The ABC have a piece from Nation­al Lib­rary of Aus­tralia web archiv­ing man­ager Paul Koerbin, about the import­ance of digit­al records pre­ser­va­tion.

Of equal import­ance, how can we be sure that we can actu­ally read those archives in the future? Lit­er­acy of Egyp­tian Hiero­glyphs was long-gone by the 18th cen­tury, and it took the dis­cov­ery of the Rosetta Stone for them to start mak­ing sense again.

It’s dif­fi­cult enough deci­pher­ing human lan­guage. Under­stand­ing machine lan­guage is anoth­er thing entirely.

I’ve writ­ten about this in the past, con­trast­ing the thou­sand-year-old Domes­day Book (which is still legible) with the BBC Domes­day Pro­ject (which was rendered vir­tu­ally unread­able a mere six­teen years after pro­duc­tion).

The means of pre­serving our cul­ture for digit­al pre­ser­va­tion is to use open stand­ards. If the means for ‘read­ing’ the inform­a­tion is widely doc­u­mented and under­stood, without any encum­brances, we stand a much great­er chance of being able to inter­pret it in a couple of hun­dred years.

I’ve got essays from school writ­ten only ten years ago, and I can­’t read them any more as they’re stored in a pro­pri­et­ary file format that is no longer sup­por­ted.

Ima­gine you ran a com­pany that had import­ant and valu­able writ­ten records stretch­ing back for dec­ades. Stor­ing vast lib­rar­ies of paper is expens­ive and inef­fi­cient, so you decide to digit­ise them all. That’s great — you now have a sys­tem that is easy to man­age and search. Ten years later, you want to migrate your now-age­ing data man­age­ment sys­tem to some­thing more mod­ern. Only, you can­’t — it’s all stored in a pro­pri­et­ary format that can­not be accessed by any­thing else.

If you had kept those paper records, you would have still had access to that inform­a­tion. Your choices now are to con­tin­ue with your old, obsol­ete sys­tem for all etern­ity, or hire some clev­er hack­er to decipher the file format. With no equi­val­ent of a Rosetta Stone, that’s no mean task. After spend­ing buck­ets of money on this avoid­able prob­lem, and los­ing even more due to inef­fi­cien­cies and com­pet­it­ive dis­ad­vant­age from the old sys­tem, you’d be wise to make sure it can­not hap­pen again.

This is a very com­mon kind of scen­ario. If our inform­a­tion can­’t even last ten years, how can it last a thou­sand?

From a busi­ness per­spect­ive, open stand­ards pro­tect the inde­pend­ence of a com­pany. It means no vendor lock-in, so you are not stuck pay­ing mono­poly prices. Through the cre­ation of a free mar­ket sur­round­ing a method/​technology, open stand­ards give you the free­dom to select the vendors, products, meth­ods and tech­no­lo­gies that suit your require­ments best, or you can even cre­ate your own. They are the ulti­mate in risk mit­ig­a­tion, and through their flex­ib­il­ity can also open aven­ues for com­pet­it­ive advant­age. They just make good busi­ness sense.

LotD: Vioxx maker Mer­ck and Co drew up doc­tor hit list and Mer­ck Makes Phony Peer-Review Journ­al

%d bloggers like this: