AIMS Symposium
Charlottesville, VA
13-14 May 2011
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
2 Comments
Riccardo Ferrante
Would anyone be interested in a bi-monthly web chat/Webex to revisit tools, tool development progress/refinement, etc. ? We'd need to assemble at least an informal agenda ahead of each gathering but that's easy enough to do, and my organization would probably be able to provide the Webex on that kind of basis.
Mark A. Matienzo
Definitely! I would propose this on the email list too.