Friday, September 26, 2014

Unforgetable ForgetIT (or is it?)

I will admit, the first time I saw a tweet from the ForgetIT project I questioned whether it was some kind of spoof account. It used goofy academic language that to my not always so academic mind bordered on meaningless gibberish. I had a twitter conversation with a colleague about it. He thought it was a spoof.

It isn’t. And fortunately, that tweet was not my final, or definitive encounter with what this project.

As one who has written about death and destruction as they relate to preservation, the fact that there are people thinking about forgetting as it relates to preservation, makes me a little happy.

Below are links to a couple documents which I think do a pretty good job of explaining the project.

"Preservationand Forgetting: Friends or Foes?" by Nattiya Kanhabua and Claudia Niederée
A short and readable introduction to the problem the ForgeIt project is working on.

TowardsConcise Preservation by Managed Forgetting: Research Issues and Case Study” by Nattiya Kanhabua, Claudi Niederée, and Wolf Siberski. 
A more detailed explanation of the project and the challenges it will attempt to overcome.

I’ll post a handful of quotes which I think fairly characterize the project, and then add some comments. (All quotes will be taking from the first article, unless otherwise noted.)

"Can we learn from human remembering and forgetting in order to develop more advanced preservation technology?" (abstract)

"Our research goal is twofold: 1) to establish effective preservation for more concise and accessible digital memories, and 2) to enable the easier and wider adoption of preservation technology." (abstract)

"The concept of managed forgetting is inspired by the important role of forgetting in the human brain, where forgetting enables us to focus on the things that are relevant instead of drowning in details by remembering everything." (p.1-2)

“In this paper, we propose the introduction of the novel concept of managed forgetting as part of a joint information and preservation management process.” (TCPMF P .1)

 “There is a considerable gap between active information use and preservation activities.”  (TCPMF P.1)

Because digital preservation systems are often not linked to digital productions systems, like a cms, things are often kept online longer than its useful lifespan because no one dares delete it.


"With managed forgetting the system is able to detect such information, and to trigger forgetting actions, which can be taken from a wide variety of possible forgetting actions including elimination of redundancies, aggregation, modification of ranking, and finally, also deletion." (p.2)

Supports facilitated constant appraisal - where when once every piece of information in a collection needed to be kept but now a summary of the information is all that is necessary.

"We envision an idea of gradual forgetting, where complete digital forgetting is just the extreme and a wide range of different levels of condensation for preservation is foreseen." (p.4)

Need to move from binary model of active vs. archived to a seamless progression.

 “If no special actions are taken for long-term preservation, we already face a rather random digital forgetting process in the digital world today.” (TCP P.2)

In discussions of digital preservation, I often find myself thinking - Well, how did/do things happen with analog preservation and how might that inform how we approach digital preservation. But on an even grander scale I sometimes ponder, how did the things that we have that we think of as having been preserverd - or just plain old things - how did these things get to be here. Why are they here and not other things? I also increasingly find myself thinking about other disciplines that do something that they call preservation - or something synonymous - and what can I learn from their vision of preservation to information my world of library related preservation. (i.e. does conserving an ecosystem, or an underwater wreck have something to say about preserving a book?)

The project is built on model of the role of forgetting in the human brain, “important role of forgetting in the human brain, where forgetting enables us to focus on the things that are relevant instead of drowning in details by remembering everything.” (pp. 1-2)

While, the statement above feels reasonable to me, I would be curious if it is also accurate. I don’t mean that statement as a significant challenge to the authors, but they’ve piqued my curiosity and I’d like to see a reference that confirms their explanation of the role of forgetting in the human brain. I think for an approach to preservation that is so modeled on the human brain there isn’t a lot of foundational justification for the accuracy of that model.  (That being said, I don’t know if I particularly care if this is in fact an accurate representation of the human mind an forgetting – I think it is a worthwhile model to pursue regardless.)

It seems one argument with this human brain model is what if you consider human forgetting a flaw that can be compensated by technological remembering. We don't want our computers to learn to behave like our failing bodies, why would we want them to mimic our failing minds?

I would be curious to hear the author’s response. I’m not so sure I really think forgetting is a failing or feature of the mind, a feature to be mimicked, or overcome.

Tuesday, September 2, 2014

Reading “Artifacts in Use: the paradox of restoration and the conservation of organs”

Artifacts in Use: the paradox of restoration and the conservation of organs by John R. Watson. OHS Press, Richmond, VA, 2010.

This book is about organ restoration and preservation which seems a pretty big stretch for its contents to be interesting or relevant to what I like to think about. The first half of the book, titled “The Philosophical Foundations of Organ Conservation,” is about using the example of the organ to discuss the underlying philosophy of restoration and preservation – and that’s something I can spend some time with.

The authors’ focus, as the title indicates, is particularly on objects for which there is some expectation of use. You can just look at an organ, but the purpose of the organ, at least at some point, was to be played and make music. The author’s definition of use appears to be human physical interaction. It could be argued that use is also applicable to things like paintings although their use – being in spaces and conditions where humans can comfortably observe them – is rather passive.

The book is a dense, but engaging, and surprisingly quotable book. Watson talks a lot about restoration, and I know that in the academic library conservation world restoration is a bit of a dirty word. I think it need not be. He discusses the spectrum of treatment from restoration which makes values an object’s utilitarian and aesthetic value, to preservation which values an object’s documentary or historical value. He sees value in the middle ground response, which he calls restorative conservation.

What follows is a bunch of quotes, with a smattering of comments. (Sorry if you were hoping for a more disciplined and critical reading.)

“Objects from the past have a dual nature. They are simultaneously historical on one hand, and they are utilitarian/aesthetic on the other.” (p.3)

“The confusion finally begs the question ‘What are we preserving, and why?’ and the various answers have everything to do with values.”(p.3)

The spectrum from [using his terms] restoration to preservation address the spectrum of user needs and object values from use value to documentary or historical value.

With use value “interventions are not preservation of a historical object, but maintenance of a current one.” (p.26)

“Historical value derives the significance on an artifact from its nearness to the historical state without the confusion of restorative reinterpretation.” (p.27)

I really appreciate the author’s recognition of objects through time.  They are not static objects but continually changing and accumulating.

“Artifacts are like recording machines that cannot be turned off. In this way, an old artifact is a palimpsest, with new information continually being written over and perpetually obscuring older information.” (p.12)

“Preservation is stabilization in the present evolved state.” (p.38)

“We can play on a restored organ that Bach once played, but when Bach played it, it wasn’t a three-hundred-year-old organ.” (p.31)

“Conservation exists to preserve cultural heritage, yet paradoxically, one of the greatest agents of change may be conservators and restorers themselves shaping artifacts according to their own values.” (p.29) Therefore, the need to study, and be conscious of our own values.

“From one side of the continuum comes the belief that our use and continual renewal of the artifact preserves aesthetic information, while the other side believes the artifacts to be an inviolable relic of the past that loses evidence when transformed in the name of restoration.” (p.38)

“A corollary of the Paradox of Preservation is that an artifact becomes more vulnerable as our appreciation of it increases.” (p.44) This was where I thought again of digital preservation and whether this concept of artifact is relevant to that world. Digital hardware becomes more vulnerable as we use it, but do files/data become more vulnerable?  A copy of an organ (or even a book) is a very different thing than the organ which was copied, but this is not the case in the digital realm.

Increased use increases the value of an item and increases the likelihood that resources with be spent to preserve the item, but our highly used copy of the 1968 Detroit city directory is not going to be preserved as its own artifact, but through acquiring more copies, and copies on various formats.

“The illusion of an ancient object’s mythical rebirth is deeply satisfying; we seem to achieve for the object what we cannot have for ourselves – immortality itself.” (p.4)

 “Restoration celebrates and nourishes what may be the most profound hope of humanity: regeneration.” (p.46)

“Restoration of an old object is akin to a sacrament in which we replay the ritual of recreation and healing.” (p.46)

“Restoration is what we do for ourselves, and preservation is what we do for our ancestors and descendants. The goal of conservation is for all parties to get their due.” (p.47)

 “The philosophical core of conservation, however, is that the heritage of cultural property transcends the individual.” (p.61)

Watson advocates for restorative conservation which pulls some from both cultures, but does this compromise end up displeasing both sides. Is there not also an argument for approaches across the full spectrum from full restoration, to the most minimally invasive conservation? (A mosaic rather than a melting pot approach.)

Any treatment of an object, whether it is seen as restoration or preservation or conservation, needs to be done with an awareness of and attention to the many diverse meanings of the object and at least a sense of how their intervention might shape future “readings” of that object.

This post isn’t really doing justice to the full breadth of even just this one chapter. As I continued reading I was starting to feel like my brain is full, and I needed more time to process what I had read before I could absorb much more. There is a lot of engaging content. It reminded me a little of reading Muñoz Viñas’ “Contemporary Theory of Conservation” which is a great thing to be reminded of.

I really like this final quote, which is just as much about creation as it is preservation.

“When chisel meets the wood, design becomes a negotiation.” (p.95)

Sunday, August 31, 2014

Thoughts on my walk home from work

(It takes me an hour to walk home from work. This is, as best as I can recall, a run-down of my thoughts on my walk home Friday afternoon. It might have been advisable for me to edit and improve these notes, but this is a long weekend and I’m on vacation.)

I am a librarian. I work in the world of libraries.

A large part of what libraries do is collect and provide texts to readers.

The purpose of these texts, by and large, is for readers to derive meaning in the reading of them.

Library, by and large, do not consider themselves in the “meaning” business, but in the text/info/data business, but it is important for library users to be able to derive meaning from the texts we provide them.

Text can be read from a variety of media. For a long time the overwhelmingly predominant media was the codex – aka the book.

Now, to state the absurdly obvious, texts are increasingly encountered/read in a digital environment.

Does the meaning derived from a text read from a codex differ from the meaning derived from the same text read in a digital context? I think it must.

This raises two questions: 1) to what extent is there a difference of meaning? and2) does this difference in meaning really matter?

We can deduce that the context of text delivery matters. A text delivered on a cheap paperback is different than the same text delivered on a finely bound, letter press book is different than a text delivered on a phone screen.

A question that we must once again and always ask is, What are we to preserve? And then a related question is what do we not need to preserve, or what is not worth our resources to preserve?

If texts mean different things delivered on different media do we need to preserve all those different manifestations of the text? The short answer, and I would argue correct answer is no.

Very often the value or significance of the differences in meaning from texts delivered in different media is not worth our resources. Also, the variability and fluidity of texts delivered in a digital environment make the idea of capturing the nuances of each delivery an endless quest.

Texts delivered on different media open up or expand the possible meanings of that text. In our preservation work we should strive not reduce potential meanings, but neither can we presume to preserve the text for all potential meanings.


[Other days when I walk home I think about things like ACDC songs, or the differences between Canadian and American potato chip flavors.)