16th international conference on digital preservation: iPRES2019 reflections

Amsterdam Skyline: so many vapour trails

During the week of 16-20 September I attended the 16th international conference on digital preservation (iPRES2019) in Amsterdam. The first challenge was the daunting prospect of the 24-hour journey to get to Amsterdam from Melbourne, Australia… For those interested, helpful suggestions I received to combat the effects of jet lag included:

  1. The use of melatonin (thanks Peter Neish!)
  2. Trying out the Timeshifter app (thanks Matthew Burgess!)
  3. Movies, books, alcohol, plenty of water, fruit and sleep (thanks Micky Lindlar!)
  4. Pulling two all-nighters in a row before flying (thanks Ben Kreunen!)
  5. Be like David Boon. “Drink heavily on plane, stay drunk rest of time. David Boon averaged 55 on the tour where he drank 52 cans of beer on the flight over. A lesson for us all.” (thanks David Groenewegen!)

The University of Melbourne enterprise architecture-digital preservation collaboration

The University of Melbourne crew (me & my colleagues Lyle Winton and Sean Turner) put together a presentation on our enterprise architecture and digital preservation collaboration work. Chuffed to see this made it into Jenny Mitcham’s armchair iPRES highlights! And yes. We used personal emoji in our slides. Lots of emoji.

https://twitter.com/Jenny_Mitcham/status/1173893804115550209?s=20

https://twitter.com/JamesMooneyUK/status/1173937610852577286?s=20

Australasia Preserves poster presentation

I also put together a video and a digital poster all about the Australasia Preserves digital preservation community of practice. The poster got an honourable mention in the poster competition (hooray!) which was won by the fabulous Sarah Middleton and Sharon McMeekin for their poster, Engaging Decision makers: An Executive Guide on Digital Preservation.

https://twitter.com/AConraux/status/1173524713227862016?s=20
https://twitter.com/jayechats/status/1174282635876741123?s=20

A few highlights

A caveat for this section: I didn’t get to half of what I wanted to in terms of sessions during the conference, and here follows, in no particular order, some interesting sessions I was able to get to that made an impression on me. For lots more info on great work being done around the world, take a look at the iPRES2019 program, and browse through the collaborative notes.

Preserving Complex Digital Objects workshop

In this workshop we broke up into groups, self-selecting broad areas (advocacy and building a business case; preservation planning; risk management; depositor agreement) to focus on for preserving Breathe, the digital ghost story by Kate Pullinger, designed to be read on a mobile phone. The many interactive elements and external dependencies that Breathe takes advantage of presents a lot of elements to think about when attempting to usefully preserve such a work. There are collaborative notes for this workshop for more details and outcomes from each of the groups.

FAIR and trustworthy repositories

Working in a university context with research data firmly in our remit for digital preservation, I’m really interested in exploring connections between the FAIR principles and trustworthy repositories so it was good to see some work in this area presented by Mustapha Mokrane (Data Archiving and Networked Services) and Jonas Recker (GESIS Data Archive for the Social Sciences).

Collaborative digital preservation and shared specifications

Together Forever, or How We Created a Common and Collaborative Digital Preservation Service presented by Johan Kylander (CSC – IT Center for science) shared a unified model for digital preservation capabilities in Finland between archives, libraries, and museums. The paper presents how digital preservation services were designed, the visible products from the user’s point of view, and how the services are managed in cooperation with partner organizations. I particularly found interesting the sharing of common specifications, developed in collaboration with data curators, including Metadata Requirements and Preparing Content for Digital Preservation and File Formats.

Bayesian statistical approach to risk by The National Archives (UK)

I actually didn’t get to this poster due to being busy presenting my own poster at the same time, but am fascinated by this work offered by The National Archives (UK). They are aiming to “map and explain the complex and shifting digital preservation risk environment using Bayesian networks…[and to] evaluate a Bayesian statistical approach to understanding, managing and reducing digital preservation risk”. This is one paper of many I’ll be delving into and thinking about over the coming months.

Keynote: Michelle Caswell

Michelle Caswell’s keynote presentation invited us to explore feminist standpoint epistemology, and our positionality in our roles as digital preservationists, particularly given that we deal with issues of selection and appraisal with the work we do in preserving digital materials.

https://twitter.com/AngelaBeking/status/1174227192290664448?s=20
https://twitter.com/jayechats/status/1174233023526723584?s=20

The future of iPRES working group

The iPRES working group is actively exploring the future of the iPRES conference, and the way that it is governed and run. Checkout the recording for more info on this initiative, and take a look at the working group folder for outputs and work to date.

Setting up open access repositories: challenges and lessons from Palestine

I very much enjoyed hearing about this work focussed on methodology, solutions, and challenges developing open access institutional repositories and research data management services at four universities in Palestine, presented by Rawia Awadallah. The lessons learned are aimed to be of use to other developing countries seeking to increase visibility of their research outputs and build researchers’ skills and capabilities in data management and digital preservation, and highlights the value to be gained and further connections to be made by sharing increasingly more diverse international offerings at conferences like iPRES.

Amsterdam City Archives visit

On the last day of the conference week, professional visits were arranged, and I ended up at the Amsterdam City Archives. An austere building well worth a visit if you find yourself in town. I particularly loved hearing about Mirjam Schaap’s (@archivebychance) work with student activists’ archives and participatory archiving experiences.

https://twitter.com/jayechats/status/1174962907081146368?s=20

Other fun stuff

Euan Cochrane spearheaded the creation of a crowd-sourced digital preservation conference bingo card. And of course iPRES wouldn’t be the same without the new addition of games, both last year and this year! This year brings us Ross Spencer’s “Nibble in Cyberspace: #Digipres Adventures, Volume 1” with the inspiring message, “you can’t beat entropy, but you can fight it as long as you try”. Also, good ol’ fashioned in-person conference boardgames.

Digital preservation conference bingo card
Nibble in Cyberspace: #Digipres Adventures, Volume 1 https://twitter.com/beet_keeper/status/1171445095171645440?s=20
https://twitter.com/iPRES2019/status/1174591142136033280?s=20

In conclusion, iPRES remains for me a conference full of people and projects that inspire me to continue to work in this field, and also to continue to explore the varied research and development work being done by practitioners and researchers all around the world.

TheEye
The Eye Filmmuseum, host venue of iPRES2019

 

 

Advertisements

iPRES conference reflections: People, connections, and opportunity

This blog post was originally written for the iPRES 2019 blog as part of the “WhyPRES” feature series, aiming to share experiences from past iPRES conference goers with the wider digital preservation community. 

Jaye’s iPRES belt notches

I feel very privileged to have three notches on my iPRES digital preservation conference belt: Bern (2016), Kyoto (2017), and Boston (2018) – thus completing one full iPRES conference-zone hop around the globe (Europe to Australasia to the Americas).

Bern, iPRES 2016

When I reflect on my iPRES conference experiences, three interrelated elements are in play: people, connections, and opportunity. At the time of Bern’s iPRES2016, I was new to the digital preservation field, sharing a poster presentation of the University of Melbourne’s ten-year digital preservation strategy and attending as many conference sessions as possible (while trying not to embarrass myself with overexpression of awe at sightings of various digital preservation superstars). After contributing 12-odd years of my life to a very different career, I was grateful for the many digital preservation colleagues who willingly offered me their time and made me feel that my contributions to the field were welcomed.

The University of Melbourne’s poster submission for iPRES2016

I attended valuable sessions on stewardship that directly contributed to my work at the University of Melbourne – notably “Will Today’s Data Be Here Tomorrow? Measuring the Stewardship Gap” and “What Makes a Digital Steward: A Competency Profile Based on the National Digital Stewardship Residencies”. Also particularly of note was the model for a National Approach to Digital Preservation in the Netherlands (with a workshop also presented the following year at iPRES 2017 focusing on practical implementations of the model for a network of distributed facilities). I still find the Dutch approach an impressive piece of work, one that I consider to be a potential starting point for any national investigations of how digital preservation services could evolve. iPRES excels at providing a forum for high-level thinking on the future of digital stewardship and preservation for the benefit of many different people and organisations.

Kyoto, iPRES 2017

By 2017 the University of Melbourne’s digital preservation project was in full swing, and the university invested in membership of the Digital Preservation Coalition. We were thus eligible to apply for a DPC Leadership Programme scholarship, which I was delighted to be awarded. The scholarship enabled me to attend iPRES2017 in Kyoto, where I experienced the enthusiasm and drive of the DPC team and all they seek to achieve on behalf of the digital preservation community. I was able to attend valuable sessions on preservation storage and acquisition and appraisal. I discovered Lauren Work and Heidi Kelly’s “Documentation to the People: Building Empathy into Technical Documentation for Digital Archiving” – their case “that by creating documentation that is underpinned by empathy for ourselves, our users, and those in our archives, we will improve our community, our tools and software, and our practices” is one that resonates strongly for me.

DPC Scholarship Holders at iPRES2017

Boston, iPRES 2018

For iPRES2018 in Boston, my iPRES experience changed again following an invitation from Nancy McGovern to join the organising team. Working behind the scenes of a conference is both challenging and rewarding, particularly in terms of the innovations that the team generated in 2018: the first code of conduct, ad hoc sessions (lighting talks, digital preservation graphics), the game room sessions, and digital-only posters.

The iPRES2018 Organising Team busting out some epic celebrations

iPRES is the best (educational) excuse for a shindig I’ve had the pleasure of experiencing in my professional career. I look forward to it every year, particularly as it enables me to extend and strengthen my connections in the digital preservation field. I’ve gotten a better handle on who likes gin, who likes beer, and who likes tea (these things are important). I think that iPRES2019 in Amsterdam is the next great opportunity to be energised by the passion and dedication that digital preservation people bring to the grand challenges of curating and preserving the earthly record in all its bits and pieces.

 

Image credits

  1. iPRES belt notches, image designed by Rhys Weatherburn
  2. Ten-year Strategy for Digital Preservation poster, The University of Melbourne
  3. DPC Scholarship holders, picture by William Kilbride 
  4. iPRES2018 Organising Team, picture by Jaye Weatherburn

A big year in digital preservation

With my thoughts increasingly turning reflective about the year gone by, one thing I am grateful for has been moving into the world of long-term thinking, specifically through my work on the University of Melbourne’s digital preservation strategy.

If you’re interested in reading more about the University of Melbourne project, I recently wrote a blog post version of a presentation for the Library Forum.

One of the biggest highlights for this year (and an excellent opportunity for personal growth) was presenting the university’s strategy at the iPres 2016 conference.

jwatipres2016Being surrounded by the intelligence and passion springing out of the melting pot of minds that is the international digital preservation community at iPres was truly inspiring.

It was an exciting achievement to be voted in the top three poster presentations at the conference. The poster winners (Matthias Töwe, Franziska Geisser, and Roland Suri from ETH-Bibliothek, Switzerland) had an excellent contribution, To Act or Not to Act – Handling File Format Identification and Validation Issues in Practice.

And I was most impressed by the poster from my fellow runner-up Susan Braxton and her colleagues from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, whose project Should we keep everything forever? Determining long-term value of research data is one I’ll be following with much interest over the next few years.

OCLC Asia Pacific Regional Council Conference 2015

The seventh OCLC Asia Pacific Regional Council Conference was held at RMIT University in Melbourne, Australia, on 3-4 December 2015.

Over two days information workers from over 19 countries gathered to share success stories, challenges, and ideas about the future of libraries.

Bringing ideas from business and the world of corporate advertising, keynote speaker Dan Gregory asked an important question that can be useful to all GLAM sectors:

What is the tangible value that you are offering beyond the utilitarian, the merely functional? What is your value proposition?

Gregory also spoke of the importance of engaging communities in ways that enable them to feel ownership, rather than just obligation, and talked of the changes that hyper-connectivity has brought about, in particular how communities and groups can form from shared common values, rather than simply ethnic connections, or geographic location.

Global collaboration was a big theme of the conference, especially with so many different country representatives in attendance, including some from Europe and Canada.

Peter Green asked a great question on Twitter about librarians being good at collaboration generally, but wondering whether we are good at it outside our own circles? I’d love to see this question debated by a lively group of information people.

Lorcan Dempsey‘s thoughts on the networked world and the evolving scholarly record, especially new roles for publishers in thinking about and creating systems that provide workflows and services for the entire research lifecycle, were thought-provoking. I was especially struck by the notion that coordination at scale is required to build and maintain One Big Global Library.

One of my favourite moments of the conference was the answer to an audience question by David Whitehair.

Rather than engaging in an endless debate about schemas and standards, this answer for me succinctly demonstrates a flexible, forward-thinking approach to the challenges that metadata can create for digital records and discoverability.

For me the strongest theme running throughout the conference was that global collaboration is key to building our value propositions and our services so that our cultural institutions do not become extinct. To do this we must be able to foster creativity and innovative ideas by building spaces and time for them into business practices.

 

 

 

 

 

NLS7 (New Librarians’ Symposium) 2015: thoughts on live tweeting

NLS7Tweeting

Although a tad narcissistic, my first foray into using Storify has resulted in a collection of stories of my own tweets from each session I attended at NLS7.

I’ve done this mainly for my own record and reflection in years to come, as this was my first sustained effort at live-tweeting an entire conference and I want to be able to measure if my style or method changes for future conferences.

I’ve been doing some reading on live-tweeting and reasons to do it. The Research Whisperer talks about the importance of ‘having a public record of what took place, from one person’s perspective‘. This makes sense to me, as this is exactly how I see my Storify collection.

What I like about live-tweeting is the ability to take on the role of a ‘citizen reporter’ for events like NLS7. My main goal was to provide a ‘flavour’ of each session I went to for those unable to attend the symposium and who were following the tweet stream from afar, by tweeting key points from each speaker, and also noting any pithy points that resonated for me.

What I continue to struggle with is the authenticity of live-tweeting, and not knowing whether a tweeter’s words are their own take on the situation or a direct copy of what they’re heaing. So when I live-tweet, am I putting my own spin on what I’m hearing, or am I typing quotes from the presenters verbatim, in order to best represent what the presenter intended? I suppose the more live-tweeting I do, the more I will cultivate my own voice, and those following along will in turn come to know this voice, and know what to expect. But what do I do about my continual fascination with playing devil’s advocate to explore many sides of an issue? By doing this, do I risk confusing people, or losing any trust that may be gained in my ability to correctly and without bias document events?

The interesting question as to whether live-tweeting without permission is unethical is explored by The Contemplative Mammoth (why did I not think of such a title for my blog?) and the idea that ‘it should be taken as a given that a tweet is not necessarily an accurate representation of what was said’ is noted. This I think is a nice point that gives those newer to the experience of live-tweeting a bit more confidence to experiment while finding their style or ‘voice’ for live-tweeting.

Contemplative Mammoth also put me on to the interesting article Let’s have a discussion about live-tweeting academic conferences which raises some good thoughts on misrepresentation and brings up the question: are conferences actually ‘public’?

For me, live-tweeting at NLS7 was really an excellent way to connect with new peers in the industry, and to forge a Twitter Bond that will last long after the symposium, one that might even help assuage the #postconferenceblues that are in full swing.

As well, I feel that live-tweeting will in future become a public note-taking device for me – one where immediate broadcast can share my findings with many, many others and invite comment, debate, and further discussion.