Paul Wheatley’s blog

A Sustainable Future for FITS

As Paul mentioned here, FITS is a classic case of a great digital preservation tool that many of us use and benefit from but that wasn’t set up to accept community code contributions. Different versions of FITS were proliferating instead of dovetailing into a better product. For this reason we decided to take a look at the situation to see what we could do to change it.

SPRUCE project Award: Lovebytes Media Archive Project

Lovebytes currently holds an archive of digital media assets representing 19 years of the organisation’s activities in the field of digital art and a rich historical record of emerging digital culture at the turn of the century. It contains original artworks in a wide variety of formats, video and audio documentation of events alongside websites and print objects.

In June 2013 we were delighted to receive an award from SPRUCE, which enabled us to devise and test a digital preservation plan for the archive through auditing, migrating and stabilising a representative sample of material, concentrating on migrating digital video and Macromedia Director files.

COPTR tools registry beta launch

Almost a year ago, I presented a proposal to the Aligning National Approaches to Digital Preservation (ANADP) group to create a community tool registry. I was frustrated by the profusion of tool registries and the lack of coordination between them. Pooling the knowledge in one place would result in a far better resource. It would be easier to discover new tools, to share experience in using them and to help avoid the tool development duplication we’ve seen so much of in the past. As ANADPII kicks off today in Barcelona, I’m very pleased to announce the beta launch of COPTR: the Community Owned digital Preservation Tool Registry.

FITS Blitz

FITS is a classic case of a great digital preservation tool that was developed with an initial injection of resource, and subsequently the creator (Harvard University) has then struggled to maintain it. But let me be very clear, Harvard deserves no blame for this situation. They’ve created a tool that many in our community have found particularly useful but have been left to maintain it largely on their own.
Wouldn’t it be great if different individuals and organisations in our community could all chip in to maintain and enhance the tool? Wrap new tools, upgrade outdated versions of existing tools, and so on? Well many have started to do this, including some injections of effort from my own project, SPRUCE. What a lovely situation to be in, seeing the community come together to drive this tool forward…