Figures Figure 1. Beinecke Rare Book and Manuscript Library, Yale University..........................32 Figure 2. Manuscript and Archives, Yale University Library............................................36 Figure 3. City of Vancouver Archives................................................................................42 Figure 4. Duke University Archives..................................................................................47 Figure 5. Maryland Institute for Technology in the Humanities, University of Maryland......................................................................................52 Figure 6. National Library of Australia..............................................................................57 Figure 7. University Archives, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill....................62 Figure 8. University of Virginia Libraries.........................................................................67 2
Introduction A large number of collecting institutions are now acquiring born-digital materials. 1 A 2010 survey of archives and special collections in research institutions notes that some 79% of respondents affirmed that their institution has acquired born-digital content in some format. 2 In this same work, authors Jackie Dooley and Katherine Luce suggest that these collecting activities are not well controlled or monitored; only 35% of respondents could provide a size to their born-digital holdings. 3 Thus, while it is clear that institutions are collecting digital content in some capacity, it is less clear how they are managing the content that comes under their authority, and whether there is any consistency across institutions in their handling of that content. In a 2009 report, a task force formed by the Society of American Archivists (SAA) on best practices for 1 For the purpose of this study, “collecting institutions” refers to “archives that acquire collections from outside donors,” as described in Susan E. Davis, “Electronic Records Planning in 'Collecting' Repositories,” American Archivist 71 (Spring/Summer 2008), 169, http://archivists.metapress.com/content/024q2020828t7332/fulltext.pdf (accessed July <strong>2012</strong>). “Borndigital” is taken to mean any materials that come into the control of the collecting institution in digital form, whether on a digital media carrier (CD, DVD, hard drive, etc.) or via online transfer. Thus, scanned photographs may be considered “born-digital,” if they were accepted by the archive as digital objects. This work will also alternate between the use of terms such as “digital content,” “electronic records,” “born-digital material,” and “digital objects,” depending on the context in which they are being used, as my emphasis is on the actions taken upon born-digital content, and not how it is defined for the purposes of a particular study or project. 2 Jackie M. Dooley and Katherine Luce, Taking Our Pulse: The OCLC Research Survey of Special Collections and Archives, http://www.oclc.org/research/publications/library/2010/2010-11.pdf (Dublin, OH: OCLC Research, 2010), 59. The report, sponsored by the Online Computer Library Center (OCLC), is based on the survey responses of 169 institutions from one of five overlapping membership organizations: Association of Research Libraries (ARL), Canadian Academic and Research Libraries (CARL), Independent Research Libraries Association (IRLA), Oberlin Group, Research Library Group (RLG) Partnership, U.S. and Canadian Members. 3 Ibid. Ben Goldman points out that this is a frightening statistic in Ben Goldman, “Bridging the Gap: Taking Practical Steps Towards Managing Born-Digital Collections in Manuscript Repositories,” RBM: A Journal of Rare Books, Manuscripts, and Cultural Heritage 12 no. 1 (2011), 12-13, http://rbm.acrl.org/content/12/1/11.full.pdf+html (accessed August 3, <strong>2012</strong>). 3
- Page 1 and 2: Martin J. Gengenbach “The Way We
- Page 3: Table of Contents Introduction.....
- Page 7 and 8: and the loss of information critica
- Page 9 and 10: This definition articulates the spe
- Page 11 and 12: of forensics corpora upon which to
- Page 13 and 14: institutions, calling for establish
- Page 15 and 16: examples of what Kenneth Thibodeau
- Page 17 and 18: MAS) program in Vancouver, Canada.
- Page 19 and 20: with digital collections, such as l
- Page 21 and 22: published by the Council on Library
- Page 23 and 24: institutions using digital forensic
- Page 25 and 26: preservation is not large; recogniz
- Page 27 and 28: discussion of the individual steps
- Page 29 and 30: provided in Robert Damelio's The Ba
- Page 31 and 32: important factors in successfully i
- Page 33: Reading room. The Beinecke Rare Boo
- Page 37: As previously mentioned, there are
- Page 41 and 42: primary context, and how to best pr
- Page 43: undled with the BagIt specification
- Page 47 and 48: esided among the paper records, to
- Page 51 and 52: Maryland Institute for Technology i
- Page 53: who can provide either an un-redact
- Page 57 and 58:
After the acquisition of removable
- Page 61 and 62:
University Archives, University of
- Page 63:
workbench automates the extraction
- Page 67 and 68:
digital content. UVa staff have und
- Page 71 and 72:
Library of Congress Manuscript Divi
- Page 73 and 74:
media was housed in proper housing,
- Page 75 and 76:
Workflows develop within a variety
- Page 77 and 78:
a central pipeline: “I was design
- Page 79 and 80:
it was generally to note that they
- Page 81 and 82:
also articulated by Jeremy Leighton
- Page 83 and 84:
institutions, there are always othe
- Page 85 and 86:
management of born-digital content.
- Page 87 and 88:
a computer station in the reading r
- Page 89 and 90:
who have developed their knowledge
- Page 91 and 92:
References “About ClamAV.” Clam
- Page 93 and 94:
Carrier, Brian. “Description,”
- Page 95 and 96:
“Fiwalk - Forensics Wiki.” Digi
- Page 97 and 98:
Jarocki, John. “Forensics 101: Ac
- Page 99 and 100:
“Metadata Object Description Sche
- Page 101 and 102:
Thomas, Susan. Paradigm: A practica
- Page 103 and 104:
I hope to hear from you! Sincerely,
- Page 105 and 106:
change with the implementation of s
- Page 107 and 108:
Will you receive anything for being
- Page 109 and 110:
have already been accessioned? (leg
- Page 111 and 112:
2. Archivematica Archivematica is a
- Page 113 and 114:
Information Infrastructure and Pres
- Page 115 and 116:
7. ClamAV ClamAV is a free, open-so
- Page 117 and 118:
encounters. 285 10. ddrescue ddresc
- Page 119 and 120:
identify 250 different file types,
- Page 121 and 122:
available on a GNU Lesser General P
- Page 123 and 124:
Windows OS by AccessData. 315 FTK I
- Page 125 and 126:
22. KryoFlux KryoFlux is a USB-base
- Page 127 and 128:
filename. 335 It runs on a series o
- Page 129 and 130:
application for the cataloging and
- Page 131 and 132:
drive is the target of forensic ana
- Page 133 and 134:
131