diskettes already became a part of history in some sense and their physical longevity is unknown, they seem like particularly interesting objects to think of and question their preservation needs at this point.
>>
>> Just my two cents.
>> Sarah Kim
>> (My hands-on experience with personal collections is extremely limited
>> compared to many people in this group. My thoughts are based on my
>> work with a few personal digital collections and individuals mostly
>> for my research.)
>> --
>> Sarah Kim
>> Doctoral candidate
>> School of Information, University of Texas at Austin
>> http://srhkim.com/ _______________________________________________
>> Personal_archives mailing list
>> Personal_archives at mailman.yale.edu
>> http://mailman.yale.edu/mailman/listinfo/personal_archives
>> _______________________________________________
>> Personal_archives mailing list
>> Personal_archives at mailman.yale.edu
>> http://mailman.yale.edu/mailman/listinfo/personal_archives
>>      
> _______________________________________________
> Personal_archives mailing list
> Personal_archives at mailman.yale.edu
> http://mailman.yale.edu/mailman/listinfo/personal_archives
> _______________________________________________
> Personal_archives mailing list
> Personal_archives at mailman.yale.edu
> http://mailman.yale.edu/mailman/listinfo/personal_archives
>    

-- 
Heather Home, B.A., M.A.S.
Public Services/Private Records Archivist
Queen's University Archives, Kathleen Ryan Hall
Kingston, Ontario, Canada, K7L 3N6
t: 613.533.6000 x74456
f: 613.533.6403

** Donations to the Friends of the Archives fund are always appreciated: www.givetoqueens.ca/archives **