Re: [ARSCLIST] Registry of Digital Masters

[steven c <stevenc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

See way down at end...
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Karl Miller" <lyaa071@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> On Tue, 12 Sep 2006, Marcos Sueiro Bal wrote:
>
> > I just learned of this OCLC initiative and thought it could have great
> > impact on future restoration projects, if it is used. I was not able to
find
> > one single audio recording in the registry, but it seems like it is
built to
> > catalogue them as well. At any rate, it seems like a step in the right
> > direction.
> >
> > I am curious about what other list members think.
> >
> > http://www.clir.org/pubs/issues/issues52.html#registry
>
> Thanks for the forward. I am not sure what to think.
>
> 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.
>
In reading this...

First...consider that it is possible, at this point, to make a digital
copy of ANYTHING (excepting a solid object...)! Visually-accessed objects
(images, printed pages and the like) can either be photographed digitally
or put through a digital scanner...aurally-accessed objects (phonorecords,
other sound recordings in any format) can be converted to digital sound
files...and items which are simultaneous records using both modes (movies,
television, and so forth) can be saved as "digital videos." In fact, the
only things we (currently) can't save in digital form are tastes, smells
and things we "feel" (either abstract or concrete)!

So, if we simply define our "someday" goal as the preservation of a
digital copy of everything that can exist in "image" form, everything
that can exist in "sound file" form and everything that can exist in
a combined digital form...well, this falls under "possible physically,
but probably not HUMANLY possible!" To begin with, we would need
to separate (figurative) "wheat" from "chaff"...and that can actually
only be done in hindsight! Eventually, 99% of everything that can be
saved digitally will turn out to be worthless...but we don't know
WHICH 99%!

And who is going to catalog the archive...

Steven C. Barr