Running Head: CRITERIA FOR SELECTION

Criteria for Selection of Items to be Digitized Sara DeCaro Emporia State University

CRITERIA FOR SELECTION Introduction Choosing what should be digitized can be a very complex decision. There are virtually no

limits on the amount of items that could be digitized, so it would be simply impossible to digitize all of a repositorys material. It is necessary, then, for some criteria to exist and be applied when considering what to digitize. This paper will examine the process digital preservation experts use to select items for digitization. Because fragile and obsolete items are often chosen for digitization as a means of preserving them, it will also reflect on digitization as a preservation strategy. Janet Gertz, writing for the Northeast Document Conservation Center, narrowed the selection process down to three basic questions: 1) Should the materials be digitized? 2) May they be digitized? and 3) Can they be digitized? (Selection Criteria, n.d., para. 3). The underlying ideas behind these questions are discussed below. The Should Question Gertz first question asks if materials should be digitized; in other words, does the value of the item in question justify the use of time and resources needed for digitization? This question is probably the most subjective of the three. Value is not always easy to determine, especially because it varies, depending on the institution; items relevant to a states history, for instance, might be highly valued at that states historical society, but not as much by the National Archives. In a handbook for digitization created by the NEDCC in 2000, Diane Vogt-OConnor elaborated on the question of value. Some things she suggested considering when determining value worthy of digitization were the items relation to the repository mission and collections

CRITERIA FOR SELECTION focus, the appropriateness to a broader focus, such as a consortia goal, and the value of an item compared to others held by the determining institution (p. 45). Phrased more simply, how the item fits into the context and purpose of the repository, and its relative worth, are factors to consider with the should question. Other factors are part of the value aspect of digitization, too. Is the item particularly rare or

unique? Does it need to be preserved because of legal necessity? Is it visually appealing? Does it relate to current events or a promotional campaign at the institution? Does it contribute to broader or deeper coverage of a subject? (Gertz, n.d., Content Value, para. 2) Value is also not the only consideration within the should question. User demands for digitization are also very important. If enough people are asking for the item to be digitized, or if access to the original is limited, digitization must be considered. If there is little or no demand, however, digitization and the associated costs could be difficult to justify (Gertz, n.d., Content Value, para. 4). A third aspect to the should question that Gertz pointed out was that value can be added to an object by digitizing it. There are two ways this can be done. The first is to increase search capabilities for the item; this can be done by creating finding aids that can be searched, or through optical character recognition technology. The second is to collaborate with one or several other institutions to create an online collection that offers resources no single institution could (Gertz, n.d., Content Value, para. 6). An example of this would be the Advanced Papyrological Information System, a joint effort between Columbia University and twenty other institutions. This collaboration allows users access to many ancient texts and their translations,

CRITERIA FOR SELECTION using items from repositories all over the world (Gertz, n.d., Content Value, para. 7). These texts are often fragile, also, so preserving them is naturally important. A final note to the should question is format obsolescence. The National Library of

Australias digitization policy gives priority to sound and audiovisual recordings. This is because these materials are at risk due to the format they were recorded in (What We Digitise, n.d., para. 2). Recordings made with vinyl records and videotape, for example, may not be able to be played in the future because the devices used to play them are simply not being manufactured. They are also formats that deteriorate quickly, especially when they are used. The May Question Gertz second point in the criteria list is whether or not the item may be digitized; in other words, has permission been given for digitization (n.d., Intellectual Property Rights, para. 1)? Are copyright laws something that will make digitization of the item problematic? Fortunately, copyright issues are based on law, which sometimes makes them clearer than issues of value. If the item is in the public domain, or if the institution digitizing the item also has the rights to it, copyright will not be an impediment (Hazen, Horrell, & Merrill-Oldham, 1998, Copyright: The Place to Begin, para. 2). In theory, copyright should be a simple matter of either holding the rights to an item, or paying for the rights to use it; however, there are complications. This is particularly true of resources designed to be performed. Hazen, Horrell and Merrill-Oldham give the examples of musical scores and films, which were created to be performed or shown to a public audience. The rights for these items are different than those of photographs or serials, and they change over time, further complicating matters (1998, Copyright: The Place to Begin, para. 3).

CRITERIA FOR SELECTION Copyright is something that must be addressed early in the selection process. Digitizing the

item for strictly internal use is fine, but whether or not the item can be viewed on an institutions website remotely or only on their premises will be determined by copyright. It is possible to get the rights to publish a digitized item online, but not always, and it could become costly (Gertz, n.d., Intellectual Property Rights, para. 1). Obtaining permission could also be tricky if the rights holder has concerns about privacy. If the institution determines that they want to obtain rights for an item, the best course of action is to look at the situation from the rights holders point of view (Gertz, n.d., Intellectual Property Rights, para. 6). The Can Question The third component of selection criteria for digitization is the question of whether or not the material can be digitized. This does not entail permission, like copyright; instead, the can question asks if the materials is physically capable of being digitized. This involves a myriad of considerations, and does not always refer to the physical condition of the item itself. The quality of the equipment used to digitize, and of the metadata used to describe the object, are also part of the equation. Gertz points out that it is easy to keep track of scanned book pages, but not of items with no fixed order, such as photographs and slides; therefore, it is crucial to determine how the data will be arranged so that users can find what they need (n.d., Technical Aspects, para. 9). One of the most important parts of the can question is the physical shape of the materials being digitized. In some cases, repairs or conservation work may be necessary before the item can be digitized. This can be anything from straightening or mending paper to removing environmental soil. Help from outside consultants may even be required if the item is particularly rare or fragile (Smith, 2001, Treatment and Disposition of Source Materials, para.

CRITERIA FOR SELECTION 2). The item must also be legible, if there is writing on it, or audible if it is a sound recording. The person or people digitizing must be aware of tiny details in order to determine whether or not the user can hear or see these details (Gertz, n.d., Technical Aspects, para. 7).

Physical damage that may occur during digitization is a consideration equally as important, if not more so, than repair to damage before scanning. While most institutions would probably prefer no damage to the item at all, preservation issues may mean something of a trade-off. Is there a balance between potential harm during digital conversion and potential gain from the resulting digital resources (Ibid., para. 8)? If digitization makes several more years of viewing a deteriorating item possible, this may be something to consider. Digitization and Preservation Is digitization the same thing as preservation? In the criteria mentioned above, we have seen that prolonging an items ability to be viewed or listened to does factor in to considering what to digitize. Gertz says that digitization is part of a comprehensive approach to preservation and access in which all of the institutions assets are addressed in a single, unified effort: providing repair and proper housing of original materials, creating high-quality copies in digital form where appropriate, and preserving the digital files (Gertz, n.d., Digitization and Preservation, para. 2). But Gertz also points out that creating a digital copy of an item creates a new resource that will itself require preservation (Ibid., para. 1). This new resource is not guaranteed to last forever, either. Digital resources face many questions about how their continued existence, accuracy, and authenticity can be assured (Ibid.). Modern technology changes very quickly, and computers quickly become obsolete. Copying digital items is currently being used as a way to

CRITERIA FOR SELECTION preserve them, but the potential for error when copying makes this method of preservation questionable for some. Reflections Digitization of resources comes with a wide variety of considerations. If intellectual property

rights need to be obtained, or if conservation work needs to be done, these considerations can be expensive, and not always practical. Digitization is not a panacea for deteriorating and obsolete items, either, since the process of digitizing creates another resource with a future that is not guaranteed. However, it is possible that a digitized version of an item may someday be the only record of its existence. Digitization may not be perfect, but its prolonging of resources makes it an attractive option for preservation.

CRITERIA FOR SELECTION

References

Gertz, Janet (n.d.). Preservation and Selection for Digitization. Retrieved from http://www. nedcc.org/free-resources/preservation-leaflets/6.-reformatting/6.6-preservation-andselection-for-digitization Hazen, D., Horrell, J. & Merrill-Oldham, J (1998). Selecting Research Collections for Digitization-Full Report. Washington, D.C.: Council on Library and Information Resources. Retrieved from http://www.clir.org/pubs/reports/hazen/pub74.html/pub74. html#copyright National Library of Australia (n.d.). Collection Digitisation Policy. Retrieved from http://www. nla.gov.au/policy-and-planning/collection-digitisation-policy Smith, Abby (2001). Strategies for Building Digitized Collections. Washington, D.C.: Council on Library and Information Resources. Retrieved from http://www.clir.org/pubs/reports/ pub101/section3.html Vogt-OConnor, Diane (2000). Handbook for Digital Projects: A Management Tool for Preservation and Access. Maxine K. Sitts (Ed.). Andover, Mass.: Northeast Document Conservation Center. Retrieved from http://www.nedcc.org/assets/media/documents/ dman.pdf