Re: [ARSCLIST] Registry of Digital Masters

[Marcos Sueiro Bal <mls2137@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Karl,

Thanks for your reply. You bring up some very good points.

As we all know, the current thinking on audio preservation is to reformat to
digital. For the vast majority of libraries (if not all), digitising their
entire collection is not an option due to budgetary and time constraints.
Hard as it may be, choices must be made on what to reformat, or at least on
what to reformat first; and I think that knowing if an item has already been
properly digitised could help in setting up priorities.

I am not sure that a separate registry is needed. Perhaps all that is needed
is good metadata in cataloguing records describing when something has been
digitised properly: that way there is only one place to look. The record
should also include what you mentioned: What type of file, what kind of
access, and whether there are Spanish announcements on top of the music
<grin>.

I agree about your point about multiple copies being one of the best
preservation methods. But again, I think the info could help _prioritise_
reformatting.

I think the blurb about libraries being committed to preserving their
artifacts deals specifically with their digital copies. What you do not want
to happen is the following: "I was going to digitise my record, but Library
B already did". Then, when you try to get the file later, they say "Oh
yeah... our server crashed (or whatever) so that file is lost".

Thanks

Marcos

> According to the blub at clir, the idea is to avoid the duplication of
> effort being expended to digitize monographs and serials. I wonder about
> serials and monographs on microfilm and those copies that might be
> available as image files, versus ASCII, versus those copies that might be
> owned by copyright holders, versus the material being digitized by google
> et al.
>
> The blub at OCLC reads like an infomercial promo..."Look no farther than
> the Registry of Digital Masters." Oddly, in the same blurb, they point to
> "more than 3,500 records of digital masters, identified by a code in the
> MARC record and stored in OCLC's WorldCat database." Well, I would guess
> that 3,500 records is a drop in the basket. Also, considering the cost of
> preparing a MARC record, only a select group of items are likely to be
> listed...and listed by those organizations/individuals who have OCLC
> affiliation.
>
> Another aspect that would seem to be worthy of consideration is access.
> Say one institution has digitized some information. Will that digital
> version be available at another location. It would seem to me that another
> insitution, that might not have access to that one digitized version,
> might want to go ahead and digitize their own copy for their own user
> base.
>
> As an example...I may happen to have a lacquer disc of a Boston Symphony
performance
> conducted by Koussevitzky. In the days when our library was doing
preservation work, I
> would go ahead and make a copy of it, even thought I knew a line check was
> likely to reside in Library of Congress. I would want my local users to
> have reasonable access, something they would not have to the copy in the
> Library of Congress.
>
> Another consideration for me has to do with my belief that copies in
> multiple locations is one of the best of preservation methodologies.
>
> One can also get even more extreme...here I go...Some years ago when the
> New York Phil wanted to get some copies of broadcasts I had in my
> collection...well I was surprised that anything I had might be better than
> what I assumed they had. No doubt Steve Smolian can tell us more about
> that situation...but I remember the 1947 Szell broadcast of the Copland
> Third Symphony. As I recall, Sedge, the producer, mentioned that their
> copy was done for distribution south of the border and an announcer
> started talking in Spanish before the piece was over. My copy was an
> aircheck made in the US...no interruption. So, one might have a "better"
> sounding copy, but it can also have problems that another copy might not
> have.
>
> Lastly, reading the blurb "The Registry of Digital Masters could
> eventually include records for the millions of books being digitized by
> Google, if the partner libraries choose to register their masters and are
> committed to preserve them."
>
> For me, this is really an amazing quote. I don't believe libraries will
> take the initiative, google will and already is documenting as they go
> ahead with their project. The most amazing aspect for me is the part of
> the quote "If the partner libraries CHOOSE to register...and are COMMITTED
> TO PRESERVE THEM." As I have written before, I haven't the foggiest notion
> what libraries are trying to do these days, but that sentence reads to me
> a bit like..."if doctors are committed to healing the sick and saving
> lives." So, if libraries aren't committed to cataloging and preserving,
> what are they doing these days besides serving coffee?
>
> In short, I place very little faith in any OCLC initiative.
>
> Karl
>