Structural Metadata and the Social Limitation of Interoperability: A Sociotechnical View of XML and Digital Library Standards Development. Jerome McDonough. http://www.balisage.net/Proceedings/vol1/html/McDonough01/BalisageVol1-McDonough01.html
Courtney
- Formed SIP has already been subject to some appraisal, arrangement etc that means that once processed description is obvious/clear
- Problems – can’t run processing if files are password-protected
Tools needed:
- No tool to pick-out password protected files, need to put them aside etc
- Identifying donor restrictions
Issue that the tools used by computer scientists / digital forensics – are not suitable for archivists
Seth
- suitability of tool for archivists to use was a key issue for archivematica
- Currently need specialists to use tools - serve as a bridge/translator between IT and archives
- Restriction in donor agreement – needs to be machine actionable, need to define restrictions, identity management (shibboleth)
Restrictions
There are not adequate tools for arrangement
Tool being developed at Havard to include tagging
Erin
- CRUD – metadata viewing
- Human readable – series of defined roles - curator, admin etc in Curators Workbench
Tom
- Hydra head – rights and authenticity functionality part of Hypatia beta
- Developers will need feedback – need to get in right
Mathew - Rights – needs to be tackled early
Mark
- Archivist toolkit – can be used by archivists – represents the hierarchy
- Hypatia mock-ups – includes representation of the accession and of the intellectual arrangement and RDF pointer not moving the actual files
- This is a complex requirement – must ensure that information is inherited, also issues re file viewers – should this be integrated or rely on a separate file viewer / tools
Peter
FTK, can apply bookmarks and labels (see Peters blog entry about using FTK)
Matthew
Three related problems:
Everybody’s workflow is different – so no one solution is possible/practical
We are moving to better tools, move to better solutions if they become available
Commonality – processes aren’t that different and workflows aren’t that different
AIMS project - looked at commonality between four different institutions
Are some areas where we shouldn’t vary from the standard (eg EAD), but EAD – not a metadata standard but a metadata suggestion (Mark)
Alison – one tool out of the box?
Matthew
-- UNC & MITH (Mellon funded proposal) – forensic workstations & CLIR Forensic Report – identified the problem of unsuitable tools – develop “Bit-Curator” tool / USB drive, write blocker, environment for disk imaging and work with cloud based services to do specific tasks – disk image at centre of the tool
- Building tool is the easy part, placing it into the community and supporting it is much harder
- Cyber infrastructure - ensure there is upgrade path for tools not just short-term / one-off development
Peter
- Muse tools – visualisation tool
- Use thesaurus of terms to create terms of sentiments eg love, happiness
- Other computer scientist looking at topic analysis
Seth - Where does our responsibility end and the researcher start? - should we create tools for researchers
Visualisation ...additional to arrangement not instead of
Different people can take different things from the same visualisation
Catherine – need a link to original order / context
Gretchen – we don’t want tools to lock us into specific practices
Bradley
- Hundreds of tools / initiatives – should be building upon work not competing
- Better ways to collaborate and work together
- Need to get awareness before release – ie development phase not release phase
Chris Prom – evaluation of tools – effective for dissemination
Erin – Curators workbench – better to get something out and work on it
PTK – suite of tools sit on sleuth kit (forensic software)
- See date range of data --eg by modified date
- Also shows what you might be doing to the metadata whilst processing them eg not using write blocker